CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, the document that you handed to us on the Committee roll, that has not been given an exhibit number has it?
MR STRYDOM: No Mr Chairman, I think the next exhibit number is Exhibit KK.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes very well. Are you ready Mr Berger?
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, yes. Chairperson, just before I start, Mr Malindi asked me to convey his apologies. He had some family issues which he had to deal with and he won't be present today but we can proceed without him.
Chairperson, the next witness is Sibongile Diana Manyika. She will be giving evidence in isiZulu.
SIBONGILE DIANA MANYIKA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Mrs Manyika, is it correct that on the 17th June 1992 you were living at 734 Bafokeng Street, Boipatong?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: With whom were you living at that time?
MS MANYIKA: With my siblings as well as my parents.
MR BERGER: How many siblings were there in the house at that time?
MS MANYIKA: There were seven of us, that is everyone in the family.
MR BERGER: Including your mother and father?
MS MANYIKA: Including my parents would be nine.
MR BERGER: And that night all nine of you were in the house before the attack, is that correct?
MS MANYIKA: Yes, we were all at home.
MR BERGER: Is it correct that by the time you became aware of the attack you had already been asleep?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: What woke you?
MS MANYIKA: I heard the shattering of windows.
MR BERGER: Was that the windows of other houses or the windows of your house that you heard?
MS MANYIKA: That was my house windows.
MR BERGER: What did you do when you heard the windows of your house shattering?
MS MANYIKA: I woke up and I began asking myself what was happening. I then thought that it was the comrades because they had been sitting around a fire that they had made.
MR BERGER: Now I'm going to ask you just to speak a little slower as well. The comrades that you had seen sitting around a fire, had that been at an earlier stage before you'd gone to sleep?
MS MANYIKA: Yes, I saw them before they went to bed, they were sitting around a fire, that is because my house is at the corner.
MR BERGER: At the corner of which street?
MS MANYIKA: At the corner of Bafokeng and Hlube Streets.
MR BERGER: Earlier in the day you had also seen certain action involving the comrades, is that right?
MS MANYIKA: Yes the comrades were patrolling in the township.
MR BERGER: And the police were involved?
MS MANYIKA: The comrades usually patrolled the streets because we had already heard rumours that the IFP was going to attack Boipatong. The police dispersed the comrades, chasing them away from the streets so that they could go home.
MR BERGER: That dispersing, that was earlier in the day of the 17th June 1992, is that right?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR BERGER: And the rumours that were circulating about a possible attack on Boipatong, were those rumours specifically for the 17th or were those just general rumours?
MS MANYIKA: It was not specified, there was just this rumour that there was going to be an attack.
MR BERGER: Now you said that when you woke up you thought that the attack on your house was by the comrades whom you had earlier seen standing around the fire, is that right?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: How did things develop from there, was it the comrades who were attacking or what happened?
MS MANYIKA: No it was not the comrades. At that time I heard the kitchen door opening. I heard the kitchen door being smashed with a stone.
MR BERGER: What happened?
MS MANYIKA: I saw very frightening men entering the door, they had white headbands on their heads. At that time I was in the passage.
MR BERGER: And what did they do as they came into the house?
MS MANYIKA: I heard one saying "kill the dogs".
MR BERGER: In Zulu?
MS MANYIKA: Yes in Zulu.
MR BERGER: And was anything done to the house?
MS MANYIKA: When I asked them what have we done one of them said "shut up you bitch".
MR BERGER: And then what happened?
MS MANYIKA: Thereafter everyone was awake by that time, we were all standing at the passage. I thought these people were going to kill us. I then went to the dining room door, I opened it. As I was opening it I saw a large group of people. There were so many that I could not estimate how many there were. There were also women amongst them.
MR BERGER: Sorry, Mrs Manyika, could you just slow down a little? Right, you were at the dining room door and where did you see this group of people?
MS MANYIKA: I was standing outside in the yard. They had divided themselves into groups, some were standing outside the yard.
MR BERGER: Would that be in Hlube Street or Bafokeng or both?
MS MANYIKA: Bafokeng Street.
MR BERGER: And you said there were women amongst them, ululating?
MS MANYIKA: Yes they were ululating.
MR BERGER: What happened then?
MS MANYIKA: As I was stepping outside the door, some of them grabbed hold of me. Even today I still ask myself how I escaped because they grabbed me. I started running, some of them followed me.
MR BERGER: Where were you running?
MS MANYIKA: I then jumped over some fences. I was running behind the houses in Hlube Street.
MR BERGER: So you were jumping over the fences of houses which are situated along Hlube Street?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR BERGER: And you were running away from Bafokeng Street?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR BERGER: Who were you running from?
MS MANYIKA: I was running away from the attackers because when I looked back I realised that they were still chasing me and there were three of them chasing me.
MR BERGER: You looked back, you saw the attackers chasing you?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR BERGER: As you looked back at the attackers did you see anything else?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I did see a koyoko driving slowly.
MR BERGER: And where was this koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: It was on Hlube Street.
MR BERGER: Would it be correct to say that the three attackers who were chasing you at that time were between you and this koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: They were chasing me until I went into a house number 743, Hlube Street. That's where I knocked and when they had already turned back that's where I saw the koyoko passing by.
MR BERGER: Yes, now my question was when you looked back and saw the three attackers you said you also saw this koyoko in Hlube Street?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Was the koyoko behind the attackers when you looked back?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Then you say you took refuge in 743 Bafokeng?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: And what happened to the three attackers?
MS MANYIKA: They turned back.
MR BERGER: And is it after that that you saw this koyoko drive past 743?
MR LAX: Sorry Mr Berger. I think there may be a mistake here that's been made. Originally you said she was behind the houses in Hlube Street running away from Bafokeng Street and then I made a note that she went into 743 Hlube Street. You've just said Bafokeng Street, I'm just worried we may be making a mistake.
MR BERGER: Thank you Mr Lax, it probably is my error. Mrs Manyika, could we just clarify that? When you took refuge where did you take refuge, 743 which street?
MS MANYIKA: Hlube Street.
MR BERGER: And was it while you were taking refuge at 743 Hlube that the koyoko which you had seen then drove past?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Now after you had taken refuge did the attack come to an end?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: How long would you say it took for the attack to come to an end from the time that you had taken refuge?
