Truth Commission Special Report
Amnesty Hearing - 54665

Type: AMNESTY HEARINGS
Starting Date: 31 October 1997
Location: CAPE TOWN
Day: 5
URL: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54665&t=&tab=hearings
Original File: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/capetown/capetown_7heidel.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------		
	

CHAIRPERSON:   You are reminded that you are still under your 

formal oath.

FRANCISCO CERQUEIRA:	(s.u.o)

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE:   (cont)  

	Thank you Mr Chairman.  Good Morning Mr Cerqueira.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Good morning Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Cerqueira, yesterday at the outset I said to 

you and I just want to repeat that today, that what happened that 

evening, cannot be defended, it is indefensible, the killings of 

everybody in that Tavern and the killing of your brother, constitutes 

a gross human rights violation, there is no argument about that, so I 

don't have any fight with you about that.

	So, just in terms of the necessary sensitivity which this matter 

and which this process warrants, I just want to assure you of that.

MR CERQUEIRA:   I appreciate that.

ADV ARENDSE:   But you will also appreciate that we need to get 

as full a picture as possible of what happened there and at times, 

you know, I am going to put things to you which you know, which 

obviously you may not agree with and which you may not like, but 

like with everyone else, I've got a job to do.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Okay.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now one of the things I put to you yesterday, 

which may have caused some consternation or which may have upset 

you, is the suggestion that you may not have been there.  

	Now, none of us and I am sure Mr Prior will also tell you 

that, we as lawyers we cannot make suggestions to you if we don't 

have some basis for making them.  If they are purely speculative or 

unfounded, then we are out of order and I am sure that the Chairman 

will come to your assistance or will rebuke me if I do that.

	So yesterday's suggestion from me comes out of the summary 

of the evidence that the Judge made in the criminal trial.  And that 

comes from Mr Brode's evidence.  Mr Brode, I read back to you that 

he said he was there, Mr Cerqueira's wife was there I think and some 

other waiter, he never mentioned your name.  That is where it comes 

from.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Did he mention Mr Cerqueira's wife was there?

ADV ARENDSE:   Sorry, let me just get it.   It is on page 46.    He 

said and you understand Afrikaans - from line 22 Mr Chairman - he, 

with Jose Cerqueira and his wife as well as another waiter stayed 

behind after all the guests left the restaurant at about quarter past 

eleven.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Well, Sir, there seems to be a little bit of a 

misunderstanding.  Whoever gave you that statement, my brother's 

wife was not in the restaurant at the time of the shooting.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, so Mr Brode made a mistake, it is not 

Jose's wife, it was you?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I don't know how he made that mistake, but I 

don't want to sound funny, but I don't look like a woman for 

starters, and she is definitely very much a woman.   She was 

definitely not there, Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   So, you know, as far as we are concerned, we 

accept that you were there, we don't have a problem with that.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Thank you.

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, may I be of some assistance.  I don't 

want to interject unnecessary, but the statement of Brode or 

submissions of Brode on page 73 of the witness' bundle, which was 

supplied to the legal representative where he describes the incident 

in that statement, maybe that may assist my learned friend.

	The middle paragraph, under the heading "The incident".  

ADV ARENDSE:   Thank you.  I have just indicated that it was not 

in issue that Mr Cerqueira was at the scene.  Mr Cerqueira, just 

going back to what you said then yesterday, all this happened very 

quickly?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   We are talking about the matter of a couple of 

minutes at most?

MR CERQUEIRA:   The time seemed like an hour to me, but it was 

very quick.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, yes.  When you came out of the restaurant 

the first time, did you observe anyone else or anything else in the 

vicinity of the corner there where you were at, at the corner of 

Lower Main Road and Station Road or in Station Road itself?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No, when I came out, Mr Brode was standing 

on the corner in front of me and then the other waiter that worked 

for us, came and stood with us.  That is the first observation of any 

person around me, if you are talking about people.

ADV ARENDSE:   And the second time you came out, did you 

observe anything or anyone?

MR CERQUEIRA:   There was no second time.  It was the first time 

I came out before the shots had been fired at us.  I came out onto 

the pavement.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA:   The two gentlemen I mentioned was standing 

there, we looked up and the car was coming down.

ADV ARENDSE:   But didn't you say you went back in after that?

MR CERQUEIRA:   When they started shooting at us, yes, I ran 

back in, I dragged Mr Brode in.  We struggled through the door and 

then I came out.  After - like I mentioned to you yesterday - after 

going over the counter, looking for the gun, shouting for my 

brother, then I came out and he was lying on the pavement.  

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, that is the second time?

MR CERQUEIRA:   That is the second time.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, now the first time, apart from seeing Mr 

Brode and the other waiter there on the pavement, and you dragging 

Mr Brode in, you didn't see anything else or anyone else?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I am not sure what you are asking me.

ADV ARENDSE:   No, I mean did you see another vehicle?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Are you talking about when I was inside the 

restaurant or outside or ... (intervention)

ADV ARENDSE:   No, when you came out?

MR CERQUEIRA:   When I came out?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, you came out now twice, okay, we know 

that. 

MR CERQUEIRA:   I came out once first, I saw the two gentlemen 

standing there.  I looked up and I saw one vehicle coming down.  I 

didn't notice any other vehicle.  And when the shots were being fired 

at me, believe you me, I didn't notice anything else, I  just noticed 

to get out of there.

ADV ARENDSE:   I understood you to say yesterday, that you came 

out a first time and you saw what you called a heavy laden vehicle.

MR CERQUEIRA:   No Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   Move up against the one way?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse, I think you are a little bit mistaken 

there.  What I said yesterday was that when I was inside the 

restaurant, the car - I noticed the car, if I turned to the door, I 

noticed a car driving, slow down.  While I was sitting in the 

restaurant.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, okay, that is fine.  Then I was mistaken.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Okay, Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   But you then only came out twice?  Once ...

MR CERQUEIRA:   Once to find out what the popping sounds were 

about and then when I ran in, then I came out - looking for my 

brother.

ADV ARENDSE:   And then when you observed this vehicle again, 

it was now coming in your direction?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   Whereas when you were sitting ...

MR CERQUEIRA:   In the opposite direction.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, when you were sitting in the restaurant, you 

saw it going that way?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Going up.

ADV ARENDSE:   And that was a matter of minutes?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes, Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   The interim?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes, Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, when you came out the second time, did 

you observe any other vehicle or any other persons in the street?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No, Sir.  At the time there was so much fear 

and so much confusion, I was only concerned for my brother and I 

went straight onto the pavement where my brother was.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay.

MR CERQUEIRA:   He was actually in the gutter, not on the 

pavement.  That is the second time when I came out.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay.  Now, the first time you went out and you 

pulled Mr Brode in, what did you see?

MR CERQUEIRA:   The first time when I went out and pulled Mr 

Brode in?

ADV ARENDSE:   When you went out and pulled Brode in, yes?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I went out, I saw Mr Brode standing there with 

the waiter and then the gunshots were being fired at us.  I looked 

up, it was the same vehicle.  It looked to me like the same vehicle, 

the same dark vehicle, I can't put a colour to it, it was coming down 

in the opposite direction.

	The same type of vehicle, the nose was up in the air, like this 

and the people were firing at us.  That is the second time I went out. 

 I dragged Mr Brode in because he froze in the doorway, he had 

been shot in the leg and against the wall, the first shots hit the wall. 

 That's when I dragged him in with fear, I went through.

ADV ARENDSE:   Did you see anyone in front of the Tavern?

MR CERQUEIRA:   In front of my Tavern?

ADV ARENDSE:   No, in front of the Heidelberg Tavern when you 

... (intervention)

MR CERQUEIRA:   Did I see anybody?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I can't say I did.  I can't say I did.

ADV ARENDSE:   You were looking at the car because shots were 

coming from the car?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   You were focused on the car?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I was focused on the car.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay.  

