Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. I apologise for the late start this morning, but the reason was that one of the legal representatives has just joined in this matter now and he needed some time to consult with his clients. Mr Madikizela, could you please place yourself on record?

MR MADIKIZELA: I am Mr Madikizela representing the members of the security branch in this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Madikizela. Mr Siqhola, I remind you that you are still under your former oath that you took yesterday?

NELSON NKOSINATHI SIQHOLA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mgidlana, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MGIDLANA: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

Mr Siqhola, you said yesterday that you came to Umtata to be part of the security branch there in 1984, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Did I understand you well as saying that you had in fact joined the security police in 1981?

MR SIQHOLA: In 1980.

MR MGIDLANA: And you said you had attended some lectures, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: When?

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think you said in your evidence that when you were at Police College you were elected by a person called Smith and also from time to time by General Lavisa?

MR DUKADA: Sorry Mr Chairperson, may I intervene for the witness? The witness testified yesterday to say that from the pass out parade he was taken to Bothastal Building not at the Police College.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes sorry, it was at Bothastal Building, 6th Floor, you attended lectures given by Smith and Lavisa, Messrs Smith and Lavisa.

MR MGIDLANA: So you had attended lectures in 1981, Bothastal, is that correct? Security lectures as you call them?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Were those the only lectures that you had attended during your whole career as a member of the security branch?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: You said that amongst the things that were taught during those lectures you were shown videos about necklacing, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: We don't have to confirm the whole evidence, we've heard it. I think just assume that if he said it. I don't think you have to get him to confirm everything he said in his evidence in chief.

MR MGIDLANA: Thank you, Chairperson. Did you get this lecture or were you shown this video on necklacing in 1981?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Was it a video about necklacing taking place in South Africa?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Was it a video taken by the police, that is shot by the police?

MR SIQHOLA: I wouldn't know.

MR MGIDLANA: But you are certain that it was a video that you were shown in 1981?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: My recollection of the events that necklacing method started sometime in 1985, is that not so?

MR SIQHOLA: I don't know.

MR MGIDLANA: If it is so you can't have been shown that video in 1981 because by then this necklacing method had not yet been a feature of the South African politics, is that not correct?

MR SIQHOLA: I wouldn't say when it started because I don't when this method started.

MR MGIDLANA: Could it be that you are mistaken when you say you were shown this video in 1981?

MR SIQHOLA: I'm not mistaken.

MR MGIDLANA: Then should we take it that you are lying when you say you were shown this video in 1981?

MR LAX: Well with respect, Sir, you yourself are not even sure when necklacing came into existence, you think it was in 1985. We don't know, we haven't heard evidence from experts in politics to say this is the only time necklacing is used in the country. We don't know where those videos were made, they may have been done in other countries and if certainly the evidence we've heard over the years in this Commission is correct, the police took footage from a whole range of places, put them in videos as way of indoctrinating people. Are you saying he wasn't indoctrinated? I mean is that the thrust of your question? You're going to get to the point?

MR MGIDLANA: The point, Honourable Member of the Committee, is that he says this was a video that he was shown in 1981 and which was shot, which was taken in South Africa by the ...(intervention)

MR LAX: But he thinks, he's not sure, he doesn't know who took the video, do you understand?

MR MGIDLANA: I thought he was sure.

MR LAX: No, no, he said he wasn't sure who took the video. You said to him was it the police? He said he's not sure, so really ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think here what he said is he saw a video in 1981 of necklacing and that he's sticking by that. Obviously, if necklacing never occurred before '85, then he is wrong. I mean it's quite clearly so, but you know he doesn't have to say that he's wrong if it couldn't have been. It's just pure common sense. So, you know, if it can be proved that there was never ever a necklacing before 1985 or certainly not in 1981 then you've driven your point home so it's a question of argument then.

MR MGIDLANA: Thanks, Chairperson. Apart from the courses, lectures you received during the training were you shown these videos from time to time even when you were working?

MR SIQHOLA: No that is not like that.

MR MGIDLANA: Thank you. So you say you indeed began to hate the ANC?

MR SIQHOLA: That is one of the reasons that made me to hate the ANC at that time.

MR MGIDLANA: Is it that you hated the ANC only amongst all these political organisations that were there fighting against apartheid?

MR SIQHOLA: I wasn't aware of any other organisations, it was my first time to be aware of the ANC and other organisations.

MR MGIDLANA: And as part of these lectures were you also lectured on how to extract information from detainees?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you use any of the methods that you've mentioned yesterday in your evidence in trying to extract information from the detainees? You personally?

MR SIQHOLA: Which methods, can you please explain?

MR MGIDLANA: You told ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You mentioned a whole lot of methods yesterday. The helicopter method, the canvas bag method, the doing exercises, leaning against the wall, all those that you've mentioned in your affidavit. Now Mr Mgidlana's asking you did you personally, yourself, apply any of those methods when interrogating detainees or persons who were suspected?

MR SIQHOLA: All those that are in my affidavit I used them.

MR MGIDLANA: Were you taught those methods by anyone or how did you come about to know about those methods of interrogation?

MR SIQHOLA: Assaulting the detainees and the helicopter method, when I arrived there they were also used and the canvas bag one, I was taught by Warrant Officer Ndobela.

MR MGIDLANA: You mentioned some of the people that you said you may have tortured. Are you able to recall as to what methods exactly did you use against each and every one of them?

MR DUKADA: Sorry Mr Chairperson, Members, the question is very vague to the witness. The witness has given a broad picture of torturing methods he applied. Let my learned friend be specific about each victim if he wants the witness to explain it. It can take us the whole day for the witness to explain what torture methods were used to all the people in his affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if you could mention names and ask him if he can recall what method he used, Mr Mgidlana? On paragraph 12 of the affidavit.

MR MGIDLANA: Let's just take Manelisi Nyoka, number 8 on page 10 of the affidavit.

MR SIQHOLA: Do you want to tell you about the methods that we used on him?

MR MGIDLANA: Yes please.

MR SIQHOLA: ...(inaudible)

MR LAX: Sorry, we're not getting any translation.

MR SIQHOLA: He was tortured by the method of a canvas bag.

MR LAX: Yes and what did he say before that, please?

MR SIQHOLA: He was assaulted and was slapped with open hands and fits. His clothes were also taken off.

MR MGIDLANA: Is that all?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is all.

MR MGIDLANA: Was the helicopter not used against him?

MR SIQHOLA: If it was used I was not present.

MR MGIDLANA: Were there torturing sessions in which you were not present which actually took place?

MR SIQHOLA: As I've already said I was not leading when the people were tortured. I used to be present sometimes maybe I wouldn't be there and other days I would be there.

MR MGIDLANA: Which, out of these methods, it seems you are saying these are methods that were used, did you participate, you personally participate in one of them, or is it some other people that used these methods against Nyoka?

MR SIQHOLA: I also participated.

MR MGIDLANA: Which one in particular did you participate in?

MR SIQHOLA: All of them.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you know why Nyoka was arrested?

MR DUKADA: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I must beg the Committee to keep on and interpose you, it is not desirable. Yesterday you were given a statement signed by Mr Nyoka here and he says - last paragraph - he does not oppose this application. I don't know what is the purpose of this cross-examination? Is it going to show the witness is not telling the truth or what concerning other - I don't even know which victims are opposing the application?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mgidlana?

MR MGIDLANA: Chairperson, the attitude that has been adopted by the victims is that after having heard his testimony yesterday, that is the applicant's testimony, they are of the view that it seems that he has very economical around the truth and that therefore they would like to establish exactly what the truth is because one of the requirements for him to be granted amnesty is that he must make a full disclosure, a full disclosure which must be characterised by the truth and it is therefore on that basis that we want to find out about all these aspects which seem to be a concern to the victims and which we think that he is here to clarify and it will be recalled to this in that during his testimony yesterday he was, as his legal representative has correctly pointed out, very broad and I think the purpose of the amnesty process is not that one should come and give a very broad picture but also should own up to even the minute aspects of what he had actually done so that we get a clear picture as to whether or not he is telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed with your questioning, but I think if you can also just bring out from your questioning what is disputed if anything is.

MR MAPOMA: Excuse me Chairperson, just before Mr Mgidlana asks a further question, I would like Chairperson for convenience sake to accept, the Committee to accept the statement of Mr Nyoka as Exhibit B.

CHAIRPERSON: I see we've got it, I personally haven't read it but is there any objections to those statements?

MR DUKADA: I have no objection, Mr Chairperson, but I mean only to convey to the Committee one profound aspect which concerns me. Up to now I do not know which of the victims are opposing the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well perhaps Mr Mgidlana can tell us. You mentioned that you were appearing for all the victims other than the victim for which Mr Stofile is appearing, namely Mr Matoti. Are all your clients opposing on the basis that you've now mentioned or only some of them? What is the position if you could just let us know?

MR MGIDLANA: It's all of them Chairperson. Of course, it will be seen that for example you've got ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are those all the persons mentioned in paragraph 12 like you mentioned yesterday save for (g), that is Nomonde Matoti?

MR MGIDLANA: Motati as well as - yes, as well as Dr Nonde who is deceased as also (a) is deceased. Of course his wife is present and there are aspects that were mentioned yesterday of which she wants clarity on during the evidence of the applicant. There are also those that are not listed in paragraph 12 but who were notified and they appear in the list of those of the victims which came from the TRC.

CHAIRPERSON: And are they opposing it on the basis of full disclosure?

MR MGIDLANA: Of full disclosure, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR STOFILE: Chairperson, before you proceed? Similarly Mrs Matoti opposes the application on the same basis.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Stofile.

MR LAX: Sorry, just before we continue. These other names, we're not necessarily familiar with who they are. The other parties that you say you act for, so it might be useful just to place them on record now so we've got a complete picture.

MR MGIDLANA: In the list of the victims over and above the persons listed in paragraph 12 there's also Sonwabo Ndekela. Sonwabo is S-O-N-W-A-B-O, Ndekela is N-D-E-K-E-L-A.

There's also Max Jafta. There's also Ndzamena, N-D-Z-A-M-E-N-A. There's also Xolani Ntshikilana, X-O-L-A-N-I, N-T-S-H-I-K-I-L-A-N-A. That's all of them when one reconciles the list on paragraph 12.

MR LAX: Thank you. That's just helpful for them as well as for us.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank you. You may proceed now.

MR MAPOMA: I'm sorry once again Chairperson, before you proceed? Chairperson, the affidavits which were handed in by the applicant to the Committee in Cape Town, I have compiled them into one small bundle and I would like the Committee to accept this small bundle as well as Exhibit C?

CHAIRPERSON: So for record purposes Exhibit B is the statement of Mr Manelisi Nyoka and Exhibit C, is this the - there's series of four affidavits which we'll call C, the top one being C1, C2, C3, C4.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Mr Mgidlana?

MR MGIDLANA: Mr Siqhola, the question that I'd asked you was did you know as to why Nyoka had been arrested?

MR SIQHOLA: I can't remember.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you know why Jizana was arrested?

MR SIQHOLA: I don't know how to answer that question. I know they were arrested but I cannot say one by one why they were arrested but I know that it was politically motivated, the arrest was politically motivated, all of the people that I mentioned.

MR MGIDLANA: The problem that I have with that is that if you don't know why a particular person had been arrested what sort of information would you then be seeking from that person?

MR SIQHOLA: These people were not arrested in 1986 and then interrogated in the year 2000. They were arrested in 1986 and interrogated in 1986 so I can't remember now the reason why they were arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that at the time of interrogation you knew why they were arrested but you can't recall that detail now?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you proceed Mr Mgidlana, just before it slips my mind, I'd just like to ask Mr Siqhola something?

Mr Siqhola, we've been given some further names by Mr Mgidlana as to people he is representing here, namely Sonwabo Ndekela, Max Jaftha, Ndzamena and Xolani Ntshikilana -excuse me if I haven't pronounced that correctly. With the mentioning of those names do you recall those people at all, are any of those names familiar to you?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I remember Sonwabo Ndekela, Max Jaftha, Ndzamena, Xolani Ntshikilana but I was also going to explain to the Commission about them if I'm given the chance.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well maybe Mr Mgidlana will get to that but I just wanted to find out whether those names were familiar to you. Mr Mgidlana?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I know those people.

MR MGIDLANA: So you say you knew as to why they were arrested in 1986 but it's just that you can't know today?

CHAIRPERSON: Well he said that as far as he can remember today the arrests were politically motivated but that's all he can remember.

MR MGIDLANA: That's also strange, Mr Siqhola, because you'll recall the tortures but you can't recall why you were torturing those people, the reason why you were torturing them. Isn't it strange to you?

MR SIQHOLA: I know why these people were arrested, they were arrested in connection with the politics but what I can't remember now is to specify which person was arrested for that. I'm not saying I don't know why they were arrested, I know that they were arrested in connection with the politics of the Transkei and South Africa.

MR MGIDLANA: In those arrests you say by the way that you were just - in most cases probably, you were just to go and execute a warrant, is that what you are saying?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes, I had no right to sign a warrant of detention.

MR MGIDLANA: Prior to going to arrest a person are you telling us that there had to be a warrant for the arrest of that person?

MR SIQHOLA: A person would be detained even when the warrant of detention was not there but we wouldn't just go there without instructions, we wouldn't just go and arrest a person without instructions.

MR MGIDLANA: Were you not a member of the investigation unit?

MR SIQHOLA: All the members, the foot soldiers, were investigators.

MR MGIDLANA: And so, as an investigator, you had to wait until given an instruction as to who to investigate and what to investigate, is that what you're saying?

MR SIQHOLA: Not to investigate but to arrest we had to wait for instructions.

MR MGIDLANA: And from whom were you getting such instructions in particular all the persons that you mentioned yesterday?

MR SIQHOLA: It was a branch commander, different branch commanders.

MR MGIDLANA: Amongst the other foot soldiers as you call them who were involved in the investigation, were you all constables?

MR SIQHOLA: From a warrant officer downwards.

MR MGIDLANA: Are you then saying that you would get an instruction from the branch commander directly, you being a constable, to go an arrest a particular person?

MR SIQHOLA: Sometimes.

MR MGIDLANA: And on some other times?

MR SIQHOLA: You would get instructions from the next senior man.

MR MGIDLANA: Can you tell us just one next senior man that you ever got instructions from?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I can tell you.

MR MGIDLANA: Proceed please?

MR SIQHOLA: Warrant Officer Matafeni and Sergeant Chiyane, Sergeant Tshona and others, I cannot remember them now, there were a lot of them in the office.

MR MGIDLANA: As I understand, those are the persons with whom you were actually working closely, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Is there any reason why you could not mention them in your evidence in chief yesterday, as some of the people you were also getting instructions from?

MR SIQHOLA: Can you please repeat your question?

MR DUKADA: Sorry Mr Chairperson, may I intervene on behalf of the witness? At paragraph 9.1 of his affidavit he mentions various people to whom he was accountable. He says at I think the fourth sentence of paragraph 9.1

"I was a constable and getting instructions from Brigadier Dengana. At times I would be summoned to the security quarters at Bothastal Building and given instructions"

And there is also paragraph 9.2 where he mentions various people who would give him warrants to go and arrest and account to them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think that's why Mr Mgidlana is asking, is why he didn't - if he mentioned all those people why didn't he mention these people, that is Sergeants Tshona, Chiyane, Matafeni and others?

MR SIQHOLA: There are a lot of documents that I sent to the TRC. I think their names are mentioned in other documents and sometimes you forget certain names. I cannot remember all the names.

MR MGIDLANA: You still have not answered my question because even in those other documents you don't say you were getting instructions from the gentlemen that we have just mentioned. Is there any reason why you don't mention these people as people that you used to get instructions from as well?

MR SIQHOLA: I mentioned their names in a document that I sent to the TRC.

MR MGIDLANA: Maybe I don't get the point well, you say these are the people that you worked with, that's what you say in those documents. You say in your affidavit and in your evidence in chief yesterday that you are used to getting instructions from other people other than these, you don't mention these, that's the point that I'm trying to make and now the question is why is it that you don't mention these other people that you have now mentioned as some of the people from whom you would get these instructions, why is it that nowhere in your evidence yesterday did you mention them and even on other documents that we have submitted to the TRC you don't mention getting instructions from these people? That seems to have been members of your unit.

MR SIQHOLA: Their names do appear.

MR MGIDLANA: Shall I take it you don't want to answer this question so that I just pass it?

MR SIQHOLA: Their names appear in different documents, I have already mentioned before that I cannot memorise or recall all of them. Not to say that I'm leaving their names for a certain reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think their names appear or some of their names appear on page 10 of the papers at the top but not as persons who gave instructions but I think you've dealt with this point.

MR MGIDLANA: Thank you Chairperson. The reason for your not mentioning these people as people that you were getting instructions from, isn't it that you wanted to mention high-profile people so that your story could be believed?

MR SIQHOLA: Let me explain about these instructions, Sir, it seems a if you don't understand. I would like to be given a chance to explain about these instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes go ahead.

MR SIQHOLA: The instructions would come from the branch commander. The branch commander would call a warrant officer or lieutenant or a captain and then the captain would come to you with the car keys and then he would say, let's go and arrest a certain person. I don't regard those as instructions of arresting a person, those instructions were coming from the top person, the branch commander.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you're saying, Mr Siqhola, is if you got instructions like you mention now from Sergeant Tshona and those other names, those instructions actually came from the branch commander and these people were just a conduit pipe, just relaying the instruction from the commander through to you?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Is that what you know as a matter of fact or is it certain thing that you were supposed to in the position?

MR SIQHOLA: I am a police and I know that this is the way the chain of command was used at the police.

MR MGIDLANA: For example, when you say that you will receive instructions from Brigadier Dengana, certainly those instructions were not given to you, is that not so?

CHAIRPERSON: You mean directly?

MR MGIDLANA: Not to you directly, yes Chairperson. Thank you.

MR SIQHOLA: Some of them.

MR MGIDLANA: You see, the problem I have with you is that if you say you were the most junior person, certainly you can't have been getting instructions directly from the most senior person as you now put it that that should not have been the position. Is there any reason why you did not tell the Committee that the position would be that instructions would come from the most senior person and I would then get them from the most immediate senior person to me?

MR DUKADA: No Mr Chairperson, the witness did not say that. The witness didn't say that it was a policy of the branch that instructions would be issued by the most senior person and they would get them via his immediate superior. He has just said that some of the instructions would come from the branch commander, he never said that all what he did in the security branch was an instruction from the branch commander but relayed to him through his immediate superior.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mgidlana, where are we getting with this, this to who gave instructions etc, this fine detail that we're getting to? Is that disputed that or were instructions to the arrest or what is the situation? We seemed to be getting bogged down here and we haven't even got to what happened after the detentions which is the subject matter of the application?

MR MGIDLANA: Chairperson, in actual fact I just wanted to find out whether or not - the way that it seems he says he operated was just that he will be sent as a member of the investigation unit. He could not exercise his initiative to go and do a,b,c,d but I think it does seem that he says he was just a person to be sent around and not to do anything out of his own initiative.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what he did say was that he could do investigations but when it came to an arrest he operated on -he always operated on an instruction, he didn't use his discretion to arrest people, that's all. He said with regard to investigations he was part of the investigating team. I don't think too much swings on this now, we seem to be wasting time.

MR LAX: Unless of course your clients are saying that he acted on his own initiative and he didn't have instructions but then put it to him instead of beating around the bush.

MR MGIDLANA: Thank you. Was this also the pattern in relation to the assaults? Would you assault anyone on your own initiative or is it that you'll also get instructions that so and so has got to be assaulted?

MR SIQHOLA: We would arrest a person and take that person to the branch commander. The branch commander would ask questions. If the branch commander is not satisfied he would bring that person to our office and he would tell us to interrogate him, assault him until we get the truth and we must not leave that person until we get the truth.

MR MGIDLANA: Alright. There's one aspect to that I would like to get from you which relates to your mention of Maqekeza, you got yesterday. You were saying that he went to Willowvale, Jaftha's shop, because you had been able to extract certain information from the late Dugard Maqekeza, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: We tortured Mr Maqekeza, that is why he gave us information. He did not give us information voluntarily. We then went to Willowvale because of the information we got from him.

MR MGIDLANA: Before arresting Maqekeza is it correct that you had a arrested somebody else or somebody else had been arrested by the SAP and was brought down to yourselves at the Transkei Security Police?

MR SIQHOLA: If you can remind me maybe I can recall that person?

MR MGIDLANA: I know that his surname was Gaba, G-A-B-A?

A Mr Gaba.

MR SIQHOLA: I did not see him. Maybe if I saw him, I forgot him but if he is the person that I saw I could be able to point him out.

MR MGIDLANA: Furthermore, is it not correct that after having interrogated Maqekeza he led you to somebody else by the surname of Makubela who was a teacher in Nglove?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: And that it is this Makubela who then took you to the Jafta shop, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Is it that you had forgotten about this chain of events or that you just wanted to create an impression that it was Maqekeza who actually led you directly to Jafta home?

MR SIQHOLA: I said that Maqekeza took us to Willowvale, I did not say that he took us to Mr Jafta's house or shop, I did not say that yesterday. I said that Mr Maqekeza took us to Willowvale.

MR MGIDLANA: And you also did not say that it's somebody else who took you to the Jafta home?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not give details yesterday when I was giving evidence. If you want me to give details I can do that.

MR MGIDLANA: No I'll ask you to give details when I led them but otherwise what I wanted to confirm with you is that this is the correct chain of events so I've got that.

Now when you got to Makubela he was also interrogated, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: He was arrested by the soldiers, that is Mr Makubela.

MR MGIDLANA: And this was the day before the incident at the Jafta's property?

MR SIQHOLA: It was the same night.

MR MGIDLANA: Isn't it that when you got to the Makubela place were there some other security branch members other than the group you were travelling with from Umtata who were already there?

MR SIQHOLA: It was the security branch from Willowvale.

MR MGIDLANA: By the time you arrived the security branch from Willowvale had already arrested Makubela, is that so?

MR SIQHOLA: Do I need to start from the beginning of the story? We arrived in Willowvale with Makubela - I beg your pardon with Dugard Maqekeza. We left Mr Maqekeza at the police station in Willowvale because he told us that the terrorists were together with Mr Makubela the terrorists were together with Mr Makubela. We didn't want to go to Mr Makubela's alone, we asked for reinforcements from Butterworth and then Butterworth sent soldiers and members of the security branch.