MS MANYIKA: It did not take long because as I was hiding there I thought of my home, thinking about what had transpired there. That was when I informed the people of number 743, that I wanted to go back home. They opened the door for me and I went home. As I arrived at home I found that the lights were on but no one was inside the house. I went to look for them at the neighbours house and I found them at the neighbours. I enquired about my parents where they were and they said they did not know. One of our neighbours approached and she called to me and said I should come and see where my mother lay. I asked myself that if my mother had died at the neighbours she must have been following me but because she was old she could not run fast that is why she got killed.
MR BERGER: How old was your mother at the time she was killed?
MS MANYIKA: I do not remember what her age was at the time but she was born in 1948.
MR BERGER: And your father? What happened to him?
MS MANYIKA: We got a message that he had been taken by an ambulance. Thereafter we got a message that he had died in hospital.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Strydom?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: Thank you Chairperson.
Mrs Manyika, do you remember that you testified in Pretoria during the criminal trial?
MS MANYIKA: I remember giving evidence in Delmas, not Pretoria.
MR STRYDOM: Sorry, I apologise, that's indeed correct. Before you gave evidence did you make a statement to the police or the state advocates?
MS MANYIKA: There were people who would arrive wanting statements from us, there were many statements that were taken at the time.
MR STRYDOM: At Delmas itself, did you make a statement at Delmas, outside court?
MS MANYIKA: Yes, the statement I'm referring to now.
MR STRYDOM: Yes and in that statement did you mention that you saw a koyoko whilst you were running away?
MS MANYIKA: They did not ask me about the police. Had they questioned me on it I would have given that information. I responded to questions that was being asked.
CHAIRPERSON: Is the position that you did not mention seeing the koyoko in your statement at Delmas because no one asked you about that?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR STRYDOM: When was the first time for you to mention that you saw a koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: Please repeat the question?
MR STRYDOM: When did you mention for the first time to any person that you saw a koyoko that night?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Strydom?
MR STRYDOM: The question I asked was when did you mention for the first time to any person that you saw a koyoko on the night of the attack?
MS MANYIKA: I first mentioned it when we were at the Roman Catholic Church.
MR STRYDOM: When was that?
MS MANYIKA: I do not remember.
MR STRYDOM: Was it recently or shortly after the attack?
MS MANYIKA: It was after the attack.
MS MANYIKA: And do you remember to which person did you tell this?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR STRYDOM: Who was that?
MS MANYIKA: Mr Berger.
MR STRYDOM: Did Mr Berger come to you shortly after the attack or just recently? If I refer to recently within the last say two years?
MS MANYIKA: Please repeat the question?
MR STRYDOM: You just told the Committee that the first person you told that you saw a koyoko was Mr Berger. I just want to get a time frame here, when more or less did you tell this to Mr Berger?
MS MANYIKA: I said I do not remember.
MR SIBANYONI: Do you perhaps remember which year was it?
MS MANYIKA: When the hearing began.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that it was at the beginning of this year?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR STRYDOM: And before that you told nobody that you saw any koyoko, that you saw a koyoko on the night of the attack?
MS MANYIKA: No.
MR STRYDOM: Why didn't you tell any person before Mr Berger that you saw a koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: No one asked me about the police. He is the only person who asked me about it.
MR STRYDOM: When you gave evidence at the criminal trial held at Delmas did you feel free to tell the court everything you knew about the attack?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I was free.
MR STRYDOM: And did you try to tell the court everything you remembered about the attack?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR STRYDOM: Why didn't you mention anything about the koyoko during your evidence in the criminal trial?
MS MANYIKA: I was not certain that the police had been involved in the attack but they had been present. I was of the opinion, I thought that they had been helping the residents of Boipatong. That is the reason why I did not mention them. Moreover, after that, after the attack the koyoko arrived to pick up my mother's body. I thought they were helping us, that is why I did not mention them.
MR STRYDOM: I want to put to you that the applicants for whom I appear already testified that they were not accompanied by koyokos and what I also want to put to you is that the only koyokos you saw was after the attack. What do you say about that?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Ma'am, two questions were put to you. The first one was that the applicants who have applied for amnesty told us that there were no police during the attack, do you understand that?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I do.
CHAIRPERSON: Now what do you say to that?
MS MANYIKA: That is what they say.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay and then the second question that was put to you is that the koyoko that you saw was after the attack. What do you say to that?
MS MANYIKA: After the attack the koyoko that I saw was the one that came to pick up my mother's body. During the attack there was another one that I saw, that is when I went to the neighbours house. It was passing, driving by slowly, I do not know what happened to it thereafter.
CHAIRPERSON: And you also saw a koyoko which came to pick up your mother?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR STRYDOM: I want to - before I do that, whilst you were running away towards the house where you sought refuge, did you look back at a certain stage?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I did look back.
MR STRYDOM: What did you see when you looked back?
MS MANYIKA: I saw that people had been chasing me and realised that there were three of them.
MR STRYDOM: Anything else?
MS MANYIKA: I also saw the koyoko.
MR STRYDOM: And apart from that anything else?
MS MANYIKA: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you see a koyoko three times? The first occasion being when you looked back you saw a koyoko, this is while being chased by these three attackers, is that right?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay and then the second occasion was when you were at house 743 Hlube Street when you saw a koyoko driving past?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And the third occasion was when you saw a koyoko which came to pick your mother up?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR STRYDOM: I want to refer you to your evidence and for record purposes. It appears in volume 4 and the portion I want to refer the witness to appears on page 369.
CHAIRPERSON: What's the reference again?
MR STRYDOM: Volume 4, page 369. I'll read the Afrikaans and then translate it
"I went out through the door."
It seems to me that the interpreter can understand the Afrikaans, must I translate the Afrikaans or can the interpreter translate the Afrikaans?
INTERPRETER: It is the other interpreter that understands Afrikaans, I request that she do interpret into English.
MR STRYDOM: I'll try my best.
"When I look back again, I saw that my parent's home was surrounded."
CHAIRPERSON: Whose home?
MR STRYDOM: Parent's home. "ouerhuis".
"I heard one of them say here's another dog, kill it. They wanted to grab me and then I fled. Whilst I was busy fleeing I looked back and saw that my mother was following me. She was also busy fleeing. I don't know what happened further in the house."
And then the question was:
"Where did you flee to?"
"I fled to the third house from my parent's home. I jumped the fence and whilst I was looking back I could see that the people are following me. I didn't see what happened to my mother. When I arrived at the house I knocked on the door and the opened the door for me."
Do you remember giving this evidence?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, would that be the evidence-in-chief or was that under cross-examination?