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse, in circumstances like that when 

you are being shot at, there is not many things that you can observe, 

other than look out for your safety.  And I was looking out for Mr 

Brode's safety as well.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.  No, I understand.  Now, so at which point 

then did you, you said yesterday that you saw someone at - it 

sounded to me that someone sitting at the back, firing at that side of 

the road, or firing towards the opposite side of the Heidelberg 

Tavern and Machados?

MR CERQUEIRA:   When I came out and stood with Mr Brode 

before they started shooting at us, the shots of gun and I saw the 

one barrel being stuck out, sort of out of the roof like this, and the 

person's head from the back.

	And then another guy on the right hand side of the car, sorry 

the left hand side of the car, shooting towards us.  They weren't 

shooting direct at us at first, they were shooting like sort of at an 

angle straight at the wall.  And then the guy turned the gun on us 

and started shooting, that is when I grabbed and ran inside.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.   

MR CERQUEIRA:   The car was travelling very, very slowly.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.  Maybe I can tell you that there was 

someone on the corner of Lower Main Road and Station Road.  It 

seems that more or less the same time that you observed what 

happened.

	I will read to you from page 45 of the record and page 46 Mr 

Chairman, from lines 22 onwards.  An employee of the Cape Town 

City Council, John Jacobs, was on duty that Thursday evening of the 

30th of December 1993.  He was patrolling the streets to see 

whether all the street lights were burning.  He and a colleague were 

driving alone Lower Main Road in Observatory from north to south. 

 As they arrived at the corner of Lower Main Road and Station 

Road, they heard sounds like gun fire or fire crackers and saw three 

men emerge.  Since they wanted to turn into Station Road, they saw 

three men in a car, against the one way, in Station Road, driving in 

their direction.  They were then forced to wait for this motor 

vehicle.  Mr Jacobs heard gun shots at the very moment when 

someone emerged from the door of the facility on the corner of 

Station Road and Lower Main Road.  He saw the end of a rifle 

sticking slightly out of the back passenger window of the vehicle.  It 

was clear to him that someone was firing from the motor vehicle at 

this person.  He had fallen flat in his motor vehicle and then when he 

lifted his head again, he saw the person who had emerged from the 

door of the corner facility lying in the storm water drain in Station 

Road.

	Now, that version doesn't exactly correspond with what you 

observed, do you agree with that?

MR PRIOR:   With respect, that is not so and I must object.  In the 

summary given by the learned Judge it is connected by the witness 

Jacobs to the firearm he sees protruding, or the barrel he sees 

protruding out of the vehicle.  He links that firing with that firearm. 

 He doesn't say that the man who was shot at, was in fact firing.

CHAIRPERSON:   Is that so, Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Chairman, can the witness just comment.  It 

is not a trick question.  I have just read to him what Mr Jacobs said 

and I am asking him whether that corresponds with what he has told 

us.  That is all, I have made no suggestions or allegations that shots 

may have been fired from the person on the corner, and this would 

have been your brother Mr Cerqueira.  I made no suggestions.  I am 

just asking for your comment.

CHAIRPERSON:   I want you to know that what Counsel has read 

out to you, is the Judge's summary of the evidence that was led 

before him on this aspect of the matter.  Do you understand?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sure.

CHAIRPERSON:   And you are invited to comment on that passage 

that has been read to you.

MR CERQUEIRA:   I have got no comment Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   Thank you.  Now, just on the issue of the gun, 

your brother's gun in this case.  Is it correct, you can't tell us apart 

from saying to us that the Police, or a policeman looked at the gun 

and said that no shots were fired out of the gun, you cannot say 

under oath whether or not your brother fired a shot or shots at any 

of the Heidelberg attackers?

JUDGE WILSON:   He has said under oath that his brother didn't 

have a gun.  That he went to where his brother's body was, and he 

didn't have a gun.  Hasn't he, isn't that the evidence he gave 

yesterday?

ADV ARENDSE:   No, I didn't understand it to be that clear Judge, 

with respect.  What we heard yesterday and Mr Cerqueira is here to 

correct me, is that some time afterwards, it may have been five to 

ten minutes after the late Mr Cerqueira was picked up from the 

pavement, Mr Brode produced the gun to the Police.

MR CERQUEIRA:   No Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   His evidence was that he picked up this bag on 

the pavement.

JUDGE WILSON:   His evidence was he went to his brother how 

was shot under the left arm.  He had no firearm, he had a bag in his 

hand.  Wasn't that your evidence yesterday?

MR CERQUEIRA:   That is correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Cerqueira, did you see a gun?  Did you see 

your brother's gun?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse, like I've just told you, like the 

Judge has told you, I didn't see no gun.  When I got to my brother's 

body, he was lying there, he was choking in his blood.  I found the 

pouch that I produced yesterday next to his body and there was no 

gun there.  The gun was later given to me by Mr Brode, to my hand. 

 I held it in my hand.  The Police arrived, asked me if there was 

shots being fired by the same gun, I said no, please check it.

	The Policeman checked it, took it, gave it to another 

Policeman, he made a statement which I didn't.  I didn't make any 

statement, he made some sort of statement.  He wrote on the thing 

and they took the gun.  I don't know what happened to the gun 

afterwards to be quite honest with you.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yesterday I read Mr Brode's, the summary of his 

evidence to you.  Do you remember that?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I do remember Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   And he mentioned nothing about the pouch or 

the bag which you produced here?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Or the gun?

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, he spoke about the gun and I recall saying 

it is unfortunate that it is just left at where he said and I quote on 

page 47 on the top.  "He called to Cerqueira to take his firearm in 

hand which he kept behind the bar counter.  He then realised that 

Cerqueira was not in the restaurant.

	That is all he says about the gun.

MR CERQUEIRA:   He is quite correct, that is what he did.  He 

went in shouting with me, we were both shouting for the gun.  I 

shouted at Mr Brode, get Joe, get my brother and he was shouting 

for my brother as well.  That is quite correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   So is it unreasonable to infer from what one 

reads there, that your brother may have left with the gun or that 

when he looked under the counter, there was no gun, you brother 

wasn't there and he had run out with the gun?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse, isn't it also reasonable to believe if 

one had a gun in his hand and he is being shot and he is dying on the 

pavement, that the gun would be lying next to him?  I found no gun 

next to him.

ADV ARENDSE:   Someone else may have picked up the gun?  Mr 

Brode may have picked up the gun.  How do you know that he didn't 

pick up the gun?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Brode got to the body after me, I was there 

first.  I got to the body, my brother was lying there, choking in his 

blood.  Mr Brode came up to me and asked me is he gone?  What's 

wrong and he sat on the pavement, put his head in his hands and he 

started crying.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, unfortunately Mr Brode had already made a 

mistake by mentioning Mr Jose Cerqueira's wife, but is he also 

making a mistake by not - if obviously assuming the Judge's 

summary is correct - is he making another mistake by not mentioning 

that you were there first - by not mentioning you at all? 

	One gets the impression from reading this that he was the only 

one who got to your brother, picked him up, held his head in his 

arms.  He doesn't mention you at all?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sir, with due respect to the statement you've 

got there.  That you will have to ask Mr Brode.  Like I mentioned to 

you, I was there first and Mr Brode came afterwards.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.  

MR CERQUEIRA:   And my sister in law was definitely not in the 

restaurant at any time during the shooting, or before the shooting.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.   You see, I am referring to page 73 Mr 

Chairman, of the second bundle where we have Mr Brode's 

statement.  I am not sure what day it was made, but it seems to be 

the 22nd of October 1997.  And I will just read to you again what he 

says.

	I am reading from paragraph three, the sub-heading "the 

incident".  I had been on duty at Machados restaurant on the night 

of 30 December 1993, when the incident in question took place.  

The restaurant had been quite full that evening, being the festive 

season and everyone was in a jolly mood.