From Willowvale in town to Mr Makubela's the soldiers took over the operation. We got instructions from them because we did not have a lot of facts. We then arrived there at about 3 a.m. Mr Makubela was taken out of the house, he was then arrested. He was taken out of the house by the soldiers, he was asked questions. He then said that the last time he saw these people they were at the shop, Mr Jafta's shop. The soldiers then went back, they said that they were not investigators, we can take Mr Makubela with us. We then went with Mr Makubela, we arrived in Mr Jafta's shop with him. That is all.

MR MGIDLANA: My information from one of the people who were part of the soldiers that were there is that all they did was to cordon off the area and give you back up as it were, as you had requested. So are you saying now your operation turned out to be the operation of the members of the defence force?

MR DUKADA: Sorry Mr Chairperson, if my colleague puts that question to the witness as it is, he must make sure that he'll call that person to give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well ...(intervention)

MR DUKADA: If that aspect is relevant to the case?

CHAIRPERSON: He can put it, he doesn't have to call him but he can put it there for comment but he didn't say it was - correct me if I'm wrong, Mr Siqhola, my impression was that they called in the soldiers and the soldiers then arrested Mr Makubela and then handed him over to the police and then the police took over at the Jafta's shop, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So it wasn't - the whole thing wasn't an operation by the defence force, I mean they had played a role but it wasn't theirs, that's what he said?

MR MGIDLANA: In fact my information is to the contrary, it is that it was the members of security police.

CHAIRPERSON: Put it to him, he is saying that the soldiers played no role at all.

MR MGIDLANA: So could you answer the question Mr Siqhola? The question was my information is that the soldiers just played the back up role otherwise the people who effected the arrest were yourselves and in actual fact before that you had searched the premises, you effected the arrest, you tortured Makubela there and then.

CHAIRPERSON: By saying you're talking and not him personally but the security branch members.

MR MGIDLANA: Members of the - yes as it pleases.

Is that not so?

MR SIQHOLA: There was no commissioned officer with the police. The commissioned officer was the lieutenant with the soldiers and a police cannot lead an operation when the soldiers are there and they are the ones who went there to the Makubelas and then they came back even when he was taken out of the house, he was taken by the soldiers. He was then put on water by the soldiers when he's hurt and then Makubela then said that the terrorists were in Mr Jafta's shop. Then the soldiers said that they were not investigators so they handed Mr Makubela over to us. We then took him to Mr Jafta's shop. I cannot dispute that information, maybe that person is defending himself.

MR MGIDLANA: We don't this, there's no reason why he should defend himself. What time did you arrive at the Jafta's place, was it at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning?

MR SIQHOLA: What I noticed is that the sun rose when we were there but I'm not sure about the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what time of the year was this, can you remember what the month was?

MR SIQHOLA: First week after the new year, it was in January.

CHAIRPERSON: So it would be quite an early sunrise.

MR MGIDLANA: Do you recall the year specifically because in your affidavit you talk about 1986. The Jafta's say it was in 1987. Are you able to agree with them that it was in January 1987?

MR SIQHOLA: I do not dispute that, it might be January 1987 but I went there to Mr Jafta's house, maybe I've forgotten the year.

MR MGIDLANA: And the date was not the first week after the new year, it was some time on the 21st January. Are you able to dispute that? 21 January 1987?

MR SIQHOLA: I'm not sure about the date, I'm not asking for amnesty concerning the dates, I'm asking for what I did.

MR MGIDLANA: All Mr Mgidlana is putting to you is that it occurred on the 21st January 1987. Do you dispute that or are you sure that it was the first week and not the 21st?

MR SIQHOLA: I'm not sure but it was in January.

CHAIRPERSON: So we take it that you wouldn't dispute the 21st January 1987?

MR SIQHOLA: I wouldn't dispute that.

MR MGIDLANA: So when you went to Jafta's shop how many were you as members of the security police and if you can also tell me the names of those persons that were present?

MR SIQHOLA: The first one is Captain Siqhola - myself, Sgt Tshota, the third is Warrant Officer Ndobela, the fourth one is Constable Temane, the fifth one is Constable Tyani, the sixth one was Warrant Officer Mzinyati, the seventh one was Constable Gumengu, number eight was Constable Chiyane. Those are the people that I remember, I'm not saying that was all but those are the ones I can remember.

MR MGIDLANA: Was there no one amongst yourselves who was holding the rank of captain by then?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: I see that there were two warrant officers. Who was actually in charge of your operation from your side as the police?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes there were two warrant officers.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was in charge of that group that you mentioned of the security branch. Who took it upon himself or who was the leader of that particular group when they went to the Jafta's shop?

MR SIQHOLA: It was Warrant Officer Ndobela.

MR MGIDLANA: Was Mr Mfaswe, I don't know what rank he had by then, was he not amongst those who were there present?

MR SIQHOLA: No he was not in this group. If he arrived maybe he arrived later.

MR MGIDLANA: But the other people arrived after you had already knocked and had already met Mr Jafta, he had taken you to the shop where he had said that Boy was sleeping and there had already been a shootout that had already taken place, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes a lot of them arrived after the shooting.

MR MGIDLANA: Why I'm asking that was Mfaswe not there it's because they say that Mfaswe was there and in actual fact Boy Jafta says he was assaulted by Mfaswe with a rifle butt. Are you certain that Mfaswe was not there or it's just that you can't recall?

MR SIQHOLA: Boy Jafta, I'm not sure who assaulted him but he was assaulted on the second day after he was arrested, after he was taken out of that forest or bush. Before his arrest I was not even in the shop I was in the garage at the back. The first time I saw him being assaulted was when he was arrested after the second day.

MR MGIDLANA: And in fact they say you were there, you accompanied Mr Jafta towards the shop.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this Mr Boy Jafta?

MR MGIDLANA: No, Mr Max Jafta, that is the owner.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if we can use the names just so that we don't get confused?

MR MGIDLANA: As it pleases. Are you disputing that?

MR SIQHOLA: The person who woke Mr Jafta up was Sergeant Madikizela and Warrant Officer Ndobela. Those were the people who went to the house to wake him up. They are the ones who went with him to the shop to knock at the shop.

MR MGIDLANA: In fact Mr Max Jafta says you appeared as he was led by the person who had knocked on the back door of his house so as he was led by this person going towards the shop you appeared and you became the second person now in that entourage towards the shop and Mfaswe joined in later?

MR SIQHOLA: I can support my statement. The person who shot at us using the AK-47, I know him, we were staying together in Norwood in the same house. He is the one who saved me because he shot up on top, he didn't want to shoot directly at me so this proves that I was not next to the shop but I was at the back of the shop next to the garage when they were knocking in front.

MR MGIDLANA: Well be that as it may, Mr Siqhola, that's what they're saying and in fact both of them, that is Max and Boy, they say that Mfaswe then appeared as - in fact Mfaswe is the one who first hit Boy as he opened the door of the shop. Boy is certain that he was hit by Mfaswe with a rifle butt "as I opened the shop, the door of the shop where I was sleeping". So do you dispute that?

MR SIQHOLA: Maybe they saw someone else and thought that it was Mr Mfaswe but I cannot dispute that if they say so but I was at the back, I was facing the door, the back door of the shop.

MR MGIDLANA: They say you even said somebody fired a shot and you asked from Mr Max Jafta as to who was firing the shot and that he told you, he says he told you that it must be the man who was standing across the road next to your motor vehicles. Do you dispute that? I'm just trying to remind you.

MR SIQHOLA: He was not asking me, I am sure of that because I was the person who was in trouble at the back.

MR MGIDLANA: He's not saying he was asking from you, he says you asked from him as to who was shooting and he told you that it must be the man who was standing there and apparently that man was standing over there next to the motor vehicle and had indeed fired a shot?

MR SIQHOLA: I wouldn't ask K K to him because I know this person so maybe they're making a mistake.

MR MGIDLANA: No, it's Mr Max Jafta who says you asked as to who was firing the shot and you were in front of the shop, right in front of the door where Boy was.

MR SIQHOLA: He is mistaken.

MR MGIDLANA: And that is also confirmed by Boy who says that after he was taken out - I mean after he had opened and hit by Mfaswe you were also there?

MR SIQHOLA: They are both mistaken because I did not even be at that place next to the door of the shop.

MR MGIDLANA: By the way, who remained next to the motor vehicles?

CHAIRPERSON: Which motor vehicles, the police?

MR MGIDLANA: The police motor vehicles. Who was the man that was standing across the road next to your motor vehicles?

MR SIQHOLA: It was the teacher that we had arrested, together Sergeant Tshota, those were the people that we left behind the cars.

MR MGIDLANA: Gumengu is the person who led boy to the place where he said - that is Boy said, this K K was sleeping, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: I didn't understand the question?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Mgidlana, just for - who is K K?

MR MGIDLANA: K K is a person that they were looking for.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay just if you could just ...(intervention)

MR MGIDLANA: Koli Khaya.

CHAIRPERSON: Just if you could repeat the question please?

MR MGIDLANA: Yes. The question is, is it correct that it was Constable Gumengu who accompanied boy to the room where Boy had said it's Khaya or K K that we were looking for was sleeping?

MR SIQHOLA: K K came and appeared in front of me and I told him to lift up his hands and he produced an AK-47 and it directed just above my head but he did not shoot directly at me and then he left for the forest. It's not Gumengu who actually approached him.

MR MGIDLANA: In fact ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The question was and it's just being put to you for your comment whether you dispute it, whether you can't remember, whether you disagree or whether you agree that Gumengu, Constable Gumengu accompanied Boy to the room where K K was sleeping. Do you know anything about that?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I know nothing about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Because one would assume that that would have been before you saw K K because I mean he couldn't be sleeping and holding and shooting the gun at the same time?

MR SIQHOLA: I know nothing about that.

MR MGIDLANA: I'm told that there were two policemen standing in front of the rooms where K K was sleeping. Are you then saying you were one of those two policemen?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: What happened before the shooting, did K K just open the door? What did happen?

MR SIQHOLA: When we got there the door was ajar, open. We put our firearms down and I lit a cigarette. When I was still smoking K K appeared. We instructed him to lift up his hands in the air. He was at the distance of the guy with a camera. When he lifted up his hands he had an AK-47.

CHAIRPERSON: It's about four paces, just for the record, the distance indicated.

MR MGIDLANA: And so he started shooting?

MR SIQHOLA: He started shooting. The AK-47 was on automatic. He walked down the stairs and came to a short distance where this white wire is. Just in front of us he lifted up the barrel and then he shot just above our heads and then he nodded or shook his head and then he left for the forest.

MR MGIDLANA: Is it not correct that K K knocked as he was inside the door, he knocked and also said by himself come in and it was then that you started to be aware that there must be somebody in this house which was in this room, which was close by then?

MR SIQHOLA: That is not true.

MR MGIDLANA: And when he opened the door he started shooting and you ran away. If it is as you say you are one of those people, which is disputed of course?

MR SIQHOLA: You wouldn't get a chance to run away in that situation therefore I dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who were you with when the shooting took place?

MR SIQHOLA: I was with Jani.

MR MGIDLANA: And Boy Jafta was led to this room after K K had already fired shots and he had already escaped. It's then that he led Constable Gumengu to this room leaving you with some others next to the shop. You dispute that?

MR SIQHOLA: I disagree with it because I was never next to the shop.

MR MGIDLANA: You say in your affidavit that the soldiers who came there were under the command of Lieutenant Mandela, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Are these the soldiers that had accompanied you to Makubela's place?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Isn't it correct that they had left you and were called after this shooting at the Jafta's shop?

MR SIQHOLA: They were called just after the shooting in the shop.

MR MGIDLANA: The person commanding those soldiers - in your statement to the TRC you say you were commanded by Mr Ronray Daly. Were you mistaken?

MR SIQHOLA: If you read that statement correctly Ray Daly came with his own soldiers.

MR MGIDLANA: So there were two sets of soldiers over there? It was this unit of Mandela and the unit of Ronray Daly, is that what you are saying?

MR SIQHOLA: Ray Daly came afterwards.

MR MGIDLANA: When you say afterwards, what do you mean?

MR SIQHOLA: I don't know who called him but there were soldiers from Butterworth and thereafter we saw the other helicopters coming from Umtata.

MR MGIDLANA: And Ronray Daly, is it the man that was carrying the radio system of the soldiers and who was in civilian clothing, who came in a helicopter?

MR SIQHOLA: Ronray Daly was a commander of the soldiers.

You can say he was a commander because he was in charge of some soldiers.

CHAIRPERSON: The question asked, Mr Siqhola, was he - first of all, was he in civilian clothes, not in uniform?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not take note of that but I know for sure that he was present.

CHAIRPERSON: And then the second leg of Mr Mgidlana's question was, was he carrying any radio equipment?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mgidlana?

MR MGIDLANA: How many persons were dropped by this helicopter, do you recall?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not count them.

MR MGIDLANA: It was my instructions that only one person was dropped by this helicopter and it was a person who was carrying radio equipment and was in civilian clothing?

MR SIQHOLA: It was not one person.

MR MGIDLANA: So you can't recall as to how many there were but it was not one person who was dropped by this helicopter?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: And I'm also instructed that this is the person who actually took over the command of the operation from the side of the soldiers?

MR SIQHOLA: I cannot dispute that.

MR MGIDLANA: And if that be the person then it should then be that person was in civilian clothing?

MR SIQHOLA: It might happen that there was that person in civilian clothing, I cannot dispute that. I was not focusing on that helicopter.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Mgidlana. Did you know Reed Daly?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you say you saw him there you recognised him to be Reed Daly?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct, I recognised him right away.

MR LAX: Well if you recognised him, wasn't he the person who came out of the helicopter as has been put to you?

MR SIQHOLA: It was not only one person who alighted from that helicopter.

MR LAX: Well did he get out of the helicopter, Reed Daly?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes he got out of the helicopter and I saw him.

MR LAX: And was he wearing civilian clothes?

MR SIQHOLA: He was in full uniform because after getting out of the helicopter it became apparent that he had forgotten something like a lumber jacket. The army lumber jacket, the camouflage. Then he had to go and fetch it and then he came to us to the police and he asked the police to get into the helicopter so that he could drop them in some forest. He was in full uniform.

MR MGIDLANA: You must be mistaken Mr Siqhola. I'm told that Ronray Daly was not wearing any uniform and that he was carrying this radio equipment and further that he's the only one who was dropped by that helicopter.

MR SIQHOLA: I still maintain that he was not the only person.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mgidlana, when it gets to a convenient stage we'll take the tea adjournment but only when you've finished your line of questioning, when it's a convenient stage.

MR MGIDLANA: May I say that it could be convenient because I was also thinking of taking just legal instructions on this aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it seems that it is a convenient stage. We'll take the short tea adjournment for twenty minutes, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Siqhola, I remind you that you're still under your former oath. Mr Mgidlana?

N N SIQHOLA: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MGIDLANA: (cont)

Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Siqhola, you will recall that we're still on the aspect of the soldiers that were there whilst you were at Jafta's homestead?

MR SIQHOLA: (s.u.o.) Yes.

MR MGIDLANA: So you were saying that there were two sets of reinforcements from the soldiers that came, who were there. The first set being the one led by Lt Mandela and the other one that came later led by Ronray Daly, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: They didn't come all at once but there were two groups.

MR MGIDLANA: I've not said they came all at once. So the first one to come was the Mandela group, Lt Mandela's group?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: How did it happen that they came over there, did you first contact Umtata or did you just send somebody to go and tell them that there was trouble down there?

MR SIQHOLA: They indicated that whenever they were required to assist we should just call them.

MR MGIDLANA: And were they the first people that you called. When I'm saying you that is your group, called?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: So were you mistaken when you are saying in your statement attached in the bundle of documents that you contacted Umtata and asked for reinforcements and they came from Umtata under Ronray Daly? I think it's on page 11?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I was not mistaken.

MR MGIDLANA: In fact the impression that one gained from what you say in paragraph 7 on page 11 of the bundle of documents is that it's only Umtata that we contacted for reinforcements and that the TDF members that arrived were only those under Ronray Daly, are you saying that you have now - by what you say in your affidavit on page 13 to 14 are you trying to add on what, put some more facts on what you have said on page 11 of the bundle?

MR LAX: Except to say, Sir, that page 11, under paragraph 6 as opposed to paragraph 7, that's (vi) sorry, page 11 of the bundle, he does at that stage already include Lt Mandela and his troops being present at that point so you need to clarify who he is talking about at what stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it necessary for us to hear who came first or second or what are we getting at here?

MR MGIDLANA: Somewhere, Chairperson, he talks about the house having been set on fire by the security police. On the other hand, somewhere he talks about it been set on fire by the TDF, so that's why I want to clear this up.

MR DUKADA: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I'm very much concerned now about the fact that the protracted cross-examination coming from my colleague makes the impression that the applicant is facing an ordinary trial whereas he has made an application here. I thought that it is common cause that there was an incident at the premises of Mr Jafta. The applicant mentioned that he was part of the operation and he even mentioned his role at the premises. For us - I'm sorry, for the Committee to listed to protracted cross-examination as to what was one, by Ronray Daly who came first etc., it means that this Committee will sit the whole day.

CHAIRPERSON: Probably a lot longer than the whole day.

MR DUKADA: And longer than this day and what worries me now is that the applicant is engaged in legal liabilities in this matter and there seems to be no distinction between issues of evidence to the application. He's not facing any criminal trial here ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes ...(intervention)

MR DUKADA: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, before I conclude, all what I'm urging the Committee is to confine my learned friend to the application, that is the assault and torture and nothing else.

CHAIRPERSON: You see this is what we've been trying to say, Mr Mgidlana, we know this isn't a trial, we're not going to make findings as to whether Lt Mandela was there first and Reed Daly second, whatever. He's made application in respect of certain things. If you can restrict your cross-examination to the role played by the applicant, if there's any dispute there because really we - you know whether Reed Daly was wearing civilian clothes or whether who called who and why, whether the call was through Umtata or direct to Butterworth, it's not really going to get us anywhere because it's not dealing with the subject matter and we also have a limited time here, I don't want to over duly rush you or anything but please, if you could just keep it pertinent? Thank you.

MR LAX: Just bear one other thing in mind as you go, these events did happen 13 years ago. To expect somebody to recall every tiny little detail, it's so long ago. It's not being a bit unreasonable maybe?

MR MGIDLANA: As it pleases. Who actually set the house on fire? Was it the security police or TDF?

MR SIQHOLA: The TDF plus the anti-raid unit and security police from East London.

MR MGIDLANA: And when you say on page 13 of your affidavit that it was set - it was burnt by the security police, do you include in that TDF anti-riot from the Transkei Police as well as the police from East London, SAP?

MR SIQHOLA: Just before reading I know that it's talking about the security police that were involved in the operation, the people who were administering the grenades and the tankers was the anti-riot and TDF and the security police from East London.

MR MGIDLANA: If you could answer probably you could say it was also some time as it seems that time is of essence, answer the question, when you say in your affidavit that the house was burnt by security police, do you include all these groups?

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Mgidlana, if you look at page 12, paragraph 8, I'll read it, it says

"The members of the TDF, Transkei Anti-Riot Unit, East London Security Branch and SAP Task Force, fired at the shop and house with rifle grenades and the house was burnt to ashes."

MR MGIDLANA: Yes. If you look at the affidavit on page 13 it gives another impression that it was the security police, that's why I want to find out as to what does he mean in his affidavit when he says it was burnt by the security police.

MR LAX: Except to say, Sir, that if you then read page 14, paragraph 15.4, it is embellished even further where he says

"Members of the TDF and the Transkei Anti-Riot Unit used hand grenades and teargas to destroy the house and the trading store."

So again it ...(intervention)

MR MGIDLANA: Okay, it's still within that ambit and of what he says.

MR LAX: And furthermore, if you go back just to the next sentence after you've read

"This was an operation by members of the TDF under the command of so and so, Anti-Riot Unit, East London Security Branch, the Task Force from the South African Police. I was part of this operation."

So I think he is making it clear that it's not just one group that burnt the house, it was a combined operation?

MR MGIDLANA: That's what I want to find out from him.

MR LAX: But isn't it obvious from both affidavits?

MR MGIDLANA: There was from - on the one ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps then ask him why he didn't mention all the ones in paragraph 13 then?

MR MGIDLANA: Or alternatively why he did not mention the security police in paragraph 8 on page 12 of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You see this is a sort of thing you can use in argument because we've got it here, you can argue as strong as you like that when he's mentioning the anti-riot and the TDF he's ...(intervention)

MR MGIDLANA: He's excluded it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we know that, we can see it.

MR LAX: Do you understand the question? You're being asked to explain why you've given slightly different versions in your two affidavits. In the one affidavit you say the house was destroyed by the security police only and that is at page 13, paragraph 15.2, at the bottom of the page. I just want to know why you didn't say, include the others there and then similarly at paragraph 8 why you didn't include your security branch in that paragraph, that's paragraph 8 at page 12 of the bundle rather than the affidavit? Sorry, you're looking at the wrong document. "There was", do you see that passage there? So really, all we're looking for is an explanation from you as to why you omitted the names of the one lot in the one and you're own forces in the other. Have I put the question clearly?

MR MGIDLANA: Yes thank you.

MR SIQHOLA: I still do not get the question. I would request the speaker to repeat the question.

MR LAX: Okay, I'll do it simply for you. If one reads these two documents as you've just read them yourself now, you will see that in the one you leave out certain people as burning the house down. In the other one you leave out yourself and your own security branch members as burning the house down. All you're being asked to do is to make a short explanation of how these things happened, these discrepancies, or apparent discrepancies, let's call it that?

MR SIQHOLA: It's not something that I did deliberately, it was just an innocent mistake, my intention was to mention all of them.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you yourself see the persons who were looting at the shop?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I saw them.

MR MGIDLANA: You saw them as you were in the forest where you had been ordered to go or were you still there next to the shop at the time that the looting took place?

MR SIQHOLA: After Boy was apprehended, taken out of the forest, we were told to go up to a spot where the officers were, that was when the shop was destroyed. It was destroyed after Boy was apprehended and I saw the police looting in the shop.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you take part in the looting yourself?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you take part in the burning of the house?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: Why are you then applying for amnesty if you did not take part in the burning of the house?