MR STRYDOM: That was part of the evidence-in-chief.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the beginning of the evidence-in-chief?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, the evidence starts at page 367 and this is on page 369 so this - ja that's very much towards the beginning of the evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: How long is the evidence?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, it carries on until page 393, 27 pages.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR STRYDOM: The portion of your evidence I just put to you, do you remember giving that evidence?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I do remember.
MR STRYDOM: At that stage you were telling your version of what happened there on that night, is that right?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR STRYDOM: Why didn't you mention at that stage when you looked back that you saw a koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: I've already mentioned that I was not questioned on that.
MR STRYDOM: Yes but that's not a situation where you were asked a question and then immediately give an answer, you told your version from a certain time till a time when you arrived at the house you fled to, so why didn't you mention the koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: I did not mention it because I had thought that they were there to assist us, I was not aware that they were part of the attackers.
MR STRYDOM: Is this portion of your evidence correct that when you looked back saw your mother was also in the process of fleeing?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I did see her.
MR STRYDOM: I asked you a while ago what did you see when you looked back and you didn't mention that you saw your mother was also fleeing. Why not?
MS MANYIKA: The last time I saw my mother was when she was running behind me and when I looked back I saw the attackers following me. I do not know what happened to my mother.
MR STRYDOM: Is this evidence correct that you fled to the third house from your parent's house?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR STRYDOM: And your parent's house is the house on the corner where Hlube and Bafokeng Streets meet, is that right?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Is the third house that you are referring to 743 Hlube Street?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR STRYDOM: I want to refer the witness to Exhibit J, perhaps someone can just show her Exhibit J?
CHAIRPERSON: Would that be the map?
MR STRYDOM: Yes Chairman.
Do you see Bafokeng Street and Hlube Street on that map?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I do.
MR STRYDOM: And that house, was it number 734, that's your parent's house, is that right?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR STRYDOM: And 743 Hlube Street is the fifth house from your parent's house, is that right?
MS MANYIKA: Yes it is the fifth house.
MR STRYDOM: So is that the house where you fled to?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: What is your parent's house number?
MS MANYIKA: 734.
CHAIRPERSON: 734, that is Bafokeng, right?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: That would be the house right at the corner there?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now 743 would be the fifth house from your parent's house?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR STRYDOM: Thank you.
After you left your parent's house, if you look at the map now can you just tell the Committee in which direction did you run?
MS MANYIKA: I went towards number 743.
MR STRYDOM: So did you run down Hlube Street in the direction of 743?
MS MANYIKA: There is Bafokeng and Hlube, I ran behind the houses in Hlube Street. I was not on the street but I was running through their yards.
MR STRYDOM: Yes so that would be between the houses in Bafokeng Street and the houses in Hlube Street?
MR LAX: No, she's talking about Hlube Street.
MR STRYDOM: I said between the houses of Bafokeng and Hlube Streets.
MR LAX: Through the yards of the houses in Hlube Street.
MR STRYDOM: Ja. Where did you jump the fence?
MS MANYIKA: My home is just situated on the corner, there isn't a ...(indistinct) - but behind my home. My next door neighbour doesn't have a fence that is where I went into and from there I just went over the other fence into the next house and I jumped over another fence into the next house then until I went into number 743.
MR STRYDOM: So whilst you were taking that route through the yards of these houses is that the time when you looked back?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct. I turned back to check if the attackers were still behind me.
MR STRYDOM: And then you saw three attackers behind you at a certain time, is that right?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR STRYDOM: And at that stage you were still amongst the houses?
MS MANYIKA: Yes at that time I was running through these yards.
MR STRYDOM: But where did you see the koyoko then?
MS MANYIKA: As I was running.
MR STRYDOM: Yes but I want the position of the koyoko, was it also travelling amongst the houses or along the road or where?
CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence you were running at the back of the houses that are along Hlube Street, is that right?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you were jumping fences as you ran along?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And then at some point you then crossed over to move onto the house that is the house 743 I think it is, which is along ...(indistinct), which is in Hlube? Okay, yes very well, right. And then you entered this house?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you enter this house from Hlube Street or from the back? I mean if you can recall?
MS MANYIKA: The door was at the back.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes okay. Now what counsel wants to find out is at what stage did you see the koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: I saw the koyoko when they were still chasing after me because when I looked back checking on the attackers who were following me, my eyes also noticed the koyoko. It was driving along Hlube Street.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, was it proceeding towards the corner of Bafokeng and Hlube or was it proceeding towards ...(intervention)
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
MR STRYDOM: So just to get it clear, so you from your position from behind the houses in Hlube Street you saw a koyoko travelling in Hlube Street, is that what you're saying?
MS MANYIKA: That is correct.
ADV SIGODI: Sorry, can I just get some clarity on what the Chairperson just asked you now? In which direction was this koyoko travelling?
MS MANYIKA: It was coming from the direction she's pointing going towards the other direction. It was travelling along Hlube Street.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: Which was the point where Hlube meets Bafokeng or was it proceeding in the direction towards Lebwa?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR BERGER: Chairperson, the witness is indicating on the map that it was driving from the direction of the corner of Bafokeng and Hlube Street, down Hlube in the direction of 743, in other words away from the corner of Hlube and Bafokeng proceeding towards Lekwa, yes.
MR STRYDOM: Now what I want to put to you is that the koyoko could not have been in between yourself and the three people that chased you?
MS MANYIKA: I didn't say that.
CHAIRPERSON: The people who were chasing you they were also running behind the houses in Hlube Street, were they? Jumping the fences? They were not on the road were they?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR BERGER: Chairperson, my learned friend is incorrect, the witness never said that the koyoko was between her and the attackers.
CHAIRPERSON: Behind the houses as well.
MR STRYDOM: This koyoko you saw in Hlube Street travelling in the direction of Lekwa Street, at a stage you were running away. Can you give any description of that vehicle?
MS MANYIKA: I don't want to lie, I cannot describe police vehicles but I know a koyoko when I see one, I don't know these others.
MR STRYDOM: Yes but can you say if it was a yellow vehicle, brown vehicle, green or camouflage, what kind of painted vehicle? Can you give any description or not?
MS MANYIKA: No.
MR STRYDOM: The vehicle you saw later on, that is when you were already at house 743 Hlube, did it look similar to the vehicle you saw first or not?
MS MANYIKA: I don't know, I don't know whether they're the same or not.
MR STRYDOM: And the vehicle you saw later on is the third time you saw a koyoko, could you say if it looked the same as the vehicle you saw the second time or not?
MS MANYIKA: I'm unable to say so.
