CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. Today is Tuesday, 29th of June 1999, we are continuing the amnesty application in respect of the Simelane incident. The appearances and the Panel are as indicated on the record.
Mr Lamey, you were still leading Mr Selamolela, is that correct?
MR LAMEY: Yes, that's correct, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Selamolela, I remind you that you are still under oath. Do you understand that?
MOHAPI LAZARUS SELAMOLELA: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Selamolela, we adjourned yesterday at that point where you made mention of the electrical shock that was administered to Simelane, and you said that you could not recall whether it was on the first occasion or on the second occasion.
I want now to proceed to ascertain from you what you can remember of the second occasion. Is it correct that you testified that you went there on the second occasion, during the fourth week of her detention at the farm, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That's correct.
MR VISSER: No, no, Chairperson, not the second or the fourth week. I don't know whether I heard my ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: I didn't say the second week, I didn't say ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Well what did you say?
MR VISSER: Ja, the fourth week.
MR LAMEY: Can we just - Mr Selamolela, I'm going to repeat what I've asked. You testified yesterday that you were, on the second occasion, at the farm in Northum, during the fourth week of the detention, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And you also testified that on the second occasion you stayed there for approximately five days to a week, is that correct? Do I remember you correctly, saying that?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: ...(no microphone) he said four days to a week, not five days to a week.
ADV GCABASHE: Four days, Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: I apologise. I wasn't sure, that is why I wanted to confirm, to ask him exactly. I wasn't exactly sure on that aspect. I accept it then as such.
Mr Selamolela, now on the second occasion - could you tell the Committee, was there further interrogation during the second occasion?
MR SELAMOLELA: When we were there at the farm for the second time, the interrogation continued, it was the same as the first time.
MR LAMEY: And who was also leading the ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman. Let's stop before the problem compounds itself. I heard absolutely no interpretation and neither did my attorney. I don't know whether you heard.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there was a bit of a disturbance. Won't you just check there please?
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, give it to Mr Visser. Just check it once again, Mr Interpreter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we seem to have resolved it. Thank you very much for your assistance. Will you just pick up where you stopped, Mr Lamey, just repeat that.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
On the second occasion when you were there at the farm, was Simelane still interrogated?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, she was interrogated.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I just want to say I've heard from his previous answer, that the answer was she was interrogated as before, in the same as before.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Mr Selamolela, who led the interrogation on the second occasion?
MR SELAMOLELA: Warrant Officer Coetzee.
MR LAMEY: And was she assaulted during this period?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, she was assaulted during the second occasion.
MR LAMEY: And can you recall on the second occasion, in what manner she was assaulted.
INTERPRETER: May you please repeat your question, Sir.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall on the second occasion, in what manner she was assaulted? Was it any different from the first occasion?
MR SELAMOLELA: The bag was put on the head, so the assault was still the same as for the first time.
MR LAMEY: Did you also assist during the interrogation? I'm not talking on the interrogation aspect as such - forget the assault at this stage, were you required to assist in any way during the interrogation in any way?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, we were interpreting for Ms Simelane and then Warrant Officer Coetzee was interrogating and we were interpreting.
MR LAMEY: Were there stages on the second occasion that you were at the farm, that Warrant Officer Coetzee or Pretorius left the farm for periods?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not understand your question.
MR LAMEY: On the second occasion when you were there at the farm in Northum, did it happen that Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius left the farm on certain occasions?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, they used to leave and come back.
MR LAMEY: Now during the periods that they left, did the black members so to speak, remain behind?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, we were remaining behind.
MR LAMEY: And did you receive instructions from Coetzee, when he went away from the farm, did you received instructions regarding any continuation of interrogation?
MR SELAMOLELA: The instructions that he gave us was that we should show her the photo albums about the identity of various people who were there in the album.
MR LAMEY: While you were at the farm in Northum - I'm referring now to the first occasion and the second occasion, did she - I'm referring to Simelane, did she write anything out or make notes, or anything to that effect?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember seeing her writing notes, for the first occasion and the second occasion.
MR LAMEY: Alright, I just want to revert back now to the second occasion only ...(intervention)
ADV GCABASHE: Can I just clarity on that last answer. You may not have seen here writing out notes, Mr Selamolela, but did you see her submit any documents to Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius, when they returned from wherever they may have gone to?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not see her handing over any documents, because initially I could have seen her writing.
MR LAMEY: Now on the second occasion that you were at the farm, that you stayed there, what was your observation, was she co-operating more than the first occasion that you were there, or what was her attitude during the interrogation?
MR SELAMOLELA: Since from Carlton Centre until the end of the second occasion, she was not co-operating with us.
MR LAMEY: Now did you assist in any way when the assaults took place on the second occasion?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I would hold her and I would put the bag on her head.
MR LAMEY: Now the - was this, the second occasion, the last occasion that you were on the farm?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Now what clothes was she wearing - I assume that you returned back to Soweto after your period of stay on the second occasion, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: When I left for the second time from the farm she was wearing a brown overall.
MR LAMEY: On any of the occasions that you were at the farm at Northum, did you observe her being given other clothes or given toiletries, or something to that effect?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not see anything in that regard.
MR LAMEY: On the second occasion that you were there, was the dam, was she also put into the dam at any stage?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR SELAMOLELA: Sergeant Radebe.
MR LAMEY: And why did it happen on the second occasion?
MR SELAMOLELA: I remember at the time she - I remember at a certain stage she helped herself and then she was put in the dam.
ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, Mr Interpreter, I didn't hear that.
INTERPRETER: She helped herself. ...(seSotho) in seSotho.
ADV GCABASHE: She soiled herself? No, it's really more the interpretation. She soiled herself.
MR LAMEY: Okay, and ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, Mr Lamey, just give me a minute. Just give us a minute, Mr Lamey, we have a technical problem with the interpretation equipment. It's just being attended to. It just needs the interpreters to be swopped from one of the booths to the other one. Yes, I think our problems are resolved for the moment. Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
You testified that she was put in the dam when she soiled herself, was the purpose then of putting her into the dam, to clean her of what has happened?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
INTERPRETER: Just a moment. You may continue.
MR LAMEY: Thank you. While you were at the farm, on both occasions, Mr Selamolela, was there a facility where you could wash yourself, and if so, what did you use?
MR SELAMOLELA: During the two occasions when we were at the farm, there was a pump outside and then we would just wash our faces and then we would wash cleanly when we are in Soweto.
MR LAMEY: Now up to the last time that you were on the farm, did you get, from your own observation, any - or let me ask you this first, during the, or at the time of the detention of Simelane, did you have previous experience of recruitment of ANC or MK people?
MR SELAMOLELA: May you please repeat the question?
MR LAMEY: Before the detention of Simelane and while you were at the Soweto Security Branch, have you witnessed or experienced the recruitment of ANC or MK people?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I have that experience.
MR LAMEY: Now what was your experience regarding Simelane and your observations, up to the last time that you were on the farm at Northum? Firstly, I want to ask you, did you get the impression that there ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, could you kindly try and ask one question at a time? Whenever you begin to ask a question, I'm writing down and at the end I'm sitting with two questions and one answer. So try and keep to one question at a time.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman. I apologise.
Mr Selamolela, up to the last time that you were on the farm and from your own observation and you experienced, was there any attempt to recruit Simelane? I'm referring with the emphasis on attempt.
MR SELAMOLELA: We tried, but we failed.
MR LAMEY: You say you tried, but you failed.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Are you saying that from what you observed and from what you experienced, she was not recruited?
MR SELAMOLELA: She was not willing.
MR LAMEY: Alright. Now when did you last see her, Simelane?
MR SELAMOLELA: The last time, during the second occasion when I left the farm. That was the last time I saw her.
MR LAMEY: When you were - was there any mention made by anybody - I'm referring now to Coetzee or Pretorius, as to what they intend doing with her?
MR SELAMOLELA: Sergeant Pretorius told us that they are going to detain her at a police station, but I didn't know which one.
MR LAMEY: When you left the farm, were there other members that remained behind, when you went - on the last time that you returned to Soweto?
MR SELAMOLELA: I remember Warrant Officer Coetzee and Sergeant Pretorius and Sergeant Radebe. Those are the people who were left behind.
ADV DE JAGER: Were those the only people left behind, or could there have been others? For instance, what happened to Mr Mothiba?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember what happened to Mr Mothiba, I remember only Warrant Officer Coetzee and Radebe and Pretorius. Those are the people I saw them being left behind, because I left with Sergeant Veyi.
MR LAMEY: Now did you hear anything further about this lady subsequently?
MR SELAMOLELA: Since I saw her at the farm for the last time - may you put it correctly, because I don't understand your question.
MR LAMEY: Since you last saw her at the farm and after Pretorius mentioned that he was going to lock up, at any stage thereafter did you hear anything further about her, any reports and so forth?
MR SELAMOLELA: I read from the newspaper, I think it was 1995 or 1996, that she disappeared and the family was looking for her.
MR LAMEY: On the last time that you were at the farm, what was her physical condition like?
MR SELAMOLELA: Her face was swollen and she was weak.
MR LAMEY: Did she - you say that she was weak, can you just describe that? Why do you say so?
MR SELAMOLELA: When I say she was weak, it was that there was an occasion at the farm when she wanted to go to the toilet, we would help her because she lacked balance.
MR LAMEY: Mr Selamolela, were there - in the absence of Mr Coetzee and Pretorius, or the white members, while you were there at the farm, did you do anything regarding - can I just ask you this. On the occasions that you were on the farm - I apologise for rephrasing that question, Mr Chairman, was she given food and what sort of food was she given?
MR SELAMOLELA: You mean in the absence of Warrant Officer Coetzee, and/or in the presence?
MR SELAMOLELA: In the presence of Coetzee and Pretorius?
MR SELAMOLELA: We had our ration packs, those which are used by Security Branch members. We were eating those ration packs. She was given those ration packs.
MR LAMEY: Okay. And then, was anything else given to her, perhaps in the absence of Coetzee and Pretorius?
MR SELAMOLELA: We were able to go to the shops at any time we liked, so in their absence we would bring her food and some juice.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, you have on a few occasions, asked him "In the absence of the white policemen" and then referring to Coetzee and Pretorius, were they always together or was one staying behind perhaps, or was there any - what about Mong for instance? Was he at any stage at the farm, or any white policemen?
MR SELAMOLELA: Warrant Officer Coetzee and Pretorius, they were usually together. So in my presence in the second and first visits they were present and they would go together and come back together.
MR LAMEY: Yes, but Mr Selamolela, were there any other white members apart from them, that also attended at the farm while you were there, on both the occasions?
MR SELAMOLELA: I remember Sergeant Mong, but I don't remember as to whether he was present during the first or my second occasion in the farm.
MR LAMEY: Now when you bought food from, when some of you went to the shop to buy other food and so on and you give some of it Simelane, were any of the white members present?
MR SELAMOLELA: No, only black members were present in the farm.
MR LAMEY: Apart from the report that you later read in the newspaper, about the missing, the disappearance, or the alleged disappearance and missing Simelane, had you personally known or heard from other members of your branch as to what happened to her?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not have that knowledge.
MR LAMEY: Now Mr Veyi testified at a certain, testified that he received a request or an instruction from Coetzee to go to Potchefstroom at a certain stage and on his way to Potchefstroom he encountered Coetzee on the way coming from the front, and Veyi testified that if he remembers correctly you were with him on that occasion. What is your recollection?
MR SELAMOLELA: I do not dispute Veyi's evidence, it may happen. It could have happened that I was with him and I don't remember, or maybe he was with Sergeant Sefuti, because in other occasions he would be with me and other occasions he would be with Sergeant Sefuti. So if that is what he remembers, I don't dispute his evidence.
MR LAMEY: Alright, but can you recall receiving, after you were last at the farm, receiving a request or instruction from Coetzee to go to Potchefstroom? Do you recall that at all?
MR SELAMOLELA: I do not remember. As I have already stated, I do not remember.
MR LAMEY: Now there was evidence to the effect - okay, let me just start again, rephrase that question. Did you know Justice Mgidi, or MK Cheche?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I knew him.
MR LAMEY: Were you involved in his arrest?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I took part.
MR LAMEY: Can you comment whether his arrest occurred as a result of any information or co-operation from Simelane?
MR SELAMOLELA: If I remember well, the arrest of Mgidi happened because of a certain informer, that is SWT66. That's the number of that informer.
MR LAMEY: Mr Selamolela, can you recall whether your Security Branch, during 1983 and up to the stage of the kidnapping of Simelane, did they have safe-houses and if so, where?
MR SELAMOLELA: If I remember well, we had two or three safe-houses in Spruit West. We were using those houses to meet with the informers.
ADV GCABASHE: Spruit West being Klipspruit in Soweto?
MR SELAMOLELA: Klipspruit West in Soweto, next to Annandale in Kliptown.
MR LAMEY: Whose houses were these?
MR SELAMOLELA: Those houses were occupied by Manuel, or others who were of Portuguese origin. I don't know as to whether they were identified by the police or what, but I believe they were the police houses because we were using those houses.
MR LAMEY: These people of Portuguese origin and Manuel, were they members of your branch?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct, they were members of our branch.
MR LAMEY: Then the ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Were they undercover members, or were they openly members?
MR SELAMOLELA: They were not police per se, because they did not go to the police training college like any other police. I don't know how it happened that they became members of our unit.
ADV DE JAGER: Did they wear uniforms or anything?
MR SELAMOLELA: No, they were wearing private clothes.
MR LAMEY: Mr Selamolela, do you have knowledge of explosions that occurred, or that were done by your unit in the Bryanston/Randburg area?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I have that information.
MR LAMEY: Were you a participant at those explosions?
MR SELAMOLELA: I was present when they were planted.
MR LAMEY: You have also applied for amnesty relating to your involvement in those incidents, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Can you comment as to whether these explosions had any connection relating to the Simelane detention or information emanating from her?
MR SELAMOLELA: They were not involved with the arrest of Ms Simelane.
MR LAMEY: Then I think that's almost the final question. How long have you worked with Warrant Officer Coetzee?
ADV DE JAGER: About these explosions - just a moment, Mr Lamey. Did anybody claim responsibility for the explosions, or was it blamed on anybody, what was the position?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would say it was the mission of Sergeant Frank Langa. He was given instructions from Swaziland, that he should bomb the power stations and then Warrant Officer Coetzee said they would be done by them. I don't know who claimed responsibility, but it was made so that it should be seen that the ANC was responsible for the bombing of those stations.
MR LAMEY: Now who was Frank Langa?
MR SELAMOLELA: He was an undercover agent, he was working with the Security Branch.
MR LAMEY: Was this a so-called false flag operation?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would put it that way.
MR LAMEY: Can I just come back to the question I wanted to ask, and that is, how long have you been working with Coetzee?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would say from 1981 up to 1992, but I don't remember well as to whether it's 1990, or 1991.
MR LAMEY: Now I want to ask you from what you have experienced as being a member of his unit, whenever a person was recruited and the recruitment was successful, was there a difference in the treatment that the person received, as to if you compare it to the period before he was recruited, when he was interrogated and the moment that he was recruited?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would say immediately a person is recruited and then agree that he would co-operate with us, there would be a change of the treatment because he would be give a good treatment.
MR LAMEY: Mr Selamolela, you apply for amnesty also for your participation in the kidnapping and the, what appeared to be the unlawful detention of Simelane, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You also apply for amnesty regarding your participation in the assault on her at the farm in Northum, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You have initially said in your amnesty application - could you just have a look at page 568, that you did not know whether her detention was lawful or not, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: If you think about this, you know after you have further, today, what is your comment about this? What do you think today, was there a moment since the Carlton Centre, since she was taken at the Carlton Centre, that you ...
MR SELAMOLELA: Her arrest was not lawful.
MR LAMEY: Alright, but why do you say that? Or can I ask you this, at what point did you start to think it is perhaps not lawful?
MR SELAMOLELA: I started to observe that when we arrived at Norwood married quarters, that her arrest was not lawful.
MR LAMEY: Alright. And then you have also stated in your application that you never assaulted the lady yourself, what did you intend to mean by that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I mean kicking and again hitting her with my hands. What I only did was to hold her and put the bag on her head.
MR LAMEY: So you didn't intend to convey the meaning that you didn't do anything, but merely that you did not physically hit her or kick her, is that what you intended to say?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Now what was in general, and I would say the whole purpose of your role during the interrogation? I'm talking about the general purpose of yourself during her period of detention, specifically at Northum.
MR SELAMOLELA: I do not understand your question, Sir.
MR LAMEY: For what major purpose did you think that you went to Northum, on the two occasions that you were there, what role did you have to play? What function did you have to perform?
MR SELAMOLELA: In both occasions I thought that as we were going to Northum, I went there to guard her and to interpret for her.
MR LAMEY: Now could you just page over to page 569? Subject to what you have testified and qualified in certain respects, regarding your participation in the assaults, do you confirm also what is stated in paragraph 10(a), regarding the political objective, namely that Coetzee informed you that this person was a trained terrorist of the MK and that you understood at the time that the kidnapping and interrogation was necessary? That she was detained and interrogated in order to obtain information of the whereabouts of other MK soldiers she possibly may have known, so that they could be traced and arrested, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You've also elaborated more in your evidence that she was also asked about arms caches, and if I remember correctly, also of - ja, let us just stick with that, about arms that could be hidden somewhere. Is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: ...(end of side A of tape)
MR SELAMOLELA: ...(no audible reply)
MR LAMEY: ... force her to give her the information which she was suspected to have, although she denied everything?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You say also here that it was mainly Coetzee and Colonel Pretorius and Sergeant Radebe, that were involved with her interrogation. What do you mean by that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Because they wanted to dig out information from her.