	After the restaurant had closed, the owner Joe Cerqueira, his 

brother and another colleague whose name I can't remember, had 

been clearing the restaurant and set about preparing the restaurant 

for the next day's business when we heard what we assumed was a 

car backfiring in the road outside.   This sound continued and we 

thought it may also be the sound of fireworks thrown by some 

partygoers outside.

	I was the first to walk out of the restaurant to investigate and 

was followed by my colleagues.  I saw individuals coming out of the 

Heidelberg Tavern, which is located next to Machados restaurant.  

They were making their way to a dark coloured car.  I saw what I 

again thought was flares or fireworks and then noticed these 

individuals were firing automatic machine gun fire in all directions.

	Once they spotted me and my colleagues, they fired in our 

direction.  In the resulting confusion, we pushed our way back into 

the restaurant and took cover as best we could.  I remember lying 

flat on the floor of the restaurant.  

	On page 74 at the top - once the firing had stopped, I ran out 

of the restaurant, it was at this stage that I saw the deceased, Joe 

Cerqueira lying, dying in the gutter.  He had been shot in the chest.  

The result was complete mayhem as people ran around in shock, 

shouting for help.  It was only at this stage, when I knelt down next 

to the deceased, that I realised that I had been shot in the leg. 

	My thoughts at that stage were about Joe Cerqueira and I 

remember thinking Joe, you can't die now.  The exact details of what 

happened after that, are not clear to me.

	So, in that statement too, he doesn't mention you specifically, 

although he may have meant when he said once they, that is now the 

... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON:   What about his brother?  Is that not this 

witness?

ADV ARENDSE:   If you can't just give me a chance to finish, I am 

just going to clear that up now?

JUDGE WILSON:   You started by saying he does not mention you 

specifically.  

ADV ARENDSE:   That is right.

JUDGE WILSON:   You don't think that is correct?

ADV ARENDSE:   That is right, he doesn't mention him specifically 

and I am trying to clear that up by saying that he must mean that his 

colleagues, he was clearly referring to the people who were with him 

- his brother and another colleague.  

	So he must have meant that you were in that same group when 

he says the firing was at you and his colleagues?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Well, he mentions brother, so I am his brother 

and colleagues.  There were other colleagues, which was Michael, 

which was the waiter that I mentioned before.  Yes, I would say so.

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, it is just that from what you are saying, 

you appear to play a leading role, you went outside, you pulled Mr 

Brode in.

MR CERQUEIRA:   I did.

ADV ARENDSE:   You went back outside, you went to your brother 

first?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, I am just asking, one would have thought 

that Brode would mention these things.

MR CERQUEIRA:   I don't know Sir, you would have to ask Mr 

Brode.  I am telling you like it is, you are asking me the questions, I 

am giving it to you.

ADV ARENDSE:   Fine.

MR CERQUEIRA:   And if Mr Brode's statement seems wrong to 

you, you would have to ask Mr Brode.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, now do you respect what I am just putting 

to you, it is not what I am saying because clearly I wasn't there.  I 

am just reading to you what is in the documents before us?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sure, I do that, but you seem to be battering me 

all the time about Mr Brode's statement.  I am not here about Mr 

Brode, I am here about my brother and I am giving you, like you've 

asked the truth, I am telling you how I saw it.  I am telling you that 

is the story.

	If Mr Brode has got something different in that statement, I 

am sorry Sir, but you would have to ask Mr Brode.  I wasn't there 

when Mr Brode gave the statement, I am telling you like it is when I 

was there, and I was definitely there.  Because as you've mentioned 

in your statement, I am glad you brought it up about the brother and 

colleagues, because I am very much his brother.

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, with respect, it is difficult - the way in 

which my learned friend asks the questions, he wants the witness to 

answer a question how another witness or why another witness said 

certain things in his statement and that is within the peculiar 

knowledge of that other witness.

	Mr Brode will be called and he obviously will answer 

questions on the differences between the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON:   Unless Mr Arendse is going to suggest that this 

witness was not there, you see.

MR PRIOR:   Yes, Mr Chairman and or fabricating his evidence I 

don't know.

CHAIRPERSON:   Well, fabricating or not but unless Mr Arendse is 

going to suggest to him, look you were not there.

MR PRIOR:   Well, then that is a valid question.

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, it must also surely be valid if there are two 

people who said they were at a particular scene, that you can put the 

one person's version to a witness.  I mean, am I not doing that?

CHAIRPERSON:   You can put that to him, but you can't ask him 

why did the other chap not mention your name, that is going too far.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Cerqueira, you were not here from the 

beginning of these proceedings and you were not here when Mr 

Gqomfa, that is the applicant on your far right, was giving his 

evidence?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No, I was not here.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay.  Now, I am not sure whether Mr Brode 

was here all the time.  But Mr Gqomfa said that after he got into the 

vehicle, he was one of the attackers, he heard shots fired in his 

direction and he responded by shooting in the direction where the 

shots came from and at no stage was he challenged on that 

statement.

MR PRIOR:   With respect, Mr Chairman, I have a recollection that 

it was put to the applicant that he wasn't fired at.  And I speak 

under correction.

ADV ARENDSE:   I think we need to find that, it was never put to 

Mr Gqomfa that ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   You can find that, but put your question 

nevertheless.  

ADV ARENDSE:   I am just putting it, I think it is important then to 

clear this up because Mr Brode, I am just putting it to you Mr 

Cerqueira, Mr Brode, if he was here, and if he was with you and saw 

more or less given detail here and there, that he saw more or less 

what you saw and heard what you heard, it was never as far as Mr 

Gqomfa's statement is concerned, as far as his evidence is 

concerned, it was never put to him that shots were not fired and that 

he is either mistaken or that he is lying.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sir, like you say I wasn't here so I don't know.  

I don't know, but I would also like to at some stage to ask Mr 

Gqomfa, is it, is that the gentleman's name, is it Mr Gqomfa?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Gqomfa, if the three of us, which one of us 

was shooting at him, because we were being shot at.  I had nothing 

in my hand, Mr Brode had nothing in his hand, why was he shooting 

at Mr Brode and myself? 

	There were four of us standing there?

ADV ARENDSE:   But we know from your evidence ... 

(intervention)

MR CERQUEIRA:   If he says that my brother was shooting at him, 

how come did he shoot at us in the first place?  Does he also say 

that I had something in my hand or that Mr Brode or that Mr 

Michael had something in his hand?

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Cerqueira, we also know from your evidence 

and from what Mr Brode said that your brother had run out, even 

before the two of you got to him.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sorry, could you repeat that?

JUDGE WILSON:   That was after the three of them had been out, 

they had been shot at, they have gone back into the restaurant.  It 

was then that they started looking for the brother, they had not seen 

the brother outside when the three of them were outside.  Is that not 

quite clear from  his evidence?

ADV ARENDSE:   I am not sure whether that is so clear Judge.

JUDGE WILSON:   Well, that is what he said and up to now, you 

haven't challenged it Mr Arendse.  He said Brode went out first, he 

came out and the other colleague came out.  They then started 

shooting at them, and he pulled Brode back into the restaurant.  You 

put that to him a moment ago that he pulled Brode back.

ADV ARENDSE:   I also put it to him that Brode said he ran inside, 

looked for his brother, this is on page 47 he called at Cerqueira to 

take his firearm held behind the bar counter into his hand.

JUDGE WILSON:   That's after he had been shot at, start at the 

bottom of page 46 "as fire was aimed at him, he realised that they 

were shooting at him from the motor vehicle, he swung around to 

run inside."

ADV ARENDSE:   Then he runs inside and he realises that 

Cerqueira is not inside.