MR STRYDOM: What was the general position of the light at that stage whilst you were running? Was it dark, could you see properly or what?
MS MANYIKA: There was light.
CHAIRPERSON: As you were running behind these houses, the first time you saw the koyoko, what part of the koyoko did you see?
MS MANYIKA: The side of the koyoko.
CHAIRPERSON: When you saw it was it parallel with you when you were running along these houses?
MS MANYIKA: I didn't take notice of that because I was scared. The way I was scared, I was scared for my life and I didn't know what was going on.
MR STRYDOM: You also testified that you saw people who you said were women in the house?
MR BERGER: No, she never said they were in the house, she said they were ululating outside the house.
MR STRYDOM: Sorry. You saw women just outside the house, is that correct?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR STRYDOM: Did you see their faces or because they made these sounds you thought they were women?
MS MANYIKA: No I didn't see their faces but the voices were female voices.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but the people that you saw they were women were they not?
MS MANYIKA: Yes, together with men.
MR STRYDOM: During your evidence at the trial you also did not mention that you thought that there were women amongst the attackers?
CHAIRPERSON: She is not saying and her evidence is not that she thought they were women, she says she saw the women.
MR STRYDOM: Yes Chairperson.
But what I'm putting to you is that at the criminal trial you made no mention of these women. Why not?
MS MANYIKA: No I didn't mention them.
MR STRYDOM: The question is why not?
MS MANYIKA: I don't know why but there were women present during the attack.
MR STRYDOM: I just want to put to you that according to my instructions there were no women that formed part of the attack on that specific night.
MS MANYIKA: This is what they are saying.
MR STRYDOM: When you first heard the noises and you thought that the house was now under attack, why did you think that the comrades could be responsible for that?
MS MANYIKA: I said the last time I saw the comrades were around a fire therefore that's why I thought they were the ones who were attacking. One thing you should remember when you are just attacked while you are asleep you don't even think properly because you're still asleep, you're not awake and when your enemy attacks you.
CHAIRPERSON: When you heard the shattering of the windows why did you think that the comrades were responsible for that? Do you understand the question?
MS MANYIKA: I do understand and I thought it was the comrades responsible because the last time I saw them they were around a fire outside.
CHAIRPERSON: In other words, the simple question is, why would the comrades attack your house?
MS MANYIKA: I was asleep, I think that's why I came to that conclusion.
MR STRYDOM: Early during the course of the day of the attack, you said that the comrades were dispersed, is that correct?
MS MANYIKA: Correct.
MR STRYDOM: Can you give any indication of time when this happened?
MS MANYIKA: No, I do not remember.
MR STRYDOM: Was it already dark or still in the afternoon?
MS MANYIKA: I do not remember.
MR STRYDOM: I've got no further questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes Mr Lowies?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: Can you remember whether it was the police that dispersed them?
MS MANYIKA: Yes it was the police.
MR LOWIES: How did they disperse them?
MS MANYIKA: They were telling them to leave the streets where they were patrolling.
MR LOWIES: Did you hear this?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I heard.
MR LOWIES: Did they fire any shots at the comrades or any teargas?
MS MANYIKA: No they didn't. They were just telling them to leave to go to their respective homes.
MR LOWIES: What did they say? Can you recall more or less the words that they used?
MS MANYIKA: No, I do not remember.
MR LOWIES: Was it during daylight?
MS MANYIKA: I can't remember.
MR LOWIES: Did the comrades disperse?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR LOWIES: Now how long after this did you see the comrades at the fires?
MS MANYIKA: It wasn't too long.
MR LOWIES: So it doesn't seem to me that the comrades adhered to the instruction in that they returned?
MS MANYIKA: It is so.
MR LOWIES: But you can't give us an estimate how long that was, not even an estimate that they again gathered at the fires?
MS MANYIKA: This happened a long time. I do remember some of the things and some of the things I cannot remember and I cannot tell something that I cannot remember, I'd be lying. I only tell of something that I remember.
MR LOWIES: Now was a regular thing for the police to tell the comrades to disperse?
MS MANYIKA: No it wasn't.
MR LOWIES: Did you see it before?
MS MANYIKA: It was the first time.
MR LOWIES: Do you know whether it was the police or the municipal police?
MS MANYIKA: No I do not know that.
MR LOWIES: Did you see any tyres on the day of the attack?
MS MANYIKA: I do not understand your question?
CHAIRPERSON: Where?
MR LOWIES: In your house or near your house?
CHAIRPERSON: What tyres are you talking about? Did I hear you say tyres?
MR LOWIES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Tyres? Where on the car or the motor vehicles?
MR LOWIES: Loose tyres that were burning.
CHAIRPERSON: I think the question, ma'am, is this. Did you see any burning tyres on the night in question?
MS MANYIKA: When the attackers entered the house they brought the tyre which was used by the comrades earlier on and they threw it inside the house. That's the only tyre that I saw.
MR LOWIES: And at what stage was that, were they already in the house or did they bring it with them on entering the house?
MS MANYIKA: When they entered I didn't see when they threw the tyre inside the house but when we woke up there was a strong smell of that tyre and we realised that this is the tyre that was being used by the comrades and the attackers threw it inside the house.
CHAIRPERSON: Was this tyre inside the house?
MS MANYIKA: Yes, inside the house.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright.
MR LOWIES: Did you actually see the tyre inside the house or did you just smell it?
MS MANYIKA: I saw it. When I came back from the house where I hid myself it was still burning inside the house.
MR LOWIES: Did it cause any damage to the house?
MS MANYIKA: Yes, it caused damage, it burned the tiles.
MR LOWIES: Now the comrades that you saw that night, did you know any of them?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR LOWIES: How many of them did you know?
MS MANYIKA: I knew my neighbours son, he is now in prison. He's the one that I knew.
MR LOWIES: Why didn't you seek help from the koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: When I woke up from my sleep I was dizzy, I was confused, I didn't know what was going on and I didn't know what I was supposed to do.
MR LOWIES: No but whilst you were running, why didn't you run towards the koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: I didn't think so.
MR LOWIES: But you thought at that stage that the koyoko was there to help you?
MS MANYIKA: I was running behind the houses and I was jumping fences and the attackers were right behind me, how was I supposed to turn back and go to the koyoko?
CHAIRPERSON: What counsel is asking you is the following. You told us that you were of the view that the police were there to protect the residents of Boipatong. Now you have these attackers who are chasing you and you see a koyoko. Now what counsel wants to find out is, why you then run in the direction of the koyoko so as to seek protection from the police?