MR LAMEY: Ja, but if you say it was mainly Colonel Coetzee, Pretorius and Sergeant Radebe, were they more involved with the interrogation in comparison to other members, is that what you are trying to say?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Then you further state here in paragraph 10(b), and you have also testified to that - this is perhaps a repetition, but initially you did not, you were not aware of what was going to happen at the Carlton Centre, you received instructions to observe, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Is that why you say that you were not aware that she was going to be arrested?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And you received your orders from Coetzee, whom you refer to as Colonel Coetzee, who was a Warrant Officer at that stage?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: You also state here that it was part of your personal motivation - I don't want to repeat further the other sentence, you have already testified to that, but you say further on, page 570
"It was the task of the Security Police also to establish the whereabouts of MK soldiers, in order to monitor their movements and to act against them in terms of the Internal Security Act, should they be involved with any unlawful activities."
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, thank you, that is the evidence-in-chief. May I just - before I close off anything further from Mr Selamolela ... Yes, Mr Chairman, that is the evidence-in-chief, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Visser, have you got any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes. thank you, Mr Chairman.
You've just told us, Mr Selamolela, what you were supposed to do as a Security Policeman, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And you personally, did you believe that what you were doing was within your duties, was what was expected of you?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I did what I did and then it was within the bounds of my duties.
MR VISSER: So you believe that you were authorised to do what you did?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I agree, because I was given instructions.
MR VISSER: And this was to fight a war which was raging in this country, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: May you please clarify your question?
MR VISSER: Your actions were directed against members and supporters of the liberation movements, in a war situation?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Yes. You first made a written application, which you later amplified, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't understand your question.
MR VISSER: It is your evidence that you amplified your original written amnesty application.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: At the time when you amplified your amnesty application, had you had time to think about the facts of the matter relating to Ms Simelane?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I had that opportunity.
MR VISSER: And you had reason to think about the incident when you made a statement to the police?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I had reasonable time.
MR VISSER: And when you made your supplementary application, you made that before you attorney, Mr Lamey?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And did you have a full consultation with him at the time?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And did you discuss the matters which you gave evidence about today?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Right. Was Mr Veyi present when you consulted with Mr Lamey?
MR SELAMOLELA: I made my statement before my lawyer, in the absence of Mr Veyi.
MR VISSER: Mr Veyi says that he was present when you told Mr Lamey what your version was.
MR LAMEY: No, that is not entirely correct. I think this question goes very much wider than what Mr Veyi stated. As I recall Mr Veyi's evidence, there was a stage when they were both present at the office, but this goes wider, as I understand the question, in general when this whole consultation took place and his application was drawn, that Mr Veyi was present. If my learned friend could just be more specific, then we would not have perhaps a misunderstanding about this.
MR VISSER: I was quite specific enough, Mr Chairman. The question is whether Mr Veyi said that he was present when Mr Selamolela gave his instructions to his attorney. That's as specific as I can be. I'm sorry for the interference, I've just switched on my computer to look for it on the record. Or perhaps I should let it stand down and look for it later, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: I see there's an interference now.
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you could come back to it.
ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps Mr Visser, you are sort of interfering with our ...(indistinct)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
MR VISSER: Absolutely, Chairperson. I think I better switch this thing off.
CHAIRPERSON: Has it improved, I'm not quite sure.
MR VISSER: Pardon, Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: I want to know whether it has improved?
MR VISSER: Oh yes, absolutely, mine is - perhaps it's this one of mine that's - but be that as it may, I'll look for the reference on the record and if I'm right or if I'm wrong, I'll mention that to you later.
MR VISSER: Did you and Mr Veyi go together to see Mr Lamey, when you went to consult with him?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember as to whether Veyi found me in Mr Lamey's office or I found him, but it was after a long time after making a statement. Nothing was changed from the statements which we have made earlier.
MR VISSER: I don't understand you answer, give me a simple answer to this question. Were you and Mr Veyi together at the office of Mr Lamey, when you went to consult with him?
MR SELAMOLELA: We were not together, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Are you absolutely certain of that answer, Mr Selamolela?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not even know that Mr Lamey was representing Sergeant Veyi. I did not know at that time.
MR VISSER: And if Mr Veyi says anything different, if he says that you and he were there together during the consultation, he would be mistaken and you would be correct, is that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: He would be mistaken.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I've heard Mr Selamolela saying that he saw Mr Veyi. That was his initial answer, before my learned friend interrupted him and told him that he's not answering the question. He said "It was a long time after I made my statement".
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I did not interrupt the witness. With respect, my learned friend must perhaps not be personal about this matter.
MR LAMEY: I'm not personal, Mr Chairman, I ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, gentlemen, please.
MR LAMEY: I'm just trying to say that what my learned friend hasn't heard perhaps when - because he put it to Mr Selamolela that he must just answer the question, and what he did answer was that "I saw Mr Veyi at Mr Lamey's office. It was a long time after I made my statement".
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so - well, I don't know whether there is a real dispute about that. I think Mr Visser's question was more specifically about the stage when Mr Selamolela made his actual statement to you. I think that's what he's talking about. I don't know whether there is a real dispute whether at some or other stage Mr Selamolela saw Mr Veyi at the office. But also, all of this is also subject to, I think, what Mr Visser wanted to look up in the record. So perhaps we don't really have a big dispute here.
MR VISSER: In fairness to you I will put the question as plainly as I can, again. When you went to consult with Mr Lamey, did you see Mr Veyi at Mr Lamey's office?
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, really ...
ADV DE JAGER: No, there's no - really, Mr Lamey, I think it's a fair question, whether he's seen him there. Don't interrupt him. I really think you're - as far as the question itself is concerned, it's whether, when he went to consult with you, whether he saw Veyi at your office.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, the difficulty that I have with this question and the fairness thereof is, it presupposes and that is where the misunderstanding comes in, only one consultation. I mean, my learned friend is referring to a single consultation. I'm really in the dark as to what consultation my learned friend is referring to. Now I don't want to come into a position that I you know, that I've got to give evidence here, but if we can just get clarity as to, firstly, as to how many consultations there were and then start from that as a vantage point.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well Mr Selamolela, did you consult with Mr Lamey at his office on more than one occasion?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you still remember on how many occasions you did that, you consulted with Mr Lamey at his office?
MR SELAMOLELA: We met many occasions. I don't remember how many times.
CHAIRPERSON: Now in the course of those meetings, those, what is technically referred to as consultations, during those meetings, anyone of those, did you see Mr Veyi at that office of Mr Lamey?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I saw him.
CHAIRPERSON: On more than one occasion?
MR SELAMOLELA: I saw him once.
CHAIRPERSON: So you saw him once only at the offices of Mr Lamey? That is Mr Veyi.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct, I saw him once at Mr Lamey's office.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I don't know whether that has taken it any further, but you can go ahead.
MR VISSER: It has been most helpful, thank you Chairperson.
On that occasion that you saw Mr Veyi there, can you remember what you went to do on that day? Did you just go to consult or did you go to finalise your supplementary application?
MR SELAMOLELA: On that particular occasion we had an appointment with Mr Lamey, but I was not aware. And whilst I was at the reception I was not aware that Sergeant Veyi was at the Lamey's office. Then I waited for 20 minutes, then thereafter we went to Mr Lamey and when I entered in that office I saw Mr Veyi, then we greeted each other. Then he didn't even stay three minutes, he left and went to Johannesburg. Because I had an appointment at that time with Mr Lamey, I remained behind.
MR VISSER: You say "we had an appointment", you said earlier. Was Mr Mkhonza there at any stage when you visited Mr Lamey's office?
MR SELAMOLELA: I saw him at the Methodist Church at the hearings, at the amnesty hearings, after five years.
MR VISSER: Does that translate into you not seeing him at Mr Lamey's office?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not see him at Mr Lamey's office.
MR VISSER: Did you discuss the facts of this case with Mr Veyi?
MR SELAMOLELA: We did not discuss the facts about this incident, because when I arrived at the office it was at the time when Sergeant Veyi was leaving.
MR VISSER: Right. On any other occasion, not necessarily at Mr Lamey's office, since you last saw Simelane, did you ever discuss the facts of this matter with Mr Veyi?
MR SELAMOLELA: We discussed about this incident after I read from the paper that she disappeared. Then that is before we made statements.
MR VISSER: Yes, yes. And you told him what you remembered and he told you what he remembered, isn't that so?
MR SELAMOLELA: At that time we did not discuss for a long time because we were, our conversation was telephonically and then we just talked that that person has disappeared.
MR VISSER: And was it only on one occasion that you had a discussion with Mr Veyi, about Selamolela - about Simelane?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember, because at the time I was at Organised Crime Unit, so we did not meet, we were not able to meet.
MR VISSER: And are you saying, Mr Selamolela, that after you left the farm in Northum, you never talked to Mr Veyi, with whom you worked together, about this whole affair? You never talked about that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Let me explain it to you this way. At the Security Branch we were not trusting one another, so we were not able to discuss about incidents. That is why I didn't even ask him about the whereabouts of Simelane.
MR VISSER: So what you're saying is you did not trust Mr Veyi, is that what you are saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm not saying I did not trust him as a person, but I'm saying we were not trusting each other as members of the Security Branch. We were operating at, or on a secrecy basis.
MR VISSER: Yes, but as far as your general work was concerned, surely there's no reason why you shouldn't discuss it with your colleagues?
MR SELAMOLELA: Let me put it this way, we did not discuss about this particular incident.
MR VISSER: Fair enough. Were you present at a meeting or a gathering at what you referred to as the Norwood quarters, where Coetzee told the meeting that there was going to be an arrest of a courier from Swaziland?
MR SELAMOLELA: I was not present in that particular meeting.
MR VISSER: You said that Coetzee telephoned you and told you to go to the Carlton Centre at 4 o'clock on that day, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Yes. Well incidentally, that was never put to Coetzee, so I don't know what he says about that. But can you remember whether that day was a Saturday?
MR SELAMOLELA: I remember it was on a Saturday.
MR VISSER: Yes. Were you at home?
MR SELAMOLELA: I phoned Warrant Officer Coetzee, we made an appointment that I should phone him at that particular time.
MR VISSER: So you in fact phoned him, is that what you're now saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct, I phoned him because he requested me to phone him at a particular time.
MR VISSER: Now when was this request made that you should phone him, was it during the same day or was it earlier?
MR SELAMOLELA: I think it was on a Friday.
MR VISSER: Did you know when you went to the Carlton Centre, that it had to do with an MK courier?
MR SELAMOLELA: I knew that Norman Mkhonza was going to meet somebody at Carlton Centre, but I did not know the identity of that person, as to whether he was an MK or a courier.
MR VISSER: I'll come to that in a moment. So you did know it was, it had something to do with his work, with Mkhonza's work?
MR SELAMOLELA: I knew - I thought so.
MR VISSER: At page 566 of bundle 3, in your supplementary application, under paragraph 2 - and this is at 9.A.4.1, Chairperson, you gave four names of members of your unit which you remember that were present at the time of the arrest, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And I'm just going to read them. It's Coetzee, Pretorius, Mathuba (misspelt for Mothiba) and Radebe, and I take it yourself.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: There was evidence before this Committee, that Mr Williams - do you know him?
MR VISSER: And Mr Ross, do you know him?
MR VISSER: Mr Mong? You know him of course.
MR VISSER: Well there was evidence that all of them were present at the arrest, at the time of the arrest. Can you deny that?
MR SELAMOLELA: The people I've mentioned are the people I remembered at the time when I made this statement.
MR VISSER: Well think back now, can you remember now whether Williams, and/or Mong, and/or Ross, and/or Mkhonza were there?
MR SELAMOLELA: Mkhonza was present, because he was the one who was going to meet Simelane.
MR VISSER: Yes, of course he was. Alright. Now you told this Committee that you were not informed what was about to happen, except that you had to go and keep observation, is that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And in fact you say the same thing in your, at page 566, paragraph 3 the last sentence, where you say
"As we were not brief prior to this, I did not know that this was going to happen."
Referring to the arrest. Right, so you confirm that. Now Coetzee, Pretorius and if I'm not mistaken, Mkhonza, as well as some of the others - I can check that later, exactly who, but there are people who say that you attended a meeting at the Norwood quarters, where this arrest was discussed. Are you saying that they are wrong, or ware you saying, as Mr Veyi says, might have happened, but you can't remember?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember being in that meeting. If I was in that meeting I could have remembered.
MR VISSER: You told this Committee that this person that you were going to keep under observation, you were informed about by Mr Mkhonza, is that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And that he informed you beforehand that it was a lady, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And that she was connected with underground work, is that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: What do you refer to when you speak about underground work?
MR SELAMOLELA: Scotch infiltrated ANC in Swaziland. That is why I was not surprised when they arranged for that meeting in Carlton Centre. I thought that was part of his work.
MR VISSER: So when you talk about underground work, you're referring to work connected with confronting ANC supporters? Is that what you're saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: I've already stated that Norman Mkhonza infiltrated ANC in Swaziland, so the person whom he was going to meet in Carlton Centre, I thought that was his work and that is the instructions he received.
MR VISSER: When did he tell you about this?
MR SELAMOLELA: He informed me on Friday. And even at Saturday I saw him before he met Ms Simelane.
MR VISSER: Was Mr Veyi present when he told you on Friday?
MR SELAMOLELA: Mr Veyi was not at Carlton Centre.
MR VISSER: I'm not asking that. Was Mr Veyi present when Mkhonza told you on the Friday, about this lady?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember seeing Mr Veyi.
MR VISSER: Can you remember where you were when he told you about this lady?
MR VISSER: But you didn't think there was anything wrong for Mkhonza to tell you about this lady that was coming in from Swaziland? You didn't think that there was anything wrong, did you?
MR SELAMOLELA: I was not surprised because he was going to meet - that was the instruction he received, that he should meet Ms Simelane at Carlton Centre, so I was not surprised.
MR VISSER: And you see it's also logical because you worked together and you spoke about these things with each other, isn't that right? Things that were happening.
MR SELAMOLELA: It may happen that when he informed me, Sergeant Veyi was not present and I was not with him.
MR VISSER: That's not my question, Mr Selamolela. I'm saying it's a logical thing that people who worked together would talk about their work, with each other, isn't that so?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Yes. Now when you were told to go and observe at the Carlton Centre, what did you think was going to happen?
MR SELAMOLELA: I was not told what was going to happen, because Warrant Office Coetzee told me that Norman Mkhonza - that I should go to Carlton Centre and keep an observation, because Norman Mkhonza will be having a person and that we should follow them to the basement.
MR VISSER: I'll repeat my question. What did you think was going to happen?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not think anything in that regard.
MR VISSER: At that stage you were a policeman for four years, from 1979 to 1983?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And you never thought for a moment that she was going to be arrested?
MR SELAMOLELA: When she was followed to the basement, at the time when she was grabbed, that is the time that I knew that she was going to be arrested, but they knew that she was going to be arrested.
MR VISSER: My learned attorney has just pointed out to me you were a policeman for seven years at the time, because you joined the police in September 1976 - page 561, Chairperson. Now didn't it ever occur to you, before you went to the Carlton Centre, that she was going to be arrested?
MR SELAMOLELA: I wouldn't think that way, because I was just going to keep an observation, that she was going to give Mr Mkhonza something.
MR VISSER: What did the Security Branch members do with MK members and supporters that they found, normally? Did they just speak to them and then wave them goodbye, is that what you're saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: If you arrest a person you'd take him or her to the police station.
MR VISSER: That's not my question. What did you normally do when you found an MK person in the Republic, in South Africa? As a Security Policeman, what would you do?
MR SELAMOLELA: We would arrest them.
MR VISSER: But it never occurred to you that this person was going to be arrested, Simelane?
MR SELAMOLELA: I was not informed and I did not know that she was a member of MK. I did not know at that time.
MR VISSER: Mr Selamolela, for some reason unbeknown to me, you're not being honest about this matter and I'm going to argue that.
MR LAMEY: I think there's no basis, absolutely no basis for this statement at this stage. I object to that innuendo or statement, really.
CHAIRPERSON: Well it's a matter of argument.
MR VISSER: I'm going to argue, Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: And I'm putting it to this witness that I'm going to argue that he's being dishonest and I'm giving him an opportunity of replying if he so wishes.
MR LAMEY: My learned friend is making this statement, as I understand it, as to the recent answers that he gave to this line of questioning and the crux of his evidence was that he understood that it had something to do with the undercover work, but he never realised that she was as such, at that moment in time, an MK member and he realised only when she grabbed in Carlton Centre. Now I can for - I cannot really see on what basis he can say at this stage that he's dishonest.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it will be a matter of argument in any case. Mr Visser says he'll argue that at the end, and you will obviously reply to that.
Mr Mkhonza - oh I see it's 11 o'clock, Chairperson. Do you want to take the short adjournment now?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think let's do that, Mr Visser, before you get into a new topic. Yes, just before I adjourn, can I just ask the members of the public not to read newspapers in here please. We'll adjourn for 15 minutes.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Selamolela, you're reminded that you are still under oath. Do you understand?
MOHAPI LAZARUS SELAMOLELA: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)
Thank you, Mr Chairman. I tried to find the passage, if it exists, on the record, I wasn't able to do so, so far. I'll have to attempt later again.
Mr Mkhonza told the Committee that he thought beforehand that this lady was going to be arrested and it would be a lawful arrest. Do you have any comment on that?
MR SELAMOLELA: The evidence which has been given by Mr Mkhonza, I would not dispute that because Mkhonza was more informed than I was, because he was the person who was supposed to meet Ms Simelane.
MR VISSER: And he says that when she was not taken to a police station, that's when he thought it was unusual. Would you agree with that?