JUDGE WILSON:   He has spoken throughout and this witness has, 

of being shot at while the three of them were outside.  They were 

not shooting at that stage.  You can't ignore that Mr Arendse.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse, I think in fairness to you, you are 

putting to this witness what Gqomfa said.  Gqomfa said that he saw 

somebody or he heard somebody firing at him, whereupon he fired at 

that person, he shot at that person.  You are putting that question to 

this witness.

ADV ARENDSE:   That is correct Mr Chairman, there is no basis 

for Judge Wilson intervening in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON:   No, no.

JUDGE WILSON:   What I am suggesting Mr Arendse, you were 

putting it on the basis that that is why Gqomfa began shooting, 

because somebody was shooting at him.

	But there is the evidence of this witness that Gqomfa had 

already shot at them even if the brother went out afterwards with a 

gun.

ADV ARENDSE:   I don't propose taking this point any further.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Cerqueira, in fairness to the applicants, 

Counsel says that this is what the applicant said.  Now, I don't want 

you to argue back, you are given a chance to admit or deny whether 

that is what happened and that he, Mr Gqomfa, fired only after 

somebody else had fired at him.  That somebody else was your 

brother, that is what he is putting to you because that is what Mr 

Gqomfa had said.

	Now, from the answer you had given, it seems that you 

disagree with that?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I do Sir.

CHAIRPERSON:   Well, just say that you disagree with that.

MR CERQUEIRA:   I disagree.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on, Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE:   Did you say yesterday Mr Cerqueira, that you 

made a statement to the Police or that you don't understand why 

they didn't take a statement from you at all?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No, I said they took a statement from me the 

following day and the gentleman wrote it down.  It was Mr Lennon 

Knipe was there and some other Police Officer was there in civilian 

clothes and he took me to the counter and I said what I saw, and he 

wrote it down.

ADV ARENDSE:   And you made that statement, you know they 

usually ask you to take the oath and so on, and you signed the 

statement?

MR CERQUEIRA:   If you are asking me if I took the oath, I can't 

remember, but he did definitely take the statement.

ADV ARENDSE:   Can you remember signing the statement?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I think so.  I could be under correction, but I 

think so.

ADV ARENDSE:   Let me just read to you what Mr Gqomfa said in 

his written statement.  Unfortunately we don't have a transcript 

available of what he said when he was giving evidence.

	He says the attack lasted for about two to three minutes.  I 

then withdrew last.  The others were already in the car which was 

idling and was moving very, very slowly in the direction of the robot 

against the one way.

	After I got into the car, when we approached the robot, some 

shots were fired in my direction.  I rolled down the window and 

opened fire.  I now know that the fire which I had returned, had hit 

one Jose Cerqueira and had fatally wounded him.  That is what he 

said.  Do you want to comment on that?

CHAIRPERSON:   You have already put that to him.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse, Mr Gqomfa can say what he likes. 

 There was no shots fired at him, certainly not from myself or Mr 

Brode or Mike or for that matter, from my point of view, from my 

brother, because if he had fired shots with a gun, the gun would 

have been lying next to his body.  And when I came out, the only 

thing that was lying next to his body was the pouch, a whole lot of 

blood and nothing else.  So I don't see how he could have shot with 

a pouch.

	So I think Mr Gqomfa is not telling the truth.

ADV ARENDSE:   Is it possible that the gun could have been in the 

pouch?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No, I don't think so because if we take a similar 

gun and try and fit it in that pouch, I don't think it could fit in there.

ADV ARENDSE:   Tell, us then, what gun are we talking about 

here?

MR CERQUEIRA:   We are talking about a long barrel 45.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, we are talking about a pistol?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Semi automatic pistol.

ADV ARENDSE:   And my instructions are that the shots that came 

from the direction of where Machados is, came from a pistol.

MR CERQUEIRA:   I don't know Sir, that is what you are telling 

me, I don't know.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, now you told us earlier, and I understand 

and I agree with you, everything happened very quickly.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   When you came out and you saw your brother 

lying there, surely your focus was on your brother, trying to retrieve 

his body, trying to see whether he was alive?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes, the focus was on my brother, yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   You weren't looking out for a gun or for any 

other item for that matter.

MR CERQUEIRA:   You are quite correct, I wasn't looking for any 

other item.  It just so happened, that when I lifted my brother's 

head, the pouch was lying next to his head and I noticed the pouch 

lying next to his head.

ADV ARENDSE:   And the gun might have been lying somewhere in 

the gutter?  Is that not possible?  Is it not possible that it could have 

been lying somewhere?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I did not see any gun.

ADV ARENDSE:   No, I accept that you did not see any gun.  I 

accept that, okay.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse, many things can be possible.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, that is all I want to know.

MR CERQUEIRA:   I did not see a gun, I picked up my brother's 

head, the pouch was lying there next to his head.  Mr Brode came, 

surely he would have noticed the gun as well.  And after a couple of 

minutes, after five minutes or ten minutes after, I don't know, then 

he handed me the gun.  You would have to ask Mr Brode where he 

got the gun.

ADV ARENDSE:   Because you see it is, why, for what reason 

would Mr Brode just hand, we are going to ask that, I just want 

your comments.  For what reason would Mr Brode hand a gun to the 

Police when a gun didn't figure at all in this situation?

JUDGE WILSON:   Did Mr Brode hand a gun to the Police?

ADV ARENDSE:   That is what the witness said, Judge.

MR CERQUEIRA:   No Sir, I didn't say that.

JUDGE WILSON:   He said Mr Brode handed the gun to him and he 

handed it to the Police.

ADV ARENDSE:   Oh, it is the same thing.

MR CERQUEIRA:   It is not the same thing, it is two different 

things.  Mr Brode gave me the gun and I gave it to the Police.

ADV ARENDSE:   That is better then.  I am glad that's been cleared 

up, that is better then.    Why did he hand the gun to you if the gun 

didn't feature at all in this situation?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I've got no idea, you will have to ask Mr Brode.

ADV ARENDSE:   I mean if the gun was just lying where it usually 

lay under the counter, or in a desk drawer or whatever, there is no 

reason that one can think of why the gun should just be produced 

and given to you?

JUDGE WILSON:   Mr Arendse, are you suggesting when gunshots 

had been fired all over the street, when a man was lying dead in the 

gutter, you think of logical reasons?  Surely any person there who 

knew there was a weapon available, would want to have it in his 

possession?  Wouldn't you ... (intervention)

ADV ARENDSE:   No Judge.

JUDGE WILSON:   If they came back, so you would be in a position 

to do something?

ADV ARENDSE:   No, no.  I wouldn't.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse, at the time I didn't have a gun with 

me, but I was hoping that I had a gun with me.  I was hoping that I 

had a gun with me, and that is why I went into the restaurant, 

shouting for the gun to protect myself because when somebody is 

firing shots at you, surely Mr Arendse, even in your case, you would 

have also hoped for something to defend yourself with?   Isn't that 

so?

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, exactly.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Thank you very much.

ADV ARENDSE:   I want to suggest to you then, that your brother 

did want to defend himself and that is why he ran out with a gun.  

And that is why he aimed shots, you agree he was a brave man in the 

ordinary course?  He stood up for himself, he stood up for his 

rights?  He worked hard?

MR CERQUEIRA:   My brother was a very soft man, in fact if I was 

the one that got shot I would have said more that I am the 

aggressive man.

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, I mean let's not get into the semantics.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse, I think yes please, just move on ... 

(intervention)

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, he ran out with, I want to suggest to you 

Mr Cerqueira, he went when he heard the popping sound, the 

cracking sound, he ran outside, he took his gun and he aimed shots 

at the attackers, as they got into the car.  And those are the shots 

that Mr Gqomfa says was fired in his direction.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse ... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON:   Are you now saying he shot up the road as they 

got into the car outside the Tavern, is that what you are now 

putting?  Is that your version on behalf of your clients?