MR SIQHOLA: It is because I was also involved in the operation.

MR MGIDLANA: But you did not burn the house?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: So you are not asking for amnesty for the burning of the house but for your participation in the operation, is that what you're saying?

MR SIQHOLA: I'm applying for amnesty because I was involved in the operation and for torturing Boy Jafta.

MR SIBANYONI: I'm sorry Mr Mgidlana. Do you associate yourself with the actions of your other security force members in everything they did during that operation?

MR SIQHOLA: I was present there as a policeman. I could have prevented it from happening if I had powers but I couldn't do it therefore I'm much as guilty as them because I was also involved in that kind of an atrocity.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR MGIDLANA: You say you don't know why the house was burnt?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I don't know.

MR MGIDLANA: As far as you are concerned there were no people inside the house, I mean the people that you were looking for, there was no one hiding in that house?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: From the things that were looted from the shop, did you get anything at all?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: Were you not one of the people that were travelling in a creamish Laurel?

CHAIRPERSON: What was that last word?

MR MGIDLANA: Creamish Laurel.

MR LAX: Nissan Laurel.

CHAIRPERSON: Nissan Laurel, a type of motor vehicle?

MR MGIDLANA: Motor vehicle yes.

MR SIQHOLA: I was driving a Skyline white in colour.

MR MGIDLANA: And was that the only Skyline that was there?

MR SIQHOLA: There were two cars of that type, the other one was beige in colour, those were twinned.

MR MGIDLANA: I'm told that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry Mr Mgidlana, I'm not an expert but a Laurel and a Skyline are they similar?

MR MGIDLANA: They are two different cars actually.

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at them are they very different?

MR MGIDLANA: They are very different, yes.

I'm told that the looted goods were stacked in these two vehicles, one being a Laurel and the other being a Skyline. Are you saying that not in the Skyline that you were in?

MR SIQHOLA: There was Mr Makubela, Atcha and no looted goods were in that car.

MR MGIDLANA: Again, I think there was an aspect that I left off before we went out for tea. When you were saying that Makubela was actually tortured by the soldiers, my instructions are that he was tortured by yourselves and you were included in that number, personally included?

MR SIQHOLA: I am telling you of what happened, it's not a hearsay, Mr Makubela was apprehended by the soldiers and he was dipped into water, dirty water that was next to the road.

MR LAX: Sorry, if I may just interpose? Are you saying you didn't in any way whatsoever torture Makubela?

MR SIQHOLA: They never assaulted him at all, he was just in the car.

MR LAX: Does that clarify it for you?

MR MGIDLANA: Amongst all the people that are listed in your affidavit as well as the others that you said you knew and were detained by yourselves, were you present when all of them were detained, were being arrested and detained?

MR SIQHOLA: On some occasions I would be present but not all of them.

MR MGIDLANA: And further I'm instructed that in all of them you were always present, you and - it will always be you and Sgt Tshota, is that not correct?

MR SIQHOLA: I think that is a mistake.

MR MGIDLANA: So it could well be that it's correct that you are always present, or is it just that because the events took place a long time ago you can't be certain, is that what you are saying?

MR SIQHOLA: I was not always present.

MR MGIDLANA: You also said that you would not be present when they are being tortured all the time but they say you were always present and you were always leading the torture yourself, is that not correct?

MR SIQHOLA: The people in respect of my amnesty application is those are the people whom I am certain that I took part and I was even present. I couldn't have named anyone during whose torture I was not present.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Mgidlana is putting to you and correct me if I'm wrong Mr Mgidlana, is that the victims that he represents which is all of these mentioned by you save for Ms Nomonde Matoti who is represented by Mr Stofile, that all of them will say that first of all and you've already dealt with this, you don't have to mention it again, that you were present together with Sgt Tshota at the time of their arrest and secondly, that you were present the whole time that they were tortured and you were taking the lead in the torturing. That's what they're saying so it's for you to address that. What do you say to that, that is being put to you?

MR SIQHOLA: Those that he is representing, yes I would be present but I never used to take the leading role all the time.

MR LAX: You haven't understood the question. The question is not that you weren't present, the question is that you were present the entire time that they were being tortured, that's the first part of it. In other words that you never left the room once during each of those tortures?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR LAX: So you didn't leave so that if they say certain things happened you said well it must have happened when I wasn't there. That's why he is asking you this question because he's saying to you they say you were there the whole time so that whatever they say happened to them you were present. Do you understand the question now?

MR SIQHOLA: I do understand now. What would happen was this, I would be present during their arrest, all those people and I would be present during the torture but I cannot say that I wouldn't go out and be absent some other days. I'm not in a position to say that because I cannot remember focusing on that for the whole day and I cannot say I once left the room on such and such a time, I cannot say for sure about that.

MR LAX: That was the first part of the question, the second part of the question was that you led each and every torture, you were the leading person in charge and initiating the torture, have I put it correctly?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes it's correct.

MR LAX: Now ...(intervention)

MR SIQHOLA: I would play a leading role with the others but not with all of them.

MR MGIDLANA: However, they say, all of them say you were always playing a leading role in their torture? In you affidavit, Exhibit C1 you deny that Mtimkulu was ever burnt with cigarettes on his private parts in your presence, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: During my presence that never happened.

MR MGIDLANA: Maybe let me just assist you to recall, it's you and Sgt Tshota who went to arrest Mtimkulu at Kwezi Township in Umtata, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not find him at Kwezi.

MR MGIDLANA: Where did you find him?

MR SIQHOLA: I found him in town just next to Savoy Flats, he was with one gentleman whose surname was Mfeketo from Cape Town.

MR MGIDLANA: No, Mtimkulu says you went to fetch him from the Kwezi township. You and Sgt Tshota and you took him to your offices at Norwood. Did you take him to Norwood?

MR SIQHOLA: I found him in flats next to Savoy Flats where he was Mr Mfeketo not at Kwezi. If he was once apprehended at Kwezi then it means that I was not present

MR LAX: Sorry, just for my benefit, can you just repeat the name of the person he was with? I just didn't catch it clearly.

MR SIQHOLA: Mfeketo.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR MGIDLANA: Well he says at your offices at Norwood you were the first person to put a towel around his wrists and to put on the handcuffs and ordered him to sit down, is that not correct?

MR SIQHOLA: I cannot remember that I was the first person but yes, I did torture him but I cannot remember whether I was a first person or what.

MR MGIDLANA: I'm not talking about the torturing, I'm talking about the putting of the towels around his wrists and the handcuffing of him. He says that was done by you?

MR SIQHOLA: I cannot dispute that.

MR MGIDLANA: And he is emphatic in saying that you actually participated in his burning with cigarette butts in his private parts, it's not that you were present, you actually also did participate in doing that. Is that not correct?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I never did that.

MR MGIDLANA: He even says that one of the most favourable methods of torture that you used to do was to ask him to stand on his head and balancing him up whilst his feet were facing upwards.

MR SIQHOLA: I cannot dispute that but all I can say is that I cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr Siqhola, if you can't remember that you made him stand up on his head how can you be so sure that you didn't burn him with cigarette butts? How can you remember some things but not other things?

MR SIQHOLA: The reason for me to remember that he would be asked to stand up with his hands with his feet standing up, that method actually was part of exercises. It was part of the exercises but that's why I say I cannot remember if that was administered to him but everyone was just - people would behave as hooligans, there was nothing that was in order, there was no logic in everything that was happening there.

MR LAX: Sorry, could I just ask one question? You were a smoker, is that right? You said something about lighting a cigarette earlier?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you apply the method of requesting detainees to balance with their head to any other detainees except maybe Mtimkulu because you said you can't remember whether it did apply to him?

MR SIQHOLA: There were people who were made to do that, I cannot say that I was not administering to Mtimkulu because there was no order there, there was nothing formal.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR MGIDLANA: Is it also correct that when you at some stage you'll pour water on one's nose or nostril, I'm not so sure what's the correct term.

MR LAX: Nostril.

MR MGIDLANA: Nostril, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, was it part of your practice in torturing people to pour water up or down people's nostrils.

MR MGIDLANA: When their heads are facing down.

MR SIQHOLA: No, that was never done, it's my first time to hear about that.

MR MGIDLANA: Mtimkulu says that's what was done in your presence by some of those with whom you were torturing him.

MR SIQHOLA: No, I did not know that.

MR MGIDLANA: Is it not that maybe you've forgotten?

MR SIQHOLA: I haven't forgotten that but I did not see that.

MR DUKADA: I'm sorry Mr Chairperson, maybe this could assist the witness in understanding this question. He mentioned something about canvas bag, water being poured inside and the person ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think if we can perhaps just clear this up, Mr Dukada? You're not talking about the canvas bag method are you Mr Mgidlana?

MR MGIDLANA: No, it's ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You're not talking about the canvas bag stage, it's just like if somebody is - let's say standing on his head or having his head down that water was poured into the nostrils?

MR LAX: Just if I could interpose? Did you never, if somebody was standing on his head, just throw a bucket over them or something so the water may well have gone up his nose?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: I'm told that these incidents of your involvement in the arrests of Mtimkulu are two, one happened at Kwezi and the other one at Savoy that you've mentioned, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: I was only present when he was apprehended next to Savoy Flats. I cannot think about the Kwezi incident but I think Mtimkulu was detained twice but I was only involved when he was arrested in Savoy, next to Savoy.

MR MGIDLANA: In fact he says this matter that would be the one of pouring water up the nostrils you'll do after one has been in this helicopter?

CHAIRPERSON: During the helicopter or?

MR MGIDLANA: After.

CHAIRPERSON: After.

MR MGIDLANA: When one is dizzy after having been taken down this helicopter if I don't - unfortunately I don't have a picture of what it looks like.

CHAIRPERSON: The helicopter was the one where there was a table with a stick and they used to hang the person hands and feet from the stick to hang.

MR MGIDLANA: So I'm correct in saying that after one has been taken down whilst one is dizzy, he says that's the matter that will be used, that one of pouring water in one's nostrils.

MR SIQHOLA: I said I did not see that.

MR MGIDLANA: By the way, did you appreciate that this suffocation of one in a canvas bag could cause severe brain damage or even kill somebody, did you appreciate that when you were administering this method?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR LAX: Surely you realised you had to be careful, for goodness sake. What did you think, that someone wouldn't drown if you held them under there for too long?

MR SIQHOLA: We thought that he would just suffocate and then he would be taken off, he wouldn't put a lot of water, it would just be wet so that we can make sure that there's not enough oxygen to make sure that the person cannot breathe properly but by the time the person starts to suffocate then the person would be taken off.

MR LAX: But if you made a mistake the person could die?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct, the person could die, that has just come to my mind.

MR MGIDLANA: Even prior to putting one in this helicopter thing, is it correct that you would ask that person to first drink a lot of water to fill up his stomach?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I never administered that kind of torture.

MR MGIDLANA: All those that I represent say that's what was done before they were put in this helicopter?

MR SIQHOLA: That was not done by me, perhaps it was somebody else, not me personally.

MR MGIDLANA: And if you were leading these torture sessions that mustn't have also been done by - if I am correct in what I say, you were leading these torture sessions so that must have been done by you, is that not so?

CHAIRPERSON: Or in your presence?

MR MGIDLANA: Or in your presence, yes of course, thank you.

MR SIQHOLA: No, I never took any leading role and I never did that.

MR MGIDLANA: That's surprising because you always want your role to be very minimal whereas all that they are saying is that you were the key person in the arrest, you were always the key person in the torturing process. Do you realise that you will do yourself a disfavour by not actually telling the truth on that aspect?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not say that my role was minimal, all I am against is the fact that I was always taking a leading role. Yes I would play a leading role on some occasions but not all of them.

MR MGIDLANA: You had at one stage tortured one Archie Maqekeza, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you use the helicopter method to him?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Do you know Ernest Tsotso?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I know him.

MR MGIDLANA: And you had tortured him, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Are you aware that Ndlaku was seriously injured after you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Repeat that name again?

MR MGIDLANA: Are you aware that Ndlaku, being N-D-L-A-K-U, was seriously injured after having been put on this canvas bag?

MR SIQHOLA: Those who were injured would be taken to the doctor and even Thobile Ndlaku, he came to the doctor and even Thobile Ndlaku, yes he was injured and he was taken to the doctor.

MR MGIDLANA: When you take them to the doctor will you tell the doctors to what had happened to this person that you were bringing in?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes, that would be explained?

MR MGIDLANA: Will you do that easily, or it's something you had to debate before doing, that is taking the injured person, the injured detainee to a doctor?

MR SIQHOLA: We would do that easily, it's normal.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you threaten anyone about shooting?

CHAIRPERSON: You're talking about people in detention?

MR MGIDLANA: In detention, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you threaten any detainees that you would shoot them?

MR MGIDLANA: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR SIQHOLA: No, I never threatened anyone myself.

MR MGIDLANA: Mtimkulu says that you threatened that - in fact you said that he shall be shot and thrown in the river and somebody else with whom you were in the vehicle said that now how are they going to explain that to his father, Dr Mtimkulu?

MR SIQHOLA: No I never mentioned anything of that nature.

MR MGIDLANA: So your evidence is that he never threatened anyone?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes, myself as a person, I never threatened anyone.

MR MGIDLANA: There's some noise.

There's a heavy iron chair in your office, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I did not see that.

MR SIQHOLA: By the way did you recall torturing Mbegum Mnyatheno?

MR SIQHOLA: Mbegum who?

MR MGIDLANA: Mnyatheno, M-N-Y-A-T-H-E-N-O.

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I do remember him.

MR MGIDLANA: He says he was made to lift up this heavy iron chair for hours until his arms felt numb. Are you saying it was not done in your presence?

MR SIQHOLA: I have never seen the iron chair but I saw him lifting up an ordinary chair, not an iron chair, I did not see that with my eyes.

MR MGIDLANA: What would happen once he drops it, once he drops that chair?

MR SIQHOLA: He would be assaulted.

MR MGIDLANA: You'll also punch him on his back, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Was he pulled around by his beard?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I did not do that to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it done in your presence, did you see him being pulled around by his beard?

MR SIQHOLA: The person who would pull people's beard was Warrant Officer Ndomela.

MR MGIDLANA: So you ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, can I just? So did you actually see it or didn't you?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I saw him doing it to the detainees several times.

MR LAX: Well then when he asked you the question, did you do it, why didn't you just say no? I didn't do it but I saw someone else do it, it was so and so. If you saw it happen and you asked about it, just tell us. I mean we don't have to waste three or four extra questions before we get there.

Okay?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes.

MR MGIDLANA: Mr Siqhola, I get the impression that you want to be selective in telling us what actually happened, am I correct in that impression? Are you prepared to tell us virtually everything as it happened?

MR SIQHOLA: I am here to tell the truth.

MR MGIDLANA: Is it that you have forgotten that there were other methods that were used when you gave your evidence as well as in your documentation to torture people which you have now mentioned and agreed that they actually happened in your presence?

MR SIQHOLA: I think I forgot to mention them.

MR MGIDLANA: Now that you chose not to divulge them because of fear of the embarrassment that was blocking the security police then?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I'm not afraid of anything, I made this application voluntarily therefore I'm willing to mention anything but unfortunately this happened some time ago.

MR MGIDLANA: Yes, the problem that I have again with that is that you always are able to remember and recall those things that are not very prejudicial to - some of the things that are not very prejudicial to your case but some that seem to be very prejudicial to what you have said. You can't recall?

CHAIRPERSON: I think this is your argument because you've just put it to him that the canvas bag method was an extremely serious method and he has mentioned that.

MR MGIDLANA: Thank you Chairperson. Just a minute?

Did you see anyone who was a detainee being stabbed in his private parts, testicles, with pins?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you see anyone having his scrotum squeezed in a drawer of a table?

MR SIQHOLA: Will you please explain that?

MR MGIDLANA: That is they will be put in the drawer and then the drawer will be closed so that they will be squeezed in there. I don't know how but that is what I'm told. Probably you're the one who can tell us better?

MR SIQHOLA: I also do not know about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Mgidlana. When you tortured people, did you ever torture people during the process, make them remove their clothes?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why do that?

MR SIQHOLA: It was also used with the canvas bag, the reason for him to be stripped of his clothes, the clothes would be white and thereafter he wouldn't be taken in ...(indistinct), a person with any wound or mark or wet clothes wouldn't be admitted therefore we'll try by all means that the clothes would be dry so that he would be admitted.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mgidlana?

MR MGIDLANA: Thank you, Chairperson. Do you recall any encounter with a detainee by the name of Toto Magwentshu?

M-A-G-W-E-N-T-S-H-U.

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I do remember him.

MR MGIDLANA: You say in one of the annexures under Exhibit C, I'm not so sure how it is marked? I'm not sure whether it's 1C2 because the order might be a little bit different. It's C3, yes. That is in C3, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's Magwentshu, C3.

MR MGIDLANA: In paragraph 3 there you say you deny he was ever tabbed - I think ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's meant to be stabbed.

MR MGIDLANA: It should be stabbed - in his testicles with pins?

MR SIQHOLA: I deny that happened during my presence.

MR MGIDLANA: In fact he says that's what had actually happened in your presence?

MR SIQHOLA: Toto Magwentshu, canvas bag method was administered but after that you realised that he was a person who had chest problems therefore he would be made to lift up a chair but I know nothing about using pins.

MR MGIDLANA: Was there a bathroom in those offices or a room with a bath?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes there was a bathroom with a toilet and a bath.

MR MGIDLANA: Yes, he says - Magwentshu says in actual fact one day he was drowned in this big bath which was filled with water.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's probably going a bit far because if he was drowned then he would be dead.

MR MGIDLANA: Attempt to drown him.

CHAIRPERSON: There was an attempt to drown him.

MR MGIDLANA: Thanks Chairperson, there was an attempt to drown Mr Magwentshu by putting him in this bath which was full of water and he says you were present when that was being done.

CHAIRPERSON: Magwentshu was put in this canvas bag but it became apparent that he was asthmatic, we never used any water method on him because we could see that he could just die.

MR MGIDLANA: Was he tortured over one day? Was Magwentshu tortured over one day?

MR SIQHOLA: When I was present on this particular day yes. When I realised that he was asthmatic and I don't know about the other time or day.

MR MGIDLANA: You say you never worked or had an encounter with the askaris, is that what you said?

MR LAX: He said he never worked with them, he didn't say didn't have an encounter with them because he speaks of meeting them and being told about some of the work but he never worked with them.

MR MGIDLANA: So you say you never worked with them?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I never worked with the askaris.

MR MGIDLANA: You were never present when they were doing their work?

MR SIQHOLA: No not in their killings, I was never present, because they were responsible for the killing.

MR MGIDLANA: Why do you jump to the killings?

MR SIQHOLA: Because they were killing people.

MR MGIDLANA: It's so funny that you jump to the killing, I never talked about any killing, I was just saying in their work?

MR SIQHOLA: What kind of job do you know about them, the job that they were doing?

CHAIRPERSON: The question is, I think just answer the question. The question was were you ever present when they were working, the askaris?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: Don't you know an askari by the name of Mtshiza M-T-S-H-I-Z-A, the first name, who was a lady, who was an askari then who might not be one today?

MR SIQHOLA: I don't even the askaris name. Mtshiza was arrested as an MK member and she was a lady.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you comment to Boy Jafta that it's so funny that we want to go to your side but some of your people are coming to us, meaning MK people and you mentioned the name of Mtshiza and Moss who was involved in the killing of Ndondo?

MR SIQHOLA: I told Boy that Mtshiza was working as a maid in some house and the people were unaware that Mtshiza was an MK member. That is the story that I remember telling Boy, I don't remember telling him that Mtshiza was an askari.

MR MGIDLANA: No, that's what he says, that's what he says, he says you told him about that, you even told him about many other askaris whom you said they were going out with this Sibongele Mtshiza, going out in what sense I'm not so sure but they were going out with her?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I only know Mtshiza as an ANC guerilla who was apprehended in Butterworth who was a maid there, I did not know her as an askari.

MR MGIDLANA: Now let's come to one aspect, you said you had - you and K K knew each other because you stayed together at Norwood. Did I get you correctly?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: Where exactly at Norwood did K K stay?

MR SIQHOLA: We were both staying in Second Avenue, I can't even remember the house number of the house that I was in but he was in that vicinity, staying with Wolo and Zed.

MR MGIDLANA: You say you grew up together?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: So he was already old?

MR SIQHOLA: We met at the gym, we met at the gym, the three of us.

MR MGIDLANA: I'm told that K K or Kia never stayed at Norwood but he stayed at Cumberland here in town?

MR SIQHOLA: He wouldn't know where the girl stays, that is why I'm saying they were staying at Second Avenue.

MR MGIDLANA: When you were - I understand that security police from East London and some other parts of what was then the Republic of South Africa, will come over here and ask to be assisted when they were looking for certain guerillas or ANC or PAC trained people. Were you aware of that?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I was aware of that.

MR MGIDLANA: Were you never at any stage asked to accompany them when they were on this mission of looking for these people?

MR SIQHOLA: No. All I did was at some stage they came, they wanted to be assisted because they wanted to arrest Ndeya at Norwood. As they were still talking there the three of us left to go and arrest them. I did not go there with them.

MR MGIDLANA: So at no stage did you ever accompany these security police from East London?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you have a police radio with you when you were at Lugoyso? At Lugoyso, that is in Willowvale, Jafta's homestead.

MR SIQHOLA: The car from Butterworth, police car from Butterworth, was equipped with a radio.

MR MGIDLANA: Were you personally not equipped with a radio?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I didn't have one.

MR SIQHOLA: Did you by the way not hear any conversation regarding what was taking place during the operation over the radio, were you not in a position to hear that conversation? That is were you now not next to any police radio receiver?

MR SIQHOLA: What radio are you talking about?

CHAIRPERSON: Any radio. During that whole episode out at Willowvale near Mr Jaftha's shop. What Mr Mgidlana's asking you is did you ever hear of anybody speaking over a radio at all?

MR MGIDLANA: In particular you two way police radios?

MR SIQHOLA: That is the one we had used when we were calling the soldiers for reinforcement. We contacted the station at willowvale using the radio in the car.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you hear anyone or any persons talking over the radio about the fact that the shop, in fact the whole property, just the property should be destroyed?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I did not hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: When it's a convenient time Mr Mgidlana, we'll take the lunch adjournment.