INTERPRETER: May you please repeat your question, Sir?
MR VISSER: Mkhonza says that when Simelane, after her arrest, was not taken to a police station, he thought that was unusual.
INTERPRETER: He is asking the repeat of the question, please.
MR VISSER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
INTERPRETER: May you please repeat the question again.
MR VISSER: Mr Mkhonza said that after Simelane was arrested and she was not taken to a police station, he thought that was unusual.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I think you're putting a statement to him. Ask him for his comment, perhaps he ...
MR VISSER: Yes, certainly, Chairperson. I just want -alright. Do you have any comment on that? Is that the same way you felt, or do you feel differently?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I thought that if she was not taken to the police station, that was unusual.
MR VISSER: Did you think it was unlawful?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I thought it was unlawful.
MR VISSER: Now you're applying for amnesty for your involvement in the kidnapping of Simelane, not so?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Did you participate in any way in the arrest?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I took part.
MR SELAMOLELA: I helped to put her in the boot.
MR VISSER: And how did you do that?
MR SELAMOLELA: She was held by Warrant Officer Coetzee and Radebe and they were trying to put her in the boot, so I helped them.
MR VISSER: How did you help? Please, Mr Selamolela.
MR SELAMOLELA: By picking her up.
MR VISSER: I see. And you say it was only after that, that you realised that it was unlawful, because she wasn't taken to a police station?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, when we arrived at Norwood, that is when I realised that that arrest was not lawful.
MR VISSER: Now what was the reason why you think she was being detained?
MR SELAMOLELA: At the time when she was arrested at Carlton Centre, I did not have any information in regard to Ms Simelane. I did not know what was happened and I did not know that she was going to be arrested.
MR VISSER: Now we're past Carlton Centre, we're at Norwood quarters, and now you something is not the usual, it is out of the ordinary, as far as her detention is concerned, not so?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: What did you think was planned with Simelane's detention, what was the purpose of detaining her?
MR SELAMOLELA: When we arrived at Norwood, I did not know that she was a member of MK. She was left in the boot of the car until at night, when it was dark, before she was taken to the 10th floor.
MR VISSER: As you sit there today, what do you think was the reason why she was detained?
MR SELAMOLELA: I thought they were looking for a sort of an information from her.
MR VISSER: Yes, of course. And by the same token, wasn't it normal when the Security Police arrested a person, to try to turn his head to work for the Security Police?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, it was done that way, but at the police station, not the way she was arrested and being taken to Norwood, and from Norwood then she was taken to the farm.
MR VISSER: Were you involved in the arrest and turning of Mr Lengene?
MR SELAMOLELA: When he was turned I was not present, but I know about his arrest.
MR VISSER: Was he taken to a police station?
MR SELAMOLELA: After he was arrested, I went to Benoni Mechanical School, that is when I was going for a driver's licence test and during the interrogation I was not present.
MR VISSER: Why would detaining Simelane at Norwood, or in Northum, stop you from trying to turn her head?
MR SELAMOLELA: The questions she was asked, she denied that she knew MK structures or members within the country, when they tried to recruit her.
MR VISSER: Well Mr Selamolela, I'm simply going to put it to you that the main purpose why Simelane was detained was in order to attempt to recruit her to become an informer for the Security Police. What do you say about that? Can you deny it?
MR SELAMOLELA: When she was arrested at Carlton Centre, I did not have that observation. I realised at Norwood and at the farm, when she was recruited.
MR VISSER: I'm sorry, what did you realise then?
MR SELAMOLELA: I realised that the police wanted her to work for the police and then she denied.
MR VISSER: Yes. So what you're saying - if I just can get clarity on this, is you concede that she was detained inter alia, to be recruited, or with the view to recruit her to work for the police, but she refused, is that what you're saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would not say it is like that, because I've already stated that at Carlton Centre I did not know that she was going to be arrested and I did not even know that from the meeting they made a decision that she should be arrested so that she should be turned to be a police informer.
MR VISSER: And my original question to you was, can you deny that that is so? Now I'm asking you again, can you deny that she was arrested and detained in order to recruit her as an informer?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not know their intentions or their decisions in their planning. I would not think on the behalf of what they intended to do.
MR VISSER: Alright. So you can't deny it?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would say 50/50.
MR VISSER: Mr Selamolela, really, why is it so difficult for you to concede something which you so obviously have to concede? You can't deny that that is what was in the mind of Coetzee and Pretorius, can you?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would not dispute that, because I did not know what they thought and what they discussed.
ADV DE JAGER: Could I just ask a question. At the time of the arrest, you didn't know what they wanted to do with her. Later on, on the farm, did you realise anything, or did you learn what they intended to do?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I realised at the farm when she was recruited.
MR VISSER: And of course as you've already testified, in the process she was also interrogated in order to obtain information from her, isn't that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, she was interrogated.
MR VISSER: Now if I may come back to the Carlton Centre. I'm told that she was placed in the boot of Mr Mong's car, not Coetzee's car. Are you prepared to concede that?
MR SELAMOLELA: What I would say is that she was put in a boot, I did not know as to whether it was Warrant Officer Coetzee's car or Sergeant Mong's car, but what I know is that she was put in a boot.
MR VISSER: That is a fair answer, thank you, Mr Selamolela.
You see we know from your psychiatric reports, that you suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome and it has affected your memory.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I do understand.
MR VISSER: Ja. And therefore I don't want to be unfair to you about the detail I ask you, because I am bearing in mind the very fact that you can't remember well.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I do understand.
MR VISSER: But by the same token, Mr Selamolela, if you can't remember something, I would appreciate it if you just told the Committee you can't remember, because it would make our lives a lot easier. Would you do that?
MR SELAMOLELA: What I will remember, I will say and if I don't remember a fact, I will tell you that I do not remember.
MR VISSER: And also this incident took place some 16 years ago, not so?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And even in normal circumstances of a person with a good memory, a time span of 16 years could affect your memory, do you agree? Do you agree?
MR SELAMOLELA: I agree with you.
MR VISSER: Alright. And nobody is going to blame you if you can't remember something, Mr Selamolela, okay?
MR SELAMOLELA: I do understand.
MR VISSER: Alright. Now would it be correct to say that after the Carlton Centre episode, the following people withdrew and hand nothing further to do with Ms Simelane - I'm going to give you the names, Mr Ross, Mr Williams and Mr Mkhonza? After the Carlton Centre arrest they withdrew, would you agree with that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I agree with that.
MR VISSER: Okay. So you now went to Norwood married quarters, to the roof, and she was taken you say in your application, to this room, referring to the roof of the building, is that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Okay. And there she was interrogated by Coetzee and Pretorius, you told us.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And now I want to ask you this, - I'm just trying to find it, you said - yes, it's at page 567 of your application, it says
"This was at night"
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
"The team was all present"
That's the words that I read here. Is that a correct statement in your application, at page 567, the third line from the top, second line from the top?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm not saying that Mr Williams and Mr Ross were present. Manual and Strongman came at night and found us there in that building, in that particular room.
MR VISSER: You say, who, Strongman?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, Strongman.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that's correct.
MR VISSER: And who else were present?
MR SELAMOLELA: And myself was present.
MR VISSER: You, yes. And Coetzee.
MR SELAMOLELA: Warrant Officer Coetzee and Sergeant Mong and Sergeant Pretorius were present.
MR VISSER: And Mong. Can you remember whether Mr Veyi was present?
MR SELAMOLELA: On that particular Sunday he was not present.
ADV GCABASHE: No, no, no, Saturday.
MR VISSER: Saturday. If I remember correctly, Mr Veyi's evidence was specifically that he was - let me just finish the sentence, that he was present on the Saturday while Selamolela(sic) was interrogated at Norwood quarters. My learned friend wants to make an objection, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Don't you mean Simelane, when Simelane was questioned, not Selamolela.
MR VISSER: Ag sorry, Simelane.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I think we will just have to look at the record here. I'm not saying that my memory is absolutely right, but I have a recollection that Veyi didn't, not that same night of the arrest, that he came later, he joined later, at a later stage. But I don't have really a clear collection that his evidence was to the effect that he came that first day or night of the arrest at Norwood.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps we should ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, my recollection is also that it was a day or two, maybe the Monday, that he came into the picture.
MR LAMEY: I recall that he said some days after the arrest he came into the picture.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have you got anything specific there, Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: My attorney has just found it, it's page 502, and Mr Lamey is correct it seems. 502 of the record says
"MR LAMEY: But can you remember the first time that you went to the Norwood quarters? How long was that after the arrest? Was it the same day, the day thereafter, or two days thereafter, or what do you recall?
MR VEYI: I think it was two days or three days after she was arrested.
MR LAMEY: For the first time, to Norwood?
MR VEYI: Yes, it was for the first time."
MR VISSER: Yes, I'm clearly incorrect.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: We'll cancel the last question then, Mr Chairperson, except for this. Can you remember whether Mr Veyi was or was not present on that day of Simelane's arrest? - from your own recollection.
MR SELAMOLELA: He was not present when she was arrested. Mr Veyi was not present.
MR VISSER: At the Norwood quarters, Mr Selamolela, when she was interrogated. Sorry, I said arrested.
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember as whether he was there on Saturday, but what I remember is that he joined us at Norwood. I don't know as to whether it was on that particular Saturday, or the following day, or when.
MR VISSER: Yes, alright. And you said in your evidence that you went to the Norwood quarters, while Simelane was being interrogated, on two occasions. Do I remember it correctly?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: I want to ask you this, can you remember whether Veyi was present on one or both occasions, when you were there?
MR SELAMOLELA: At Norwood married quarters, in the first instance it was on a Saturday, after she was arrested, and then when I went for the second occasion, I don't know as to whether we came with Sergeant Veyi, but he was coming to relieve some of the members there.
MR VISSER: Well again I speak under correct, but it is my recollection that Mr Veyi said that he was in fact in your company at the married quarters at Norwood quarters, while Simelane was being assaulted.
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't dispute that.
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Visser that's what I'd understood his answer to be, that indeed Veyi did come and was there, but he had obviously come to relieve them.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Commissioner Gcabashe. On the first occasion, on the first occasion you stayed for some seven hours, that is on the Saturday, while Simelane was being interrogated. I'm sorry, that's unfair. At the married quarters, you stayed there for seven hours before you went home, from five until 23 o'clock, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Was Simelane interrogated throughout that period of seven hours?
MR SELAMOLELA: From that 5 o'clock you stated, before she was taken to the room, she was in the boot. Then we waited until it was at night and then that is, that 7 o'clock is the time when she was taken to the room.
MR VISSER: Alright. I didn't understand that. So at 7 o'clock she was taken up to the roof?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would not say it's 7 o'clock exactly, but approximately.
MR VISSER: Yes, more-or-less. So for the next five hours, on the roof in your temporary offices, was she then interrogated?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, she was interrogated.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And Pretorius and Mong and yourself were there?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: You also refer to Strongman and Manuel. What I want to ask you is, in your mind's eye, can you recall whether there may have been other members, apart from these person that you mentioned, present there that day, on the roof at the married quarters in Norwood? Is it possible?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember. Those I've mentioned are those I'm able to remember.
MR VISSER: Alright. Now during all of this time, can you remember it clearly and are you absolutely certain that nobody assaulted Simelane?
MR SELAMOLELA: At that particular time I did not observe any assaults, because I did not sleep at Norwood on that particular night. So I don't know what happened after I've left.
MR VISSER: I'm talking between the hours of 7 o'clock and 12 o'clock on the Saturday, when Simelane was arrested, not - I won't ask you questions about things that happened after you went home. I'm asking you simply this, are you absolutely convinced and sure about your facts when you say that Simelane was not assaulted in your presence during those hours?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I remember well.
MR VISSER: Now you also said that you could see that she had been assaulted ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: No, I think that was in relation to the second occasion that he visited there, not necessarily on the first occasion.
MR VISSER: Page 567, Chairperson, top of the page.
MR LAMEY: Ja, I know that it stands on, in the oral evidence he elaborated on that.
MR VISSER: Is my learned friend saying that he gave different evidence, or he understands his client to have given him different instructions to what are stated at 567, Chairperson? Because if that is so, I know nothing about that.
MR LAMEY: No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that in his initial application there was not this much detail of what happened on the first occasion and the second occasion when he visited there. His evidence was, on the first occasion he was present during the interrogation, but there were no assaults. Then on the - as I understood his evidence, that when he visited on the second occasion he also did not witness an assault, but he could see that on the second occasion that she was assaulted and he described the ...
ADV DE JAGER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, there seems to have been that distinction between his first visit to the flats and his second visits to the flats.
MR VISSER: Well may I then ask you, Mr Selamolela, would it be correct to say that when you went to the married quarters, nobody assaulted her and it was clear to you that she had been assaulted, at some stage?
MR SELAMOLELA: When I went there for the second time, that is when I observed that she was assaulted, because she was different on the face.
MR VISSER: I see, alright. Well I apologise, I didn't understand your evidence that way. On the first occasion, on the Saturday, did you observe any signs that she had been assaulted?
MR SELAMOLELA: I've already mentioned that in the first occasion I did not see anybody assaulting her, but I saw that on the second occasion, that she was assaulted.
MR VISSER: Because Mr Coetzee gave evidence to say that one of her eyebrows was swollen and there was blood, either from her nose or her lip. You didn't see that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know as to whether Mr Coetzee was ...(indistinct) about after my departure or when. I don't know.
MR VISSER: No, that was while they were in the car with Simelane, before she was taken up to the top floor.
MR SELAMOLELA: From the Carlton Centre to the room in Norwood, there were no signs of assault, she was not assaulted yet at that time.
ADV GCABASHE: Can you just clarify for me this particular point, Mr Selamolela. You are saying that from the time she was put into the boot at the Carlton Centre, the only time she was taken out of the boot was at about seven or past seven when she was taken to the room, is this what you're saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is what I'm saying.
MR VISSER: Well if that is what you're saying, I've got to put to you that you're wrong, because the evidence was that she was placed in the boot of Mong's car at the Carlton Centre, that the car was driven to the married quarters at Norwood, where she was taken out of the boot and placed in Coetzee's car on the rear seat between Coetzee and Pretorius, where they questioned her. Do you agree with that evidence?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would not agree with that evidence, because it was during the day and then there were people, always there were people at the married quarters, so something like that would not have happened.
MR VISSER: Well let me put it to you this way. When Coetzee gave this evidence, his evidence wasn't challenged in any respect, concerning what I've just put to you. In other words it wasn't put that you would disagree with that. Do you have any comment on that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know how to put it. As I've already explained that since she was put in the boot, boot from Carlton Centre, then she stayed in that boot until that time when she was taken out at seven. If I remember well.
MR VISSER: Just tell us, what did you do when you arrived, having followed the other cars? When you arrived at Norwood quarters, what did you do?
MR SELAMOLELA: We when arrived at Norwood, it was myself and Sergeant Radebe, we stayed in the car and Warrant Officer Coetzee and Sergeant Pretorius, because they were staying at that married quarters, so they went to their various houses. So we stayed with her at the car.
MR VISSER: Are you saying that you and Radebe had Simelane in the car with you? Is that what you're now saying? - at Norwood quarters?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that's correct. She was in the boot at that time and then we were outside the car and then we opened the door of the boot a little bit, so that oxygen would get in.
MR VISSER: And whose car was that?
MR SELAMOLELA: As I've already mentioned, I don't remember as to whether it was Warrant Officer's car, or Sergeant Mong's car.
MR VISSER: Who is Warrant Officer? Whose car was it? You can't remember if it was ...
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember as to whether it was Warrant Officer Coetzee, or Sergeant Mong's car, but what I remember is that it was Warrant Coetzee's car.
MR VISSER: Did Coetzee travel in the same car with you from Carlton Centre to Norwood quarters? Or rather, can I put it this way, did you travel with him in his car to Norwood quarters?
MR SELAMOLELA: I was driving my own car to Carlton Centre and then from Carlton Centre to Norwood, I was driving my own car.
MR VISSER: Alright. Now I ask you again, when you arrived at Norwood quarters, what did you do?
MR SELAMOLELA: I followed Warrant Officer Coetzee's car, then they parked next to the flats, then they out, then they went to their respective houses.
MR SELAMOLELA: We were guarding Ms Simelane.
MR VISSER: I didn't hear what you said. You did what?
MR SELAMOLELA: We were guarding Ms Simelane.
MR VISSER: Did you get out of your car?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct, then I went to the car where Ms Simelane was in.
MR VISSER: Yes. Did you ever see her being taken out of a boot and put on the seat in a car?
MR SELAMOLELA: If I remember well, when she was taken from the boot was the time when she was taken to the 10th Floor, or 12th Floor.
MR VISSER: Yes. Mr Selamolela, I want to put it to you that clearly your memory is very feint about this incident, because the evidence was very clear, that she was placed on the rear seat in Coetzee's car, where she was questioned by Coetzee and Pretorius. And that was never challenged. I put it to you that you are wrong in your recollection of where she was kept.
MR SELAMOLELA: That could not have happened, because I've already stated that at Norwood people were staying there and children were playing outside, so they could not have interrogated her in the car, in the presence of other people.
ADV DE JAGER: Could I just get clarity on something. Radebe and Ms Simelane were together in the boot from the Carlton?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, from Carlton Centre to Norwood they were together in the boot.
ADV DE JAGER: Where did Radebe get out of the boot?
MR SELAMOLELA: He went out when we arrived at Norwood.
ADV DE JAGER: Wouldn't the children see that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Where the cars were parked, people would not be able to see, but from Carlton Centre to Norwood, he was together with Ms Simelane in the boot.
MR VISSER: You say where the cars were parked, people could not see? Are you referring to Carlton Centre or to Norwood, or to both?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm referring to Norwood.