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, if could hardly be anything else.  What can 

it be, I mean Mr Gqomfa ... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON:   I want to know, I am asking you Mr Arendse, is 

that the version you are putting that as they got into the car in front 

of the Tavern the deceased shot at them?

ADV ARENDSE:   Let me not put words into Mr Gqomfa's, this is 

what is in his statement.  He says, he withdrew last, the others were 

already in the car which was idling and was moving very slowly.  

After I got into the car and we approached the robot, some shots 

were fired in my direction.

JUDGE WILSON:   After I got into the car and when we approached 

the robot?  What you put to the witness a moment ago was as they 

were getting into the car, that is what I queried Mr Arendse.

	There is no suggestion at any shots were fired at them while 

they were getting into the car.

ADV ARENDSE:   When he was in the car, the shots were fired Mr 

Cerqueira.  I am suggesting to you that it was your brother who 

fired those shots.  And he is the only one who could have fired those 

shots and that explains why Mr Brode produced the gun, handed it 

to you and you handed it to the Police.  There is no other reason 

why that gun would have been produced to the Police.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse, like I said earlier on, there was no 

way in my view, like you've got your view that you've just given me, 

there is no way in my view that my brother could have shot at the 

car when they were getting into the car out of the Heidelberg Tavern 

because myself, Mr Brode and Michael was standing in front where 

we were taking the shots, so if my brother had to shoot, this is just 

an assumption that I am making like you are Sir, he would have had 

to shoot us first before he shot at anybody else.

	And I would have heard the shots from behind me.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse, I think you've got an answer.  He 

does  not agree with the way, he does not agree with the evidence 

that you are putting to him, that is Mr Gqomfa's evidence and he has 

denied that, now can we move on from there?

ADV SANDI:   Mr Cerqueira, did Mr Brode say anything to you as 

he was giving you the gun?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Not that I can recall Sir, no.

ADV SANDI:   He just gave you the gun?

MR CERQUEIRA:   He just gave me the gun.  He said he is Joe's 

gun, I think that is what he said, something to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on please.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Cerqueira, I also want to just put something 

for the record.  I find it very odd Mr Brode gave a statement, he 

gave evidence in court and he gave a statement to the Investigators 

of this Committee.  Mr Gqomfa gave his evidence as I have read it 

out to you.

	And he wasn't challenged on that at all.  Now, this is a critical 

aspect, you agree with that, it is a critical aspect?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I agree, it is a very critical aspect, especially 

when somebody get shot at.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, for no reason apparently?

MR CERQUEIRA:   For no reason.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, for just standing on the corner?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.  

MR CERQUEIRA:   Very critical.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, you know, have you got any explanation 

why it wasn't raised?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sorry?

ADV ARENDSE:   You didn't want to be part of this process?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No Sir, like I mentioned yesterday.  I didn't 

want to be part of this process because they had already been 

sentenced, and I was quite prepared to forgive the whole thing, not 

forget, I still haven't forgotten. I still haven't forgotten, to forgive 

until these allegations came up that my brother was shooting at 

them.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Surely, you know, then I battled with my mind. 

 That if my brother was shooting at them, then surely when they 

were shooting at us, we must have been shooting at them as well.  

Were we shooting at them or not?

CHAIRPERSON:   All this is a repetition of a great deal of evidence 

we have already heard.  Can we move on.

ADV ARENDSE:   Were you approached at all by the TRC 

Investigators to make a statement?

MR CERQUEIRA:   They contacted my sister-in-law and I told my 

sister-in-law that I didn't really want anything to do with that, and 

so did she.  I think they did contact her.  I was told by the family 

and I said the people had been sentenced, and I don't want anything 

to do with it.  Quite happy with that.  Quite happy to forgive, but 

not forget.  I haven't forgotten, it might take me another year or 

two, I don't know.

ADV ARENDSE:   You are very angry, is that right, about what 

happened to your brother?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sir, must I be quite honest with you?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.  We want nothing else here in this court.

MR CERQUEIRA:   I can't find, this is the Truth and Reconciliation 

Committee, I can't find anger in my gut when I look at that man, but 

today I must be, with due respect to you, I am very angry at you the 

way you handled things yesterday, I was very angry.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA:   I was very, very angry Sir.  Like you  

mentioned, when you stated that I wasn't on the scene.  And yet 

today you read to me another statement where it actually mentions 

that the brother was in the restaurant and colleagues.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA:   How come you overlooked something like that?

ADV ARENDSE:   Because Mr Cerqueira, must I give you an 

answer?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes, please.

ADV ARENDSE:   On the first part of being angry with me, I feel 

sorry for you, okay and I forgive you.  Are you a Christian?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I am.

ADV ARENDSE:   Aren't you taught to forgive?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sir, what I am taught and what I am not taught, 

has got nothing to do with you.

ADV ARENDSE:   How long have you been in this country?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Are you a Christian Sir?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   I want to put a stop to this kind of questions.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Cerqueira, I put to you what the Judge had 

summarised and what was said in a court of law under oath.  This 

statement in here means absolutely nothing.  This is not under oath 

and it is not signed by Mr Brode.

	Are you still saying that I was unfair not to put that to you?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sir, when you ask me questions about Mr 

Brode, I think you are very unfair.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse, what a witness' opinion is of 

Counsel, is a matter of no concern to the Committee.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Harmse, I am not interested in Mr Brode's 

... (intervention)

ADV ARENDSE:   It is Arendse, okay, Arendse, not Harmse.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse, I am not interested in Mr Brode's 

statements.  I came here ...

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, I must object at this line of ... 

(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   I am going to stop these proceedings for a while 

Mr Arendse, if it is necessary.  I've told you once before please get 

on with the facts and not your personal differences or his differences 

towards you. 

You've got to take whatever he says.  If he is unhappy with the way 

you've questioned him, please you are doing your duty as Counsel, 

but don't involve in argument about that.  Carry on with your 

questions Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Cerqueira, I want to suggest to you, I want 

to put it to you that because you are angry, angry at me, angry at 

the applicants, angry ... (intervention)

MR CERQUEIRA:   I am not angry at the applicants Mr Arendse, I 

am angry at you.

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, now that you are angry at me, I want to 

suggest to you and put it to you that because of your anger, you 

don't like to hear that there is a possibility that your brother may 

have had a firearm and may have shot at the applicants, at one of the 

applicants as he says he did.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse, I am not saying there isn't a 

possibility, there is always a possibility of 1001 things that could 

have happened.  What I said to you is that when I got to the body, 

there was no gun.  I didn't see the gun.	Mr Brode came and sat 

next to us on the pavement, he didn't see any gun and a little while 

later, he only produced the gun.  Therefore Sir, with due respect, I 

think ask Mr Brode where he got the gun.  I don't know where he 

got the gun.  He might have got it in the restaurant at a later stage, 

I don't know.	But yes, there is a possibility, there is 1001 

possibilities.

ADV ARENDSE:   Can I just ask you again.  It seems odd to us 

that, is me and my colleague, that after the attackers are gone, a gun 

is produced.   For what reason can that possibly be?

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, with respect, this question has been 

asked again and again in several ways.  Answers have been given and 

the Committee has already given a ruling for Mr Arendse to move 

off onto something fresh.  I must now object and ask for a final 

ruling on this particular aspect.

ADV ARENDSE:   I will leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON:   Proceed with the next question Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Cerqueira, when you came out ... 

(intervention)

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sorry, it is Mr Cerqueira.

MR ARENDSE:   Cerqueira right.  When you moved back in, you 

pulled Mr Brode in, the other waiter came in with you, your brother 

didn't come in with you?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No, Sir.  I didn't see my brother, that is the 

reason why I came inside the restaurant, shouting for my brother.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, yes, because when you came out, your 

brother was already outside, he must have been outside?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No, he was not outside.  There were only three 

of us standing outside, Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE:   But I thought you said you came outside to look 

for your brother?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No Sir, I said I came inside again looking for 

my brother.