MR MGIDLANA: Yes I think, may I ask that we'll just take it now because it will also afford me an opportunity. I was in the process of wrapping up so it will afford me an opportunity of seeing that there's nothing that I've left behind.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We will now take the lunch adjournment until 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: May I remind you you're still under your former oath? Mr Mgidlana are there any further questions you wish to put to the applicant?

N N SIQHOLA: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MGIDLANA: (cont)

Thank you Chairperson.

The last few questions, Mr Siqhola. Do you know Ntshikilana who was also one of the detainees?

MR SIQHOLA: (s.u.o.) Yes I do know that surname.

MR MGIDLANA: He says you participated in that torture, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: Maybe if I can see him and identify him I can be sure.

MR MGIDLANA: There, he is standing.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntshikilana, could you please come forward so - do you recognise him Mr Siqhola?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I recognise him, I know him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MGIDLANA: Do you recall also torturing him?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct.

MR MGIDLANA: And over and above the other matters that I referred to he says that there was another method in terms of which he will be tied with a rope on his legs and then suspended from the roof structure with his head facing down to the ground. Do you recall that?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not do that.

MR MGIDLANA: But was it ever done in your presence?

MR SIQHOLA: There was no place on the roof that the rope could be tied so I don't think that happened in my presence.

MR MGIDLANA: He says that whilst he was hanging you'll be eating lunch and after smoking, whilst you were smoking you would burn him and that in actual fact you personally participated in his burning with cigarettes?

MR SIQHOLA: We were, in doing our investigation in the security offices, so I don't remember tying anybody and there was no place in that office where somebody could be tied on the roof so I don't remember that happening.

MR MGIDLANA: And he said as a result of all that torture he had his eardrum damaged and pus was coming out of it?

MR SIQHOLA: I wouldn't dispute that, maybe he is telling the truth.

MR MGIDLANA: And would you dispute it that he was taken to a doctor almost five days after he had sustained the injuries?

MR SIQHOLA: I wouldn't dispute that, I'm not sure about that.

MR MGIDLANA: Could you say five days is so soon as you seem to suggest earlier on that once a person seems to be injured he will be taken to a doctor soon, in fact you said immediately. Could five days be said to be immediately?

MR SIQHOLA: It is not immediately after five days.

MR MGIDLANA: So were you mistaken or were you misleading the Committee in saying that once a person is injured he will be taken to a doctor immediately?

MR SIQHOLA: I said that I cannot dispute his statement because I'm not aware of that.

MR MGIDLANA: It's funny because he says you were there that's why he's not talking about this event taking place in your absence, he says you were there and you were participating in all these methods of torture?

MR LAX: Just before you continue? Does you client say that the applicant took him to the doctor? Because that's what he's saying, he doesn't know that the guy went to the doctor?

MR SIQHOLA: Is he saying he does not know that he was taken to a doctor?

MR LAX: Yes, that's what I think is meant to be saying.

MR MGIDLANA: Can that be established from him?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he doesn't dispute it, yes.

MR LAX: He says he doesn't dispute it, he doesn't know whether he went to the doctor or not.

MR MGIDLANA: In fact my instructions were that he was there when he was taken to a doctor, he was present as well.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say to that Mr Siqhola?

MR SIQHOLA: I was not there when he was taken to a doctor.

MR MGIDLANA: The further instruction that I got is that when you say this canvas bag will not have water you are not telling the truth because they say it would have quite a lot of water and what was suffocating one would actually be the fact that one couldn't breathe because water would be getting into his nose and all that.

MR DUKADA: No, no, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he said that, it wasn't my understanding. My understanding was that the canvas bag treatment water played an important part in the whole part of it, but ask him.

MR LAX: Sorry Chair, that was my initial understanding of it. This morning he did clarify and say - especially when the questions about drowning were put to him, he did clarify and say there wasn't so much water in the bag because mostly to prevent the person from breathing, in other words to suffocate him because wet canvas doesn't allow air through. Can you clarify that for us please?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes there would be water at the bottom of the bag so that when a person was breathing the water would come up and the person will not be able to breathe. If the bag would be full the head of the person would not be able to go in and the water would sink down.

MR MGIDLANA: In fact Nyoka says, I talked to him over lunch, he says what prevented him from breathing and what would cause him to be unconscious would be the fact that his head would be exactly under water, inside the water, the level of the water and not over and above the level of the water.

MR SIQHOLA: That bag was the same size as the head of a person. If you fill it with the water and put somebodies head the water would come out, that is why we would put water at the bottom so that we would put somebodies head to reach the level of the water.

MR MGIDLANA: Again coming back to Ntshikilane, he says to the extend of this suspension from the roof structure was that he lost consciousness and he relieved himself, that's when you then took him down?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not see him hanging down.

MR MGIDLANA: Did you see him relieving himself as he was hanging?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not even see him hanging down.

MR MGIDLANA: Do you know anyone by the name of Solly Talakumeni who was a detainee?

MR SIQHOLA: No it's the first time I hear that surname.

MR MGIDLANA: Don't you know the person that died at the shoot out at the police station?

MR SIQHOLA: No I don't even know one.

MR LAX: Mr Mgidlana, just repeat that surname you mentioned now?

MR MGIDLANA: It's Talakumeni, T-A-L-A-K-U-M-E-N-I.

MR SIQHOLA: What is his name, Sir?

MR MGIDLANA: Solly, that's all we know.

MR SIQHOLA: The Solly that I know is Present not Talakumeni. He was shot, he was one of the ANC guerillas.

MR MGIDLANA: That's one and the same person.

CHAIRPERSON: What name did you know him by? Solly?

MR SIQHOLA: Solly Azola Present.

MR MGIDLANA: What happened to his body, do you know?

MR SIQHOLA: I saw his body when we were digging it out at the bush at Ngato. It is said that he was buried by the other guerillas that were with him.

MR MGIDLANA: After he was exhumed from Ngato, what happened to his body, do you know?

MR SIQHOLA: It was put in a van than was driven by Warrant Officer Nyaka. I was a passenger and then we took him to the mortuary in Umtata General.

MR MGIDLANA: Do you know what ultimately happened to his body?

MR SIQHOLA: No I don't know.

MR MGIDLANA: You however took part in his digging, did you?

MR SIQHOLA: I was not an investigator there but I was just an ordinary police that was there.

MR MGIDLANA: That has got nothing to do with being an investigator or an ordinary policeman, did you take part in the digging of his body from Ngato Forest?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I was there when he was being dug up.

MR MGIDLANA: Just a minute? Thank you Chairperson, I think that is all so far.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MGIDLANA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mgidlana. Mr Stofile do you have any questions you would like to put to the applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STOFILE: Yes Chairperson.

Mr Siqhola, in your affidavit you have given a background that you grew up in a rural ...(indistinct). I take it you grew up in a stable Christian family which was learned. Correct me if I'm wrong? I assume?

MR SIQHOLA: My father is not educated, both my father and my mother.

CHAIRPERSON: But you had a normal childhood, that's I think what Mr Stofile is asking you. You were born and raised within a stable family or did you have a bothersome or troublesome childhood?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct, I had both parents in a stable family.

MR STOFILE: Is it correct that during the time you grew up early childhood, you know when you at high school or JC standard, there were all the political parties in Transkei. Transkei was the first to have political parties with constituencies, Transkei, the then Transkei Government under the regime of Matanzima?

MR SIQHOLA: You are the one saying that, Sir.

MR STOFILE: I am asking you that were you not aware of that during the time you were growing up that there were political parties while you were at school at the JC level, high school?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes DP was there.

MR STOFILE: Which other party?

MR SIQHOLA: And an organisation called DP under Mr Dick ...(indistinct).

MR STOFILE: Chief Majege was representing Gumbu and other MPs?

MR SIQHOLA: I grew up in a village so I'm not - I don't know much about the organisations, I knew, I became aware when I was a police.

MR STOFILE: The MKs of Gumbu all stayed in rural areas. I put it to you that they all stayed in rural areas and conducted rallies from time to time, canvassed votes. I don't want to belabour this point, if you can take us quickly to that point?

MR SIQHOLA: You don't have a picture of that place where I grew up. There were no political activities there, we would go at the cattle, we know nothing about politics.

MR STOFILE: What I mean, the rallies were regionally based for areas, you know, constituencies, not necessarily in your own personal area. You can't dispute that?

MR SIQHOLA: I wont know anything about what you are asking me, politics. I grew up in a different way as than a person from the cities. I only met with politics at my work place.

MR STOFILE: Let's go further with that, you'll agree with me in terms of what you describe your area it is the hardest hit area in terms of your home, economically speaking as you are saying to me. I'll take it that, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is the follow up to your answer?

MR LAX: Sorry, I'm not clear what the question is Mr Stofile?

MR STOFILE: He says I've got no picture of his area which means it was worse off and that's the implication I get.

MR LAX: No, no, it's not the implication.

MR STOFILE: Oh.

MR LAX: He's saying you don't understand his area. If you do understand his area then ...(intervention)

MR STOFILE: Let's put the question to you. Can you explain what you meant by that? You say I don't understand your area?

MR SIQHOLA: We grew up among illiterate people, fighting or playing with sticks, boys who were heading cattle, hunters, we knew nothing about politics. We didn't even know that there was something called politics.

MR STOFILE: To the exact word you said ...(indistinct), you were aware of that, it means you were aware? You didn't actually put it in your head, is that the case? You were aware of the politics of the time because according to what you said ...(intervention)

MR SIQHOLA: We knew nothing about politics. I knew nothing about politics.

MR STOFILE: Mr Siqhola, I put it to you that with the level of your intellect as you are answering questions, I'm listening to you now, you can't claim that you are a dumb head you're not aware of what was taking place around Ncumbu. There were radios, there were so many newspapers going around and you know, the system of the democracy in that context was permissable to that extent in the area. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: Even in town we'd use a sledge herd by cattle to go to town we wouldn't buy newspapers. We would have cows on a sledge and go next to a prickly pear plantation and put your sledge there and the farmer would go in and buy a bag of mealies and put it on the sledge and we would buy brown bread and leave. I'm not joking, we never came across newspapers and I'm not lying.

MR STOFILE: Yet you managed to get educated up until Standard 10 despite those hitches?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR STOFILE: That's good and ...(intervention)

MR SIQHOLA: When I was doing Standard 10 it was the first time I heard about the concept Black power but I knew nothing about that, we didn't see anyone from the Black power, we used to hear that there was a Black power but no one came forward with an explanation of what Black power was.

MR STOFILE: So you were now aware during your school days?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not know anything about Black power but I used to hear about Black power but we did not see any individual who belonged to that Black power, we didn't even know what Black power looked like.

MR STOFILE: Anyway, let me pass. I'm putting to you that with the level of education with the prevalent political system at the time with the way in which you have been answering questions it shows that you were not a dumb head by nature, you were a clever person, very perceptive, very aware of what was going around you and it is not correct that you were not politically ...(intervention)

MR DUKADA: Chairperson, the question is too long, the witness ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think you've made your point, it's basically for argument and the witness has made it very clear that he was politically ignorant while he was a school going person. You can argue to the contrary Mr Stofile.

MR STOFILE: Thank you Chairperson I'm indebted.

There's some aspects that have already been covered, I'm just going, passing over them, if you can just bear with me?

You are saying that at all material times the interrogation was carried in your presence? In the case of Matoti, who was present when the time he was interrogated. Let's start from here, who fetched him from the place of work?

MR SIQHOLA: Can I please be allowed to tell the story, the entire story and you ask me questions thereafter?

MR STOFILE: I would rather you answer the question so that we are able to - you know as I ask you otherwise I might miss you. Can you just tell me who went to fetch Matoti at this place of work on the 16th February 1987?

MR SIQHOLA: That's myself and Sgt Nkunkwana.

MR STOFILE: Who remained in the car? When you had gone into his - in her offices?

MR SIQHOLA: The two of us went there but I cannot remember who was left in the car.

MR STOFILE: Let me remind you. There was somebody who appeared to be a victim of some kind or a prisoner who remained in the car. You don't remember that?

MR SIQHOLA: No I cannot recall that person.

MR STOFILE: Anyway, there's a person who was the third one, he remained inside the car whilst you went inside, the two of you. Then you came back with Mrs Matoti and then the other witness pretended to Matoti as if she was - he was also a prisoner you know and then one of you was harsh on that prisoner, you know, in the way you responded to what he was saying at the time. You don't remember that?

MR SIQHOLA: There was no need for us to pretend because she was not going to do anything as we did need have to be tricky by hiding people in the cars. We knew what we were going to question her about and we were fully aware that she was not armed. There was no need to be in the pretence.

MR STOFILE: No, no, I don't want to be misunderstood. The point I'm making, you wanted to get information in a skilful way from her so that the other person pretended as if she was on her side and actually that person said she was sent by Tembile to her but she has never done that and she pretended if she was also - he was also arrested. You don't remember that?

MR SIQHOLA: I do not know that, all I know is that we took Mrs Matoti to the office and we tortured her.

MR STOFILE: Those are the instructions of my client. The next thing, when you went to arrest Mrs Matoti what information did you have about you know, that caused you to have her arrested?

MR SIQHOLA: We had heard that her brother, Lucky, normally sometimes visits her.

MR STOFILE: And who told you that?

MR SIQHOLA: By the informers.

MR STOFILE: We want the names, who are those informers?

MR SIQHOLA: It is very difficult to remember all our informants, perhaps you were one of them but unaware that you told me but that makes one a contact as we normally chat together, perhaps you might release information unaware. Perhaps you are even one of those people, that's why it's very difficult to say about people who told me information because I did not have a register.

CHAIRPERSON: So I think we can perhaps distinguish here, Mr Stofile, between informants, that is people who they casually extract information from and people who don't realise they're giving information to the police as opposed to informers who are people who are paid by the police to give information. So perhaps if you could distinguish between informers and informants in this regard?

MR SIQHOLA: Can you tell us whether the person who gave you the information was an informer or an informant?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand that? An informer we regard as being a person who regularly supplies information to the police in return for some favour, usually the payment of money and an informant is somebody who you mentioned is, they might not even know that they're giving the police information, it just comes out of casual conversation?

MR SIQHOLA: We were using the informants meaning the people that we would chat to because I did not have any registered informer. I think I can call those informants. A person would tell you something unaware that you are going to use that information somewhere else by just chatting and then you take that information and make use of it.

MR STOFILE: Do you know the name of that informant?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR STOFILE: You don't know?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR STOFILE: You know what is strange to me, puzzles me that you go a full distance to arrest a person in terms of Section 47(1), you don't know the person who gave you the information so that you can check information after interrogation. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: First of all if you read these documents properly among my mandates was to go and pay a visit to the political activists. Sometimes we wouldn't pay them visits directly, we'd visit the neighbours, visit their work places and get information concerning that particular person then we would use that information. My task was to surveil political activists therefore it will be extremely difficult for me to say who gave me the information.

MR SIQHOLA: My instructions are that you took an active role in assaulting clients and making decisions even on the spur of the moment. What to do with Mrs Matoti, you know, as how like when you felt he must be dished into the forest and killed. You made those decisions on the spot and persuaded by others not to do that? As such you should have ...(intervention)

MR DUKADA: Mr Chairperson, the question is unduly long.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think if you could just - I'm not quite sure what I get the gist of the question.

MR STOFILE: I'll rephrase it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STOFILE: Thank you Sir. My instructions is that you took an active and a chief role in the arrest and detention of Ms - what do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: You were told something that is not true.

MR STOFILE: Are you suggesting that you were not participating in assaulting her and you took an active part in doing that?

MR LAX: Sorry, with respect, just hold on. You see, you did the jump here from the arrest to suddenly to the assault and you haven't had an answer to the assault yet, you've only had an answer to the arrest.

MR STOFILE: As the Chair pleases. You took a part in the arrest because you actually passed there from work?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct, I would like the Committee to protect me here because a lot of subjects are combined in one question therefore it confuses me therefore I would like to ask for protection.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if you could just ask one question at a time Mr Stofile?

MR STOFILE: As the Chair pleases. So now you are - you now agree, did you make a mistake when you denied it earlier on that you didn't take part in the arrest of Mrs Matoti?

MR SIQHOLA: I told you that myself and Nkunkwana went to arrest Mrs Matoti. Yes I played a role.

MR STOFILE: From there what happened?

MR SIQHOLA: We took her to the security offices in Norwood.

MR STOFILE: Who assaulted Mrs Matoti at the security office at Norwood?

MR SIQHOLA: We tortured her, Mrs Matoti that is. We first smashed her with an open hand since she was a woman, she was not ordered to strip her clothes but she was also suffocated in the canvas bag. She collapsed or fainted. After that we sat on the fence trying to wake her up. We poured cold water because we wanted her to wake up but we were not successful, we tried to put some air. Eventually she woke up and she sat at the office until she was in a good state of mind. After that we did not take her to the Wellington because her clothes were wet and she was not going to be admitted there. We decided to take her Gangaliso Police Cells.

MR STOFILE: You mentioned ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Stofile, just on this while it's on my mind, why would Wellington accept somebody who was not a convicted person or alternatively an awaiting trial prisoner?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes they do admit them even now but an injured person cannot be admitted but they do take the awaiting trial prisoners but if a person claims to be sick ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I know they only take an awaiting trial prisoner is somebody who has got charges, against them, they

now waiting for a trial. Here you've picked up somebody, no charges, you've probably got no intention of taking her to trial, so you say that Wellington were in the practise of accepting detainees, such detainees as well?

MR SIQHOLA: I think that was prearranged by the department because they would take the detainees provided they were in good health.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Stofile?

MR STOFILE: Thank you Chairperson. You mentioned we, who were you referring to when you said "we were assaulted" and you know, "we did this and this"? Who were these "we"?

MR SIQHOLA: I'm referring to the security police in Norwood including myself. I'm aware of that, yes. Can you specify who were "we"? Can you identify them?

MR STOFILE: Though I cannot remember all of them but I'll try those I can recall their names.

CHAIRPERSON: This is only in relation to the assault upon Ms Matoti.

MR STOFILE: It was myself, Sgt Gongwane, Const. Tyani, Const. Tremani, W/o Ndobele, Sgt Tchona. In fact everybody who participated in this canvas bag because people would struggle trying to escape but if I can be given the chance to make a list and then submit it thereafter because I will just forget them if I call them in this manner. Except Sergeant Makola who actually refused to assault people to such an extent that we painted him as an Imbimbi, that is why I can still remember his name because he would refuse because we think that he knew something. I would like to be given a chance to draft this list. I do not want to answer something that is not appropriate so that I can be asked questions why did I eliminate some names. Therefore if I can be granted a chance.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you've made it clear that this is an exhaustive list that you've given and you might have omitted, I'm sure Mr Stofile understands that and if you can think of any names later that may have participated in the assaults you can mention them and as you say you can even submit a list later. Mr Stofile?

MR STOFILE: Chairperson, there's something which I want to clarify about something earlier, can I do that?

You mentioned that everybody participated with the exception of Makola. Do you mean everybody who was at the Norwood security offices, participated in assaulting Mrs Matoti except Mr Makola, Sgt Makola?

MR SIQHOLA: I mean the NCOs with the exception of Makola, the branch commander.

MR STOFILE: Who were NCOs, what do you mean by NCOs?

CHAIRPERSON: Non-commissioned officers, the highest of which is a warrant officer. After warrant officer you get the commissioned officers, lieutenant and others.

MR STOFILE: At the time the assault took place can you tell us what first happened, you know, before he was assaulted and when he was assaulted. Before he was assaulted, what happened?

MR SIQHOLA: Like what Sir?

MR STOFILE: Did you talk to her?

MR SIQHOLA: Before the assault he was questioned about the whereabouts of - she was questioned about her brother. I cannot remember the name of the brother, Lucky was the name, Lucky Magenga. She said she doesn't know him and then she was asked about the alleged visit and then she denied that. We were looking for her brother actually.

MR STOFILE: You said somebody said to you Lucky comes to her from time to time?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes, somebody mentioned that.

MR STOFILE: And I assume it's informer or informant or perhaps the informant you earlier mentioned?

MR SIQHOLA: It couldn't be an informer but an informant.

MR STOFILE: Did you not then take this reply with your informant that he is denying that she was there?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR STOFILE: In other words you decided to make a decision that she was lying?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes.

MR STOFILE: Who first assaulted her?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I cannot be certain about that but I also took part in the assault.

MR STOFILE: Let me remind you that you remember that Andile Gongwana first stood behind him at the corner, sounds like the door was behind her, she couldn't see anybody coming in or from behind. Do you remember that, holding her straight, straight like this? She doesn't turn her head? Do you remember that?

MR SIQHOLA: I did request to be given a chance to relate the story then question thereafter. Yes I do remember that, it's Gongwana was administering the back but I cannot remember well the part of holding her head, I cannot say it did not happen or it did. That happened some time ago, Sir.

MR STOFILE: Is it not correct that thereafter you assaulted her?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean him individually, personally?

MR SIQHOLA: I said we assaulted Mrs Matoti and I also took part, I did not deny that. Yes I did assault her, I tortured her.

MR STOFILE: I'm trying to take it step by step. Assaulting in the sense that you "klapped" and used fists to hit her hard?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I said I "klapped" her and I'm saying that for the second time now.

MR STOFILE: Who were the others who simultaneously were present assaulting after you had assaulted her, shortly after you had assaulted her. Who then followed to assault her?

MR SIQHOLA: Those are the people that were in that list that I said I was going to make. We were not standing in a line and we were not even recording the events. I did explain that we behaved like hooligans and there was no order, it's very difficult for me to put that story logically. I am not in a position to do that.

MR STOFILE: Do you recall that at some stage when she was crying you attempted to throttle and suffocate her so that it doesn't help to cry?

MR SIQHOLA: Mrs Matoti collapsed or fainted when the canvas bag was administered to her. That's what worried us because she couldn't have cried during that period of fainting or collapsing.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the question Mr Siqhola was do you remember at any stage that when Ms Matoti was beginning to cry you throttled her, tried to stop her crying by taking hold of her throat and stifling the cry by means of throttling her?

MR SIQHOLA: No I do not remember that part.

MR STOFILE: Do you mean you want this Committee to believe that when this person was assaulted she just - she just was like a humble sheep, she just kept quiet?