MR VISSER: So then why do you mention the fact that there was public and children playing around, that could see?
MR SELAMOLELA: I was saying, at all times children were staying there and people were walking around in that particular vicinity, so she couldn't have been interrogated in the car. That's what I've stated.
MR VISSER: Is that an inference you're drawing, or are you giving evidence that she was not interrogated in the car?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is my evidence that she was not interrogated in the car.
MR VISSER: Coetzee told this Committee that he parked the car out of sight of the public, using the entrance of the building. Do you agree with that?
MR SELAMOLELA: May you please repeat your question?
MR VISSER: Coetzee gave evidence to the Committee, that his parked at a place out of sight of the entrance to the Norwood quarters, out of sight of the public that used, or the residents that used the entrance to Norwood quarters. Do you agree with that?
MR SELAMOLELA: There was only one entrance to the Norwood married quarters.
MR VISSER: So do you agree with him?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't agree with him, because the only entrance used in that married quarters was only one. So it seems I heard you speaking about another entrance.
MR VISSER: So what are you disagreeing with?
MR SELAMOLELA: ...(no English interpretation)
ADV DE JAGER: No, what Mr Visser is putting to you, he's saying that Coetzee parked his car at such a place where the car couldn't be seen by people going into the building through that entrance.
MR SELAMOLELA: They would be able to see, because where the car was parked, that is where cars were washed by the residents of Norwood married quarters. And then it's a parking lot for all cars of people residing in that particular institution.
MR VISSER: Then please explain to this Committee what you meant when you said just now
"The cars were parked where people could not see"
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know how to explain this. Where the car was parked was not a garage, it was a parking area, then at the back there is a garage. So you would be able to see the car when you come and park your own car and people are moving in and out, because they were residing in that building.
ADV GCABASHE: But if you are walking, either into the entrance of Norwood quarters or walking out of the entrance to Norwood quarters, would you be able to see this car?
MR SELAMOLELA: It was not parked at the main entrance, because near the main entrance it's an open space, so the car was parked at the back where cars were washed.
ADV GCABASHE: Yes, I understand that, Mr Selamolela. I'm asking, if I were walking into the building or walking out of the building, would I be able to see that car? Just cast your mind back to that building.
MR SELAMOLELA: You'd be able to see that car.
ADV GCABASHE: Would I be able to see the entire parking area, from the front entrance to the Norwood quarters?
MR SELAMOLELA: If you used the entrance in or going out, you would be able to see that parking area.
MR VISSER: So are you saying that you were wrong just now when you said
"The cars were parked where people could not see"?
MR SELAMOLELA: Maybe I did not understand your question.
MR VISSER: No, no, no, that was an answer which you gave. You said
"The cars were parked where people could not see. There were children playing. There were people moving into the building."
And you said they were parked where those people could not see.
MR SELAMOLELA: I would say children were staying there, but I did not say they were playing. It would happen that children would come on that particular area.
MR VISSER: Was there somebody washing cars on the day of Simelane's arrest, when you parked the cars there?
MR SELAMOLELA: They were not there, but cards were parked there.
MR VISSER: Alright. Let's move on. You said you left at midnight and you left some members behind, do you remember that? That is now from the roof where Simelane was being interrogated. Do you remember that?
MR VISSER: Can you remember whether Mr Veyi had come to relieve you, whether you left him there?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember that I saw Mr Veyi on that particular Saturday, or it was in the second occasion.
MR VISSER: Can you remember who the members were that you left behind?
MR SELAMOLELA: Sergeant Radebe was present, Warrant Officer Coetzee and Sergeant Pretorius and Strongman was present. If I remember well.
MR VISSER: And you returned, you told us, the following day or the day thereafter, to that place where she was kept on the roof, is that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: But although you can't remember whether it was a day or two days, is it your recollection that after the Saturday, it wasn't a long time before you went back again, it was soon thereafter, a day or two later? It seems to suggest that, Mr Selamolela - just to explain what I'm getting at, it seems to suggest that in your memory your two visits to the roof where Simelane was kept, while she was kept there, were not spaced far out of each other, certainly not further than two days apart, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: I went on a Saturday, then I went for a second time. I don't know as to whether it's the following day, or it was a day thereafter.
MR VISSER: It was either the Sunday or the Monday, that you went back for the second time. Is that correct?
MR VISSER: On that day, the second occasion, on the Sunday or the Monday, can you remember when you went there, what time you went there?
MR SELAMOLELA: During the second occasion I went during the day, because even on that particular occasion I did not sleep at Norwood.
MR VISSER: What time, can you remember, did you leave to go home?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember, but it was at night, but it was not late at night, but it was at night.
MR VISSER: 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock, 7 o'clock, thereabouts? 8 o'clock, more-or-less, more-or-less?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember the exact time, but it was at night.
MR VISSER: Is it also possible that you left early in the afternoon, for example? That you can't remember.
MR SELAMOLELA: It was at night, not in the afternoon.
MR VISSER: On that second occasion, did you see anyone assaulting Simelane?
MR SELAMOLELA: No, I did not see any person.
MR VISSER: But according to what I understand of your evidence now, is that at that stage you could see that she had been assaulted, before you arrived there on the second occasion, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Alright. Would you bear with me a moment, Chairperson.
You see, why I'm asking you this is because the evidence is that Simelane was taken to Northum farm in the Northum district on the Monday, after the Saturday when she was arrested. Do you agree with that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't agree with that.
MR VISSER: Why don't you agree with that?
MR SELAMOLELA: During the second occasion, I remember Sergeant Veyi was not present for two days in the office and he was at Norwood.
MR VISSER: Yes, I'm not sure what to make of that. The point here is that Coetzee - I'm just going to refer to Coetzee, there are others that supported the evidence, said that his recollection was that Simelane was transported to the farm on the Monday after her arrest. Can you say whether that is correct, or not?
MR SELAMOLELA: According to my recollection, during the second occasion when I went there, she was still at Norwood. Then two days after, at the office, Sergeant Veyi was not present in the office and he was at Norwood, guarding Ms Simelane.
MR VISSER: Let's first ask you this, was Veyi present on the Monday when you were at Norwood quarters with Simelane?
MR SELAMOLELA: I remember that he was present, because they were coming to relieve me.
MR VISSER: Alright. So was he not at the office on that day? - Veyi.
MR SELAMOLELA: He was coming to relieve me at Norwood. When I left, it was the time they came to relieve me.
MR VISSER: Yes, we heard that. Was Veyi at the office on that Monday, according to your recollection, or was he not at the office?
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Visser, it's probably easier to call it the following day, in case it was the Monday, because we're not sure as to when exactly he left. So let's rather call it the following day, after ...
MR VISSER: Perhaps we should call it the second occasion, yes. Yes, thank you.
On the second occasion when you went there, was Mr Veyi then not at the office, or was he at the office? What is your evidence?
MR SELAMOLELA: When I was at Norwood, I would not know as to where was Mr Veyi. I would not know that when he arrived at Norwood, where was he from.
MR VISSER: So are you then saying that the day after the second time when you saw Simelane, was the day when Veyi was not at the office, was a day when Veyi was not at the office.
MR SELAMOLELA: After I've left at Norwood for the second occasion, Veyi was not present on the following day in the office and he was still at Norwood.
MR VISSER: Okay. Can you remember that clearly today?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I remember that I was working with Veyi during the day and he was not in the office, he was at Norwood.
MR VISSER: What makes you so certain about that fact which you just testified? Is there anything in your mind that reminds you of the fact that Mr Veyi was not present at the office on the day which you refer to?
MR SELAMOLELA: That's what I remembered, because when I was at the office, after I've left Norwood, Veyi was not present at the office, he was at Norwood married quarters.
MR VISSER: But you also said "for a day or two". Was he absent from the office for more than one day, or can you remember just one day?
MR SELAMOLELA: It may be a day or two, being absent from the office, being at Norwood.
MR VISSER: Alright. Now you see, what I don't understand - well let me first ask you this, was Veyi thereafter at the office all the time? And you know when I refer to "thereafter", what I'm referring to.
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Visser, I don't actually - please break it down for us.
MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, - ja, alright. You now say that Veyi was not at the office for one or two days, do you remember that?
MR VISSER: Was he thereafter at the office and did you then work together again?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, he arrived at the office.
MR VISSER: For the rest of that following week?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would not say for the whole week. I don't know because I went on two occasions there.
MR VISSER: Was Veyi not ...(intervention)
ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, Mr Visser. The misunderstand is not your - well, my impression is he doesn't know if you're talking about Norwood or the office, and you're really talking about the office. He assumed you were talking of Norwood. So maybe just repeat the question.
MR VISSER: Just allow me a moment to see whether I can put this on a simpler basis.
Mr Selamolela, you said that Simelane was kept at Norwood quarters for approximately a week. I want to know from you why you're so certain about that.
MR SELAMOLELA: My reason is that she was arrested on the Saturday, then I went for a second time there, on a Sunday or Monday at Norwood, then Sergeant Veyi stayed for one day or two days at Norwood. That is my reason.
MR VISSER: Perhaps it's a question of argument, Chairperson. It's perhaps just waiting time now.
I just want to put it to you that from your own personal knowledge, Mr Selamolela, if the last time you saw Simelane at Norwood quarters, on the Tuesday, you can't possibly say that she was kept there later than the Tuesday, or not. That's what I'm putting to you. Because you simply wouldn't know, unless somebody told you.
MR SELAMOLELA: I knew that she was still at Norwood, because Sergeant Veyi was still at Norwood after I've left.
ADV GCABASHE: But Mr Selamolela, is it not possible that Sergeant Veyi was elsewhere, not at Norwood, during those two days or so?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm cocksure that he was at Norwood.
ADV GCABASHE: But this is the question, why are you so cocksure, because you were not there, you left hopefully, around that Monday or so.
MR SELAMOLELA: Let me put it this way, at the time I was collecting reports from informers and then when we were taking those reports to Warrant Officer Coetzee, Veyi's car was present. So it was not a secret that Veyi was still at Norwood. That was not a secret. I was sure that he was still at Norwood.
ADV GCABASHE: Where his car was present at Norwood and you would take reports to Coetzee at Norwood?
MR SELAMOLELA: The car which was used by Sergeant Veyi and Sefuti at that particular time, they were parked there, therefore I would know that they were still there.
ADV GCABASHE: I'm just trying to determine where "there" is. Are you saying "there" is at Norwood married quarters?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I'm talking about Norwood married quarters.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Visser, I think we've got the facts and ...
MR VISSER: Yes, let's step onto something else, or the next step ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The interpreters are asking for just a minute.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just give us a minute, Mr Visser. Yes, we'll stand down just for a brief moment.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Interpreter. Mr Selamolela, we remind you that you are still under oath.
MOHAPI LAZARUS SELAMOLELA: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)
You told this Committee that you went - when you went for the first time to the farm, you went with Mr Veyi.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And you found Simelane on the farm.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: I put it to you then you wouldn't - well, do you know when she was brought to the farm?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know when she was taken to the farm, but when I left with Sergeant Veyi I found her there.
MR VISSER: So you see Mr Selamolela, it seems to me that both you and Mr Veyi cannot be absolutely certain that she was kept at Norwood for a week, because you saw her the last time on the Monday, even perhaps the Tuesday, and you found her on the farm when you went there, not so?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't agree with him.
MR VISSER: Yes, of course you won't. Now let's go to Northum. You say you were instructed by Coetzee to go up to Northum and you and Veyi went, you've already said so. Now at page ...(intervention)
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: ... 574 of the record you said, in most cases Veyi accompanied you to the farm, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct. For the first time and for the second time I went with Mr Veyi.
MR VISSER: I'm sorry, I put the question incorrectly. It was Mr Veyi that said - at 574, I believe, that in most cases he accompanied you to the farm. Would that be correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: I went with Sergeant Veyi on two occasions and he went there three occasions. I don't know whether he went with Sergeant Sefuti or not.
MR VISSER: Yes, in fact that was his evidence. In fact he said he was there on about eight occasions. But be that as it may. On the two occasions that you went to the farm it was with Mr Veyi, on both occasions, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And on both occasions you came back with Mr Veyi, to Soweto.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, I'm just referred to another reference, to the record, that's at page 506, where the same point is made.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we seem to have our records differently paginated.
MR VISSER: That may be, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: For some or other peculiar reason we don't even seem to have a page 506, you know it jumps from 420 to 538, so our record is obviously not correct.
MR VISSER: As far as the page numbering is concerned, that is just one of the things that I found is a scourge of modern technology, because you work with different computer programmes and you could load a perfectly good document onto one computer, but the moment you copy it to another one, it changes the page numbers for some reason and there's nothing one can do about it.
CHAIRPERSON: It seems to have happened here.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, it is possible that you've got pages missing, but that the numbering is in other respects corresponding.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have you got your record in front of you there, Mr Lamey?
CHAIRPERSON: Won't you then, whilst you are at it, page 420 in our record is where you in fact, your name appears on the top and Mr Veyi. It consists of four lines where we adjourn the proceedings for the day. That's 420. Yes, so obviously ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: No, it starts off with Mr Mong.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Then I think that difficulty that you refer to Mr Visser, must have happened here because it seems to be a major shift.
CHAIRPERSON: But there's not much that we can do immediately about that.
MR VISSER: Yes, I don't suppose so. No, Chairperson. But I did check the record as I have it, in what I put to Mr Selamolela. That you can be sure of.
Now you said just a moment ago, that Mr Veyi went to the farm three times, whereas you and he went there twice, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: How do you know that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I remember he informed me that he's going back there.
MR VISSER: Alright. Now you'd said in your evidence that when you left, and I take it it was on the first occasion you were relieved by other members. Can you remember that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Do you refer to the first occasion?
MR VISSER: Well were you relieved on the second occasion by other members?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Right. Mr de Jager wanted to know who relieved you. Could you tell us on the first occasion who the persons were that relieved you?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember who relieved us on that particular day because we were many. Others are Strongman, Peter Lengene and I don't remember others because we were many.
MR VISSER: And is the same reply applicable to the second occasion?
MR SELAMOLELA: ...(no English interpretation)
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm not able to remember those who relieved us on even the second occasion, because we were many.
MR VISSER: Alright. This small outbuilding where she was kept, was it possible to see from the farmhouse to this building? If were you were at the farmhouse, could you see the building or was it hidden away?
MR SELAMOLELA: If you are at the outbuilding, if you are able to see that small outbuilding you are able to see the big house.
MR VISSER: Are you saying that from the room you could see the big house, is that what you're saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct, we're able to see the big house.
MR VISSER: And how far approximately would it have been apart, 100 yards, 200 yards, or metres? Closer, further?
MR SELAMOLELA: Approximately 150 metres, if I remember well.
MR VISSER: Yes. The evidence before the Committee was that this room is quite secluded, it's secluded from the main house. Would you agree with that?
MR SELAMOLELA: When you get out from the outside room, from the door of the outside room, you are able to see the big house, or the main house.
ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly repeat the answer? When you get to the ...
INTERPRETER: When you are at the door of the outside room, you are able to see the main house.
MR VISSER: And this is in the bushveld, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that farm is in the bush.
MR VISSER: And there are plenty of trees, is that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, but they are not obscuring that building, you are able to see.
MR VISSER: On the farm she was hand and leg-cuffed, is that correct? - Simelane.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Was she hand and leg-cuffed at the Norwood quarters?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember at Norwood quarters, as to whether she was cuffed, both hands and legs. I don't remember, but I'm sure at the farm that she was both leg-cuffed and handcuffed.
MR VISSER: Can you remember any cuffs being on her at Norwood quarters, either ankle or leg-cuffs, or her hands?
MR SELAMOLELA: As I've already stated that I do not remember as to whether she had iron leg-cuffs, but I remember at the farm that she was cuffed.
MR VISSER: What would you say was the purpose of cuffing her on the farm?
MR SELAMOLELA: According to me, at the farm the chance to escape was there because we were in the bush, or in the forest.
MR VISSER: Alright. So it was to prevent an escape, alright.
MR VISSER: Well that's correct. That was part of the reason. The leg-cuffs, were they removed on the farm, ever, that you can remember when you were there?
MR SELAMOLELA: She was un-cuffed on the legs when she was thrown in that, in the dam and the handcuffs were removed when she was interrogated.
MR VISSER: Didn't you tell us - and I'm asking because I'm not certain, but didn't you tell us that the leg-cuffs were removed when she washed?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember saying that, Mr Visser. I stated that the handcuffs were removed when she was interrogated and the leg-cuffs were removed when she was thrown in that little dam.
MR VISSER: Yes, you say thrown into the dam. We'll come to that in a moment. Was there ever a time on the farm where there were only black members of the police there and no white members? - when you were there.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: During that time when the black members were there alone, you said to us today that she was shown a photo album, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR SELAMOLELA: I was not alone, but those who were at the farm, it was the instruction we received that we should show her the album so that she will be able to identify people she knows.
MR VISSER: Would it be fair to say that you with others, showed her the photo album?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And the purpose of that was that she had to identify people from the photo album.
MR SELAMOLELA: It's that she should point out the people she knows within that album.
MR VISSER: And did she point out people in your presence?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember her showing us any person within that album.
MR VISSER: But was she looking?
MR VISSER: Did you get the impression that she was trying to find somebody that she knew that she could point out?
MR SELAMOLELA: She was trying to look for people she knew within that album.
MR VISSER: So she was co-operative?
MR SELAMOLELA: The instruction was that she should look at the album and identify people, which means according to her she did not know any person who appeared in that album.
MR VISSER: But she tried to assist.
MR SELAMOLELA: She was instructed. I would not say she was assisting, but she was instructed to look for people she knew.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, she looked, but she did not identify any person.