MS MANYIKA: I don't know.
MR LOWIES: Why didn't you shout at the koyoko for help?
MS MANYIKA: I don't know.
MR LOWIES: Isn't it so that you were so confused that you didn't actually see a koyoko or maybe now thought that you saw one?
MS MANYIKA: I did see a koyoko.
MR LOWIES: But ma'am you will agree with me that if you thought at that stage that the koyoko was there to help you, that would have been the best place to run to, not so?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies ...(intervention)
MS MANYIKA: I don't you know, this is what you are saying to me.
MR LOWIES: I missed what you were saying, sorry Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: I'm saying you've asked the question why didn't she run towards the koyoko. She's given us the answer. Repeating the question is not going to get us anywhere.
MR LOWIES: Well Chairperson, is your ruling that I'm not entitled in cross-examination to put a question more than once in a different manner?
CHAIRPERSON: Indeed, yes.
MR LOWIES: Well Chairperson, with respect, I can't cross-examine under these circumstances, I would like to refer you,
with respect, to the well known book of Coleman on cross-examination wherein, with respect, it is said that on showing a witness that a certain set of circumstances which the witness wants the trier of fact to believe improbable, one is entitled and it is a well known manner of cross-examining to show to a witness that that set of facts is not plausible and then try to convince, through cross-examination, the witness to take a different stance. Now that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Look, I have no doubt in my mind that the book that you're citing may contain statements along the lines suggested by you but there is nothing to suggest that you will put one and the same question repeatedly where we have already, we do have the answer. The question has been asked, you asked the question, I asked the question, we've got the answer. You cannot keep on asking one and the same question.
MR LOWIES: No, I've only asked the question twice in a different manner Chairperson, with respect.
CHAIRPERSON: That's precisely the point, that's why we're not here to repeat questions. You asked the question once, you get the answer.
MR LOWIES: Well Chairperson, to bide by the ruling suffice to state that I am hampered in my cross-examination. I will proceed.
CHAIRPERSON: You will proceed with your questioning.
MR LOWIES: Thank you Chairperson.
Now ma'am, were you in any manner sure where you were going to end up that night when you started running, did you have a refuge in mind?
MS MANYIKA: No, I didn't know.
MR LOWIES: Did you know the people in 743 where you took refuge?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
MR LOWIES: Why did you decide upon that place?
MS MANYIKA: Because I was running away from the attackers.
MR LOWIES: No, but what made you sure that this was going to be a safe haven, that you were going to be safe at this place or that this is the place to hide? What were the facts?
MS MANYIKA: At the time I didn't have time to think, I was scared, I just told myself I was going to seek refuge anywhere and I was looking for protection.
MR LOWIES: Now did your attackers follow you inside the house?
MS MANYIKA: No.
MR LOWIES: How did you manage to escape them that they didn't enter the house?
MS MANYIKA: As I was running I kept on looking back to see if they were after me and I realised that they had turned back.
MR LOWIES: When did they turn back, do you know? At what stage?
MS MANYIKA: No, I do not know. I only realised at one stage when I look back that they were no longer behind me. As to when they turned back I don't know.
MR LOWIES: Now when you saw that they were not chasing you any more, was the koyoko still in your sight or not? Could you still see the koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: It was at the time when I was knocking at the house therefore I couldn't see the koyoko at the time while I was knocking.
MR LOWIES: Now the koyoko that you saw whilst inside the house do you know and can you tell us whether it was the same koyoko that you saw whilst fleeing?
MS MANYIKA: No, I'm unable to tell you.
MR LOWIES: Was it the same colour?
MS MANYIKA: I don't know.
MR LOWIES: Do you know what the colour of the koyoko was?
MS MANYIKA: I don't know.
MR LOWIES: Now you saw a koyoko on three occasions, is that applicable to all three occasions that you don't know what the colour was?
MS MANYIKA: No.
MR LOWIES: I don't understand? No I don't know? What do you mean by no?
MS MANYIKA: No, I do not remember the colour of the koyoko in all three occasions.
MR LOWIES: Thank you. The comrades that you saw earlier that evening, were they armed?
MS MANYIKA: I do not know. What I know is that they were around that burning tyre.
MR LOWIES: Approximately how many of them were there?
MS MANYIKA: I do not know how many there were.
MR LOWIES: Can't even give us an estimate? I only want an estimate.
MS MANYIKA: No, I do not know, I don't want to lie and find myself being questioned about that.
MR LOWIES: Would the koyoko have been able, the one that you saw whilst fleeing, would it have been able to see you and the attackers running where you were actually running?
MS MANYIKA: I don't know.
MR LOWIES: Were you afraid and scared whilst running, were you in a state of shock?
MR BERGER: Chairperson, the witness has said several times that she feared for her life.
MR LOWIES: I don't know whether she said it whilst she was running.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, the witness has repeatedly said, she said whilst she was running.
MR LOWIES: Now the fact that you were in a state of shock did that not make you dizzy, confused?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I was confused because I was scared, I did not know what was going on and I was scared for my life.
MR LOWIES: Now in this state of confusion, I'm suggesting you isn't it that as a result of that you though you saw a koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: I am not thinking that I saw a koyoko, it is so, I saw a koyoko.
MR LOWIES: Now when you saw the koyoko for the second time you were inside the house we've heard? At that stage were you able to see any attackers at all?
MS MANYIKA: No.
MR LOWIES: Can you give us an estimate as to how long you were already in the house when you saw the koyoko for the second time?
MS MANYIKA: I do not remember how long it took.
MR LOWIES: You can't even give us an estimate? I'm only asking for an estimate.
MS MANYIKA: No, I'm unable to do so.
MR LOWIES: So if I put it to you it could have been an hour or more you would not be able to respond to that?
MS MANYIKA: This happened a long time, I don't want to commit myself and give time.
MR LOWIES: Now whilst running for safety, besides the three attackers that you saw could you see any other attackers at all in Boipatong that day or that time?
MS MANYIKA: No, no one.
MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you that my clients' were not aware of any koyokos?
MS MANYIKA: This is what they are saying. Anyone can speak for himself or herself and one thing you should remember is that they will not tell the whole truth and they are requesting amnesty and some of the things they are saying here it's blue lies and yet they are asking for forgiveness. They don't tell you the honest truth, they will tell you some of it, not the whole truth.
MR LOWIES: Can you give us an estimate as to approximately what time it was when you were fleeing from the comrades?
MR BERGER: There's no evidence that this witness was fleeing from any comrades.