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say she didn't cry, he said he can't remember throttling her to stop her. You can ask her whether she cried or screamed.

MR STOFILE: Did the victim cry when you were assaulting him together with the others?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes she did cry.

MR STOFILE: No concern was raised about her screams? I just want to hear it from you?

CHAIRPERSON: I wouldn't expect concern from torturers just because somebody is crying. That's what they're trying to make it.

MR LAX: The other thing is there's a difference between screams and cries? So just check whether she screamed or not.

MR STOFILE: I'm indebted to you. The victim screamed, shouting, screaming, you know, due to pain. Do you recall that?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes, all of them they normally do that and she also did the same. Very loud, she cried very, very loud.

MR STOFILE: The victim says in this particular case I put it to you that when she was crying and at the same time shouting out of pain you then throttled her?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I did not throttle her.

CHAIRPERSON: You must be careful Mr Stofile, when you say you throttled her are you talking - because we know there were various people, are you talking you singular meaning him or when you say you, one of the seven or eight people that were there? I think because he's answered it as if it was he's saying he personally didn't do it?

MR LAX: Just while you're at it, maybe you could just clarify what you mean by throttle? You know throttle could be putting a hand over someone's mouth, it could be grabbing the throat, it could be a number of different things. I'm not clear what you mean he did?

MR STOFILE: The witness, the victim says somebody tried to close her mouth forcefully so that he used - sound was muffled. It was one of you, in your presence but he doesn't know his name. Do you remember?

MR SIQHOLA: That could be true, maybe I've forgotten about it. If you say her mouth was closed forcefully.

MR STOFILE: At some point she says a canvas bag with water was put with dirty water including cigarette stubs was put over her head and then tied around her neck. Do you remember that?

MR SIQHOLA: I did that mention that the canvas bag was administered to her but I know nothing about cigarette butts but yes, a canvas bag was used with water on her.

MR STOFILE: You can't dispute that the water was dirty and with cigarette butts do you? Or did you inspect the water before it was put into the canvas bag?

MR SIQHOLA: There's a difference between inspecting the water or something, I might say the water is clean but the water is coming from the tap but it's not clean. What kind of inspection, inspecting the dirt or to be sure that the water is clean enough, what do you mean?

MR STOFILE: I'm referring to the water inside the canvas bag which the victim says it was dirty?

MR SIQHOLA: The water was from the tap.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe the water from the tap was put into the bag which contained cigarette butts and other stuff that might make it dirty so it was clean and then when it gets in the bag it's then dirty? Is that possible?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes the bag was not clean, it is possible that the water also was dirty but I do not know anything about the cigarette butts. Yes, the bag was not clean. The reason for me to say that the bag was not clean, the bag had been used over and over again therefore it was dirty.

MR STOFILE: What took you so long to say that?

MR SIQHOLA: What do you mean?

MR STOFILE: Just pass that, I don't want to waste time over that. Do you recall that the victim at some point was placed upside down with the legs up on a steel dustbin with the canvas put around her neck and you know, the dresses were upside down and you know, the underwear was exposed to you, you know, with legs going haywire and she had to drink all that water inside, dirty water inside?

MR DUKADA: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I'm requesting that my colleague should put very brief questions to the witness and not a long story. It's going to be difficult for the witness to deliver ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Break it down although I must say it wasn't too complicated. Do you recall that she was put into a dustbin with her legs sticking up? When she had the canvas bag on her head?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I do not remember that part.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Stofile?

MR STOFILE: I put it to you that it happened in your presence and you participated?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I never did that. Myself as an individual I did not know about the other persons.

MR STOFILE: Where the interrogation and torture on that particular day carried on in your presence for the entire day, that particular day?

MR SIQHOLA: I did ask you to give me a chance to relate the story but now you are going to cause me to leave out some other things because you do not know the story, please give me a chance to relate the story.

MR STOFILE: I'll give you a chance to relate the story.

MR LAX: Sorry, just - it's really quite simple, were you there for the whole day or weren't you whilst she was being tortured?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I was not present during the night.

MR LAX: There you go.

MR STOFILE: To be exact, during the time he was tortured from the time he was brought to the offices and up to the time that he was taken away from the offices on the 16th February 1987, the date of the arrest.

MR SIQHOLA: I do not understand your question Sir.

MR STOFILE: My question is were you present throughout the interrogation on that day with the victim?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you must just stop because he had mentioned that he wasn't there at night. When you're talking about the day are you talking the whole of the 16th including the night or are you talking before sundown?

MR STOFILE: Thank you Chairperson. My question is as from the time of the arrest when she was brought to the offices and up to the time when she left the Norwood offices.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you present the whole time that she was there at the Norwood offices on that date?

MR STOFILE: I was not there on the time, the reason for me to say that even when she was taken to Engangaliswe I was not present, I was told that she was held at Gangaliso and even when she was fetched in the morning. I was told that Mrs Matoti, after asking about his health condition we were told that she fell down the stairs at Engangaliswe and it is when she was very, very sick and then she was about to be admitted at the hospital. Later on I learnt that it was not true that she fell down the stairs. She was sick because of the torture, that is when she was admitted in the hospital, that's when I got that information.

MR STOFILE: Let's take it step by step now about the time he was being tortured. During that particular time are you saying you were not there the whole time when she was tortured at the Norwood offices on that particular day of the arrest?

MR SIQHOLA: I was not present during the night as I said I last saw her while she was still fainting and then she woke up when she regained consciousness, she was kept in the office to let her regain her complete ability. I was not there when she was taken to Engangaliswe. I don't even know at what time was she taken to Engangaliswe. It is possible that she was interrogated for the whole night, I cannot deny that.

MR LAX: You said earlier in your evidence that she was taken, you couldn't take her to Wellington because her clothes were wet once she had recovered, therefore she was taken to Engangaliswe Police Station. The impression you gave us in that part of your evidence was that as soon as she had recovered she was then taken off to the police station?

MR SIQHOLA: No, that was not the case. I said she was never stripped of her clothes because if we did that she was not going to be taken at Wellington, she was taken to Engangaliswe, that is the information that I received and then I saw her the next day in the morning and I was told that she was from Engangaliswe and she was very, very sick and I was told that she fell down the stairs and I'm not sure if she eventually went to Engangaliswe or not.

MR LAX: You didn't hear the question, really. The question is a very simple one. Let me try and say it again. You led us to understand that after she had recovered, because her clothes were wet you couldn't take her to Wellington therefore she was taken to Engangaliswe Police Station. The impression you gave us was that no further interrogation or torture happened once she had recovered. Is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: I think it is a mistake because I left her in the office where she was about to be taken to Engangaliswe because her clothes were wet, I think I made a mistake before.

MR LAX: Yes so it remains the same, that if she was about to be taken to Engangaliswe Police Station, it's very unlikely that any further interrogation took place, correct?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes, that is correct because she was not in a very good condition.

MR LAX: Precisely, so then you were present for the entire time in which she was interrogated during that day?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I was present during the day.

MR LAX: Please continue Mr Stofile?

MR STOFILE: I'm indebted to the Committee. As a matter of fact the victim says that whilst at some times she was blindfolded, burn cigarettes were applied on her body in your presence, do you remember that?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I cannot recall that.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible that that happened then?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I cannot dispute that.

MR STOFILE: What is strange is that these things happened in your presence and then you say earlier on you didn't say you don't know about it but nonetheless I'll proceed. The other time is that the victim was also assaulted by you actually kicking her on a table, you ordered her to lie on a table and you kicked her whilst she was on a table so that she rolled over and fell on the floor. Do you remember that

MR SIQHOLA: No, I do not remember that.

MR STOFILE: Is it perhaps you don't remember because of the lapse of time?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I cannot remember about it.

MR STOFILE: My client, the victim, says that you actually did that, do you also not remember that at some other time whilst she was lying prostrate on the ground either face down with the arm at the back twisted by one of you?

MR SIQHOLA: Can I please ask a question? I did not hear that question.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was can you remember when she says that while she was lying on the ground face down, her arm was twisted behind her back?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I do not remember doing such a thing.

MR STOFILE: You can't dispute that occurred?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR STOFILE: You will also recall that the victim, whilst she was also lying down on the floor either with her face upwards or down it was free for all, you trampled on her body with your feet kicking and jumping on her body, do you recall that?

MR SIQHOLA: No I did not do that.

MR STOFILE: Do you dispute that even your colleagues did that?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I cannot dispute that.

MR STOFILE: Anyway, the instructions of my client says that that did happen. The strange part of this is that some common occurrence in the other detainees in which you took an active part, the burning of the ...(indistinct), the burning of the cigarettes on the body, kicking of persons occurred, you know, either you, in your presence or you also taking an active part and the other detainees who have been mentioned earlier on?

MR SIQHOLA: What is your question?

MR STOFILE: My question is that was the same pattern even in respect of the victim?

CHAIRPERSON: This is now a question of argument, I don't know if you want him to answer your argument but you can let him do it but it's essentially an argument, I don't know what you expect him to say to it. Any response to that, Mr Siqhola?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not get the question, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't so much a question, he was just putting a proposition to you.

MR SIQHOLA: I was putting a question to you to say that there was a development of a sort of a similar pattern of torture done to the other victims in your presence either by you or in conjunction with the others in your presence which was done also in the case of the victim in this particular case, like the burning of her body with cigarettes, kicking her, using open hands to hit her.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he's denied this, I mean he said that there were methods, the canvas bag method they used not only on one person but various persons, they hit people. I think the only one that might be a bit in dispute here is the burning of - using the cigarettes to burn?

MR STOFILE: Yes Mr Chair, I'm actually putting the others together with that one. There seems to be a common pattern and in this particular case you are denying it that you participated in burning her with a cigarette stub?

MR SIQHOLA: What method is the same Sir?

MR STOFILE: The method of using a lighted cigarette and applying the lighted part on her body?

CHAIRPERSON: He denied that he did that with the others, it's a point in dispute, he didn't admit doing it, I've forgotten who the person was, Mr Mgidlana, the one that ...(intervention)

MR MGIDLANA: I recall he had denied having done it to Mtimkulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he denied it.

MR STOFILE: I'm putting to you that that has been a pattern of allegations.

CHAIRPERSON: This is essentially a question of argument.

MR STOFILE: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

You have mentioned the push up, what is the push up? Is it part of the method which you used on detainees. Can you explain that?

MR SIQHOLA: That is an exercise.

CHAIRPERSON: It's where you lie down, Mr Stofile, you lie down with your legs straight and your arms - with your face facing the floor board and your palms in front of your chest, your legs stiff and you push your body up and down, up and down.

MR STOFILE: Thank you Chair. In this particular case, the detainee alleges that at some point after she had fainted you caused her to sit straight with the head upright, like this ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: For purposes of the record Mr Stofile is indicating leaning back in his chair with his legs straight out and his head looking up towards the ceiling.

MR STOFILE: Then you applied water onto her nose, you in particular.

MR SIQHOLA: No, I did not do that.

MR STOFILE: Do you dispute that that never occurred? I'm trying to eliminate perhaps you are doubtful because of the passage of time, because the instructions are that you did that.

MR SIQHOLA: No, I did not do that, I am here to tell the truth, I am not going to hide anything. I cannot lie here, I cannot say I did something that I did not do. I will say yes to something that I did but I will not agree with something I did not do.

MR STOFILE: My instructions are that after that you put a fan whilst she was still seated on that position after holding a litre bottle, putting water on her nose you applied a fan by putting straight on her face, fully blowing at the maximum so that the air was stinging inside her nostrils and the victim says it's you in particular who did that. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: I'm the one who mentioned the fan. When she fainted we set the fan on because we wanted her to regain her consciousness. We did not take that to her nose and even when we poured the water we wanted her to wake up, regain her consciousness.

MR STOFILE: Now you mentioned that you poured water but you denied it earlier on. I just want to draw it to your attention. You just mentioned that you poured water?

CHAIRPERSON: I think there's been a bit of a confusion here Mr Stofile. He denied the part about pouring water down the nostrils but he said that they did pour water on her and used the fan in an endeavour to revive her after she had lost consciousness.

MR STOFILE: I'm indebted to the chair.

CHAIRPERSON: That's how her clothes got wet, etc and they couldn't take her to Wellington.

MR STOFILE: And after the victim regained consciousness you then after assaulted her together with the others?

MR SIQHOLA: I left once she regained consciousness.

CHAIRPERSON: We know you left, you said you left, but what is being put to you is that Ms Matoti contends that once she was revived after having lost consciousness she was again assaulted by your colleagues including yourself?

MR SIQHOLA: No, I had already gone by the time, I cannot dispute that she was later assaulted because I was not present.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you still saying that you left her while she had fainted?

MR SIQHOLA: I left her after she regained consciousness.

MR STOFILE: When she fainted you didn't see any need to take her to a doctor?

MR SIQHOLA: She was going to be taken to the doctor but I left the place, I was not present there.

MR STOFILE: I put it to you that my instructions are that you were there throughout the period of the assault and you are the one who drove her away from the Norwood security offices. You didn't leave her behind. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: I am going to answer that question the sixth time, I was not present when she was taken somewhere else, this was for the sixth time giving the same response to that question.

MR STOFILE: Further than that I put it to you that you actually drove her to Lebodi not Engangaliswe at first, to Lebodi Police Station. You were driving the vehicle and there were five of you in the vehicle. She was in between all, let me not make it long.

MR SIQHOLA: Where in Lebodi because I was never in Lebodi. I left the office leaving Mrs Matoti behind. There was nothing like that.

MR STOFILE: She says you took her to Lebodi Prison but she was refused to be admitted at the prison and why the victim remembers this, she says on the way to Lebodi you stopped the car and suggested that - you know they use the word "marangwenwe" and then you turned in to ...(indistinct), you turned into the forest next to Kogang then one of your colleagues persuaded you not to do that and asked you to proceed to Lebodi.

MR SIQHOLA: I've been denying this over and over again. There's only one question that I cannot agree with, I've been denying that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's quite clear that what he says - I mean it's not a trial situation, you don't have to put the whole version. We know that he's going to deny anything about taking her away.

MR SIQHOLA: Chair, I just wanted to remind that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Stofile carry on, I'm just saying that we can expect what the answer is going to be.

MR STOFILE: Yes. Anyway, the instructions are that at Lebodi you went out together with one who was in front and then she remained with the two behind and then you came back and reported that the prison is full, there are no females there, in fact the males have been occupying the female side and then you had to go back and debated amongst yourselves. I know you're going to deny it but I'm trying to make you recall it, perhaps you'll be able to recall that? Then you debated and decided on the spot that you must take her to Lusikisiki Prison?

MR SIQHOLA: I think I am not on trial here and I'm here to tell the truth and not lying when saying that I left Mrs Matoti in the security offices. If you want to persuade me to say yes as if I'm on trial, there's nothing, that no one persuaded me to ask for - to apply for amnesty. I cannot lie. That ...(indistinct) that you are saying is not true but what is true is the one that I'm telling now and the truth is coming out of me, it's coming from me, no one forced me to ask for an apology for Mrs Matoti, I did not do that under duress.

MR STOFILE: In the light of that strong denial let me ask you - the witness insists that you are the one driving but the long and short of it, I'm not pursuing because I take it that you are going to deny that but ultimately the witness says you went to pick up petrol, you put a blanket so that he's not seen by the attendants then you drove to Gangula, you changed your mind from Lusikisiki and say you are tired, you must take her to Engangaliswe. I know you're going to deny but I put it because the witness is affirmative about that.

Chair, there's another aspect of the assault, if he has got no response to that because I take it unless he's going to - because I take it he's going to deny.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we can assume he's going to deny from his previous responses.

MR STOFILE: The victim says that at the time she admitted she was being assaulted and she was lying like this on the chair, you and the others you were putting burnt cigarettes, force it down her throat. Not - you and the others, she doesn't know the name of the others. What do you say to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when you say burnt cigarettes were they actually burning or were they just stubs that had been stamped out?

MR STOFILE: Stubs, burnt cigarettes.

CHAIRPERSON: Burnt stubs, they weren't hot, to burn?

MR STOFILE: They were actually forced down her throat.

What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: There is nothing like that.

MR STOFILE: Is it perhaps you have forgotten about that and due to the lapse of time?

MR SIQHOLA: I said I requested you to give me an opportunity to tell you this story because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Siqhola, you're being asked questions now, we've heard you say that and Mr Stofile's got the right to answer you, ask you questions so if you could please just answer his questions?

MR STOFILE: Thank you Chair.

MR SIQHOLA: Can you repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: He said is it possible that because of the duration of time that has passed you may have forgotten that cigarette stumps or stubs were put down her throat when she was sitting in the chair in the office in Norwood?

MR SIQHOLA: I said that I cannot dispute that. Maybe it happened when I was not there but when I was there it did not happen, I deny that.

MR STOFILE: Do you also - are you disputing that in your presence not only you but the others did exactly that, some of you - are you disputing that? In your presence?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not see them.

MR STOFILE: The victim further states that - I'm putting the question to you that this thing of canvas was not done once it was done several times from about eleven, twelve in the morning in between the other assaults, you wait until she recovers then you do it not once, it was several times. That's what the victim says. You also do not remember that?

MR SIQHOLA: It happened once.

MR STOFILE: You have been wanting to be given an opportunity to state it on your own, can you tell me about the assault part if there is anything that you've left, you've been wanting to relate your story. Can you tell me now, I'm giving you an opportunity, whatever we've left about the assault part. Either by you or the others?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I can tell you but not about the assault but what happened after she regained consciousness. After Mrs Matoti regained consciousness I left the office, I then heard that she was taken to Engangaliswe, I don't know who took her to Engangaliswe but in the morning Sergeant Nkunkwana and Mdinge were the ones who fetched her at Engangaliswe. They came back saying that Mrs Matoti fell down the stairs in Engangaliswe. I found out later that that did not happen like that. Mrs Matoti was affected by the torture during the day and her loop was also affected, that was the report that we got from the doctor in hospital.

MR LAX: Sorry, what was affected? Her something? I didn't hear the word in the translation unfortunately.

MR SIQHOLA: Because of the torture she was sick because of the torture, it's the IUD contraceptive that was the report that we got from the doctor. Umbumgwani and Dinge were the ones who took her to Engangaliswe. Even in the morning they were the ones who fetched her that is why I'm saying, I'm disputing one question and Mrs Matoti knew very well who took her to Engangaliswe and who fetched her from Engangaliswe. She was admitted from the hospital and the IUD was affected.

MR STOFILE: The problem I have with you, you are saying there were two people who took her to there, to Engangaliswe on the 16th and then the following morning you say those two people fetched her the following day. You see, the version of my client differs from your version and the thing is supported by other documents to the effect that she was taken to Engangaliswe at about six, you know, after you stopped assaulting her about 6 o'clock in the afternoon, not in the evening. Then when she was in Engangaliswe, she only - she was sick and always at Engangaliswe they used to phone your offices at Norwood but you wouldn't come to fetch her because she complained she was sick and then it was only on the fourth day that she was fetched, not by you this time, by two other people she doesn't know who were part of the assaulting team. You see, my question is, are you perhaps mistaken when you say the following day these very people, two people went to fetch her from the hospital?

MR SIQHOLA: According to my further information that I got I was not present when this happened but Mrs Matoti was taken there by Ndinge and Nkunkwana and it was also Ndinge and Nkunkwana who fetched her, that was the information that I got, I was not involved.

CHAIRPERSON: What Mr Stofile is putting to you, you gave the clear impression to us that after Ms Matoti was revived you left and then you heard that she had been taken to Engangaliswe by Nkunkwana and this other person and that they came the next day, they came with the story that she had fallen down the stairs but then you learnt that that wasn't true and in fact she was sick from the treatment she had got when being interrogated. The clear impression was that you had seen her the next day when she was brought back from Engangaliswe. Now what Mr Stofile is putting to you was that she remained at Engangaliswe Police Station for four days, she was only brought out on the fourth day. What do you say to that? It wasn't the next day? In other words it was about the 20th February then, Mr Stofile?

MR STOFILE: It was the 19th.

CHAIRPERSON: The 19th February, the interrogation took place on the 16th February.

MR LAX: It was in fact the Thursday.

MR SIQHOLA: I did not see Mrs Matoti. Even when she was taken to the hospital, I don't know who took her to the hospital but I got a report from the hospital. The reason why she was sick, I don't know who took her to the hospital.

CHAIRPERSON: After the 16th February when did you next see Ms Matoti? Can you remember?

MR SIQHOLA: I saw her when she was released from detention when she lodged a civil claim, when she applied for a civil claim after she was released from detention, that's when I saw her.

MR LAX: Sorry, if you gave us the impression that you saw her the next day, that's a mistake?

MR SIQHOLA: It's a mistake if I gave out that impression.

MR STOFILE: Maybe for your benefit, since you say you're not there, Mrs Matoti's account is that when she was fetched ultimately she was so in a bad state, she has not eaten for four days, she has not eaten food for four days and she was complicated and she was almost passing out and the two officers - it's not you this time, who fetched her talked among themselves after she had even collapsed and fainted and you know, whilst she was taken down the stairs at Engangaliswe, then they talked amongst themselves and said look, let's go and take her to the hospital and say we do not know where we've picked her up, we picked her up from the location somewhere. They decided that on the spot. I'm just telling you because your comment is that you are not aware, I'm just mentioning it as a follow up, that she was so sick they said she was dying and they wanted to dump her at the hospital.

MR SIQHOLA: I hear you, Sir.

MR STOFILE: Now let's come back, you earlier mentioned that in 1990 you heard from - you were conscientised by Dehulele, Zamele and Mayapi. I've had a word with one of them and they say that that's not the case. In fact it was the time of the transformation from the old regime to the new regime at ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That would be about 1994, somewhere around there?

MR STOFILE: The early stages of it. The point I'm asking is that it was a time when there was a moratorium about 1990. Do you remember that? Of criminal people prosecuted from political, criminal offences, that they were pardoned? I make specific reference to the case of - I've spoken to Pambile Gizala who was with Sisande Masi, who was with Agadia, they were released from ...(intervention)

MR DUKADA: Chairperson, sorry, I don't understand what is all happening now.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Stofile, when did - I'm just looking in the notes, when did Mr Siqhola say he spoke to these people? Paragraph 17, during or about 1989. I think just put it to him, when they actually spoke to him if at all, instead of coming with a long, long story?