MR VISSER: Alright. Is this a very thick photo album with many photographs in it?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, it's a big album.
MR VISSER: You see, because I was surprised to hear that this photo album could take up so much time, because it seems it took up time right up to the fourth week when she was on the farm. Would I be correct in that assumption?
MR SELAMOLELA: Each and every occasion she was made to look at that album. And then Warrant Officer Coetzee instructed her to look at that album in many occasions.
MR VISSER: Did you ask her any questions about her possible involvement with MK? I'm talking about you and the other black members.
MR SELAMOLELA: When we asked her, she denied that she was a member of MK, she was saying she was a student in Swaziland at the university, she has nothing to do with MK activities.
MR VISSER: So you did ask her and she did reply?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Did you ask her any other questions, where she came from, where she lived, where her parents lived, what her parents did? Did you ask her such questions?
MR SELAMOLELA: When we were with her, we were discussing generally and at times we were trying to show her that if there is something she knew, she must try to tell them because you are assaulted.
MR VISSER: Did you ask her questions about where she came from, where her parents lived?
MR SELAMOLELA: I remember I asked her, then she told me that she's from Swaziland, but I don't remember asking her the whereabouts of her parents.
MR VISSER: Was she asked with whom she stayed in South Africa while she was here?
MR SELAMOLELA: I - we did not ask her that question.
MR VISSER: Can you remember that well, or are you just, can't you remember that is was asked?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm not saying she was not asked that question, I'm saying I did not ask her that question.
MR VISSER: Did you and the other black members ask her whether she brought anything with her from Swaziland?
MR SELAMOLELA: She said she brought nothing from Swaziland, she was visiting.
MR VISSER: Did you or the other, and the other black members ask her whether she knew where arms caches were hidden in South Africa?
MR SELAMOLELA: She said she knew nothing about arms caches.
MR VISSER: Alright. So it would be fair - and I'm not going to go through a whole long list of possible questions, but it would be fair to say that the black members questioned her about her activities, not so? While the whites were not there.
MR SELAMOLELA: May you please repeat your question again?
MR VISSER: It would be fair to say that while the while people were away, you together with the other black people, questioned her on her activities.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is possible.
MR VISSER: Yes. Well, that's what happened. Did Coetzee ever request you and the other black members to speak to her nicely when he wasn't there, when the white members were not there? To treat her well, to treat her nicely.
MR SELAMOLELA: He did not ask us to treat her nicely, but he just requested us that we should show her the album and identify people she knew.
MR VISSER: Are you certain that Coetzee never said anything to the effect "You must speak to her nicely and treat her nicely"?
MR SELAMOLELA: I was able to observe that we failed in trying to recruit her. And then even when Warrant Coetzee left, he told us that we should try to explain to her that if she would co-operate with the police we would be able to fund her studies, but she was not prepared to accept that offer.
MR VISSER: Yes. Mr Selamolela, I made a mistake, it wasn't Mr Coetzee, it was Mr Pretorius, and the reference to that is in the record at page 339. Mr Chairperson, let me just read it to you.
"MR LAMEY: I know you said that. I just want to tell you that they confirmed that that was correct what you had said and they also said that there were also instructions that the black members - and I refer to Mr Selamolela and Mr Veyi, they had to work in another manner with her to get her co-operation. They had to speak nicely to her and they said indeed they understood that the idea thereof was to move her so that she could be recruited."
Said Mr Lamey. And if I then may refer you to page 514 of the record, Chairperson. Mr Lamey leads Mr Veyi:
"Now at times when Coetzee and Pretorius left and you and perhaps some of the other black members remained behind with her, did you receive particular instructions regarding follow-up questioning, or what was your role? Did you receive instructions with a particular role that you had to play in relation to the lady, Simelane?
MR VEYI: They will tell us to talk to her when they left. Maybe if she was alone with us as black members, things would be better. She would agree to working with us, but she didn't agree at all."
Now that's the basis of the questioning at the moment. So you heard what I've just read.
MR VISSER: Now what do you say to that? Do you agree with that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I explained to Mr Visser that Warrant Officer Coetzee when he left gave us an album that we should show it to Ms Simelane to identify people and try to talk with her that if she may co-operate with the police, they would fund her studies, but she did not agree.
MR VISSER: You avoiding the question is not going to make me forget it.
MR LAMEY: I would submit he is not avoiding the question, Mr Chairman, really. He is trying to convey a meaning to what Mr Visser has asked. I can't really see in what way he is avoiding the question.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I must ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: I will repeat the question.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, would you do that.
MR VISSER: Were you instructed to talk nicely to Simelane, while the white were away. That's the question.
MR SELAMOLELA: I was only instructed to show her the album and that she should co-operate with the police, then they will fund her studies at the university.
MR VISSER: Alright. We'll make our submissions about that answer in due course.
Coetzee informed you that Simelane was a trained cadre and on a mission to South Africa, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Is it the same information which you - did you get the same information from Mkhonza?
MR SELAMOLELA: Mr Mkhonza did not tell me that Ms Simelane is a member of the MK. I heard that from Mr Coetzee, not from Mr Mkhonza. Because I remember that Mr Mkhonza did not know that Ms Simelane was a member of the MK.
MR VISSER: Did you believe Mr Coetzee?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would not dispute that because I did not know, I heard it from him.
MR VISSER: And after all you said that this lady was busy with underground work, not so?
MR SELAMOLELA: Those were not my words, that she was involved with the underground work.
MR VISSER: Alright, we'll make submissions on that as well. When she refused to answer questions, Mr Selamolela, what consequence did that have for her?
MR SELAMOLELA: She was assaulted.
MR VISSER: Alright. Did this happen at Northum, in your presence?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Did it happen on the first as well as the second occasion? - when you were there.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: On the first occasion, can you tell us who the people were who actually assaulted her?
MR SELAMOLELA: In the first occasion when I was present, it was myself and Sergeant Veyi, Warrant Officer Coetzee and Sergeant Pretorius and Radebe was present.
MR VISSER: Alright. So you now say you did assault her?
MR SELAMOLELA: I've explained in the first instance when I testified, that my assault was to hold her and to put the bag.
MR VISSER: We'll come to that in due course. So yourself, Veyi, Coetzee, Pretorius and Radebe were there - yourself assaulted her, Veyi assaulted her, Coetzee assaulted her, Pretorius assaulted her, but Radebe was just there. Is that what your answer means?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm saying he was present.
MR VISSER: Present, but not assaulting?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, he took part in the assault.
MR VISSER: Alright. So all five of you, alright.
MR SELAMOLELA: That's correct.
MR VISSER: Now the evidence of Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong, was that after the first week on the farm, she was not, Simelane was not seriously assaulted. Would you agree with that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't agree with that.
MR VISSER: You don't agree with that. And that after that first week, she received slaps from time to time, depending on her answers to questions. You say that is not so?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't agree with that.
MR VISSER: Okay. Now let's talk about the assaults. Mr Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong said she was slapped in the face with the open hand by them, she was hit in the ribs and in the back with the fist, by them, and she had a bag pulled over her head to suffocate her. Now my first question to you is, did all of those things happen?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, the bag was put on her head and she was kicked and clapped.
MR VISSER: She was clapped, and I spoke about fists, fist blows to her ribcage and to her back. Did you see that happen?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, she was kicked.
MR VISSER: But Selamolela, I don't know whether in your language "hit with a fist" is translated the same as "kick". I'm talking about being hit with fists, not kick. I'll come to kick.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, fists were used.
MR VISSER: Thank you. Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong denied that they ever kicked her. And I checked the record, Mr Chairman, due to a previous objection by my learned friend, Mr Lamey. There is no suggestion by Coetzee that he ever kicked her.
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm trying to explain what happened at the farm.
MR VISSER: And I'm trying to find out from you whether you saw Mr Coetzee, or Mr Mong, or Pretorius, kick Simelane.
MR SELAMOLELA: I saw them. Yes, she was kicked.
MR VISSER: Did Veyi kick Simelane?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, Veyi used fists and open hands to assault her.
MR VISSER: I'll repeat the question. Did you see Mr Veyi kick Simelane?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not see Veyi kicking Ms Simelane, I saw him assaulting her with open hands and fists.
MR VISSER: I just want to put it to you, Mr Selamolela, that Veyi himself admitted to kicking Simelane. And I put it to you that it's very improbable that it would have happened that he kicked her and you would not be aware of it, because you were there together.
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not see Veyi kicking Ms Simelane, I saw him assaulting her with fists. I did not say he did not kick her, but I say I did not see him.
MR VISSER: Yes. But you saw the others do that, Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong, those you did see, not so?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Yes. Just bear with me a moment, Chairperson. Oh, I see you can bear with me for an hour, Mr Chairperson, it's 1 o'clock.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, would that be convenient?
MR VISSER: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn and reconvene and 2 o'clock.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Selamolela, you are reminded that you are still under oath, do you understand?
MOHAPI LAZARUS SELAMOLELA: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, have you got any further questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)
Thank you, Chairperson. We had just ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
We have just reached the point where you disagreed with the evidence that after the first week, Ms Simelane was not again seriously assaulted. Do you remember that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I said from the first week she was still being assaulted.
MR VISSER: Oh, sorry, I haven't got my headphones on, I couldn't hear anything. I'm sorry, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: No I thought ...(no microphone).
"From the first week she was still being assaulted."
MR VISSER: Yes. And we were talking about the assaults, you say that she was hit with a fist and with an open hand, you said she was clapped and she was kicked and there was a bag pulled over her head. Now if we can go on there. The bag over her head, when you put the bag over her head, can you just tell us a little bit more about that? What did you do?
MR SELAMOLELA: I put it over her head, then I would hold it at the mouth.
MR VISSER: Would you pull it tight at the back of her head? How do you mean you would pull it over her mouth?
MR SELAMOLELA: That ...(indistinct) would cover the head and the mouth. Therefore I would hold it at the end, then she would suffocate.
MR VISSER: Yes, so you would be suffocating her?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes. The reason for putting the bag on her head was to suffocate her.
MR VISSER: And she would be resisting I take it?
MR SELAMOLELA: They would hold her.
MR VISSER: Yes. And how would you know when to take the bag off, before she suffocates to death?
MR SELAMOLELA: Warrant Officer Coetzee would tell me to remove the bag, then he would be the one to tell me to put it again.
MR VISSER: Now on how many occasions, when you were there, did this take place?
MR SELAMOLELA: In the first occasion it was used and then on the second occasion it was used, but I'm not able to state how many times.
MR VISSER: Was it used every day, or was it just something that was used very seldom, the bag?
MR SELAMOLELA: It was used, but I would not say it was used every day in that week, but it was used.
MR VISSER: Which week are you referring to?
MR SELAMOLELA: I say for the fist time, for the first occasion and in the second occasion it was used, but I would not say how many times it was used in the first occasion and how many times it was used during the second occasion.
MR VISSER: Yes. I know that you suffer from a bad memory, or memory loss, but could you perhaps just help us, From you recollection, was it something that you recall that was used on and off, or do you recall that it was used often?
MR SELAMOLELA: It was used at the time when she was interrogated and then at the time when she did not want to respond, but I'm not able to tell as to whether it was used 15 times or how many times. I don't remember.
MR VISSER: Would you agree if I said to you that it was used on and off? Do you agree with that statement?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is why I'm saying I'm not able to tell how many times. And then when she was asked questions and did not respond, the bag was used.
MR VISSER: Yes. One would have imagined that this is one thing that you would remember, because you were personally involved.
MR SELAMOLELA: The problem is I did not count how many times it was used, I was not noting the frequency.
MR VISSER: Yes, I'm not asking you to count, I'm asking you to recall whether it was often or seldom that it was used and you don't seem to be able to give an answer.
MR SELAMOLELA: I believe that I'm answering the question, because I said it was used when she was asked questions, but I don't remember how many times.
MR VISSER: But didn't you create the impression that she was interrogated right up to the last, all the time? Or am I wrong?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I said so, but now we're talking about the bag. You've asked me how many times the bag was used. But the interrogation continued from the first week up to the time when I left and again in the, even in the second instance.
MR VISSER: Mr Selamolela, I don't want to waste time. I asked you how often, how frequently it was used and you coupled it to the interrogation. I'm putting it to you that you said the interrogation went on all along. Does that mean that the bag was put over her head virtually on a daily basis, every time she was interrogated? Or is that not your evidence?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, the bag was used during the interrogation, but I'm not able to tell you how regular.
MR VISSER: Alright. Did Mr Veyi participate in putting the bag over her head from time to time, that you saw?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember, because one would hold her and then the other one would put the bag. I do not remember.
MR VISSER: Did Mr Radebe, that you can remember, put the bag over her head?
MR SELAMOLELA: He would hold her. It may happen that he used the bag.
MR VISSER: Yes, but not that you can recall.
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember well as to whether he used the bag, but he participated in the assault.
MR VISSER: Did Mr Coetzee put the bag over her head?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would not say he did. At the time when she was interrogated and being assaulted, all of us would take part. That's why I said we cannot do one thing all at a time.
MR VISSER: Mr Selamolela, you say Simelane was also strangled, you said in your evidence here. Do you remember that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember saying that she was strangled.
MR VISSER: Well the witness did - that's the interpretation that came over, but now it may be an interpretation problem.
CHAIRPERSON: Unfortunately my recollection doesn't assist me. My colleagues might have a better recollection on that one, but I don't recall the term "strangle".
MR VISSER: Yes, no it was definitely used. But in fairness to the witness, it may be - and Ms Gcabashe may be able to help us, that he may have meant something else and that it was misinterpreted.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I don't want to put my head on a block here, but I can't remember this really, the wording "strangle", from his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I have a similar problem.
INTERPRETER: The interpreter doesn't remember also.
MR VISSER: Alright. Seeing that I'm the only one, and I thought I had a bad memory.
Anyway, as far as you are concerned, did you ever see Simelane being strangled?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not see her being strangled, that is why I didn't testify about that.
MR VISSER: You see - and I'll have to look up in the record again, but I put it to you that Mr Veyi, in his evidence here before this Committee, testified that she was strangled. You say you know nothing about that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I said I did not see. It may happen that one would leave to the shops. Maybe Veyi saw that in my absence.
MR VISSER: Yes, alright, let's leave that. Now coming to this electric shock, was it the machine that you talk about?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And as I understood your evidence, it's one that's got a little lever which you crank, you wind it. Is that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Would you know whether that was one of those machines which they used on the old farm telephone systems?
MR SELAMOLELA: It was not quite the same as the old phones, but it is winded the same way.
MR VISSER: Alright. And you say that the two cables, you called them, were placed on the neck of Simelane.
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Alright. How many times did you see this happen?
MR SELAMOLELA: I explained yesterday in my evidence, that electric shocks were used once, but I don't remember as to whether it was used in the first occasion or in the second occasion.
MR VISSER: Now I'm not going to come back to this every time, I'm just going to put it to you so that you know that I'm on record. The evidence of Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong was that there were no serious assaults apart from a few slaps, and Pretorius said perhaps also a few punches, committed on Simelane after the first week on the farm. You disagree with that, but I just want to place it on record. Do you understand, Mr Selamolela?
MR SELAMOLELA: I do understand.
MR VISSER: Thank you. Now - Chairperson, perhaps if you'll give me one second. What was her reaction when she was shocked?
MR SELAMOLELA: She was screaming.
MR VISSER: Alright. Was that the time, according to you, when she soiled herself, or was it another time?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember. I don't know when she soiled.
MR VISSER: Alright. The applicants for whom I appear, deny that there was every any shocks administered to Simelane at any time. What do you say about that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I remember the electric shocks very well.
MR VISSER: Yes. You know I'll tell you what is strange about that. You and Mr Veyi - or rather, let me put it this way. It was put on behalf of you and Mr Veyi, that electric shocks were administered and at the end Mr Veyi said that he didn't see that. So you're the only one of all the people who were on the farm, who talks about electric shocks. How do you explain that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm talking about the thing I've experienced. Veyi made his own statement which he remembers, and then I talk about what I remember.
MR VISSER: But how is it that nobody remembers a shock machine and you do? How can one explain that, when you were all together on the farm?
MR SELAMOLELA: There things which they remember and I am not able to remember and there are things which I do remember and they don't remember.
MR VISSER: Yes, of course that is an explanation. Can I come back to the question of strangled. Page 510 of the record, Chairperson. I read to you, at the foot of the page, second last paragraph
"MR LAMEY: Now can you explain in what way was she assaulted?
MR VEYI: She would be kicked, punched and then she would be strangled."
Now you say you saw nothing of that kind while you were with Mr Veyi on the farm.
MR SELAMOLELA: I've just explained that what Veyi experienced and remembers, it may happen that I did not see that, maybe I was absent at that particular time. There are things which I remember and Veyi does not remember.
MR VISSER: Yes. You say, Mr Selamolela, that you apply for amnesty for the assault on Ms Simelane, not so?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And you say that assault is holding her and putting the bag over her head?
MR VISSER: Now at the record, page 698. I want to read a portion to you of Mr Veyi's evidence.
"MR LAMEY: So if Mr Selamolela says during the times when he was at Northum, he was used as an interpreter and he would hold her. That was his role during the assault."
Would you say that is a correct statement?
MR SELAMOLELA: It's not my statement, it's Sergeant Veyi's statement. So I do not dispute what he remembers.
MR VISSER: But that's not all you did, because you also held the bag over her head.
ADV DE JAGER: No, but you've put it that Mr Lamey put his version and now the witness answered "That may be what Mr Veyi said".
MR VISSER: I'm coming to that. If you want me to deal with it now, I'll deal with it immediately. It's not Veyi's evidence, it's what Mr Lamey put on his behalf, Mr Selamolela. It's your attorney that put this on your behalf. Is that a correct statement?