MR LOWIES: From the attackers. My mistake.
MS MANYIKA: I do not understand the question.
MR LOWIES: When you were fleeing from the three attackers can you give us an estimate approximately what time it was?
MS MANYIKA: No, I'm unable to do so.
MR LOWIES: Do you know Mr Balloi, Wilson Balloi?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I do know him.
MR LOWIES: Did you see his house on the night of the attack?
MS MANYIKA: No I didn't.
MR LOWIES: Did you see any koyokos in Bafokeng Street at any stage on the night of the attack?
MS MANYIKA: No I didn't, maybe I wasn't there.
MR LOWIES: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOWIES
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Pretorius?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PRETORIUS: Thank you Chair.
Mrs Manyika, were there any trenches dug in the road in Boipatong in Bafokeng or Hlube Streets so that the vehicles could not travel along those roads? Or any boulders put in the streets?
MS MANYIKA: I do not remember.
MS PRETORIUS: When did you hear that the people of the IFP were going to attack Boipatong for the first time?
MS MANYIKA: The same month in June but I do not remember the day.
MS PRETORIUS: So there were bad feelings between the people of Boipatong and the IFP at that stage?
MS MANYIKA: No, we were living peacefully, we were on good terms.
MS PRETORIUS: But why did you expect an attack from the IFP then?
MS MANYIKA: These were rumours.
MS PRETORIUS: Why were the comrades patrolling the streets if there was no reason for - everybody was living peacefully, why were the comrades patrolling the streets then?
CHAIRPERSON: She's told us that there was a rumour that they were going to be attacked.
MS MANYIKA: They had already heard that the IFP was going to attack.
MS PRETORIUS: I understand that Chairperson.
For how long had they been patrolling the streets on the 17th June, a month? Six months? Can you give us an estimate?
MS MANYIKA: No, I do not remember.
MS PRETORIUS: Do you know of any IFP people who were necklaced in Boipatong or in the Vaal Triangle?
MS MANYIKA: I heard of them.
MS PRETORIUS: You say there were women present, how many women, can you give us an estimate? Were there a lot of women present that night or one or two?
MS MANYIKA: I wouldn't be able to estimate because this was a large group of people, men and women, therefore I would not be able to estimate as to how many or the number of the women but there were quite many.
MS PRETORIUS: Because my instructions are that there were no women in Boipatong and apart from that, if I recall correctly, there has been no evidence before this Committee until today that any women were present during the attack, amongst the attackers.
MS MANYIKA: This is why I'm saying these people will not tell the whole truth.
MS PRETORIUS: But Ms Manyika, I'm talking about the victims also testifying and you are the first person testifying that there were women present amongst the attackers. Are you saying then that the victims are not telling the truth either?
MR BERGER: Chairperson, that doesn't follow at all.
MS MANYIKA: It may be that they didn't see them, I saw them.
MS PRETORIUS: It's true that you heard them, but did you see them as well?
CHAIRPERSON: Or did you see them, that's what she's asking you.
MS MANYIKA: I heard them.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, are you saying that you didn't see them?
MS MANYIKA: I heard their voices. It is easy to identify a female voice from a male voice and they were ululating and they were doing this because they were happy because the dogs were being killed.
CHAIRPERSON: This was a big group from what you've told us, wasn't it?
MS MANYIKA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And you saw this group, didn't you?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I did.
CHAIRPERSON: When you looked at the group did you see any women there?
MS MANYIKA: As I was leaving from the door I saw a large group of people and I heard the females ululating and I heard their voices.
MR LAX: Sorry Ms interpreter, did she say that she was running away as well? I just didn't hear you interpret that? I thought I heard it in Zulu but I might be wrong.
MS MANYIKA: This happened before I ran away when I was at the door and when they tried to grab me. That's the time I had already heard their voices, the female voices and I ran away.
MS PRETORIUS: So I am correct that you only heard them, you did not see them?
MS MANYIKA: Yes I heard them.
MS PRETORIUS: Ms Manyika, is it possible that you thought you saw a koyoko because the people were talking about ...(inaudible) and was suggested and when you thought back maybe you thought you did see a koyoko?
MS MANYIKA: I am not thinking so, I know and I'm talking what I know and I swear that I'm not here to lie and I would not waste my time to come and lie here. I cannot waste my time, I'm supposed to be in school, I cannot come here and lie to this Committee, I'm only telling you about what happened, what I saw and what I remember.
MS PRETORIUS: I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PRETORIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Tanzer?
MS TANZER: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS TANZER
MR DA SILVA: I have no questions, Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DA SILVA
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Berger? I beg your pardon.
MR MALINDI: No questions Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
MR BERGER: No re-examination Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS CAMBANIS: No questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS
MR BOTHA: No questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Thank you Ms Manyika, you may stand down.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Berger?
MR BERGER: Chairperson, that concludes the evidence to be submitted on behalf of the victims.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Mapoma is there any evidence you want to place before us?
MR MAPOMA: No, we have no evidence, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, on behalf of the applicants?
MR STRYDOM: On behalf of the applicants I appear for we intend to call no further witnesses.
MR STRYDOM: I intend to call no witnesses, I close my application.
MS PRETORIUS: I don't intend calling any witnesses.
MS TANZER: I don't intend calling any witnesses Mr Chair.
MR DA SILVA: Chairperson, I don't intend calling witnesses but there is a further aspect that I wish to canvass with yourself and the Committee. You have repeatedly asked me for a set of photographs.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DA SILVA: And I have undertaken to provide the Committee with a set of photographs. I only received some photographs last evening and I would submit I only have one set of photographs, I haven't made copies and I would submit that a set of photographs without an explanatory affidavit would actually be meaningless. I would want to enquire if it would be in order that if I would be able to draw the affidavit tomorrow and circulate it amongst the Committee Members and colleagues on Thursday if that would carry your approval, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I do not foresee any difficulty with that course. Are there any problems with that?
MR STRYDOM: Not from our side Chairperson.
MR MALINDI: I have no problems with that.
MR BERGER: On behalf of the victims we have no problems with that approach.
MR DA SILVA: Chairperson, I'll then make the necessary arrangements that the necessary set of photographs be provided to all the parties concerned on Thursday.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you not available as from Wednesday?
MR BERGER: As things stand at the moment I am not available from Wednesday next week.
CHAIRPERSON: Tuesday next week, is everyone available?