MR STOFILE: I put it to you that you are taking a way out to them using them as an excuse. What actually happened at the time there was a moratorium on capital - on the execution of the capital punishment and all the political prisoners in Transkei were being, you know, released form being prosecuted?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know anything about that?

MR SIQHOLA: The gentleman is very aware of politics, I was not trying to take chances. Msemela and the other gentlemen were unaware that they were changing me, we were just shouting as they were detainees but they were unaware that they were doing something on my mind, changing my mind. I didn't say that they were doing that consciously, they were unaware of what they were doing, that there was something happening on my mind through our conversation so I would like to be protected because he is now talking too much about politics, I'm not sure whether we are finished with Mrs Matoti's case.

MR STOFILE: You've even got a question of politics in your affidavit and anyway a strange thing is that when you change your mind, if I understand your evidence, you had signed an oath when you joined the security police and you were scared because you were going to be - you know there were appraisals which were going to happen to you if you changed your position you know, from being active in your duties as a security police. Now somewhere in 1990 you changed and then you had to be taken to another office to sort out post?

MR DUKADA: Mr Chairperson, what is the question to the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: We're all waiting for the question.

MR STOFILE: The question is, I put it to you that you were taking an escape route to Myapi. It is not correct that you were conscientised by them. The position is that it was during the period of transformation, you know when the political prisoners were not...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Don't go on too long, he'll get confused. Put it to him, what's your comment on that Mr Siqhola?

MR LAX: Sorry, if I could just intervene here? What are you putting to him? Are you putting to him that he's fabricating this story about this Damascian conversion?

MR STOFILE: He's exaggerating it, the actual situation is that ...(intervention)

MR LAX: You see because I'm not clear from what you put to him before, whether you're saying he never spoke to those two people, did he speak to them?

MR STOFILE: Well, what I gathered from one of them is that it is not correct that they conscientised them when they were - you know they changed him.

MR LAX: Well, you see it's a big difference between whether - they don't know what happened in his mind and you don't know what happened in his mind and we don't know what happened in his mind and either he spoke to them or he didn't. Now that's a fact you can either put to him that he did or didn't speak to them. What the effect of that was they may not be aware and we certainly aren't aware and you're putting to him that he is fabricating that his mind was changed?

MR STOFILE: I put it to you ...(intervention)

MR LAX: On what basis are you putting it because you haven't laid a foundation for that yet?

MR STOFILE: The question that I wanted to put to him was that it is a strange thing that at the time when you decided to - you said you changed mentally, you were influenced by Myapi and Zamele because Zamele said it is not the case, they didn't speak to you about politics?

MR SIQHOLA: Are you trying to say that I am lying because I am telling you they were unaware that they were changing my mind through our conversations.

MR STOFILE: The thing is they say they didn't speak to you about politics but you know, they conversed with you in the normal, not about politics, to politicize you, there's a difference when you talk with somebody about general things without politicizing a person. Anyway, I'll accept that as an answer and leave that for argument.

When you changed your mind you were not taken to task because you were breaching the oath which you took with the security police. Do you remember you earlier said that when you joined you were made to take an oath, did that oath fall away when you breached this?

MR SIQHOLA: When a person changes he changes. Even now I'm a changed person, I'm a believer now, I was not a believer then so you don't concede that the past things when you change, you change completely.

MR STOFILE: Every time you spoke to the askari it was before you had contact with Myapi, is that case or am I correct?

MR SIQHOLA: Which askaris?

CHAIRPERSON: Which askari are you talking about?

MR STOFILE: The askaris which were influencing to join them, I think he mentioned that in his evidence in chief at some point. I just want to be clear.

MR LAX: If you look at paragraph 16.2, it was in 1987. Paragraph 16.2 of Exhibit A page 15 of the annexure.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was before?

MR STOFILE: And you were politicized enough to say that you were not prepared to join them? Was that the case?

MR SIQHOLA: I don't understand your question can you rephrase it?

MR STOFILE: In 1987 you were so politicized that when the askari people called upon you to change because my understanding that your transformation took place after you had spoken with Myapi later on ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Mr Stofile, it might help if you laid a proper foundation for what you're putting to him. If you asked him why he wouldn't join the askaris.

MR STOFILE: Thank you Chairperson. Can you tell us why you didn't join the askaris?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I can tell you.

MR STOFILE: Please tell us?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not want to kill people, that is the main reason. You see, I've got a problem with that because when you were assaulting people you had made admissions here that you know, they were so extreme so that you foresaw that they could die but yet you tortured them. Now the difference between the askari and that method, to me there is none.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm having difficulty with what you're trying to get at, Mr Stofile. You're questioning him, you're saying "why didn't you join Vlakplaas or the askaris?" Now he says "I didn't join them because I didn't want to kill people". Now you say "okay, I've got a problem with that, you tortured people but you've got a problem with killing people?" Now what are you trying to say, are you trying to get at that - yes what must he say "I didn't want to go and live in Pretoria or East London" or what are you going to achieve by it. That's what I'm trying to understand by your questioning.

MR STOFILE: My reason, Chairperson, is that the reason given by him is not convincing because he was doing what the askaris were doing.

MR LAX: That's a matter for argument, Mr Stofile.

MR STOFILE: Yes Chairperson.

MR LAX: You must deal with it accordingly.

MR STOFILE: As the Chairperson pleases.

Mrs Matoti - it's something I've left over, Mrs Matoti mentions that during the time he was at Norwood one of the police officers asked her because she had not eaten, he bought some food to eat. The one who was in the car when she was arrested who pretended to be a prisoner then you, when the food was brought, you said Mrs Matoti is a terrorist, she can't have food and you ate that food. Do you remember that? Is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: No, that is not correct. That is wrong.

MR STOFILE: I suggest, I put it to you that the victim says that you did that and you ate the food and without any conscience because you were saying that she's a terrorist?

MR SIQHOLA: I'd like to explain ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Stofile, just tell me, when exactly that happened? I was just slightly distracted, I apologise.

MR STOFILE: It's at the time she was being interrogated at Norwood.

MR LAX: That's on the 16th?

MR STOFILE: Yes because one officer who pretended to be a prisoner suggested that she must be brought some food because they've been keeping her for too long.

MR LAX: Right, thank you.

MR SIQHOLA: The detainees would be bought food by the security branch, we would be the ones to buy food for them, they would tell us what they want to eat and then we would go out and buy for them. So I don't see any reason for me to eat Mrs Matoti's food because I was the one who was buying food. There was money in the safe that was used to buy food for the detainees so there was no reason for me to take Mrs Matoti's food.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless you're hungry.

MR SIQHOLA: Unless I was hungry but I was the one who was buying food for the detainees so there was no reason for me to take her food.

MR STOFILE: Mr Siqhola, this is no joke, the victim's family says that you ate that food without any conscience alleging that she was a terrorist and she didn't have anything to eat that particular day and for the consecutive three days. those are her instructions, firm instructions?

MR SIQHOLA: There is no such, Chairperson.

MR STOFILE: Do you dispute that that ever occurred?

CHAIRPERSON: He's just said there was no such, he's disputed it.

MR LAX: Just while we're there, do you know whether she was given food on the following three days or not?

MR SIQHOLA: I don't know.

MR LAX: So if she says she wasn't, you can't dispute that?

MR SIQHOLA: No I can't dispute that.

MR STOFILE: I'll put it this way, for the next three days while she was at the police station she was in a very bad state she was not even able to eat. Messages were being sent to your offices to fetch her on a daily basis but nobody came until the fourth day?

MR SIQHOLA: What I'm saying is when Mrs Matoti regained consciousness I left and I then met her when she was released from detention when she was laying a civil claim. She only mentioned Nkunkwana, we came forward and said we were also involved. So these questions that you are asking about things that happened afterwards, I cannot be able to answer them.

MR STOFILE: Anyway I'll just pass on to the other questions.

The witness was severely injured during the 16th when you tortured together with the others and assaulted her, says that she was admitted for six months at Umtata General which suggests that with complications, some of which have got after effects until today, I put it to you that the way you assaulted her you had no regard that she was a female, you assaulted her, you know, as if she was a man. As a result she had gynaecological problems later on. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: I had already explained that question, I would like the Committee to protect me because I've been answering that question and I mentioned that Mrs Matoti was taken to hospital and I also mentioned the cause that took her to the hospital and the doctor gave us a report that her IUD contraceptive was a problem so I don't know what he wants me to say.

MR DUKADA: My question, Mr Chairperson, may I also intervene? In this application, the applicant is asking the amnesty for having amongst other things ill-treated Mrs Matoti, he is not denying that at all. I don't understand now the pursuance of these questions, I understand that my learned friend wants to put his case to the witness but the witness has repeated more than five times?

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's common cause that he tortured her and that the torture was serious.

MR STOFILE: Chairperson, I was laying a basis of the seriousness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we know if was serious, Mr Stofile, I'm sure that Mr Dukada is not going to argue anything to the contrary.

MR STOFILE: As the Committee pleases, Chairperson.

MR MGIDLANA: Sorry, sorry, Chairperson, if I may just chip in? The problem that we have with the applicant is that he seems to make it appear like there was no seriousness in this ...(indistinct) of the torture as well as the lessen his role that's why even myself I was tempted to get in detail ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We're not disallowing the question but I think with the messages that come across, she was six months in hospital as a result of the torture. I can assure you that we're not going to find that it was anything but serious, the torture.

MR SIQHOLA: I would like to explain something. The reason why I applied for amnesty, it is not because I was the boss of the torture but it is because I took part in the torture or the methods of torture that was happening there. Mrs Matoti thinks that I'm applying for amnesty because I was the only one who was doing these things, I was not alone, there was a lot of us so now it appears as if I personally was the leader of these methods but when I applied for amnesty I applied for the role I took on what was happening there. So now it is said I am trying to distance myself from certain things and I've already explained for the Committee that I'm not going to agree with something that I did not do simply because I applied for amnesty. I'm going to admit to what I did because I know that I've made an amnesty application.

MR STOFILE: You see, the problem I have with that answer is that he has been very general in laying a basis and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR STOFILE: And in this instance he must not lose sight that he, in this particular case, he was the one who took an active part in the assault and torture.

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct, I took an active part when Mrs Matoti was assaulted, I'm not denying that.

MR STOFILE: Can the Committee bear with me? Can you bear with me, I'm just trying to go through something?

In your evidence in chief you mentioned that the defendants in the case they didn't contest these cases because they wanted to settle them. In this particular case there was special application to uplift a bar and the defendants plea was filed as it appears in the documents here and it was actually applicated on the 13/07/1989. The point I want to make is that there was an attempt because - to try to settle this on the trial date and they tried to sustain the defense all along. In this particular case, this matter was only settled on the trial date because there was - the point I'm making is that, even when the state attorney in this particular case, the defendant, if they wanted to settle they should have done much earlier. It is not the case in this particular case and not uplift a bar ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What are you getting at now, Mr Stofile, just put it to him?

MR STOFILE: The point I want to raise with him is that the security police were sustaining the question of the defense up to the trial date when they could have settled the case much earlier on. They instead applied and increased costs ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So what do you want to know from the applicant now?

MR STOFILE: What I wanted to know from the applicant is that it is not true what he said in his evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say to that, that case was only settled shortly or on the trial date?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not even go to court I was not called, I don't even know what is happening when the case is being settled, I don't even - I'm not aware of that. He would just be told that the case has been settled, I don't know the details whether it has been settled out of court, I don't know what is happening.

MR STOFILE: Do you know Mr Myeki?

MR SIQHOLA: If you are talking about the one who is deceased, the Lieutenant, I know him.

MR STOFILE: I'm talking about him. Was he not part of the officers at the Norwood security police at the time of the arrest and detention of the victim in this particular case?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes he was there in Norwood.

MR STOFILE: Was he stationed at Norwood?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes.

MR STOFILE: At the time of this incident?

MR LAX: He said so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, how many times do you want him to say, Mr Stofile? He said he was at Norwood?

MR STOFILE: I just want it for record purposes.

In your evidence in chief you have not mentioned him as part of the officers who were involved in this particular matter, who were there at the time?

MR SIQHOLA: I said the list is long, I've requested to the Commission to write down the names because I cannot remember all of them. I have requested that from the Commission.

MR STOFILE: How long have you worked with Mr Myeki?

How long did you work with Mr Myeki at the security offices?

Lieutenant Myeki, how long did you work with him?

MR SIQHOLA: I arrived in Umtata in 1984, that was the first time I met with Mr Mkhike.

MR STOFILE: And how long did you work with him?

MR LAX: What is the point Mr Stofile, just please?

MR STOFILE: What I'm trying to put to the witness, I'm trying to say that it is not correct that he could not remember because he has worked with him for a long time.

MR LAX: Yes, he worked with all these policemen for a long time.

CHAIRPERSON: And he did say that, look he's got this list, he asked for - he might have forgotten etc, so now we've know he has forgotten about Lieutenant Myeki.

MR LAX: But what is the point about Myeki apart from the fact that he forgot about him. Is there anything of substance?

MR STOFILE: Yes. Was he not present at some time during the time you were assaulting the detainee?

MR SIQHOLA: I'm not sure but the officers would come in, in all the detainees, but I'm not sure about Myeki, I would be sure that he came in.

MR STOFILE: You see why I'm asking there were mainly two senior who would, according to the story of the victim, would come in during the assault, it's Myeki and Donege. Do you remember that?

MR SIQHOLA: I wouldn't dispute that, I can't say it is not like that.

MR STOFILE: You can't dispute that they gave you - they were also part of the team who gave you instructions at the time, you can't dispute that?

MR SIQHOLA: I have already mentioned that everybody who was in that office was participating in the torture and the assault, everybody who was in that office with the exception of Sergeant Makola. I have already mentioned that.

MR STOFILE: Thank you. There was an officer who was known as Vusi Gadebe, does the name ring - it's a nickname, do you remember that? Amongst the police officers?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that was a nickname.

MR STOFILE: What was his real name?

MR SIQHOLA: It was Tyani

MR STOFILE: You see, the victims says that people who were most vicious in attacking and torturing was you and this particular person?

MR SIQHOLA: I did not deny that. I admitted that I'm the one who tortured Mrs Matoti. Tyani was there and also others. I requested to write down their names on a list.

MR STOFILE: The point I'm saying is that they were the most vicious, the two of you were the number one, the number two was - I didn't put the other one. I'm raising that because that is the victim's story?

MR SIQHOLA: Maybe he noticed me, it might be like that.

MR STOFILE: I think I covered what I wanted to cover.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STOFILE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Stofile. Mr Madikizela, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MADIKIZELA: Yes Mr Chairperson, I've questions to put to the witness.

Mr Siqhola, you said when you joined the then Transkei Police you were given some sort of training at Umtata Police College, is that correct?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MADIKIZELA: What type of training did you receive?

MR SIQHOLA: Police training.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this the basic training?

MR SIQHOLA: Basic training, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we need details of basic training, Mr Madikizela.

MR MADIKIZELA: Is it correct that the torture, the ill-treatment and the various methods of doing so that you have mentioned before this Committee were never part of that training?

MR SIQHOLA: That is not true.

MR MADIKIZELA: In other words ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand your answer, the question was how to ill-treat people and torture people, was that part of the training you received at Police College?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR MADIKIZELA: Is it also correct, Mr Siqhola, that when you joined the security branch in 1980 no further training that was given to you by that branch?

MR SIQHOLA: Which branch?

MR MADIKIZELA: The question is, when you were recruited to join the security branch, is it correct that you were not given further training by the security branch?

MR SIQHOLA: There was training.

MR MADIKIZELA: What type of training?

MR SIQHOLA: VIP protection.

MR MADIKIZELA: And what else?

MR SIQHOLA: That is all, the Transkei Police.

MR MADIKIZELA: Is it correct that the manner and torture and treatment that you have discussed before the Committee nobody taught you that from the security police?

MR SIQHOLA: There are people who taught me.

MR MADIKIZELA: Can you name those people?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes I can name them.

MR MADIKIZELA: Carry on?

MR SIQHOLA: Sgt Chiwane, the late Sgt Chiwane.

MR MADIKIZELA: Is that all?

MR SIQHOLA: W/o Matafeni, Sgt Tshona, Sgt Notshaleka, Brig Dengana, Capt Gushu, Col Sufumba.

MR MADIKIZELA: Colonel who?

MR SIQHOLA: Sufumba. Lt Myeki.

MR MADIKIZELA: Lieutenant?

MR SIQHOLA: Myeki. And other officers that I cannot recall their names, there are lot people that I learnt from, how to torture people. There are a lot of them. It was a practice of the security branch as a whole, torturing people, that is.

MR MADIKIZELA: Was this learning experience that you received from the security branch a formal one or something that you copied because it was done by the other members of the security branch?

MR SIQHOLA: When I arrived there it was being done. I was not lectured, it was not a formal thing. When we arrived there, it was already being done by the security members.

MR MADIKIZELA: May I just refer to paragraph 7 of your affidavit where amongst other things you say Gen Lavisa lectured you on communism and it's dangers and how to hate the African National Congress. I have instructions from the General that when you joined the security branch what he lectured you on was that as part of your duties is to hold the constitution of the then Transkei and to protect it from it's enemies amongst them being the communism. He never actually indoctrinated you into believing and to hating communism. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: If General can still remember well, I laughed at one lecture session. He then became angry and then he said that I'm a terrorist because I laughed so if he says that he only gave me lectures on that particular subject only he is mistaken because he even labelled me as a terrorist and I was even threatened that I would be chased away from that course, I wouldn't be allowed at that course.

MR MADIKIZELA: Let's pass on that. Let's come to the old office that you signed when you joined the security branch. Do you have a copy of it? Do you have that copy?

MR SIQHOLA: I never saw it again after signing it that day.

MR MADIKIZELA: Did you understand what you were signing, did you know the contents of the document you signed?

MR SIQHOLA: I only grabbed a few lines because there was no chance to disagree with what was written there. I was told to sign there. I was told to read it and sign it.

MR MADIKIZELA: You make it sound as if you were forced to come and join the security branch, you had no choice?

MR SIQHOLA: I was not asked whether I want to join or not, I was told to go to the security branch.

MR MADIKIZELA: I put it to you Mr Siqhola that in this document that you signed before you joined the security branch it's merely an oath of secrecy that you not divulge any information that was learned during your stay and work and as a member of the security branch. Nothing you says you must commit the acts of torture, ill-treatment.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure nobody - I don't think he said that the oath - he referred to it as an oath? It wasn't anything about him performing torture in there, in that document?

MR MADIKIZELA: As the Committee pleases, Mr Chairperson.

Now let's go to your paragraph 9 of the affidavit, Mr Siqhola. Paragraph 9.1. My instructions are to dispute the contents of that paragraph. I'm instructed firstly that it's not true that you received instructions from senior officers, some of whom you have mentioned in that paragraph? What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: I am saying it is the truth.

MR LAX: Now where does he say that he got instructions from those officers? What he does say in that paragraph is that they were present?

MR MADIKIZELA: They were present at the ...(intervention)

MR LAX: The only one he says he got instructions from is Brig Dengana and that's in the line after he names the list of names. "I was a constable and getting instructions from Brig Dengana."

MR MADIKIZELA: As the Committee pleases.

If you can be specific, Mr Siqhola, Mr Dengana denies having personally instructed you. He instructs me that there was a chain of command what's in the security branch. He wouldn't have dealt with you directly, what do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: That chain of command ultimately leads to the foot soldier so he is agreeing with what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if you for instance got an instruction from - I'm just using a name, let's say Lt Myeki. If Lt Myeki

came to you and said "look, go and arrest X who is staying at the rooms next to the Savoy", would you then say "okay, lieutenant, from whom did this instruction come?" then he would say "Okay, it came from the branch commander." Then would you go to the branch commander and say "well, from whom did the instruction come?" and establish that it came from one of the generals? Or what was the position? Why do you assume that all the instructions you got came from the highest level?

MR SIQHOLA: I would like to explain to the Committee the way we used to operate. If you got information you would write down the information that you got and you write down and send it to the branch commander. The branch commander would make a covering minute and then he would send that information to the head office, that is Bothastal and then Bothastal would send instructions to the branch commander of whether to continue to investigate this information. The branch commander would open a sub-file and he will write down the instructions. Maybe he would say "Constable Siqhola, attend to this in that file". That is the way you used to operate. All the instructions were written, some of them were verbal instructions. I think I have answered your question, Sir.

MR MADIKIZELA: Let's go to Col Jekem whom you say was also station at Norwood. My instructions are to deny that he was ever stationed at Norwood and that during 1984. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: It is true that he arrived when I was already there, he did not arrive in 1984 when I arrived.

MR MADIKIZELA: We are talking about 1984, you said whilst you were stationed at Norwood in 1984 also present at Norwood, you have a list of people in that paragraph. My instructions are to specifically deny that Jekem, Col Jekem, in 1984 was stationed at Norwood. What do you say to that?

MR LAX: He just said that Jekem came after he got there in 1984. Maybe ask him when Jekem came, that might be more helpful. When did Jekem arrive at Norwood, can you remember?

MR SIQHOLA: No I can't remember but he got there when this torture started because the torture started in 1986, because all this time we were using the helicopters and other methods of the assault so we started from 1986 to use the canvas bag. So he got there between 1986, 1987 or 1988, in that period as branch commander.

MR LAX: Sorry, are your instructions that Jekem never was based at Norwood?

MR MADIKIZELA: No, my instructions are that in 1984 Jekem was at the head office.

MR LAX: Yes but when did he arrive at Norwood?

MR MADIKIZELA: According to my instructions he never was stationed at Norwood.

MR LAX: Never ever?

MR MADIKIZELA: Yes.

MR LAX: Well then that's what you should put to this man?

MR MADIKIZELA: My instructions, Mr Siqhola, that Jekem was never stationed at Norwood during the period 1984 and 1987, specifically?

MR LAX: No, no, you see between 1984 and 19 - you see if you say never that means never. Either he was - if he was stationed there then he was stationed there during a certain period.

MR MADIKIZELA: My instructions are clear to the effect that he was never stationed at Norwood. Let me put them clear.

MR LAX: Okay, at any time?

MR MADIKIZELA: At any time.

MR SIQHOLA: Col Jekem was my branch commander in Norwood from Port St Johns.