JUDGE WILSON:   He did not say that Mr Arendse.  He said they 

came outside to look at the noise, the source of the noise.

ADV ARENDSE:   I said I thought he said that.  Can the witness 

correct me Judge, instead of you please.

CHAIRPERSON:   No, I think ... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON:   No, Mr Arendse, as Counsel you must put things 

accurately.

ADV ARENDSE:   I put it accurately, I said I thought, now if I 

thought wrongly, then he must tell me that.

JUDGE WILSON:   I am telling you you thought wrongly and you 

will accept that ruling and you will stop carrying on as you are Mr 

Arendse.  My brother the Chairman, has already offered to adjourn 

the matter so that you can quieten down.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Do you want an answer from that Sir?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA:   The only time that I went outside, looking for 

my brother, was after the shots had been fired.  After we had been in 

the restaurant, looking for him and then we ran outside, and then I 

found him outside.  Not before the shots had been fired.

	Before the shots had been fired, I went into the restaurant, 

not outside, into the restaurant, looking for my brother.

ADV ARENDSE:   So at which point could he have been shot?  Was 

it before or after you came out?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I've got no idea.  I've got no idea.

JUDGE WILSON:   If he had been shot before, when you went out 

of the restaurant for the first time and looked up the road, would 

you have seen his body?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes.  He was definitely not on the pavement 

when I went outside for the first time, when the shots were being 

fired at us.

ADV ARENDSE:   So he must have then, did he run passed you at 

any stage?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I didn't see him run passed me.

ADV ARENDSE:   So is it your evidence that when you came 

outside with Brode and with the other waiter, your brother was not 

there?

MR CERQUEIRA:   What I think from my view Sir, is that when the 

three of us were standing on the pavement looking up, he must have 

come and stood behind us, therefore I did not see him.  Otherwise, 

believe you me, if he was there, I would have dragged him inside as 

well.

ADV ARENDSE:   So there is the possibility then that he actually 

came out with you but behind you and you didn't see him?

MR CERQUEIRA:   There is a possibility Sir.

ADV ARENDSE:   And when you turned to go back in and pulled 

Brode in and the other waiter ran in with you, your brother either 

didn't turn back or he turned back, but was shot as he also wanted to 

go in?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct, there is a possibility.  Like I say when 

we first came out, the shots were being fired at us, there is 

definitely no way that he was shooting at them if he was shooting 

behind us.

ADV ARENDSE:   I put it to you that that version of the way you 

are putting it, is not what happened Mr Cerqueira.  I am putting it to 

you that your brother had gone out first, armed with his gun, had 

fired shots in the direction of this car which was coming in his 

direction, in the direction of the robot.

	At that point, or immediately afterwards, you came out and 

that is when you retreated, but by then your brother had already 

been shot.  That is what happened Mr Cerqueira.

MR CERQUEIRA:   No, that is not what happened, Mr Arendse.

ADV ARENDSE:   Is it not possible that it could have happened?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No, it is not possible.

ADV ARENDSE:   Everything happened quickly?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Mr Arendse - because when I came outside, the 

only people that were standing in front of me was the two waiters.  

The waiters were standing in front of me.  There was no way that my 

brother could have been standing, firing in front of me and me not 

seeing.

	The first shots that were shot at us, was aimed at myself and 

Mr Brode.  Mr Brode got hit on the leg and the shots were on the 

wall, next to Mr Brode's leg.  Surely if my brother was firing and he 

was standing there, I would have seen it.  And surely under those 

conditions, if he was firing at somebody, I wouldn't have even come 

onto the pavement because I would have realised something was 

wrong.

ADV SANDI:   Mr Cerqueira, is there  a building opposite the 

Heidelberg Tavern?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Between our restaurant and the Heidelberg, 

opposite, yes, there is.

ADV SANDI:   Was that building shot at by the attackers at the 

Tavern?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes, it was.

ADV SANDI:   Whose building is that, what sort of building is that?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Opposite the road from us, directly, is a 

hardware store and they've got storage upstairs and there is a coffee 

shop directly outside the Tavern and there is a restaurant, called the 

Planet, that is downstairs and upstairs.

ADV SANDI:   Were there any people at that particular building at 

the time the shooting was taking place?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes, there were because the restaurant called 

the Planet is - most of its busy period is in the evening at round 

about that time when the incident happened.

ADV SANDI:   Was anyone of them actually hurt or injured?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Not to my knowledge, Sir.

ADV SANDI:   Thank you.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Cerqueira, can I put another scenario to you 

as a possibility?  Your brother goes outside before you, with his 

gun, you don't see him, you don't see him, he fires at the attackers 

coming in your direction.

	You don't hear that, because now you are running out and you 

are coming onto the street, onto the pavement, you don't hear that 

and the attackers shoot at him.  And when you come out onto the 

pavement, that is when these shots are fired in your direction, is that 

not a possibility?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No Sir.  Can I just go through what I said 

yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON:   You don't have to go through what you've 

already said, you can just say yes or no to that proposition.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sir, in this case, can I just say something?  Mr 

Arendse, when we heard the popping sounds like I told you 

yesterday my brother was standing behind the counter, on the inside 

of the counter like I mentioned in my statement yesterday.

	I was standing on that side of the counter, when the shots 

were being heard, the waiter walked to the door slowly, I walked to 

the door afterwards, my brother was standing behind that counter.

	When we went onto the pavement, surely if my brother had 

gone first, I would have seen him in front of me?

ADV ARENDSE:   I am sorry, but I mean if you've said that 

yesterday, you said it, but this is the first time that you have put it 

like that according to my recollection.  I am sorry Mr Cerqueira, I 

don't think that is what you've said yesterday or up to now, 

explaining why your brother, according to you, must have come only 

after you, that you saw him standing behind the counter, you were in 

front of the counter and you went out.

	I mean you said, didn't you, you must correct me if I am not 

correct, you said you went to look for him.

MR PRIOR:   With respect, that was after the shots.  Mr Chairman, 

may the appropriate place of the record be found, otherwise we are 

going to have a lot of cross-examination on whether it was said or 

not?  It is certainly my recollection and I led him on that and he told 

the Committee with respect where the positions of the people were 

before the popping sounds were heard.

CHAIRPERSON:   Do you want the transcript to be played back, is 

that what you are suggesting?

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, I suggest that in order to avoid the type 

of confusion that seems to be prevalent.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse, do you want the transcript to be 

played back of all the cross-examination?

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Chairman, does Mr Prior agree or doesn't he 

agree that that is the first time certainly, that I hear that Mr 

Cerqueira is saying that his brother stood behind the counter, he 

stood in front of the counter, he ran out first?  I mean, you know, if 

the Committee and Mr Prior tells me that he has said that before 

already, then I will leave it there.  But it is the first time I hear it.

ADV SANDI:   Speaking for myself, I cannot locate this particular 

aspect of his evidence in my notes.  But I do have a - I do remember 

him saying that yesterday.  We think that is what he said yesterday.

ADV ARENDSE:   Leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, proceed please.

ADV ARENDSE:   I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE.

CHAIRPERSON:   Have you got any re-examination of this witness?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR:	Just one, just one aspect.  The 

widow of your brother, Mrs Cathy Cerqueira indicated that she 

didn't want to attend these proceedings, is that correct?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes.

MR PRIOR:   And are you aware whether she made a statement?

MR CERQUEIRA:   I am not aware.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you.   I have no further questions in re-

examination, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

JUDGE WILSON:   Will you please look at photograph number 22.  

Is that a picture of your restaurant?

MR CERQUEIRA:   That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON:   Now, there are three, well I can see but there 

are apparently three lines marked "n", do you see those?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON:   And from what I can see in the photograph, two 

of them are bullet marks, well the marks made by bullets on the 

wall?