MR SELAMOLELA: It's still correct, what Mr Lamey said, that I was an interpreter. And then I explained to Mr Lamey that I even put the bag on her head. I explained that to him.
MR VISSER: Yes, but that wasn't put. And I refer to page 702 of the record.
"MR LAMEY: So if Mr Selamolela ..."
Now you must listen carefully.
MR LAMEY: Sorry, which portion of the record?
MR VISSER: 702. It doesn't appear to be at page 702. I'm sorry about this pagination problem, Mr Chairman, because I worked off the computer and I have now the same problem. I'll read the quotation, because I took it out of the record.
"MR LAMEY: So if Mr Selamolela says during the times when he was at Northum ..."
Oh I see, yes, I see what's happened here. My pagination is out and I've duplicated the portion which I've just read to him, Chairperson. I thought it was a next portion, but it's exactly the same.
CHAIRPERSON: So it does appear at page 698?
MR VISSER: 698 is the correct reference, yes.
Now you see I just want to put it to you that it wasn't put to the applicants for whom I appear, or even to Mr Veyi, that you pulled the bag over her head. And you see what makes it more confusing, Mr Selamolela, is in bundle 3, at page 568, you made this statement - I'm sorry, 567, you made this statement at the end of the first paragraph, the second last sentence:
"I never assaulted her."
Do you read that? Right at the top, the end of the last paragraph, the second last sentence.
MR VISSER: Now in fairness to you, let's assume that you're referring only to Norwood there, is that what you meant when you said that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, this is in relation to Norwood.
MR VISSER: Now will you then explain what appears at page 568, the fourth-last paragraph, under acts and offences. Paragraph 9.A.1, the very last sentence. What do you read there?
MR VISSER: Yes. I'll read it to you.
"I never assaulted the lady myself."
Now that can't just refer to Norwood, it refers to the whole incident. I put it to you, Mr Selamolela, do you agree?
MR SELAMOLELA: If I remember well, I explained to Mr Visser or Mr Lamey during cross-examination, that if I said I did not assault her, if I said I took part in the assault, it was in regard to the use of the bag and to hold her. I did not assault her with my hands.
MR VISSER: Yes. But what made you decide to give evidence here that you assaulted her and when you completed your application from you said you never assaulted her? What is it that made you change your mind?
MR SELAMOLELA: Maybe I was not aware that the use of the bag and the kicking and the hitting is not the same thing.
MR VISSER: Maybe you were not aware that the back and the kicking and the hitting was what?
MR SELAMOLELA: They don't mean the same thing, meaning assault.
MR VISSER: I see. So you had a problem with the definition of assault. Alright, let's accept that. Now at page ...(intervention)
MR SELAMOLELA: I would say so.
MR VISSER: Alright. At page 569, paragraph 2, the second sentence reads
"I did not participate in any assaults on her."
MR SELAMOLELA: I still repeat the same answer, that I did not kick her as it was stated, the assault which I did was to use the bag and to hold her. That is the assault I'm talking about.
MR VISSER: No, Mr Selamolela ...(intervention)
ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, Mr Visser, that last reference I missed, page what was that?
MR VISSER: 569, paragraph 2, at the bottom of the page, first line, the last sentence ...(indistinct) in the first line.
No, Mr Selamolela, that won't do. When you hold a person while someone else is assaulting him, aren't you participating in that assault?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is why I said my assault, my role in the assault was the use of the bag and holding her. That I explained to the Committee.
MR VISSER: Yes, but at 569 you said you never
"I did not partake in any assaults on her."
But is that your best explanation, the one you've just given?
MR SELAMOLELA: I thought that is the best.
MR VISSER: Alright. Now I want to tell you what Mr Veyi says about that. It will be the record, at page 586, Chairperson. Perhaps I can start at 585. At the top of the page Mr Veyi says
"As I have already said, all the members, including the black members, they would do what the others were doing. They were participating though we knew very well that what was happening was not acceptable, but we were forced by the situation prevailing at the time."
So what he's saying is, all the black members as well as the white members were participating in assaulting. If you read it in context. I'm talking about Norwood now, no the farm. At Norwood quarters. Were assaulting Simelane, because you were forced by the prevailing situation at the time. Do you agree with that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Firstly, in the first occasion I was not with Sergeant Veyi at Norwood, and then I did not observe Ms Simelane being assaulted. Then in the second occasion I was not with Mr Veyi at Norwood, and then I don't remember her being assaulted in my presence.
MR VISSER: Yes, that's what you testified, now I'm telling you what he says. Because you see I then asked him
"MR VISSER: Did you see Mr Selamolela assault Simelane?"
And then there's an answer, which I'm not going to read, and a few further lines down, Adv de Jager says this:
"Could you then perhaps tell us whether Mr Selamolela, whether he in fact kicked or slapped or pushed her? What did he do?"
That's you. And Mr Veyi says this:
"He was also assisting in assaulting her, but I cannot remember exactly what he did, because assaulting refers to various things or methods. If you are kicking or punching or slapping a person, that is assault."
So what he's saying in effect is, he can't remember precisely what you were doing, but you were kicking, punching or slapping the person, Simelane.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, will all respect, I think that is a matter for argument and I think my learned friend must also, in all fairness to the applicant - I don't want to be obstructive in his cross-examination, but there was also, we can back to this specific aspect in re-examination and in all fairness, that is my impression, is that in general what the essence of what Mr Veyi said, if one looks at the totality of that, was that his recollection was sort of everybody there participated in one way or the other in the assault. But eventually he couldn't specifically pinpoint exactly what Mr Selamolela would do, or whether he did participate in any manner at Norwood. I think by just referring to this specific aspect - one can quote certain lines here and I'm sure then the record reflects that. I don't disagree with what the record says, but I think in all fairness one must refer to the total context of this whole thing.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it seems - obviously now we have the difficulty of not being able to follow immediately what the record reflects, but from what I've heard you reading, Mr Visser, it doesn't look as if he, Mr Veyi, ascribes any specific form of assault to this witness, or am I hearing you wrong?
"Kicking, punching and slapping."
CHAIRPERSON: Does he say that that is what Selamolela did, or does he say he can't be specific who did what?
MR VISSER: No, he can't be specific about what he did on each occasion, that is Selamolela, but what he did was he participated in the assault and the assault was kicking, punching and slapping. I'll read it again to you.
MS THABETHE: Sorry, Mr Chair, can I assist you?
MS THABETHE: In our copies it's page 557.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Just a minute, Mr Visser.
MS THABETHE: Right down the page.
CHAIRPERSON: Just give us a minute, Mr Visser, we just want to read it.
MR VISSER: Certainly, Chairperson. It starts at the words
"ADV DE JAGER
"He is saying everyone was taking part, he didn't say everyone was kicking. ...(no microphone)
MS THABETHE: It's in the second-last sentence, right at the end.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well he seems to say that Mr Selamolela was also assisting in assaulting her.
"... but I cannot remember exactly what he did, because assaulting refers to various things or methods. If you are kicking or punching or slapping a person, that is assault."
So he seems to say that I cannot remember exactly what he did.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) exactly what Mr Selamolela was doing?
MR VISSER: That's precisely correct. Now if you go five lines higher from where you started reading, Chairperson - well perhaps a little bit further than that, you'll see
"MR VISSER: Did you see Mr Selamolela assault Simelane?"
Do you see those words? And then if you look at the end of that answer:
"MR VEYI"
"Everyone was taking part in assaulting her."
And that is what I'm putting to Mr Selamolela now.
ADV DE JAGER: Now Mr Lamey took exactly the same point. You said I take that to be a yes to my question ...(no microphone)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.
"... I take that not necessarily as ..."
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, he also seems to say, Mr Veyi also seems to say 'you don't watch what the others are doing'.
MR VISSER: Yes. No, no, no, in fact ...(no microphone) Yes, that is in fact so and later on ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: So it seems to be just a general sort of, general evidence that he's giving.
CHAIRPERSON: He says well, everybody took part, I didn't watch what they were doing, but assault can mean anything.
MR VISSER: Yes, and that's exactly what I'm putting to Mr Selamolela.
I'm putting it to you, Mr Selamolela, that Mr Veyi said you participated in assaulting Ms Simelane, in the sense of kicking, slapping and punching. That's what he says. Is that a fair question, Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, my attention is also just drawn to the fact, or to the question, does Mr Veyi in fact place Mr Selamolela at that particular scene that he's describing there?
"MR VISSER: So at least on one occasion ..."
"... Mr Selamolela was present while she was being assaulted by you at Norwood."
CHAIRPERSON: Then he doesn't seem to be responding directly to that. Now does it appear from what happens earlier in the record, that Selamolela was present?
MR VISSER: Yes, yes, Chairperson, because I first placed the two of them together at Norwood with Simelane. And you'll find that - well, I don't know what your page number is, it's 584, where I say
"So at least on one occasion, Mr Selamolela was present whilst she was being assaulted by you at Norwood."
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are just trying to locate the basis for your suggestion here. I assume it would then be earlier in the evidence, but have you got that reference?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, if I might assist. It's on page 557, about two-thirds of the way down.
ADV GCABASHE: No, we're with you on that point, we're saying before this, does Mr Veyi place Mr Selamolela at Norwood? Because this doesn't necessarily mean that he is placing Mr Selamolela. He actually does not answer that particular question, just he starts talking about black members in general, and that is where our difficulty is, Mr Visser. That it does not necessarily place him. It wasn't clarified at the time. But do you have a better reference, earlier on, that assists us or later on that ...(no microphone)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's what we're looking for.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, at the bottom of page 557, I asked a question.
"He is saying everyone was taking part, he didn't say everyone was kicking. It was about an assault. Could you then perhaps tell us whether Mr Selamolela, whether he in fact kicked or slapped or pushed her? What did he do?
- He was also assisting in assaulting her, but I cannot remember exactly what he did, because assaulting refers to various things or methods. If you are kicking or punching or slapping a person, that is assault."
But he's referring to him being present there.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that doesn't answer our question, Mr Visser. That is what happened subsequent to your raising this particular point. We are asking an earlier point. We want to see where you know the basis for your suggestion is actually contained. And that is what we are looking for. We are not looking for subsequent developments of that point, we want to see how it came that you put that to Mr Veyi, and whether there is any misunderstanding around that.
MR VISSER: Yes, I understand what you're putting to me, Mr Chairman. You will recall that in my cross-examination of Mr Veyi, I made a distinction, drew a distinction between the events at Norwood and the events in Northum.
MR VISSER: And you will also recall that Mr Veyi didn't always keep that distinction very clear.
MR VISSER: And this particular portion, Mr Chairperson, arose after what I believed it was clearly established that Veyi and Selamolela were at Norwood on at least one occasion together, during the interrogation of Simelane.
ADV DE JAGER: It's not a queer answer yet, but on page 553, about 15/20 lines from the top
"MR VEYI: I was not alone. In most cases I was with Selamolela."
"Well we only know of two cases. Was Selamolela with you on both those occasions that you have told us about?
- I don't remember whether the first day I went, I went with Selamolela. The first day or the second day, I don't remember. I can't remember that."
MR VISSER: But eventually he says - but eventually, Chairperson, there's no doubt that he said they were there together at some stage. And it was on the basis of that, that I said to him
"Now did you see Selamolela assault Simelane?"
ADV GCABASHE: It's halfway down that same page.
MR VISSER: I'm indebted to you. Perhaps you could just read it to me. It's Mr Veyi's - well you question, Mr Visser, was
"Alright. Are you saying you were not with him there on both occasions?"
"I would not dispute the fact that I went with him the first time, or the first day, or second day, but I was there with him some time."
MR VISSER: That was the point.
MR VISSER: And then the questions refer to that particular time when they were there together.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, could I just have an opportunity here? I managed to obtain the record off a, or the portion of the record, which I of course I remember clearly that I came back on this aspect to get more clarity on what he testified in cross-examination. In re-examination my record reflects, from page 689 and onwards. I asked the following question
"Now you said in your evidence that when you were asked questions that Selamolela also participated in the assaults at Norwood ..."
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, could you tell us whether that was on the 21st of May, day 15, on that day. If you have a look at ...(no microphone)
MR LAMEY: Yes, on resumption of 21 May, day 15.
ADV GCABASHE: Just read that first sentence again, Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: The first sentence starts
"Now you said in your evidence that when you were asked questions that Selamolela also participated in the assaults at Norwood ..."
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've got that .
MR LAMEY: I don't want to read out the whole record again, Mr Chairman, but if you read what follows thereafter, it's two pages, two to three pages after that. The crux of that is, as I get his evidence, that he's referring to the group as such where he was present and he includes Selamolela in that group, without saying that he's got an independent recollection of facing Selamolela. It's sort of an assumption on his part.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well that seems to be the effect of this. This was a very general sort of assertion about these assaults.
Mr Visser, I don't know to what extent you wanted to deal with this particular point, it was just that we were trying to pick up on the record what was happening. And I don't want to spend unnecessary time. If you're done with it, then we're done with it.
MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson. I just had to put to Mr Selamolela that what Mr Veyi says about his participation in the assaults differs to a degree from what he says.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, fair enough.
MR VISSER: And once I've made that point I can step onto something else.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I've got that. Thank you.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, perhaps the last reference to this particular subject. At our page 64, I understand that our record is going to be duplicated for you tonight. We're going to give it to the Evidence Leader and it will be duplicated for you tonight. So perhaps we should refer to these page numberings so that you can find it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in fact we were going to note the references that you give to us. And your instructing attorney has made a more generous offer to us, than just duplicating it. We would be in fact placed in possession of his copy of it.
MR VISSER: Well it's our copy, Chairperson, so ...
CHAIRPERSON: Or your copy, both of yours, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Are you agreeing to that, Mr Visser, or are you holding ...
MR VISSER: I'm thinking about it, Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: At page 64 we read the following
"MR LAMEY: And he will also give evidence ..."
Well perhaps now I should refer you to higher up on the page. Mr Lamey is cross-examining Mr Coetzee and he is putting Selamolela's version to Mr Coetzee. That appears from about one-third down on the page, page 64. He says:
"MR LAMEY: Mr Selamolela will say that, and he will agree with you in major part with regard to the assault during his presence there, and he will also say that with regard to the interrogation and assaults, they were led by yourself and Mr Pretorius, is that correct?"
"Yes, Chairperson, by myself."
And then skipping a - well let me continue with the evidence:
"MR LAMEY: And their task was to watch her and to hold her during interrogation, is that correct?"
MR LAMEY: And he will also give evidence that from time to time he had to, his participation was more than holding onto her during interrogation, he slapped her and he can recall kicking her. ..."
MS THABETHE: That's page 28 of our record, Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: Now Mr Selamolela, did you tell your attorney that you recall that on occasion you slapped Simelane and kicked her?
MR SELAMOLELA: May you please repeat your question?
MR VISSER: Did you tell your attorney, Mr Lamey, that on occasion, you can remember that on occasion you slapped and kicked her during interrogation? That is Simelane.
MR SELAMOLELA: I do not remember.
MR VISSER: Well, did you in fact, as you remember today, kick and slap her during interrogation?
MR SELAMOLELA: As I've explained, that I don't remember clapping her and kicking her. I still remember that way.
MR VISSER: I'm sorry. I'm terribly sorry, could you just repeat that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I said I don't remember clapping her with open hands and kicking her.
MR VISSER: Yes. When she was choked with the bag, you told us, and she lost her breath, Coetzee would instruct Radebe to put her in the dam, do you remember that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I do remember.
MR VISSER: Was that to revive her or to make her feel better?
MR SELAMOLELA: It was I think, trying to make her better and recover.
MR VISSER: Yes. And you then said she was not thrown in - because it was Mr Veyi's evidence that was put to you if I remember correctly, she was not thrown in, she was put it the dam by Radebe. Is that right?
MR LAMEY: I don't think Veyi also testified that she was thrown into the dam, Mr Chairman.
MR LAMEY: Sorry, perhaps I just misunderstood my learned friend now. Did you say you recall that it was Veyi who said that she was thrown into the dam?
MR VISSER: No, I said nothing of the sort.
MR LAMEY: Sorry, I apologise, Mr Chairman, I was then - I misunderstood my learned friend, sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, Mr Visser, perhaps you can start again.
MR VISSER: Yes, let me start again.
CHAIRPERSON: About the testimony of this particular witness in regard to that, because I must say that I am also not clear about what happened. Because at one stage you were saying that he would hold onto her clothing and - really. So perhaps you can help by just putting it quite clear.
MR VISSER: Yes, that really is the only purpose of this questioning, Chairperson.
You say after she was choked and lost her breath, she was put in the dam by Radebe. You told this Committee. Is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I do remember.
MR VISSER: And you now said that you think that it was to make her feel better.
MR SELAMOLELA: Initially I explained that she was thrown in the water after the electric shocks, after she soiled. Then she was thrown again at the time when she lost her breath. That's how I explained it to the Committee.
MR VISSER: Well, Mr Selamolela, with great respect to you, that was not your evidence. You never said that she was thrown into the dam after being shocked with electric shocks. I put it to you.
MR LAMEY: No, but that is not what he's saying, he says to regain her breath.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I'm going to ask through the Chair, that my learned friend must perhaps think before he objects. This witness has just said that his evidence was that she was thrown into the dam after electric shocks and after she was choked. Now I put to him that that wasn't his evidence and now my learned friend is interrupting.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're losing me in the process too. He also added this element of soiling, now ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Was it a third reason why ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Must have been. That was a third reason. I'm coming to that.
CHAIRPERSON: Or did he say that she soiled herself because of the electric shocks? I'm really not sure now.
MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, I asked him that question specifically this afternoon and he says no, he can't remember that, but he can remember that she soiled herself and she was placed in the dam to clean herself.
MR VISSER: But that had nothing to do with his evidence-in-chief. Because you will recall his evidence-in-chief was that she was choked until she lost her breath. As I read it to him, Chairperson. And I asked him, was it to make her feel better. Now he says that his evidence was, during his evidence-in-chief, that she was thrown into the dam after she was electrically shocked as well.
CHAIRPERSON: So is he giving two reasons for ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: He's now giving two reasons ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ... for being put into the dam?
MR VISSER: Apart from the soiled reason. So in total it will be three reasons.
MR LAMEY: What is my learned friend to choking? I mean, is - I also am a bit at a loss here, because what I recall him saying in his evidence-in-chief is that it was, the one instance was when she soiled herself and the other instance was when, to regain her breath. I ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: After she was suffocated?
MR LAMEY: My learned friend then used the word "choked". So ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps the proper description is a suffocation, because I think it relates to the bag. But just give me a minute. Yes Mr Visser, perhaps it will assist all of us if you were to perhaps clarify it and perhaps slowly enough for the witness to be with you and for us to be with you, because my colleague just reminds me now that there appears to be two reasons. But you deal with it and let's see what comes out.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. The reason why I used the word "choked" was because that was the word that the witness used, but suffocate is a better word. I put to you Mr Selamolela, that when you gave your evidence-in-chief you only gave one reason why Simelane was put in the dam, and that was because she lost her breath after being suffocated with the bag over her head. Now do you agree with that or do you disagree with that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I do not agree with that. What I stated is that during electric shocks there was a time when she soiled and then Sergeant Radebe put her in the water so that she would clean herself. She'll be cleaned and then she should be recovered. Then that was for the first time. And the electric shocks was used once.
MR VISSER: So there were only two reasons that you can recall, the one is when she was suffocated with the bag, she was placed in the dam to make her feel better, and the other reason was, on the one occasion when she was shocked she soiled herself and she was put in the dam to clean herself. Have I got you right now?
MR SELAMOLELA: I want you to understand me in this way. She soiled herself once. She soiled herself once, then she was put in the dam to clean herself. Then she was put in the dam again to recover after she was suffocated with the bag.
MR VISSER: So that's as I have it. Were those the only reasons why she was thrown into the dam, or put into the dam?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would say those are the two reasons.
MR VISSER: You see, because Mr Veyi suggested to this Committee that she was thrown into the dam as part of her torture. Now do you agree with that statement?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would agree with him. I remember again I made a mistake, that even my statement explains that she was thrown in the dam during the interrogation. I agree.
MR VISSER: And how is that you forgot about that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Maybe it's because of how you ask your questions.
MR VISSER: Yes Mr Selamolela, I'm going to suggest to you, maybe it's because I just told you what Mr Veyi said.
MR SELAMOLELA: If I didn't agree with what he stated there, I would say I dispute what he says.
MR VISSER: Page 587, Mr Chairman. The passage reads
"MR VISSER: Alright, let's talk about the dam. What do you make of this, or what do you want us to understand about the putting into the dam of Simelane? What are you saying to us?
MR VEYI: As she was being put into the dam she would be assaulted and later be put into the dam. I think that was part of the torture."
And incidentally, Mr Chairman, this only surfaced in cross-examination, it was never, never a point made in evidence-in-chief of either Mr Veyi, or Mr Selamolela. But again that's argument.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.
ADV DE JAGER: ... ask the witness. She was foot-cuffed, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct, but when she was thrown in the dam she was unchained.
ADV DE JAGER: Then she wasn't handcuffed or foot-cuffed when she was thrown into the dam?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, if I remember well, she was un-cuffed when she was thrown in the dam.
ADV DE JAGER: On all three occasions, or even if there were more than three occasions? But at least we've heard about three now.
MR SELAMOLELA: If I remember well, during the interrogation the handcuffs were un-cuffed and when she was thrown in the dam she was un-cuffed on the legs.
ADV DE JAGER: This is a zinc dam, so you can't stand on the wall of the dam, isn't that so?
MR SELAMOLELA: It is not that high. That dam was not that high. She would taken and then they would put her in the dam, then they would hold her on the neck and then on the legs or on the waist.
ADV DE JAGER: How deep was this dam?
MR SELAMOLELA: I was never inside, so I would tell a lie how deep was the dam.
ADV DE JAGER: But you saw people standing inside it, didn't you? Or her standing inside it, didn't you?
MR SELAMOLELA: Let me explain to this Committee that she was not thrown in, but she was put in. It was a sort of immersion. So they would immerse her head in the dam, not that they lift her in the dam, but they would immerse her and take her out.
ADV DE JAGER: So she wasn't put in the dam, her whole body, she was picked up and her head was sort of pushed into the water?
MR SELAMOLELA: She was immersed, both the head and the whole body, but being held.
ADV DE JAGER: So she didn't stand in the dam?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember seeing her standing in the dam.
ADV DE JAGER: After she soiled herself she washed in the dam, wasn't she standing in the dam then?
MR SELAMOLELA: She was immersed and being taken out, but she was not left in the dam without being held.
ADV DE JAGER: The rim of this dam, the zinc, would that be about a metre high, or what would the height be? Could you show perhaps?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would say - I wouldn't say two metres, because maybe I would be two metres, my head would be two metres. I don't remember, because I never went inside the dam, but it's less than two metres, if I remember well.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, because we had evidence that you could look into the dam, standing outside.
MR SELAMOLELA: Let me stand and show the Committee.
INTERPRETER: Maybe it's that height as shown by the applicant.
MR VISSER: One-and-a-half metres?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is the height I remember.
MR LAMEY: Could we just put on record, Mr Chairman, that he has indicated his arm parallel to the ground, about chest height of his own length.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know if anybody is going to venture a scientific measurement on that one. It looked like somewhere in the region of one-and-a-half metres. I'm definitely not going to stick my neck out. I don't know if it's really all that material. If it is material, then we actually ...
MR LAMEY: No, I accept that that is the measurement. I accept it. As the Committee pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. That's the best be can do.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you, I've got a clearer picture now.
MR VISSER: Mr Selamolela, I want to say to you that it is now the first time that we have heard evidence to the effect that Ms Simelane was submerged in the dam.
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Visser, might I just interrupt here. I have the dipping of the head. I think I actually asked for clarification at the time. I have that - no, I should have it somewhere here. My disadvantage is I may have been listening to the Tswana. I don't know if we have it on record, but I recall that being said, that they pushed her head under the water.
MR VISSER: Alright, well then I put it to you that nobody else gave that evidence, you're the only one that says so. How do you explain that?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is the way I remember that she was immersed in the water, in my presence. That's the facts I remember.
MR VISSER: How could you have forgotten that, Mr Selamolela? How could you have forgotten about the fact that that was then part of her torture?
MR SELAMOLELA: As I've already stated, I forgot. But that was part of the torture.
MR VISSER: What did you mean when you - let me rather ask you this way, in your evidence-in-chief, when it was interpreted that you said that you threw her into the dam, did you then not say
"No, she was not thrown in, she was put in."
Do you remember that? And in fact you did the same thing just a moment ago. Just a moment ago you again said:
"She wasn't thrown in, she was put in."
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know when did I testify about even - even earlier I explained to the Committee how, but she was not actually thrown without being held, but she was immersed in the water, or put in the water.
MR VISSER: Did Radebe pick her up and help her over the side, is that what you're saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Okay. Now was she being asked questions while this happened?
MR SELAMOLELA: From the dam she would be taken to the room and then the interrogation would continue, but she was not asked questions in the dam or near the dam.
MR VISSER: I see. So putting her in the dam was not part of her interrogation?
MR SELAMOLELA: It was an attribute to the interrogation because from the room, if Mr Coetzee was angry, he would instruct Mr Radebe to immerse her in the water and then from the water she would be taken back to the room, therefore the interrogation would continue.
MR VISSER: Mr Selamolela, I'm not sure whether it was you or Mr Veyi that said that, but did you say that "Radebe used to hold her so that she would not drown"? Was it you that said that? Yes, page 567, at the bottom of the page.
"Did Radebe hold her so that she could not drown?"
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Bundle 3. I'm sorry, it's bundle 3, Chairperson.
MS THABETHE: It's also in the record, at page 558, ja.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, you're referring to page what of the record, Ms Thabethe?
MR VISSER: I'm referring to bundle 3.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but she's also referred to a passage in the record.
MR VISSER: I wasn't aware of it, Chairperson.
MS THABETHE: It's during Mr Visser's cross-examination of Mr Veyi. It's page 558 of our record. It's at the end, towards the end. He says - the sentence starts like this, it's Mr Visser speaking. He says
"That is not the impression that one gets when one looks at the bundle, at bundle 3, page 567 of the evidence of Mr Selamolela. Page 567. In paragraph 7, he says in the third sentence: 'At night, this same lady was taken to the zinc dam, where Radebe threw her in, but hold her so that she could not drown. If I may stop there, do you agree with that?"
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I do agree with him.
MR VISSER: But how does that tally with submerging her head in the water, by way of torturing her? I don't understand this. I was under the impression that perhaps the water was deep and Radebe was holding her so that she could wash. Was that not the position?
MR SELAMOLELA: That's how it happened. It happened the way I told you.
MR VISSER: So he wasn't holding her so that she could not drown, he was holding her to torture her under the water.
MR SELAMOLELA: He was putting her in the water and then he was holding her in such a way that she should not drown.
MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, I hope you understand that. I don't know to clarify this further, I'm just going to leave it.
MR VISSER: Why did you say in your application that Radebe threw her in? Why did you say that if that's not the truth?
MR SELAMOLELA: I said he threw her in the water, but holding her so that she should not be drowned. That's how I explained.
MR VISSER: Alright. And on this issue the last point is this. You told us now that you considered this to be part of her torture, this dam, putting or throwing into the dam, is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct. It was not only to torture her, but when she soiled we'd throw in the water and then when she did not want to respond to questions she was put in that water. And then at the point when she was a little bit breathless, she would be put in that water.
MR VISSER: Now please, I'm going to summarise this. There are the following reasons why she was put in the water: (1) When she was suffocated and she lost her breath, she was put in the water to make her feel better. That's the one, is that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: She received an electric shock on one occasion and she soiled herself and she was put in the water to clean herself. That was (2).
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Now we know of a third reason and that is that she was interrogated by Coetzee and when he got angry he ordered for her to be thrown into the dam. Is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And it was part of her torture in that she was submerged in the water. And that's the fourth reason. Have I got that right?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: You see of all this, can I tell you what you said in your application? At page 567 you said
"Radebe throw her in, but hold her so that she could not drown."
"She was thrown into the dam after interrogation bouts."
Is that statement correct? - "after interrogation bouts".
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, the way you put it, it is correct. I explained to Mr Lamey that during and after the interrogation bouts she was put or she was dipped in the water.
MR VISSER: Oh, did you tell Mr Lamey, during and after interrogation bouts? Is that what you're saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Okay. And you see, Mr Selamolela, I put these same questions to Mr Veyi and Mr Veyi only said that he thought - that's the passage I read to you a little while ago, he thought that it was part of her, or it appeared to be part of her torture. In fact, the record, Chairperson, at page 588 at the bottom you said
"CHAIRPERSON: You in fact say you think it was part of the torture. That is what you said.
MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct."
So the point I'm making to you here is that Mr Veyi gave evidence as to what he thought, not to what clearly appeared in front of him. But you're convinced that she was placed in the water as part of torture, completely submerged and everything. I think that's a repetition, so you don't have to answer, you've already said no. The point that I want to make to you is, Mr Veyi spoke no word about submerging her into the water, during the whole of his evidence. Now can you explain that?
MR SELAMOLELA: As I've already stated that Sergeant Veyi, there are things which he's able to remember and there are those things he's unable to remember. I'm only stating what I am able to remember about her dipping in the water.
MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Selamolela, but there are limits. There are limits to what you can remember differently. And here we have one of those instances where if anyone who saw it on the farm, happening more than one occasion, surely I suggest to you with respect, he would have remembered it.
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm not able to think on behalf of Mr Veyi, or change my statement because he's saying something different from what I'm saying. I'm only stating what I'm able to remember and what happened.
MR VISSER: Alright. Let's go onto something else. You testified that as a result of the assaults on her, her face was swollen and you said she had become unrecognisable. Is that what you said?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I said so.
MR VISSER: In your application at 567, at the bottom, paragraph 7, you said
"The assaults were the cause of her changing in physical appearance."
MR SELAMOLELA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: With those two expressions, do you mean to express the same thing, her fact was swollen? Or do you mean different things with those two expressions?
MR SELAMOLELA: When I speak about physical change, firstly she lost weight, her face was swollen, her lower lip was cut and then she had blue eyes. That is why I say she was changed physically.
MR VISSER: And I put it to you that that was not the situation when you last saw her. At that stage she did not have any marks on her face due to assaults.
MR SELAMOLELA: When I last saw her in the second occasion she was worse as compared to the first occasion.
MR VISSER: Oh, was she now even worse on the second occasion than on the first occasion? Is that what you're now saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that's correct, that's what I'm saying.
MR VISSER: We're talking about Northum.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, we're talking about Northum. That is the time when she was weak.
MR VISSER: Did you tell your attorney that?
MR SELAMOLELA: He knows. Yes, I told him.
MR VISSER: About these cuffs, just explain to us please - oh, I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, have I covered the questions which you had in your mind about the dam?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I think we ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Or was there something else?
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I think we've got a fair idea of this dam.
MR VISSER: Well perhaps there is one point, Mr Chairman. There must have been a fifth reason as well why she was thrown or put into the dam, and that was to wash, in the normal course of events, isn't that so?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember her washing in that dam.
MR VISSER: Did she have a wash basin in which she washed?
MR SELAMOLELA: I didn't any washing basin. I was washing my face outside.
MR VISSER: I see. Could she also have washed her face at the pump that you spoke about?
MR SELAMOLELA: I was just referring there to myself, I didn't know how she washed her face.
MR VISSER: No, the times when she was taken to the zinc dam by Radebe, was there any particular time of the day or the night when this happened, or did it happen all the time?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would say it happened mainly during the night.
MR SELAMOLELA: I would say they were not present during the day and then when they come back that incident would happen. But even during the day at times it used to happen, but mainly it happened during the night. During the day they used to go to our Soweto office.
MR VISSER: Oh, I wasn't aware that that was the position. So are you saying that the white officers were mainly away, the times when you were there at Northum during the day and they only came at night? - mainly.
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm saying there would be times where they would leave. I hope they were going to the office. I'm not saying how many times.
MR VISSER: Alright. But were there times when they were there during the day?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And would Simelane then be taken to the zinc dam to be thrown in?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: I'll tell you why I'm asking you these questions, it's because in your application form at page 567, the third line from the bottom says
"At night this same lady was taken to the zinc dam, where Radebe threw her in, but hold her so that she could not drown."
MR SELAMOLELA: I agree with that point you have stated. I've already explained that the dipping explained(sic) mainly during the night. I've stated that a little bit earlier, that it happened mainly during the night.
MR VISSER: Alright. We're just talking about the ankle or the foot-cuffs. Can you explain to us what that looked like, were they chains or were they rods of iron, did they look like handcuffs, what do they look like?
MR SELAMOLELA: They were ordinary handcuffs.
MR VISSER: I see. So it was handcuffs that they used for both her writs as well as her ankles?
MR SELAMOLELA: On the legs they were iron legs, then on the hands they were using handcuffs.
MR VISSER: Alright. Now explain to us, just give us a picture, what do iron legs look like, what you refer to as iron legs, leg-irons. What do they look like?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know how to explain, but they were iron legs and you are able to put a screw on the legs, but there is a chain in-between, but they are a little bit bigger as compared to the handcuffs.
MR VISSER: Do they have two bracelets that go around their ankles and a chain in the middle, is that what it is?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm not able to state the shape of those iron rods, but you are able to lock them inside.
MR VISSER: You're able to lock them. Alright. Because you spoke about a screw just now, but you can lock them?
MR SELAMOLELA: I think there is only kind of iron legs, I don't know as to whether there is another kind of iron legs.
MR VISSER: Yes. My disadvantage is I don't quite know, because I never made a study of it, but what I do know is one can't walk easily with those ankle-cuffs. Will you agree with me? It's very difficult to walk with them.
MR SELAMOLELA: You are able to walk with them.
MR SELAMOLELA: You're not able to walk easily, because they injure you. When you stretch the leg they injure you on the ankles.
MR VISSER: Then you said this was your first experience of the police assaulting a person and you later qualified that to say that it was the first time that you experienced an assault of such a sever nature. Can you remember that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I remember.
MR VISSER: Well I can leave that for argument, Chairperson. Chairperson, I'm running through the pages here and it seems that I have gone ahead of myself of my notes. Yes.
You testified this morning about a question that was put to you about a written statement that she wrote. Do you remember those questions?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember saying that Ms Simelane wrote a statement, I said I did not see her writing notes or giving those notes to somebody else.
MR VISSER: Yes. But can you deny that she wrote out a statement?
MR SELAMOLELA: That could have happened in my absence, so I did not see that.
MR VISSER: Well that's perhaps the reason why it was not put to Coetzee and Pretorius and Mong, that it didn't happen. Then do you know whether Ms Simelane in fact gave information to Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong, about MK activities?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know about that.
MR VISSER: Could that have happened without you knowing of it?
MR SELAMOLELA: If it happened it happened in my absence.
MR VISSER: You see because they testified that as a result of information received from her and other informers, they were able to arrest a certain MK Mpho, M-P-H-O - that's on the record, page 29, Chairperson. You can't deny what I just put to you, can you?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm not able to dispute that, but if Mpho was arrested, I would know about that.