MR STRYDOM: That's in order with us, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: Chairperson, Tuesday next week is in order with us but before you make a ruling, on behalf of the victims I wish to make a formal application to you and your Committee that the evidence of Pedro Peens be placed before you and that you as a Committee, through the evidence leader, call Pedro Peens to give evidence.
If I could very briefly motivate why we say that? I spoke to Mr Mapoma yesterday and I asked him to ask the police investigators who are working with him to locate Mr Peens for the purposes of giving evidence. I don't know what has happened as a result of that but if I could just motivate very briefly, Chairperson, why we believe that the evidence of Mr Peens is so crucial to this application?
It's common cause that one of the key issues in dispute as far as the question of full disclosure is concerned is the participation or presence of police in Boipatong during the attack. Until now there has been no evidence from the police or from anyone that the police were present in Boipatong during the time of the attack. But what we have, there's evidence from the victims of the attack, the residents of Boipatong, the evidence of Mr Nosenga, but we've never had evidence from the police themselves that they were present during the attack. In the report of Mr Kjelberg which is Exhibit DD at page 20, Mr Kjelberg says the following, middle of the page, he says:
"In paragraph 2 of the argument on behalf of the Minister of Law and Order, Annexure A(x), it stated that"
and then it's italicised
"the South African Police was at all times ready to prove the whereabouts of each of it's casspirs country wide but did not do so by virtue of the fact that the Committee decided that no further evidence was to be heard."
And then he goes on, he says:
"From discussions with director, Christo Davidson, it has been understood that his investigation gathered all so called log sheets from police casspirs country wide related to 17 June 1992. This was done by his team for them to be able to establish where the casspirs were positioned on the night of the attack. Based on this information and from statements from police officers on duty in the Vaal area at the time of the attack, they argued that they could prove that allegations of police personnel travelling in casspirs were untrue."
So what the police said and this has been the police stance since the 17th June 1992, is that each and every casspir country wide had been accounted for and it has been shown that not a single casspir was in Boipatong at the time of the attack. We know since the affidavit of the journalist, Mr Riaan Malan, was tendered on behalf of the applicants, we know that Riaan Malan said under oath that he conducted an interview with Mr Pedro Peens and Pedro Peens admits in that interview for the first time that he was in a casspir with other members of the SAP in Boipatong on the night of the 17th June 1992. He says however, that it was at 3 or 4 in the morning of the 18th, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning of the 18th, but it's clear from that interview and I'm not going to go through it in detail but it's an exhibit now before the Committee, it's clear from that interview that Pedro Peens' explanation is false. Objectively it can be shown to be false because he says that when he was in Boipatong at the time he was listening to the police radio and there had been no messages about an attack, or no reports about an attack and we all know that it's common cause that by 3 or 4 in the morning Boipatong was swarming with policemen and there had long since been messages or reports of a police attack on the police radio that night.
Added to that, Chairperson, you will see from the interview with Pedro Peens that he disposed of two AK-47s which he claims were used in the attack on Boipatong and he took them to KwaZulu Natal and handed them over there instead of handing over into the Vaal. He cannot explain why he never gave that information to Major Christo Davidson nor can he explain why he failed to tell Major Christo Davidson that he was in Boipatong on the night of the attack.
Chairperson, we submit that his knowledge, bearing in mind the fact that Mr Nosenga has actually identified Mr Peens as being part of the attack but the knowledge of Pedro Peens could greatly assist this Committee in coming to a conclusion as to whether or not the police were present in Boipatong at the time and we would ask the Committee to order that he honour his subpoena, that he come here and that he give evidence.
Chairperson, in brief, that is our application.
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I'm not going to argue about the application as such.
CHAIRPERSON: Having this whole issue as I see it is whether or not his evidence is going to this matter any further, suffice as to say that he says that he was in the police casspir in Boipatong round about 3 or 4 in the morning. We know that at about that time there were casspirs perhaps and there was an ambulance around about that time which is well beyond - which is long after the attack. Now that's the sole issue, the question is whether if he comes here, that evidence, if he sticks to that evidence, where does that take us and assuming he doesn't, if he's proved to have been untruthful in that regard, where will it take us insofar as the central question whether or not there were police or not because that he may be untruthful with us as I see it, will not establish whether there were police. We will have to end up, as I see things, with the evidence of the victims who have testified positively to seeing the police casspirs at the time and consider the ...(indistinct) seeing that in the context of the evidence of Mr Nosenga. Well what's your attitude?
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I agree. I agree fully with the outline that Chairperson has just given. I was just going to explain about the circumstances regarding him now and him being called now otherwise I'm of the view Chairperson that as things are now the Committee has got sufficient evidence for it to make a decision without necessarily calling him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now in regard to his whereabouts, where is he?
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, up to this point the whereabouts of him are unknown and that is one difficulty that we have. The second difficulty, Chair, is that his legal representation has been terminated by the State Attorney because he is an implicated person. The State Attorney's position now regarding legal representation for implicated persons is being terminated, has been terminated and I envisage a situation where he can come here and claim that as long as I'm not legally represented then I can't say anything. It may be an exercise in futility, that's what I envisage, if he gets called.
And thirdly, Chair, on the question of a subpoena there is also a technical problem there because whilst he was subpoenaed originally to appear at the hearing, we did adjourn last time and when we adjourned last time he was not formally warned to come and appear here and the effect of that subpoena therefore was not extended to this hearing. One may argue, especially given the fact that we intend now ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: But listen, I think we should go to the question of whether or not ...(indistinct) terms of the subpoena. If he is required to come and give evidence here, that the subpoena may have been that he may not have been warned to come here is neither here no there. He'll have to come here if we are satisfied if he should come here.
MR MAPOMA: Yes, I agree Chairperson but now it will have another technical problem because the legal department has sited a case of Van Wyk versus the TRC where a person must be given notice, a proper notice of at least 14 days before the person is compelled to ...(indistinct)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I understand.
MR MAPOMA: It's rather difficult, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand but those difficulties though should not hamper the process.
MR MAPOMA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: If he is required to be here the necessary steps will have to be taken to make sure that he is here?
MR MAPOMA: Yes, I agree. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR BERGER: Chairperson, I'm sorry, could I just mention about the time that you spoke to - you asked Mr Mapoma about the time. Mr Peens in his interview isn't hard and fast about the time. If I can just read a very - Malan says
"But the massacre ended at 10.30."
Question, long pause.
"He is not sure of the time"
And then a quote:
"My time can be totally wrong."
He says my time can be totally wrong. I'm translating from the Afrikaans.
"All my old pocket books were destroyed when I got out."