MR CERQUEIRA:   That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON:   One is on the corner of the building, right on 

the corner itself it would seem, and one is on the wall leading to the 

door?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct.

JUDGE WILSON:   You said something about I thought, think you 

said something about bullet marks showing the injury to Brode's leg?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct.

JUDGE WILSON:   Was that one of those bullet marks do you 

think?

MR CERQUEIRA:   The lower one on the corner of the wall Sir.

JUDGE WILSON:   So that bullet mark was caused at the time that 

they shot at you and Brode?

MR CERQUEIRA:   That is correct, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON:   Now, at that stage, looking at the picture, it 

must mean that the car had already passed your restaurant because 

otherwise they couldn't shoot a bullet into that entrance passage 

way, could they?  That couldn't have been shot from further up the 

road?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Are you talking about the second shot Sir?

JUDGE WILSON:   Yes, the one lower down that you have pointed 

out?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct, the shots were still being fired after we 

had gone into the restaurant.

JUDGE WILSON:   They were still firing shots as they were passing 

the restaurant?  By that time they were passed the restaurant?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct.

JUDGE WILSON:   And they were firing shots?

MR CERQUEIRA:   There were some shots that went into the 

restaurant, that hit a table and hit the glass on the top.  As you can 

see, there is another mark there, and there is one lower down on the 

door that the Police didn't really find.

JUDGE WILSON:   But your brother's body was further up the 

road?

MR CERQUEIRA:   My brother's body was ... (intervention)

JUDGE WILSON:   Where the drainage is shown?

MR CERQUEIRA:   (a).

JUDGE WILSON:   On the other side of the traffic light?

MR CERQUEIRA:   On this side, yes.

JUDGE WILSON:   Just above the traffic light, isn't it?

MR CERQUEIRA:   That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON:   Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA:   It is about 500 feet.

JUDGE WILSON:   500 metres.  Because what causes me some 

confusion is that that would indicate that your brother was probably 

shot before the car passed the restaurant, wouldn't it?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct, correct.

JUDGE WILSON:   So that would be before the shots were fired at 

you, your brother had been shot further up the road?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sorry Sir, I didn't hear that?

JUDGE WILSON:   If your brother was shot further up the road, 

that was before the shots were fired at you and Mr Brode?

MR CERQUEIRA:   If he was shot further up the road?

JUDGE WILSON:   Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Correct.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION ADV ARENDSE:   Mr 

Chairman, just leading on from Judge Wilson's questions.   Doesn't 

that then make it now more than a possibility that your brother ran 

out first, he was shot.  He shot at the attackers, he was then shot 

and as they continued coming down, by the time you came out, you 

were now - the car was now either at the robot or just passed the 

robot and this volley of fire may have continued and that is why you 

see these marks?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sorry, I didn't understand that.  When the car 

came passed the restaurant?

ADV ARENDSE:   Your brother was already shot?

MR CERQUEIRA:   No.

ADV ARENDSE:   But your brother was shot further up Mr 

Cerqueira?  Your brother was lying at the drain.

MR CERQUEIRA:   No, my brother was shot between the drain and 

that set of robots.  You can see for yourself it is not very far from 

the restaurant.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR CERQUEIRA:   It is not very far from the robot.

ADV ARENDSE:   But it is further up?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Further up from where?

ADV ARENDSE:   Further up from the, it is further up from the 

door, not by much.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Sir, it is about the distance from here to there.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, now that is why I am asking you isn't ... 

(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON:   Just hold it.  The witness indicate the distance 

between the front door, the front entrance to where your brother 

was, is that what you are saying?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON:   And you point it out as how much?

MR CERQUEIRA:   It is about that distance.

CHAIRPERSON:   About a meter, Mr Arendse?  Mr Prior?

MR PRIOR:   I understand it to be about a meter, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Is that the end of it?

ADV ARENDSE:   No, I just want to put it to Mr Cerqueira, that 

that Mr Cerqueira, strengthens, okay firstly I want to ask you why, 

or unless you tell me it was not particularly relevant or you weren't 

asked, why are you now mentioning about the, after you saw 

photograph number 22, are you mentioning the shots that were fired 

through the door and that a glass inside the restaurant was hit?

CHAIRPERSON:   If those are in fact the facts, does it really 

matter?

JUDGE WILSON:   Nobody bothered to ask him, did they Mr 

Arendse?

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on.

JUDGE WILSON:   And doesn't the, if you are looking at 

photograph 22, it appears to indicate as far as I can see, that that 

third line is going to a bullet line through the door, isn't it?

ADV ARENDSE:   I am not going to pursue this because this is a 

different process, otherwise I would have with respect.  I think a 

witness is here to tell us what happened, exactly what happened, and 

he just didn't mention that.

	I think it perhaps effects the other evidence, but that is for 

argument, so just leave it.

	I just want to put it to you Mr Cerqueira, that it strengthens 

the  possibility that your brother must have run out before you, in 

front of you, that he was shot in front of Machados, outside of 

Machados.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Machados.

ADV ARENDSE:   Machados, yes, and can you explain then how 

come you never saw him?

MR CERQUEIRA:   Because simply Mr Arendse, he was not in front 

of me.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay.  I have disputed that already, I have got 

no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Cerqueira, you are excused from further 

attendance, thank you.

MR CERQUEIRA:   Thank you, Sir.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, I have a statement of Cathy Cerqueira, 

who is not attending the proceedings.  Would it be appropriate at 

this stage to read it onto the record?

CHAIRPERSON:   Is it under oath?

MR PRIOR:   No, it is not on oath.

CHAIRPERSON:   Well, leave it out then, Mr Prior.

MR PRIOR:   I will see that she makes the oath.

CHAIRPERSON:   If it is relevant.

MR PRIOR:   It was her submission as a victim, I thought it may be 

appropriate to deal with it, but I will leave it till later.

	Mr Chairman, I indicated in Chambers that the victims had 

drafted a letter and wished to place it on record.  May this be an 

appropriate stage Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Can it be done during the evidence that they are 

going to give?  Aren't you going to call any witnesses?

MR PRIOR:   Yes, I intend calling Mrs Langford first.  She comes 

from Port Elizabeth.

CHAIRPERSON:   Well, call her.

MR PRIOR:   And maybe she can read the statement.

CHAIRPERSON:   Whoever they decide can read it.

MR PRIOR:   As the Chairman pleases.  I call Mrs Langford.

ANDREA JEANNETTE LANGFORD:	(sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR:	  Mrs Langford, as one of the 

next of kin, a letter was drafted or prepared by the victims as a 

group, is that correct?

MRS LANGFORD:   That is correct, yes.

MR PRIOR:   Will you please read it onto the record?

MRS LANGFORD:   I will.  

	"The Heidelberg Tavern attack, amnesty applications.  

	We understand the need for unity and reconciliation in our 

new nation and that the conflicts and divisions of the past 

must at some stage be put behind us in order to achieve the 

aim of the amnesty process.

	We also understand that in order to attempt this difficult 

journey, the Amnesty Committee ought to have as complete a 

picture as possible of the causes, nature and extent of the 

gross violations of human rights, which in our case relates to 

the senseless killings of, and injuries to our sons and 

daughters.

	We have heard that full disclosure of all relevant facts relating 

to the Heidelberg attack is one of the requirements for 

amnesty.  This necessarily implies that the truth be told.  We, 

as the survivors of this gross violation of human rights, are 

deeply concerned by the nature and conduct of these 

proceedings thus far.

	Whilst not understanding the finer points of the law, it seems 

unfair to us that the Chairman is in open hearing remarked as 

follows:-

	Sibaya's evidence was irrelevant to these amnesty 

applications.   The kombi must also have been drunk.  He, 

Sibaya, probably also knew the name of the name of the sheep, 

when he was attempting to answer questions about how he 

could remember certain details.