CHAIRPERSON: I think at this stage, sorry Mr Madikizela, we'll take a five minute adjournment. I'd just like to see the legal representatives as well. Once you've finished taking your instructions from your client just to continue, to work out more or less the continued progress of this hearing because I received some message about the flights tomorrow. My two panel members have to be elsewhere on Thursday with another part heard matter and I'm not sure the flights are. So we'll take a five minute adjournment at this stage and then if you could please come to see us in the chambers. But get your instructions first, Mr Madikizela. We'll just take a short five minute adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Siqhola, I remind you again that you're still under your former oath? Mr Madikizela?

N N SIQHOLA: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MADIKIZELA: (cont)

As the Committee pleases, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Siqhola, I've taken instructions on the issue regarding Col Jekem. My instructions are to the effect that during 1984 to 1986 Colonel Jekem was not stationed at Norwood. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: That's what I said.

MR MADIKIZELA: My instructions are that during the period 1984 and 1986 Colonel Jekem was stationed at the head office at Bothastal?

MR SIQHOLA: I said Colonel Jekem came towards the end of 1986 up to 1998, that's what I said, up to 1998.

CHAIRPERSON: '88.

MR SIQHOLA: 1988, I beg your pardon. It was the period of three years.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed further that during the period 1986 to 1990 Colonel Jekem was stationed at Port St Johns, not at Norwood. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: Are you talking about 1980?

MR MADIKIZELA: 1986 to 1990 he was stationed at Port St Johns.

MR SIQHOLA: What I'm saying is that he was my branch commander in Norwood in the period of the three years that I had mentioned.

MR MADIKIZELA: My instructions are ...(intervention)

MR SIQHOLA: I do have a proof of that.

MR MADIKIZELA: Answer me first, what is the period you're talking about. Is this the period outside 1980 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He mentioned the period - correct me if I'm wrong Mr Siqhola, he said late 1986 to 1989. Is that the period you're talking about?

MR SIQHOLA: From 1986 to 1989. During those three years from towards the end of 1986 right up to 1988, 1989 he was there after Col Sovomba in your branch. Col Sovomba is the one who was present during the torture of these victims. He was a branch commander of the time when the method of canvas bag and the others were used. When he left the branch he was succeeded by Colonel Jekem.

MR MADIKIZELA: My instructions are that Colonel Jekem was the branch commander at Norwood during the period 1990 to 1991, what do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: I cannot support that or I attest to that.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that during the incidents that occurred at Willowvale, Col Jekem was in Port St Johns not in Umtata, not in Norwood?

MR SIQHOLA: Are you talking about the Willowvale incident? Yes he is telling the truth.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed by Brig Dengana who was the branch commander when you joined the Norwood branch that he did not at any stage give you instructions to torture and ill-treat people?

MR SIQHOLA: He would be the first person to assault people, he had a sjambok.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question was, well what was put to you, Mr Siqhola, was that Brig Dengana says that never gave you instructions to torture or ill-treat people whether he did so himself is a different matter but what was put to you was that he never gave you instructions to ill-treat or torture people. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: He did give instructions.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed, Mr Siqhola, that the instructions, the chain of command, you as a junior, being a constable, you were not dealing directly with this Brig Dengana, you were under the immediate command or Col Boyi?

MR SIQHOLA: That was supposed to be the case according to the regulations but it did not happen like that. Yes, that is supposed to be like that, that is supposed to be the procedure.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that the only instructions that you would receive from your immediate commander would be warrants of arrests of warrants of detention and that also would not have been given directly to you but to a senior officer that would go with you to look for suspects. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: I would be given such instructions directly sometimes, sometimes they would be in writing.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that the warrants that were handed to you by your immediate commanders did not authorise you to torture and assault and ill-treat people, your warrants were meant for you to arrest people. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: That is true.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that you were attached within the security branch to an investigative unit and my clients as your seniors all what they were doing was to authorise the warrant of arrest and detentions and they have no knowledge what happened thereafter during the course of the investigation that was headed by Col Boyi.

MR SIQHOLA: There was nothing called investigative unit except for the fact that each and every member there was involved in investigations. It was not a case whereby you find specific members being called the investigative unit. That would be in our hands to sort out ourselves, to group ourselves to go and investigate different issues. There was no specific unit that was mandated for that job. They know nothing about that, they cannot say anything about the investigative unit.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed to deny that the gentlemen officers that you have listed in your affidavit had any knowledge of your activities?

MR SIQHOLA: They do have knowledge and I can even quote.

MR MADIKIZELA: What are those instances?

MR SIQHOLA: I was instructed by Brig Dengana and the head office to go to Germiston to meet with people at the Germiston Police Station, people who were going to abduct a certain Mr Dumalisile to be taken in the car and run away with him and come back and I did exactly that. I was instructed by Gen Kawe, given a new ...(indistinct) rifle on our way to Willowvale and he is the one who issued instructions. We didn't know what was happening there and this strongroom was opened on that particular day of which I did not know about and one picked the firearm that he liked. I was instructed by the head office to deport people, to just take them just across Kei River. That is one of the examples. That is some examples.

MR MADIKIZELA: Have you instructions to specifically deny knowledge on the part of my clients of the methods you have listed in paragraph 10.2 which you claim to have been popularly known within the security branch that were used to torture people? What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: I am saying they are fully aware of those and they were at a certain distance of where you are right now and I was here in this office and they would hear what was happening in this office. During the torture they would come in, into the office, come in and go out and they were fully aware of what was happening there and if the people were not prepared to tell the truth the person would be referred to a TV. That method was called a TV because it is where the people would see everything that he or she was denying.

MR MADIKIZELA: Let's come to the specific incident at Willowvale. My instructions are that on the day in question you were out on investigative duties looking for people who had attacked the Umtata Police Station with no specific intentions to go to this particular - sorry, that there was no specific instructions to go to that particular homestead at Willowvale. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: I was given direct instructions from Gen Kawe, I can even explain that.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed that my clients received information that there was a shoot out at this homestead in Willowvale?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes, they know very well that they are the people who had sent us there.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that Gen Kupe, who was then stationed at Butterworth, then visited the scene as a senior officer. He was not involved in the sense of giving instructions, he was there to observe what was happening. He did not give instructions.

MR SIQHOLA: Gen Kupe was shot at while he was still busy with the police parade and he was shot at with an AK-47 meaning he was fully involved in the operation.

MR MADIKIZELA: My instructions are that Gen Kupe was shot at a time when you had retreated as a result of the gunfire that was coming from the forest and when he went to the motor vehicles to pick some radios that you needed in order to go into the forest, he was shot at that stage?

MR SIQHOLA: We were called to a parade. During the parade Brig Kupe was responsible. We were going to be combined and get inside the forest to locate this terrorist and when he was still busy with the parade that's when he was shot at. I was present, I didn't go to the car to fetch a radio, I had nothing to do with the radio at the time.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed further that Gen Kupe, after being injured, he was taken away from the scene by helicopter to hospital and at the time when the destruction of the homestead and the shop occurred he was no longer at the scene?

MR SIQHOLA: I cannot attest to that but each and every person who was there was under the supervision of the senior officers. I don't know what happened to him thereafter.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed by Col Fetman that he also visited the scene as a senior officer who was not commanding any of the units that were there. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: He is the one who took the AK-47 to Boy Jafta and when he took it and then he turned it over and whipped him with this AK-47 butt.

MR MADIKIZELA: Let's get this clear, Mr Siqhola, my instructions are specifically to deny that the gentleman I've mentioned gave instructions that anybody should be shot at, specifically Gen Kupe, Col Fetman. My instructions are to deny that they gave instructions at that particular homestead that you should fire or that you should destruct property. They merely admit being there, senior officers, who were caught up in the crossfire, who had visited the scene as senior officers?

MR SIQHOLA: I still maintain that they were there involved also in the operation.

MR MADIKIZELA: But I think you still don't get the question. We don't deny that General Kupe ...(intervention)

MR LAX: He has answered you twice in the same way. He's got your question but he just doesn't agree with your question.

MR MADIKIZELA: I think he didn't get the question, I'm saying the gentlemen, Gen Kupe, Col Fetman, Brig Dengana, who were on the scene, deny having instructed, giving instructions. They admit being there but they say they were in a different capacity, they were not commanding the various units, the F unit, the security branch ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Yes, yes, yes.

MR MADIKIZELA: ... officers and other people who were there, some from Pretoria. They were there as a group as senior officers but they did not give instructions as to what should happen there.

MR LAX: You've heard the question, do you understand he is saying to you they didn't give you instructions or anyone else instructions? What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: To comment on that when it was not possible for the - to set alight the grocery shop, I was instructed to go and extract petrol from the car and pour it there but I told them that I was actually allergic to petrol smell.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what's being put to you is, is it Gen Kupe, Col Fetman ...(intervention)

MR MADIKIZELA: And Brig Dengana.

CHAIRPERSON: And Brig Dengana say that they did not give - they themselves did not give instructions to anybody at the scene, they were merely there mainly observing but they didn't give instructions. Now we know that there was - somebody must have given instructions to shoot but they say it wasn't them. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes they did issue instructions.

MR MADIKIZELA: My instructions are that the security branch members that were on the scene were under the command of Mfaswe. The TDF members who were on the scene were under the instruction of Lt Madikizela?

MR SIQHOLA: Madikizela was not a lieutenant, there's nothing like that, I do not remember seeing Col Mfaswe in Willowvale. Maybe they were just using him because he is now passed on.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that Gen Umbalawe is the head of the anti-riot unit and his deputy were present on the scene and according to protocol they were the people who were overall in charge of the gentlemen that you have mentioned in your affidavit?

MR SIQHOLA: That is not true because even Gen Umbalawe passed away. I think they are just using their names to run away from the truth, but what I'm saying I am certain about.

MR MADIKIZELA: Is it not correct that Umbalawe was more senior than this Gen Kupe, Col Fetman and Brig Dengana?

MR SIQHOLA: According to ranks or according to the anti-riot unit? Please specify?

MR MADIKIZELA: My instructions are that this Gen Umbalawe and his deputy according to ranks and protocol in the police, when they were present, the presence of these gentlemen, the three gentlemen, that is they were subject to his command and instructions. What do you say to that? In other words they could not have given instructions whilst General was there?

MR SIQHOLA: The anti-riot unit and the soldiers most of the time they would be used as reinforcement and the officer in charge would be present. I think they are making a mistake. I also worked with the anti-riot unit. When we were called by the security we'd just go there as a back up.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed that Gen Galela during the incident at Willowvale was not stationed with the security branch. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes, during the Willowvale incident he was not present, he was with the intelligence unit.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that Gen Kawe did not visit the scene, was not at Willowvale - sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry - yes, I'm instructed that Gen Kawe was not on the scene, he never visited this homestead at Willowvale, he remained here at the head office?

MR SIQHOLA: Even if he's not present there he's the one who issued the instructions to go to Willowvale, he is the one who opened the armoury of the head office and we took the firearms. He gave instructions to Col Ndwase to open the strongroom in Bothastal and pick and choose our firearms and we were given a brand new car, a Stanza and I remember this because it was for the first time for me to drive this car because it's got different gears therefore I had a problem with this car, I had to give it to somebody else and I continued driving in a Skyline. He was fully aware of this operation in Willowvale because he was commanding it whereas he was in his office.

MR MADIKIZELA: He further denies that he had knowledge of your activities of torturing, assaulting and ill-treating suspects?

MR SIQHOLA: It is true that I did not see him at the branch but he would receive the complaint after a detainee has been released and they complained and a civil claim would be lodged and he was in control of that and he would settle a civil claim without taking further steps on the side of the member. There were no departmental steps but if a person had assaulted the detainee, that person is supposed to be arrested but he would approve everything.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that W/o Matafeni was not stationed at Norwood during the incident at Willowvale. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes he was not present, he was in Norwood but he is the one who actually taught me the security duties and assaulting people.

MR MADIKIZELA: He further instructs me that during the period that he was stationed at Norwood he never gave you instructions to assault, torture and to ill-treat people?

MR SIQHOLA: He did give me instructions to that effect.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed by Gen Lavisa, whom you claim in affidavit that he indoctrinated you, he would dispute that?

MR SIQHOLA: No, he is the one actually. To add on that there was a course on VIP protection. We were with him even then. He is the one who said he was going to be a course leader. He nominated himself and even thereby I was not happy because of him, because he painted me as a terrorist.

MR MADIKIZELA: The General instructions me that he merely gave you lectures on the security legislation that was applicable then in the Transkei and more specifically in this Section 47 and that this security branch of the Police was mainly tasked with seeing to it that nobody could have been at this security legislation?

MR SIQHOLA: No, that is not true. To add on that he would tell us about his underground operations that were taking place in Port Elizabeth. It means that he was very much interested in that because he was even teaching us about underground but I do not know anything about the underground.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed that Col Jekem, Gen Gladile, Gen Damoyi, Gen Lavisa never visited the scene at the Willowvale. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: That could be possible that they were not there but they knew about the security operations. Yes, they were not present in Willowvale.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that the same Generals never gave instructions and orders that you should shoot at people, you should destroy property at that homestead?

MR SIQHOLA: I do not know that because they were left in Bothastal but I am sure that Gen Kawe wouldn't take any lateral decision about that.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that by the Generals, Gen Kawe, Gen Lavisa, Gen Damoyi, Gen Gladile, Gen Galela, Brig Dengana, Col Fetman, Col Jekem, Warrant Mzinyati, Gen Kupe that they never authorised you nor did they have any knowledge that during the course and scope of your duties as the member of the security branch stationed at Norwood you had amongst other people that you arrested and including those you mentioned in your affidavit, you had tortured them in the manner that you have described?

MR SIQHOLA: ...(indistinct) are they because they are innocent but I say they are not innocent.

MR MADIKIZELA: Let's go back to this incident at Willowvale. I'm instructed that on the day in question when you went out on your investigative duties there was no operation planned or under way. You merely went out to investigate and out there on the way you got some information about the suspects that were being housed in this homestead. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: That is not true. We prearranged for the operation and we had brand new firearms. We got them from the office.

MR MADIKIZELA: Where was this arrangement made concerning this operation?

MR SIQHOLA: It was arranged at Bothastal offices.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed that when you left the Umtata jurisdiction and ended in Willowvale you immediately fell under the command of the branch commander, security branch at Willowvale. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: There's no such.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that as part of the Police protocol, when you entered Willowvale you were supposed to the branch commander, security branch. What do you say to that? That is, you report your presence that you were investigating under his jurisdiction?

MR SIQHOLA: We did that.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that this operation at this homestead was planned at Willowvale where you called up for back up and you waited until the following morning to go to the homestead, not at Bothastal. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: I told you initially that the cars and firearms were acquired when the operation was being planned. Even the planning took place here in the Bothastal offices. We left for Willowvale fully aware of what was going to happen there.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed that this Gen Kupe who came from Butterworth was in charge of the security branch in the Southern Transkei, hence when you needed some reinforcement you consulted him and not Bothastal. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: There is nothing like that.

MR MADIKIZELA: According to you, Mr Siqhola, who would you say was commanding this joint operation because we have heard there were members of the TDF, members of the anti-riot unit, members from Pretoria. According to you who was commanding this joint operation?

MR SIQHOLA: Officers from the security branch

MR MADIKIZELA: You want to tell the Committee that they were commanding even the people from Pretoria and soldiers from the TDF, fell under the command of security police?

MR SIQHOLA: I did explain that the soldiers and anti-riot wouldn't take part in anything without getting an instruction from the person who had instructed them. They will always wait for the instructions on what to do and they would act after given the authority to do so. That operation belonged to the security, the troops and anti-riot unit would wait for the command.

MR MADIKIZELA: Did you know say under cross-examination although I don't remember clearly, that when you arrived there you were ordered to stand aside. I think I heard you saying something about that members of the security branch whilst on this in where ordered to stand aside, didn't you say something like that?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct but I did motivate that statement and I said we were constables and among the soldiers there was an officer. It doesn't matter, any officer. If you are an NCO he is in charge of you. There was an officer among these soldiers that is why we had to step back.

MR MADIKIZELA: During that time when you had stepped back, who was in command, who was in charge of the proceedings?

MR SIQHOLA: It was Lt Mandela.

MR MADIKIZELA: Is it not correct that Lt Mandela is a soldier not a security branch - I mean a security officer?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes he is a soldier.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed that you are not telling the truth when you say the Generals that you have mentioned in your affidavit and other security officers would be present during the interrogation. I'm instructed that the Generals you have mentioned in your affidavit were stationed at Bothastal, the interrogations would happen at Norwood and that they have never been there during any of the interrogations?

MR SIQHOLA: I also did not imply that. I only said they were aware of what was happening during interrogation.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed, deny that the - personally assaulted any of the suspects that were detained as you have alleged in your affidavit somewhere that at one instance the Generals would assault suspects and when they are hurt they will be handed over to you to finish them off?

MR SIQHOLA: No one in the security branch who can claim that he was never involved in the assault. If there is anyone saying that, that is a lie.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed to deny that they were aware about the assaults, torture and ill-treatment that took place during your interrogation because not a single suspect ever reported to them about being tortured, ill-treated and assaulted?

MR SIQHOLA: They are making a mistake.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm instructed that they would only learn that when they received civil claims and letters of demands from attorneys who were representing suspects who claimed to have been assaulted during their detention and interrogation but they have never had any physical encounter with the suspects?

MR SIQHOLA: They are making a mistake.

MR MADIKIZELA: I'm further instructed here that Gen Kupe was never stationed at the security branch. What do you say to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't it put that he was the head of the Southern Transkei security branch?

MR MADIKIZELA: No, a correction is being made here, that was attached to the detective branch, Southern Transkei. No not, security branch, that's the correction he is making.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR MADIKIZELA: Apparently there's a distinction, it's a different branch altogether, not security.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're saying that Gen Kupe was not attached to the security branch at all but he was attached to the Southern Transkei - what's it? Criminal Investigation Division?

MR MADIKIZELA: Detective Branch, Southern Transkei.

CHAIRPERSON: Detective Branch, Southern Transkei. What do you say to that, Mr Siqhola?

MR SIQHOLA: He was at the security and I was apprehended by him during the times of General. Then I was questioned or investigated in Blackway with branch commander from Dovimvaba and Molo who is also one of the security members and Koepies.

MR MADIKIZELA: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MADIKIZELA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Madikizela. Mr Dukada, do you have any re-examination?

MR DUKADA: Yes ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, let me before you start, let me ask Mr Mapoma if he has any questions to ask?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Just one question, Chairperson.

Mr Siqhola, I want to - in fact I put it to you that the act of burning down Mr Jafta's shop and house was completely out of proportion with your intended political objective when you were there. What do you say to that?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson. I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mapoma. Mr Dukada, do you have any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DUKADA: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson, Honourable Members.

You said in the statement that when you were preparing to go to the Jafta house at Willowvale you had been told that the Jafta family had been harbouring terrorists?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR DUKADA: And your evidence if I heard you correctly during the - at the time there was the bombing of the house, you were stationed behind the forest besieging the premises of the Jafta family together with other policemen?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR DUKADA: Was there any discussion first as to whether the

house of the Jafta family should be bombed in your presence or how did it get burned?

MR SIQHOLA: We just heard the shooting, handgrenades and nothing was said to us.

MR DUKADA: And you did not know who even issued instructions that the house should be gutted down?

MR SIQHOLA: I cannot say who said that but it was one of the security officers who were there.

MR DUKADA: Mr Madikizela when he was cross-examining you about the burning down of the Jafta family, amongst other things he put it to you that no orders were given or issued to destroy the house of the Jafta family by members of the security branch, do you remember that?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes.

MR DUKADA: And if no orders were given to destroy the house of the Jafta family, were any members of the security branch subsequently charged criminally for that wrongful conduct?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR DUKADA: Was there any member of the security branch charged with misconduct, that is for having exceeded the authority whilst deployed there?

MR SIQHOLA: No.

MR DUKADA: Now am I correct - I hope Mr Chairperson and Mr Mapoma will correct me if I'm wrong, are you the only member of the Transkeian security branch who has applied for amnesty based on the torturing of detainees in Transkei?

MR SIQHOLA: To my knowledge I'm the only person.

MR DUKADA: And as far as the incident pertaining to the torturing of Mrs Matoti, do you take full responsibility of whatever injuries were sustained by Ms Matoti in your presence?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct, Sir.

MR DUKADA: And you say at the time the torturing and assault took place in the security branch you were a constable?

MR SIQHOLA: That is correct.

MR DUKADA: Can you tell the Committee which year were you promoted to a higher rank?

MR SIQHOLA: I sat for the promotion examinations in 1985 and then I was promoted towards the end of 1987 as a sergeant.

MR DUKADA: Those are my only questions to the witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DUKADA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dukada. Mr Sibanyoni, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

MR SIBANYONI: No Mr Chairperson, I don't have any questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR SIBANYONI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax?

MR LAX: Just one small thing, Chair. The rest has already been covered.

With regard to - I was just puzzled by you saying that you readily took people to the doctor if they were injured or appeared to be in a bad way? You can't hear? You can't hear the translation?

CHAIRPERSON: There's a problem.

INTERPRETER: It's okay.

CHAIRPERSON: It's okay? Thank you. If you could perhaps repeat your question, thanks.

MR LAX: I'll repeat the question.

I'm just prefacing it first before I put the question, just contextualising it in this sense that you mentioned that you readily took people to the doctor if they were injured?

MR SIQHOLA: Yes that is correct.

MR LAX: Well surely the doctors asked you how they came by these injuries?

MR SIQHOLA: The doctor would be terrified to ask.

MR LAX: Would the doctor treat the person in your presence?

MR SIQHOLA: Doctors would just treat that person without asking questions and he would treat that person in your presence as a police officer.

MR LAX: And the detainees didn't ever say that this has been done to me by the police?

MR SIQHOLA: Even the detainee would keep quiet, would be silent about it.

MR LAX: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Mr Dukada, are you calling any further evidence?

MR DUKADA: No Mr Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mgidlana?

MR MGIDLANA: Thank you Chairperson, I will not be calling any evidence under oath but however those that I represent have indicated that they would like to be afforded an opportunity to address yourselves but in particular to convey what message they have for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Now would they do that through a spokesperson?

MR MGIDLANA: Through a spokesperson, yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let me before - we'll get back to you.