And then in English:
"All I can say is that there was nothing on the radio about it. Boipatong was chaos."
And then further down in the interview he says:
"I was at that stage the only police vehicle in Boipatong. A camouflage casspir. I was driving, I didn't see any other police. I was in permanent contact with radio control. It was only when we got to Sebokeng that I discovered there was trouble in Boipatong."
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Strydom?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I would submit that his evidence won't take the matter any further. There's no indication whatsoever that he would come here and admit that he was in Boipatong during the attack. As you pointed out, Chairperson, if he changes his version he will be shown as a liar and then his evidence won't be relied upon so he won't take it further. What we have here is already evidence of all the applicants I appear for and they stated under oath that the police was not involved and under those circumstances I don't think his evidence will change anything, especially as they say in light of fact that I doubt if he will come and say that he was involved during the attack. The only person that made reference of him really was a Mr Nosenga. I will argue later that no reliance can be placed on his evidence in any event so my submission would be is that he won't take the matter any further at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies?
MR LOWIES: I support the application. I appear on behalf of Mr Vanana Zulu who is implicated and with respect, I see it as follows. Mr Peens is implicated and directly mentioned as a person who was involved with my clients whereas they deny it. Now his evidence will definitely take that portion further which is a vital aspect in this matter so I support the application.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Pretorius?
MS PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I feel that Mr Peens won't take the matter any further. All we have is hearsay evidence at this stage that he told Mr Malan so if he comes and he denies that then we're going to have to call Mr Malan again so we can prolong these proceedings forever and ever by calling more and more people. So I do not support the application.
MS TANZER: Mr Chairperson, I myself also support the application in the sense that if Mr Peens can undergo rigorous cross-examination which obviously we would like to avoid but if he would enjoy the same scrutiny that Mr Nosenga enjoyed, perhaps the truth might come out, some truth might come out regarding what happened that night and his whereabouts that night.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Is there any reason for this noise?
MR DA SILVA: Chairperson, I've been instructed to adopt a neutral attitude in regard to the Defence Force so I have no submissions to make in this regard.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr da Silva.
Mr Berger any reply?
MR BERGER: Chairperson, there is no doubt that Sergeant Peens was in Boipatong in a police casspir with other policemen on the night of the massacre. Of that there is no doubt now. If he is shown to be lying about his times, if he is shown to be lying about what he says happened whilst he was in Boipatong, then the inference will be inescapable that he has something to hide and from that the inference would be inescapable that what Mr Nosenga says about Mr Peens' involvement in the massacre will have to be accepted. Mr Peens' evidence, if he is shown to be a liar will provide strong corroboration not only for Mr Nosenga but also for the victims who testified that they saw police casspirs in Boipatong during the attack. In that regard we submit that his evidence is crucial to a proper outcome of this application.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment and come back in 15 minutes time to give a ruling.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
R U L I N G
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) the application to call Mr Peens to give evidence before this Committee. Mr Peens is an implicated person. He was represented until yesterday in these proceedings by counsel. His version was put to the witnesses, in particular to Mr Andries Nosenga who implicated him. That version amounts to a bad denial of the allegations made in the evidence of Mr Nosenga often concerning Mr Peens' involvement with the Boipatong massacre.
This Committee has the power to call any person to appear before it who it believes may assist it in arriving at a decision. We've heard a great deal of evidence, we've also conceded the submissions by counsel. We are satisfied that whatever evidence Mr Peens might give which would be no more than a denial of involvement in Boipatong as was put to the witnesses would not take this matter any further. It is therefore not necessary to hear his evidence. That being the case, that concludes these proceedings.
Mr Strydom, the applicant that you represent has still not shown up.
MR STRYDOM: That is so. As indicated previously what I will do is I will withdraw as his legal representative, I don't think ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Is there any reason why his application should not be struck off roll forthwith?
MR STRYDOM: I can think of no reason.
CHAIRPERSON: What is his name again?
MR STRYDOM: Mxoliseni Sibongeleni Mkhize.
CHAIRPERSON: What is his full name?
MR STRYDOM: I will spell his first name: M-X-O-L-I-S-E-N-I his second name: S-I-B-O-N-G-E-L-E-N-I Mkhize.
CHAIRPERSON: The application for amnesty by and on behalf of Mxoliseni Sibongeleni Mkhize is struck off the roll.
Now in regard to the date for the hearing of the argument, does anyone have any difficulty with Tuesday?
What time shall we start? 9 o'clock, okay, very well.
Mr Strydom, during the course of the hearing you indicated that even though two of your applicants, I think it was Mr Mthembu and is it Mr Buthelezi who ...(intervention)
MR STRYDOM: Petrus Mdiniso.
CHAIRPERSON: These are the applicants who say that they did not take part in the attack?
MR STRYDOM: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You indicated that you were going to present legal argument as to why they are entitled to amnesty notwithstanding the fact that they did not take part in the massacre?
MR STRYDOM: Yes I said so, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you still of the same view?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, these two applicants are being represented by my colleague, Mr Lowies.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I beg your pardon, yes.
Mr Lowies, Mr Strydom, you are aware of the evidence of the two?
MR LOWIES: I've seen the evidence, I've read it and I've prepared on that, yes Chairperson, I'm aware of it.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it the position of these applicants that notwithstanding their denial of having taken part in the massacre and therefore having committed no offence they are nevertheless entitled to amnesty?
MR LOWIES: Chairperson, I'm busy researching that aspect but I'm aware of the pitfalls in that regard. I will give detailed heads of argument regarding those aspects.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Would you timeously make sure that whatever legal argument you want to make in that regard is conveyed to Mr Mapoma who appears on behalf of the TRC and also to the legal representative of the victims so that they may consider it?
MR LOWIES: I will make it available timeously.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) short heads of argument before the 27th?
MR BERGER: We never proposed that.
MR STRYDOM: No Chairperson, we will try to hand them in before we start argument but on the day of the argument.
CHAIRPERSON: Even if you can take - if we can have that argument before Monday. On Monday.
MR STRYDOM: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise counsel will have to take us through the heads of argument.
MR BERGER: Where should we deliver the heads? Can we fax them?
CHAIRPERSON: Well I will be in Johannesburg at the Labour Court so those can be delivered at the Labour Court on Monday.
Alright, okay. We did also indicate that after we've had oral argument it is open to counsel if they so desire to prepare supplementary argument on issues arising from the debate. Yes, very well.
These proceedings are now adjourned to Tuesday, 27th July at 9 o'clock when we will hear submissions by the legal representatives. Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