MR VISSER: Well are you saying that he wasn't arrested?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm not saying he was not arrested, but it surprises me because I don't not know about that. That is why I'm saying if she gave them that information, it was done in my absence.
MR VISSER: Well you know, there are two Mphos, MK Mphos here. I'm not talking about the gentleman who was a commander of an MK unit in Swaziland, I'm talking about someone else now. Do you realise the difference between these two people?
MR SELAMOLELA: Both of them I don't know them.
MR VISSER: Well there were photographs here, given to the Committee to show where Mr Mpho was arrested and arms and ammunition found with him. You don't dispute that he was arrested, do you?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't dispute that he was arrested, because I was not present when he was arrested. I hear this for the first time here.
MR VISSER: Speaking about arrests, you referred in your evidence-in-chief, to the arrest of Cheche, you remember that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I do remember.
MR VISSER: Did you say that you were involved in his arrest, or was it someone else in whose arrest you were involved?
MR SELAMOLELA: ...(no English interpretation)
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, my recollection is ...(intervention)
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I was involved in his arrest.
MR VISSER: Yes, I think that's what you said.
MR LAMEY: Yes, he did testify ...(intervention)
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I'm saying that I did say that, that I was involved in the arrest of Cheche. I was present.
MR VISSER: Where was he arrested?
MR SELAMOLELA: At the Swaziland border.
MR VISSER: Oh, I see. You're referring to the first arrest? Do you know that he was arrested twice?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I know that he was arrested for a second time, but for the first time I know that he was arrested at the Swaziland border.
MR VISSER: Were you present on both occasions, or just on the first?
MR SELAMOLELA: On the second arrest I just heard about it, but I was not present.
MR VISSER: Yes. Well for your information, he was then arrested in Zolo in Soweto. You might have heard of that. But what I want to put to you is that the evidence here, by Coetzee and others, was that because information received from Simelane, correlated with the information from other informers, Mr Mpho was arrested. Can you deny that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know anything about Mpho.
MR VISSER: And that some 18 other MK members were arrested later, during the next year, 1984. Can you dispute that?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know that, and I don't dispute that.
MR VISSER: Yes. And their evidence was also that targets were identified by Simelane, which she had to tell Mkhonza about, which gave rise to the false flag operations. Can you dispute that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Firstly, I did not know the reason between the meeting of Mr Mkhonza and Ms Simelane, but about the arrest of Justice Mgidi, it's not related to this incident.
MR VISSER: Who is Justice Mgidi?
MR SELAMOLELA: That is Cheche you asked me about earlier.
MR VISSER: Alright. Now I just want to ask a few questions about these false flag operations. Would you agree that the false flag operation, the blowing up of the power sub-stations and the railway line, were done in order to enhance the credibility of the undercover agents of the police in Swaziland?
MR SELAMOLELA: About the bombing of those power stations was to build trust to Frank Langa, because he's the one who received instructions from Swaziland, and they were bombed on his behalf, so that the ANC would trust him.
MR VISSER: Yes. And that is what you also said at page 571 of bundle 3.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I stated that.
MR VISSER: But I want to take it a step further. The evidence was that it was also in order to protect Simelane, and the reason for that is that if those operations did not take place the ANC would suspect something, namely that she did not meet with Mkhonza, and if they took place they would accept or they would assume, so it was thought anyway, that she had met with Mkhonza and therefore she was okay and the operations had been carried out. She had fulfilled her task. Now that's a long statement I made to you, but I can't do it in bits and pieces. So can you say simply - can you simply say whether that could possible be true without you knowing about it?
MR SELAMOLELA: What Mr Visser has stated, in terms of my knowledge the bombing of the sub-stations is not related to Simelane's incident, that was related to Frank Langa, because he was working with Mr Mkhonza. That is my knowledge.
MR VISSER: Yes, but the fact that Frank Langa received instructions from Swaziland, cannot prevent Simelane from having come into the country with that information, could it?
MR SELAMOLELA: I would not know.
MR VISSER: Yes. That's what I'm asking you. Now turning to your application in regard to those power stations, your application at page 571 seems to suggest that you were part of a group that moved from sub-station to sub-station and blew them up. Is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct, we were accompanying Frank Langa.
MR VISSER: Yes. Well I just want to put it to you that you've got your facts completely wrong, because what happened in fact is that you were divided into two groups and that each group went to a separate power sub-station, one in Bryanston, Fairlands I think, and one in Randburg and you were only involved in one. You couldn't have been involved in two incidents.
MR SELAMOLELA: If I remember well, the way I put my statement, from Norwood when we left we followed each other with our cars and Frank Langa was present, together with Warrant Officer Coetzee. Frank Langa and Warrant Officer Coetzee and Sergeant Mong, if I remember well, were those who were planting the limpet-mine, then we'd go to another power station, they would plant the limpet-mines, then we'd go to another police(sic) station. Because they've planted those power stations to explode at the same time.
MR VISSER: Well this is not part of this application, I'm just putting it to you that you're mistaken, that you were with one group and that you blew up one power sub-station and the other group blew up the other. You also speak in paragraph 6, at page 571, of a third power station that you participated in blowing up. Is that correct?
MR SELAMOLELA: May you please repeat your question because I don't understand that.
MR VISSER: How many power stations did you participate in blowing up, for which you are now asking for amnesty?
MR SELAMOLELA: If I remember well there are three.
MR VISSER: Alright. And did all of these three incidents take place on the same day, or during the same night?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I think so.
MR VISSER: Well I think your psychiatrist is correct, you do have a memory loss, because there were only two, there were not - and you can go and check it objectively, there were only two explosions on that particular night. So you're clearly mistaken, I put it to you.
MR SELAMOLELA: Those things happened a long time ago, then I don't remember well, but I was present during the explosions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that's fine, it's not really part of the matter before us, so we're not going to delve into all the details.
MR VISSER: Do you know that Simelane was registered as an informer with the Soweto Security Branch?
MR SELAMOLELA: I remember that she denied when she was being tried to be recruited, but I don't know as to whether she was recruited.
MR VISSER: Yes. You don't know. But you wouldn't know whether she was registered as an informer either. That is the record at page ...(intervention)
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember in my presence that she agreed to be an informer.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, that's the record, page 35.
MR VISSER: Now do you actually know what happened to Simelane after you saw her the last time?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know what happened after I've seen her for the last time.
MR VISSER: Yes. You were asked in evidence-in-chief whether you heard anything and you referred to reading something about it in the newspaper. Do you remember?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I do remember. You were asking me as to whether do I know, but my answer is I saw it on paper, on newspapers.
MR VISSER: Yes, no, nothing turns on that. The question which I have for you is this. Did the black members talk among each other about what might have happened to her?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know about others, but I don't remember talking about any person, about her whereabouts or what happened to her.
MR VISSER: Did Veyi perhaps tender information to you about what he had heard had happened to her?
MR SELAMOLELA: We talked about that with Mr Veyi after seeing that on the newspapers, around 1995. It was for the first time we talked about that.
MR VISSER: And what did Veyi tell you?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know as to whether he phoned me or I phoned him, but we discussed about it shortly because we were on the phones.
MR VISSER: So what was the discussion? If it was a short one, tell us if you can remember. What was the discussion? It was about Simelane and what had happened to her, what did you say to each other? What did he say to you?
MR SELAMOLELA: He was asking me or I was asking him about as to whether he saw yesterday's paper, about the report about that person. Then he said or I said I saw it and then we said we'll see each other, then we didn't meet since then.
MR VISSER: Is that that? Was that the conversation?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm not used to discuss about those kind of issues on the phones.
MR VISSER: Didn't Veyi say to you, but you know Mothiba told me that Coetzee and Pretorius killed her? Didn't he ever tell you that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Maybe he spoke that with Mothiba, but we did not discuss it in that fashion. If they did discuss that with Mothiba, he would have told me.
MR VISSER: I'm asking you whether he ever told you that.
MR SELAMOLELA: He never told me that.
MR VISSER: You worked together, were you friends?
MR SELAMOLELA: At the time when we saw the reports about Simelane in the newspapers, I was no more at the Security Branch, I was at the Organised Crime Unit in Sandton, so we were not meeting regularly with Veyi.
MR VISSER: Were you friendly with Veyi while you were working together? Were you friendly with each other?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct, we were friendly.
MR VISSER: Why did you say this morning you didn't trust him?
MR SELAMOLELA: I did not say I did not trust him, I was saying we were not trusting one another. We were not trusting one another, so it did not surprise me why we did not discuss about that.
MR VISSER: So why would Veyi have distrusted you? Did he have reason to distrust you?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know how to put it. I said to Mr Visser, at the Security Police we did not trust one another, so it was not a surprise that he did not inform me about that and I did not even question about the whereabouts of Simelane.
MR VISSER: You know this Committee and other Committees of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission have heard on many occasions exactly how strong the bond of trust was among members of the Security Police, precisely because of what they were busy doing. You say you didn't trust each other, are you serious about that?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, I still repeat that, that we did not trust one another.
MR VISSER: Now when you last saw Simelane on the farm, you say Pretorius said that she was going to be locked up.
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Is that what you expected was going to happen in any event?
MR SELAMOLELA: That's how I was informed.
MR VISSER: Did you expect that that was what was going to happen to her in any event after her interrogation?
MR SELAMOLELA: I thought that because she was not co-operative, they're going to arrest her.
MR VISSER: Well she was already arrested.
INTERPRETER: They are going to detain her.
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm talking about lawful arrest in the cells, because at the time she was not at the police station.
MR VISSER: Mr Selamolela, just a simple question. Was she going ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: He said he expected that they would detain her.
MR VISSER: Yes, well ...(no microphone) Mr Chairman, with respect, his words are that she was going to be locked up, but that's a different matter from detaining. She was under detention in any event.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, really, I think we are really splitting hairs here over terminology. What - he's clearly convey the intention that something else, by ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: No, I used the word detain, unfortunately, he said lock up. He didn't mention detain as far as I know. Actually I've made a note, he said "going to lock up" and I'm putting it to you I ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know. Whatever, Mr Visser, take it as ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: I don't want to take it any further, Chairperson, but it's my duty to bring these matters out.
What else do you think was going to happen to her after the interrogation was over?
MR SELAMOLELA: As I've already stated, Sergeant Pretorius was saying they are going to detain her at the police station. I thought that from the farm they would take her straight to the police station to detain her. That's how he explained.
MR VISSER: And I'm asking you simply this, didn't you expect this to happen all along?
MR SELAMOLELA: I didn't know what was going to happen to her.
MR VISSER: Well what else could have happened to her?
MR SELAMOLELA: It's in two ways. When we arrested a person, it's either you detain her or him, or you release him after the interrogation.
MR VISSER: Precisely. So it would not have surprised you to have known that she was released, isn't that so?
MR SELAMOLELA: I wouldn't be surprised if she was released or if she was detained, but I said those are the words of Sergeant Pretorius, that they are going to detain her.
MR VISSER: Thank you, I'm perfectly happy with your answer. Can you deny that Simelane was taken back to Swaziland? Can you deny it?
MR SELAMOLELA: I'll put it this way, that I saw Simelane for the last time at the farm, I didn't know what happened to her.
MR VISSER: Don't you want to answer my question?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know how to answer your question, because I was not present and then the last people who were there with her would answer that question as to whether she was taken to Lesotho(?). But when I left the farm I left her there.
MR VISSER: Can you deny that she was taken back to Swaziland?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't know how to put it.
MR VISSER: If MK suspected Ms Simelane of being a police spy, what would they have done, what would have happened to her do you think?
MR SELAMOLELA: According to my experience this is in two ways. If they suspect that a person or a member of the MK was working with the police, they would kill you or they'd tell you to make you a double agent. You'd become the agent of the ANC and again the agent of the police.
MR VISSER: You say that an organisation would be happy to have an agent who they know is also working for the other side, is that what you're saying?
MR SELAMOLELA: We talk about an agent who is in their hands at that particular time and they would give him or her instructions.
MR VISSER: Well if that's the best answer, I'm going to step off it. Do you have knowledge, after 1983, that informers and police agents were withdrawn from Swaziland?
MR SELAMOLELA: I have no such knowledge.
MR VISSER: Did you or did you not accompany Mr Veyi to Potchefstroom?
MR SELAMOLELA: I don't remember about the Potchefstroom incident.
MR VISSER: Mr Veyi says you accompanied him. At page 76 of the record
"MR LAMEY: I also received instructions with regard to Mr Veyi, with regard to the meeting at the Carltonville crossing on the Johannesburg/ Potchefstroom road, and my firm instructions are that he did see her, that is Simelane, the last time in the boot of a vehicle which you were driving and not in a panel van as you have said."
"So that's just to identify the situation that we're talking about."
And I believe it's at page 81 - Chairperson, if you'll just bear with me a moment. Oh, I'm sorry, it's page 521. This is where he gave his evidence in regard to that meeting. Sorry, Chairperson. And at page 521, the bottom of the page, Mr Veyi says:
"We received a message at the office, saying Lieutenant Coetzee phone and he told us not to go to Northum, where we were supposed to go. He told us that we would meet him in Potchefstroom in Colonel Steyn's office. We then drove to Potchefstroom. When we were on our way to Potchefstroom ..."
"MR LAMEY: ..."
ADV DE JAGER: It's page 414 of our bundle.
"Can I just stop you there. You say "we drove", who drove the vehicle?
- Selamolela drove the vehicle.
So there's no doubt about this, Veyi says you drove a car and you and him went to Potchefstroom, where at a certain four-way stop crossing you came across Coetzee, who had Simelane in the boot of his car. Now I want to know from you, is that true or is it false? And don't tell me you can't remember such a matter as that.
MR SELAMOLELA: That evidence which has been given by Veyi, I would not dispute that. He explained in his evidence-in-chief that there were instances where he was not with me, he was with Sergeant Sefuti. And then even in Northum at times he would go with Sefuti. It may happen that he made a mistake. I was not present, because I could remember that if I was with him.
MR VISSER: Yes, yes, well ...(intervention)
MR SELAMOLELA: I'm not saying he did not go, because he remembered that point, I'm saying there are things which I'm able to remember and those Veyi is not able to remember. So I don't remember about this Potchefstroom incident. I'm saying he is making a mistake. Maybe he went there with Sergeant Sefuti.
MR VISSER: Yes, alright. But the fact is this, if you had gone with him and seen Simelane in the boot of Coetzee's car, you would have remembered, wouldn't you?
MR SELAMOLELA: Yes, if I was with him I would remember that point.
MR VISSER: And the other reference, Chairperson, is at page 616, over the page to page 617, in my record. The key words perhaps for you to look at is, on that page there's a reference to Exhibit S and Mr Visser asks
"Thank you. Was Selamolela present?"
And what follows thereon. I see I've taken you over the time, Chairperson, I apologise.
MR LAMEY: I just want to - my learned friend hasn't highlighted this, but what Veyi also further states there, and I just want to place that on record. He says
"I was with ..."
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I'm going to interrupt my learned friend. There are some rules. The rule is, if my learned friend wants to say something, if he wants to clarify something he can do so in re-examination. With great respect, at some stage or other my learned must learn that one does not interrupt cross-examination, because all you do, Chairperson, is you just prolong the agony.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm not sure what Mr Lamey's point it, whether you've put it out of context or whether you put an incorrect version to the witness.
MR LAMEY: I don't want to re-examine on this point, the witness has given his answer and that is it, but Mr Visser has stated it categorically what Veyi has testified and he has referred to his initial portion of the evidence, but what is on this further page that was not mentioned in the question was, what Veyi stated is
"I was with Selamolela, if my memory serves me well."
CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see. Now what is the reference there, Mr Lamey?
CHAIRPERSON: That's the same page that Mr Visser referred to now?
MR VISSER: Now if my learned friend is finished, Chairperson ...(intervention)
MR LAMEY: The reason why I wanted to mention it, Mr Visser asked a question, I left it there. And stated his words were "There can be no doubt about that".
MR LAMEY: Then I remember - you know that it is not, it is actually argument, whether it is as clear as that as he's put it. And I would submit that - I don't want to argue it now, but I just wanted to point out that the record, a portion where ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Well you're busy arguing it, Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Well I just wanted at this point, that it be noted also the remainder of the context of Veyi's evidence. Thank you.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, I didn't want to detain you, but now just to show how wrong my learned friend is, I've got to read to you what is at page 616.
"MR VISSER: Thank you. Was Selamolela present?
- I was with Selamolela, if my memory serves me well."
That's an expression one uses, and you'll see just now that that's exactly what it was.
"MR VISSER: Yes. You said it all over. You said it in your statement etc., etc., you said it in your evidence. So he also saw Simelane in the boot of the car?
Not I think so, I suppose so, if my memory serves me well. "That is correct". He saw Simelane in the boot of the car.
"MR VISSER: And if he is talking the truth he will come and confirm that as far as you are concerned.
MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct."
Now Mr Chairman, my learned friend can argue to you that that is doubtful, that's his good right, but he hasn't got the right to interrupt me in cross-examination when I put perfectly legitimate questions to the witness.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes, well we've noted the points that have been raised. I assume you've got further questions, Mr Visser, you haven't reached the end of the line?
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I'm very pleased to say that I'm pretty close to the end of the line. There are some loose ends that I still have to tie up, on what he said today as well as a few matters, such as toiletries and that kind of thing, which we have to deal with.
CHAIRPERSON: No, we can deal with that in the morning.
MR VISSER: But I won't be long tomorrow morning.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's in order. Yes, we've come to the end of the day. We'll adjourn the proceedings at this stage and we will reconvene tomorrow morning at nine thirty. We're adjourned.