Mr Stofile, are you going to be calling any evidence?

MR STOFILE: No Mr Chairperson but my client will review whether she needs to supplement whatever is stated by the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Madikizela, do you intend to call any evidence?

MR MADIKIZELA: No Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Madikizela. Yes, I think we'll have to - we've got a bit of a logistics problem here, whoever is going to make this statement will have to have a place to sit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good afternoon. Could I have your full names please?

MVULA MTIMKULU: My name is Mvula M-V-U-L-A, my surname is Mtimkulu M-T-I-M-K-U-L-U.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mtimkulu. We've been told by your legal representative that you intend to make a statement and that you will be speaking on behalf of the victims in this matter? Is that correct?

MR MTIMKULU: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And have you elected to make an unsworn statement? In other words, not giving evidence as such but just really making an unsworn statement?

MR MTIMKULU READS STATEMENT: I'm not giving evidence, I'm just making a statement, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR MTIMKULU: Chairperson, the various legal teams here, the victims and members of the audience, I have been asked by the victims to make a statement in this Commission addressing ourselves to the applicant.

On behalf of the victims that mandated me, we want to express our happiness, that is the fact that Capt Siqhola has had courage to stand up and tell the story. We have been here in this part of the Eastern Cape. We always wondered why it looks like there's not be any atrocities reported in this area and we felt hurt that no one was prepared to come up. Now that Mr Siqhola has come up we say we are very encouraged by the decision that he has taken.

We also want to put on record, that is this sitting here, we know there are a lot of others who were involved. We see some of them sitting here. We have taken note of their reflection of events. We know for a fact that they were directly involved, we see them here, we can quote their names. They know. We know that Capt Siqhola was not the only one who committed atrocities. We wish to express our disappointment to this Commission that there are still people who are sitting here and still prepared to hide what happened in this part of our country.

To the Commission we want to say that if Mr Siqhola qualifies for amnesty in terms of the requirements of the law, we as victims have got no problems with that. As we said earlier on that we are encouraged by the decision that he alone has taken. I do not know what the other members of the then Transkei security are prepared to do but we're saying we know as well as they do that they committed atrocities and we're saying we wonder as to whether they are prepared to extend their hand of friendship to us.

And lastly to Mr Siqhola, we're saying we hope from now we will be able to put the past behind us and we hope again we'll be able to interact as there are many, many other issues that we still want information about with one of our own friends who died. Mention was made here of Solly Present, who to some of us as a friend. Gift Maqekeza, a number of them who up to date would not know what happened to them. We still hope that we'll be able to interact with you and be able to get to understand some of the issues that happened. That you only, people in security, have got knowledge of.

And on behalf of the victims here, thank you and thank you to the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mtimkulu, I would like to thank you for your eloquent statement and I must say that I and I'm sure I speak on behalf of my panel members, are pleased that there's been a measure of reconciliation between you and other victims and Mr Siqhola. Although it's not a requirement in the amnesty process, it's one of the objectives of the whole Truth and Reconciliation Commission to achieve this measure of reconciliation which in this instance, like in many others, has been achieved by somebody who has come forward and admitted his offences and crimes in the past and which fact has been appreciated by the victims. So we thank you for your statement. Thank you.

MR MGIDLANA: Thank you, that was all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mgidlana. Mr Stofile?

MR STOFILE: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

That then concludes the leading of evidence in this matter and I don't think, seeing it's so late we may as well carry on and just finish off the submissions to conclude the matter. Mr Dukada, do you have any submissions you would like to make?

MR DUKADA IN ARGUMENT: Yes, thank you Chairperson and Honourable Members of the Committee.

The main issue at this stage is whether the applicant through his evidence which was tested at length by cross-examination qualifies for amnesty in terms of the Act and the tried points which are embodies in the legislation we are dealing with here, Mr Chairperson, one is whether the killing was motivated by political objective and secondly, whether he was disclosed all the facts fully for purposes of qualifying for an amnesty and thirdly, whether the gravity of the offences he committed are commensurate with the objective which he aspired to achieve.

Firstly, our submission Mr Chairperson, is that there is profound evidence to prove that the deeds were motivated by a political objective and we submit that, with all respect, we would be astounded if there is any legal representative here who gainsays that there was a political objective for all the offences committed by the applicant.

Secondly, the aspect which I would like to highlight and which forms the crux of all evidence led before this court, only the applicant has testified under oath and submitted himself to extensive cross-examination and at times very tedious and laborious. Applicant remained unexhausted throughout and was consistent and his answers were compelling in all material aspects. I admit that there were certain discrepancies in his evidence but with due respect, Mr Chairperson, one should understand the lapse of time which was a dominating factor throughout his evidence.

His testimony or his demeanour was quite impressive and his testimony was straightforward and consistent as well. I'm not in a position to highlight any material discrepancy which, Chairperson and Honourable Members, would find against the applicant.

Thirdly, Honourable Committee, out of the solo testimony which has been examined extensively by this Committee, through legal representatives, one, the senior members of his security branch, despite their presence, elected not to give any evidence. I accept that they were not the applicants but they elected not to give evidence and made the evidence of the applicant in these proceedings much more stronger and secondly, the victims did not give evidence in these proceedings. I do not say at all that the victims avoided to be cross-examined, I don't say that at all but what I'm saying is that by a process of evaluation of evidence before this Committee, there is only the version of the applicant and it is for this Committee to decide whether the applicant has given a compelling version of the events. I take note of certain statements which are contained in the bundle which was used in the proceedings, statements made by each victim and most of issues raised by each victim in his or her statement were admitted by the applicant is of no point to say that the applicant has not disclosed the truth if you compare his version with that statements.

There are a few aspects where there will be mention of a particular victim being treated in a different way but the applicant has conceded and taken full responsibility of whatever atrocities took place whilst he was a member of a security branch. To make an example, there has been a detailed cross-examination of the plight of Mrs Matoti and the applicant has unequivocally taken full responsibility for what happened to Mrs Matoti.

And again I reiterate, Mr Chairperson, that the applicant here has said more than three times that no one persuaded him to come and apologise to the victims and apply for amnesty. He voluntarily took the risk of coming before this Committee and endeavoured by all possible means to tell the truth.

Going further, Mr Chairperson, the applicant voluntarily explained his empty-headedness regarding his role as member of the security police. He grew up in rural areas without any political environment for him to acquire the positive political education. He had a rudimentary education, that is passed only Standard 10 in rural areas of Gumbu and his pathetic - if I can put it in the stronger terms, his pathetic position politically was aggravated by the security policemen who indoctrinated them. This Committee, we submit, should accept that the applicant was indoctrinated more especially that not a single senior policeman came here to rebut his version. Instead all of them elected to listen to the evidence and through their attorneys put questions to convey a bad denial on each on every material aspect which the applicant was addressing for the purposes of this application.

Mr Chairperson, at the time the applicant got his indoctrination at the hands of the security police he was only 21 years having been born in 1959 according to official application form for amnesty. It's not a question where a senior policemen would sanction or give instructions to juniors to assault people. Here we are talking about an ordinary junior constable who occupied that rank throughout and had a limited authority to exercise a discretion as to what to do in the circumstances because of the provisions of the ...(indistinct) Act which was applicable then and the Act itself states out clearly that only a commissioned officer would authorise the arrest of a detainee. He went further in his testimony to explain his plight, that is his purpose there was only to accept orders from his seniors and he actually understood that assault and torture of detainees was the culture of the security branch in Transkei and he understood that as an semi-educated person the only way of extracting evidence from detainees was to assault them and this was achieved because for example when Dugard Maqageza was assaulted he revealed that there were so-called terrorists in Willowvale.

Our submission, Mr Chairperson and Honourable Members, is that there has been full disclosure and again I'll reiterate that the fact - the issues of details which my colleagues, particularly Mr Mgidlana, concentrated on time and again, are issues which at that stage are completely relevant, with due respect, because it doesn't matter whatever form of torture was used by the applicant to each and every detainee, the applicant has unequivocally accepted full responsibility for his conduct. Whether there was cigarette burns used in the body of a particular detainee, water poured or whatever, he has taken full responsibility of whatever damage caused to each detainee and again I want to ask the Committee when assessing his evidence to apply it's mind fully to the question of lapse of time which seemed at times to confuse the applicant but despite that the applicant was ready to admit if he was not in a position to remember certain events. He was ready to concede where it was necessary to concede. I'm not at all saying that he presented here a perfect testimony, it was a testimony which there were at times certain mistakes which he committed but on the whole it was a formidable and a detailed account presented by the only security policeman in the Transkei who has voluntarily decided to come and tell the truth.

Now I don't want, Mr Chairperson, to give details of what he said about Mr Nyoka, Mr Mtimkulu, Magwentshu, Ms Matoti and Ntshikilana, etc. The fact of the matter without being repetitive, the fact of the matter, whatever one says as a victim he has taken full responsibility for his wrongful acts. Those are my submissions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Dukada. Mr Mgidlana, do you have any submissions?

MR MGIDLANA IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. I think Mr Mtimkulu has put clearly the attitude of the victims which is to the effect that if the applicant qualifies to be granted amnesty in terms of the requirements of the Act they will have no quarrels with that. I would have hoped therefore that in his address the representative of the applicant will be mindful of that and I hope that those who were the victims who seem to be the only ones that are prepared to extend a hand of reconciliation are not going to feel bad out of some submissions that have been made on behalf of the applicant which, with respect, I think some of them have got an element of arrogance in them. But be that as it may, it is not for the victims to come and give evidence, to try and show that the applicant has not told the whole truth and subject themselves to cross-examination. We had avoided that purposely because we did not want the situation wherein it will turn out into a fight between the applicant because from the very word go it became clear that the victims were interested in the telling of the truth. I must say that during the testimony of the applicant I had a feeling which feeling I must say it was not my personal feeling but out of interacting with the victims, they were not satisfied at the level to which the applicant was prepared to tell the truth. Of course I'm heartened because towards the end of the hearing during the cross-examination by the legal representative of the Police, the implicated members of the Police, it was then that it seemed that he was now loosening up and willing to fill in the gaps that we would have thought that he will be prepared to fill in earlier on and it is my submission that it is on that basis that there has been also this feeling amongst those that I represent that if for whatever reason he qualifies then he shall be granted amnesty.

One could go on length in addressing the question whether or not he has satisfied the requirement insofar as a full disclosure but I would like again to be brought in the same trap of trying to down play what has been said by Mr Mtimkulu on behalf of the victims. I will rather leave it at that for as long as it is taken note of course we are disappointed by some of the arrogant submissions that have been made on behalf of the applicant. However, we wouldn't like to deal with them because it will just change the complexion of the attitude of those who are the victims. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mgidlana. Mr Stofile, do you have any submissions? Just push your button? Thanks.

MR STOFILE IN ARGUMENT: The submission on behalf of Mrs Matoti that whilst she identifies herself with the statement made, she has got strong reservations about the truthfulness of the victim. She wants me to mention that out of expediency she was to speed up the proceedings, she did not want to delay them and simply out of that fact this is the reason why she did not want to testify and she wants that to be taken note because she wanted to explain in detail what happened.

The other factor is that she would rather leave this whole issue to be decided by the Committee and she also wants me to recall that the victim, shortly before we made this or resumed the adjournment, she came to her and apologised for everything and when confronted about the lack of trust she said she did not, she had forgotten, but the problem with that is that she did not admit it whilst she was being cross-examined. She rather could have denied it. Those are some of the areas but nonetheless she applauds him for coming forward but would rather leave it into the hands of the Committee. That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Stofile.

MR DUKADA: And by the victim you're referring to the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: When you said the applicant came to ...(intervention)

MR STOFILE: The applicant came forward privately to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you said the victim came forward.

MR STOFILE: No, no, I'm sorry, I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it's just a word slip, I realise that.

Mr Madikizela, do you wish to make any submissions?

MR MADIKIZELA IN ARGUMENT: Yes Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, throughout the cross-examination that I conducted it has transpired that more specifically with the incident at Willowvale that the applicant cannot say unequivocally who gave the instructions on that day to destroy property and to shoot but what I submit what he wants this Commission to find is to assume as he claims that that was a security branch operation. To assume that, therefore, because all the other forces that were there had gone to assist the security branch. The security branch's senior officers who were there and even those who remained here in Umtata are the ones who gave orders whilst he has admitted that he cannot say who gave orders when the bombing occurred, he was behind in the forest.

Furthermore, it's also my submission that even regarding these other instances where people were tortured, assaulted and ill-treated, he cannot say that it's General so and so or so and so said I must assault so and so. He specifically told this Committee that what he did to the people that he had encounters with was what he copied, was what he saw, that was what was being done to suspects by the members of the security branch. In other words, nobody specifically said you must assault suspects, you must torture suspects, you must ill-treat suspects. He says it himself that he did what he saw being done there, there were no specific orders and he keeps on all along to say he, as a junior officer, non-commissioned, he could not have signed a warrant either for arrest or detention. We have no problem with that. Nor can it be said that the gentlemen, the handful of them, the top management of the security branch that he had mentioned in his application are the ones who signed the warrants of arrest and detention because we are told that the only person or people who have powers to sign warrants of arrest or warrants of detentions are any members of the security branch, that is commissioned members. Any commissioned member of the security branch could authorise that so and so be arrested, so and so be detained, it's not as if it was clear cut that only the top management of the security branch would authorise warrants of arrest and warrants of detentions. Hence it's the submission of my clients that they did not know that when those warrants of arrests and detentions were signed and handed over to the applicant and others were attached to the investigative unit of the security branch. Suspects that were arrested and later detained were thereafter subjected to the type of treatment, torture, assault that the applicant has described before this Committee, nor did they sanction that they be treated in that manner. It is therefore my submission that the warrants of detention and arrest were issued to applicants did not authorise applicant to carry the deeds that he carried out.

I'm further submitting, Chairperson, that the operation, the joint operation, that occurred at Willowvale, it's not clear to be honest. I've been listening throughout the proceedings. It's not clear, it cannot be clearly said that so and so was in command of this operation. Can it be said that someone from Pretoria or someone from TDF or someone from security office branch was in charge of the operation? That's all Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Madikizela. Do you have any reply, Mr Dukada?

MR DUKADA: Yes, just on a few aspects, thanks Mr Chairperson and Members of the Committee.

MR MAPOMA: I'm sorry, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, I can assure you I don't do it with malicious intent, sorry. It's just that you seen on the far end of the table then I'd go down the line. Do you have any submissions to make?

MR MAPOMA IN ARGUMENT: Yes I appreciate it, thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, I will not be addressing the Honourable Committee on the acts of torture, unlawful detention

and arrest of those persons who were political activists in Transkei then but Chairperson, I would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Committee to the events that took place in the Jafta family's homestead, in particular, Chairperson, the act of destruction of the house and the shop of the Jaftas.

It is my submission, Chairperson, that the applicant does not qualify for amnesty in respect of those acts if at all he applies for amnesty in respect therefore. I have not heard submissions being made in respect of that particular activity. I am saying this, Chairperson, because the political objective which was intended to be achieved by going to the Jafta's homestead was to apprehend persons who were perceived or who were referred to as terrorists and upon arrival there the incident took place. The applicant was asked more than one time as to who exactly was responsible for the burning down of the house and the shop. He said that it was TDF and anti-riot unit and the security branch from East London. He did not refer to the security branch from Transkei at all and then he boldly says that "I was part of that operation."

Chairperson, it is my submission that that is not sufficient for him to be claiming responsibility for that or to be found liable for that and under cross-examination, Chairperson, he was even asked why was the house burned down and the shop. He said in response that he does not know because the terrorists whom they were looking for were in the forest at that time. He went on, Chairperson, to say that the house was burned down after Boy Jafta was already apprehended. That is his evidence. Given those circumstances, Chairperson, it is my respectful submission that no explanation could be given at this point as to why exactly that property was destroyed and I submit, Chairperson, with respect that the act of destruction of those properties was completely disproportionate to the intended objective.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, what was the objective because we've heard that there was looting?

MR MAPOMA: Oh yes, Chairperson. Looting itself as well, it forms in the same category as the destruction. There was no political objective intended by looting itself, it is a situation which was out of hand, it is a situation which no political account could be given at this point and in the circumstances, Chairperson, in short I submit that even if applicant may be found to qualify for amnesty, but with respect, should the act of destruction of those properties and looting itself, he does not qualify for amnesty. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dukada, your reply?

MR DUKADA IN REPLY: Thank you Chairperson.

Firstly, I just want to deal with the very point that the last speaker raised. The whole incident about the bombing of the Jafta family has been narrated before this Committee by Capt Siqhola and nobody else. At the time he was occupying the rank of a constable. Now what the submission which I've just heard now, ignores the fact that at the time one Captain Siqhola was a constable and with no discretion to exercise or power to stop anybody who was doing that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Mapoma was getting at and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that even if we had before us here an applicant who said that I hurled a fire bomb or shot the grenade or whatever it was and took place in destruction of that property, such a person wouldn't qualify for amnesty because at that stage there was absolutely - this is a submission and you can respond to it - there was absolutely no need to destroy the property, certainly no political objective could be obtained by destroying it, that it was just a malicious - it was in a sense an act of hooliganism. It was accompanied by looting and that therefore - and he just relates it to the actual destruction of the property, these submissions, he doesn't relate it to the going to Willowvale and the apprehension of Mr Jafta or the questioning of him but just to the actual destruction. He says that it's disproportionate to - well, I think his argument has got two problems. It's disproportionate to any political objective there may have been but it's also you're saying that there couldn't have been any political objective, it was just wanton destruction. So then could anybody be granted amnesty in respect of that burning of the house let alone, I mean, even he'd been a constable sitting on the other side of the forest not knowing why it was burnt.

MR DUKADA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, maybe if amnesty were to be granted it would be for the role played by the applicant during the incident that took place at Willowvale on such and such a date, the role played by him sort of thing but not in regard to the actual burning. I don't know what your views are?

MR DUKADA: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, I must state from the beginning that the applicant himself has conceded that there was no need to destroy the house of the Jafta family and that is also my statement. But now the problem - sorry Chairperson, with a case of this nature is that an applicant must disclose the full facts surrounding his activities as a security policeman. He went there as a quasi-security policeman and nothing else and property was damaged rightly or wrongly in his presence and he came to the Committee to disclose the whole facts.

It is for the Committee to decide whether in these circumstances - I'm sorry, let me just withdraw my submission. My point is that in considering this application, the Committee at the end of the day will have to decide whether he has made a full disclosure of his role as a security policeman and that was an endeavour to avoid hiding some pieces of evidence because if he were to be asked by any of legal representatives of the victims of the policemen here about his role as a security policeman at the premises of Mr Jafta, he would have been exposed as somebody who was not honest to the Commission.

But be that as it may, I must reiterate, Mr Chairperson, I'm in no way pursuing, I mean arguing that it was correct for the police to destroy the house of Jafta family, I'm not at

all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, he restricted his argument on that aspect clearly to political objective criteria rather than the full disclosure criteria.

MR DUKADA: Yes but now ...(intervention)

MR LAX: If I could just intervene for one second? You see the problem as I see it as Mr Mapoma is putting it is that your client is a constable and as such he is applying for amnesty pursuant to section 22(b) as an employee of the State or any former State or a member of that State's security forces. Now for there to be a political objective it's got to be against a known political organisation, liberation movement engaged in the political struggle. Now if there is no political objective then the act, no matter how he might have thought it was, can never be something that amnesty can be granted?

MR DUKADA: Sorry, I don't know whether the Honourable Member understands the point. I'm in no way trying to say that it was a political objective. The point I'm saying is that the applicant here had a duty to disclose fully all the facts surrounding to him, that's all the submission I'm making as far as this aspect.

MR LAX: Yes but is he actually applying for amnesty for the acts - just hear me out - for the acts of burning down of the home and the shop and the looting of the shop?

MR DUKADA: Yes, in his evidence he says that he is applying for amnesty because he was part of the operation and nothing else and I don't want to belabour this point because in his own evidence he has indicated that there was no need for the police to burn down the house of the Jaftas.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, it would be similar like when you say a policeman went off and raped a lady while there, part of the scene, now clearly that wouldn't be political objective except - although it happened and it was part, you know, during the incident. I think this is what Mr Mapoma is getting at, his argument is that burning of the house is something that he submits, falls beyond the scope of granting amnesty for.

MR DUKADA: No, no, Mr Chairperson, I don't want to belabour this point. I put it very clearly that the reason for him to mention this incident because he understood it to be one of the wrongful acts committed by him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we're not criticizing him for testifying as to what he saw and what happened there, I can assure you.

MR DUKADA: Yes, thank you. And secondly, Mr Chairperson, I just want to correct one aspect which was criticized of the applicant here. It would be irresponsible for me as representative of the applicant to cause damage to the moving speech made by Mr Mtimkulu before this Committee. It is true that the applicant is extending a hand of reconciliation hence that he has volunteered to appear before the Commission. There is, with respect, no element of arguments at all on the part of the applicant. I may indicate that there seems to be a misunderstanding when I indicated earlier on that the victims did not give evidence. That is true but I was putting this in the context of evaluation of evidence before the Commission. Not because I was saying that the victims are to be blamed.

CHAIRPERSON: Not that we're just dealing with technical or probity of ...(intervention)

MR DUKADA: Yes, that is the probative value or evidential value of what is contained in the statements made by the witness and I must reiterate that if I was understood as saying that because the victims did not give evidence therefore they are themselves to be blamed, it was not my ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dukada, I must say with respect, that was Mr Mgidlana's argument, I personally didn't think you were being arrogant when you were arguing.

MR DUKADA: Yes. Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. That concludes this hearing.

I would like to apologise to those people who have had to work for so long overtime but fortunately at least we've finished and we won't have to work tomorrow. Thank you very much, particularly the translators who have got an extremely difficult job translating simultaneously. Thank you very much, we're deeply indebted for you staying so late and also to everybody else here and there's Elizabeth for staying on overtime.

We'd like to thank the people who have attended this hearing for their patience. I also apologise for keeping you here so late as well as the legal representatives. I would also like to thank everybody who made hearings at Umtata here possible and we will reserve our decision in this matter and we will be aiming to hand it down as soon as possible in the written form. Thank you very much indeed, we will now adjourn because that is now the end of the roll as far as we're concerned. Thank you.

HEARING ADJOURNS