	The reaction of laughter at Sibaya's expense that these 

remarks evolved from the legal representatives of the 

applicants, Dumisa Ntsebeza, and the supporters, we feel 

detracts from the serious nature of the amnesty process and 

makes light of evidence which we believe is important in 

searching for the truth.

	Such remarks also fail to take into account our pain and our 

grief.  It is out of place to listen to these remarks in the same 

process as the evidence of the killings of our loved ones.  

	We are under the impression from the proceedings thus far, 

that the legal representatives are constrained to represent the 

minimum facts required to satisfy those requirements for 

amnesty.

	We are all of the view that the proper and full disclosure of 

the facts, has not been made.  

	We are also concerned about the manner in which Mr 

Cerqueira was cross-examined, which was in our minds, unfair 

and insensitive to his grief and loss.

	We as survivors demand the right to be treated with dignity 

and sensitivity if these proceedings are to mean anything at 

all.  

	Finally, we are present disillusioned about the process we 

have seen thus far, and must ask the question whether the 

amnesty process is simply part of the political solution 

whereby perpetrators of gross violations of human rights will 

be granted amnesty as a reward for their loyalty to their 

masters. 

	We invite the Committee to address our fears and concerns in 

this matter".

And we have all signed this.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mrs Langford.  Mrs Langford, you've also 

made submissions in respect of the death of your daughter, 

Bernadette, is that correct?

MRS LANGFORD:   That is correct, yes.

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, may I refer the Committee to item 5 on 

the submissions by victims, the Bundle that was prepared and handed 

to you, which appears on page 61 to 67.

	Your daughter, Bernadette, she was at the time of her death, 

was she still a student at the University?

MRS LANGFORD:   No, she had just received her degree three 

weeks before her death.

MR PRIOR:   Had she gained employment or had she taken up 

employment at that stage?

MRS LANGFORD:   She was busy with a temporary job at Edgars, 

Adderley Street, while waiting for replies for her application for a 

teaching post.

MR PRIOR:   Was she in any way connected with the military or the 

Security Forces at the time?

MRS LANGFORD:   No, no.

MR PRIOR:   Mrs Langford, you have prepared a submission, have 

you not?

MRS LANGFORD:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   And do you wish those submissions, which are 

unsigned, to form part of your evidence?

MRS LANGFORD:   That is right.

MR PRIOR:   Could you please look at page 62 and could you tell 

the Committee, what kind of person Bernadette was.

MRS LANGFORD:   Page 62? 

MR PRIOR:   I beg your pardon, I am referring to our Bundle.  You 

have your single copy in front of you.

MRS LANGFORD:   Yes.  Shall I begin at "Who Bernadette 

Langford was"?

MR PRIOR:   Yes, please proceed.

MRS LANGFORD:   Right, thank you.  

	"Who was Bernadette Langford before?  A talented young 

lady on the brink of her career.  The eldest daughter of 

Andrea Langford, sister to three sisters and a brother, loved 

by her family, friends and all who were privileged to know 

her.

	On the 9th of December 1993, she had received her higher 

diploma in Education post graduate for secondary education.  

She completed the prescribed course in the following teaching 

subjects:  Art, school counselling and guidance.  She could 

also teach through the medium of Afrikaans higher and 

English higher.

	Since the very young age of seven, she was capable of 

attaining the goals she reached for, such as ballet with 

honours and scripture exams with distinction.  Besides her 

school studies, which later included drama, this pattern was 

pursued while at University.  Her first three years were at 

Rhodes University where she received her BA degree in fine 

art and psychology.

	And at the same time, she was a keen sportswoman.  That was 

in volley ball.  She also completed an advance course in 

deportment, beauty rooting, fashion and photographic 

modelling.  She had also done a St John's ambulance course.  

Bernadette had one desire, and that was to enrich our society 

with her abilities.

	She had a great love for children and a compassion for the 

misunderstood.  She was working on a casual basis at Edgars, 

Adderley Street, while waiting for a reply from her 

applications for a teaching post.

	She undertook to care for the family and had plans to support 

her brother's education.  She had hopes of raising a family of 

her own one day.  

	The incident.  On the 30th of December 1993, Bernadette's 

friends decided to stop at the Heidelberg Tavern in 

Observatory for eats and while there, she was gunned down 

with automatic gun fire, according to reports.

	Extent of injuries.  During the early hours of the 31st of 

December 1993, Bernadette had lost her life.  She, who 

showed mercy to others, was not given that chance.   An 

innocent human being".  

I approve of the statements made and the copies, I can give to you.

MR PRIOR:   Yes, that is not necessary at this stage, they will be 

handed in Mrs Langford.  Please continue.  Are you able to continue 

at this stage?

MRS LANGFORD:   Yes, I can, thank you.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you.

MRS LANGFORD:   Who is Bernadette Langford now?  

	"Bernadette has gone to be with The Father.  She lives 

on in our memories.  Though the last memory of her causes us 

to sorrow, not as the world, but with the hope of everlasting 

life.  I know if she was here, she would want us to hold onto 

the truth.

	The loss to the family came at a time when funds were 

exhausted.  I, her mother, had to come up to Cape Town and 

identify her and do the necessary arrangements for her burial 

in Port Elizabeth.  This was very difficult at the time as I was 

unemployed, due to the fact that I had given up my work the 

previous year, to sort out our family matters after her father's 

sudden death due to respiratory failure.

	His small business had to be shut down and I had not 

recovered from these losses, when this tragedy struck the 

family.  Family and friends rallied around at the time, I thank 

God for them.  I was told that a fund had been established to 

assist the families, but this came to nought - up to this very 

hour, I have never been assisted in any way.

	I feel I have the right to ask what is the right of human life, is 

it not to be given a free chance to live?  This is what I would 

say if I were given the opportunity to make the statement.

	The past four years have been exceptionally difficult since 

Bernadette's death.  As a result, we had to deal with many 

frustrations such as continually being asked about our feelings 

and our view concerning the way in which she died because 

the community where I live, could not accept the way in which 

she died.

	My relatives all suffered emotionally because of the trauma 

and they knew that because of our culture in which we care 

for the one who cares for you, this was not going to happen.  

I asked God for inner strength and the courage to forgive 

which I did.

	I had to remember to lead by example, which the rest of the 

family would follow.  The hardships have not ended because 

life has become more expensive.  I have a casual job since last 

year, which is a blessing in a small way.

	The men who shot Bernadette, have to understand that we 

forgave them as a family, but this shouldn't prevent justice 

from taking place.  I wish to say to the Truth and 

Reconciliation Commission and all who are assembled here for 

the Heidelberg Tavern hearing, man can do what is humanly 

possible, but God can do the impossible to reconcile man to 

God.  To the ones who sent you, you planted the seed and 

watered it, you saw it grow, so you are very much part of the 

end result, but I tell you too, there is a way to find peace of 

mind - may God grant you the wisdom to understand.

MR PRIOR:   Mrs Langford, do you confirm the statement that you 

have read out?

MRS LANGFORD:   I do.

MR PRIOR:   And you adhere to its contents?

MRS LANGFORD:   I do.

MR PRIOR:   Is there anything in addition thereto, that you wish to 

say regarding the amnesty application?  Do you oppose it or do you 

agree with it?

MRS LANGFORD:   Before I answer you on whether I oppose it or 

agree with it, I want to add to a note that I have just written out as 

I was listening if I may.

MR PRIOR:   Please continue Mrs Langford.

MRS LANGFORD:   Mr Chairman, these are the perpetrators of 

gross human violations.  They say as you have heard, that they were 

acting under orders.  Just a question I would like to ask is why 

haven't their instructors not been brought before this Commission, if 

I may ask and if we as the victims, have to reconcile, then the truth 

of the matter is we will never know who was behind the hideous 

atrocity and we will leave this place with a half truth.  I speak for 

myself, but this is the feeling shared by the victims of the Heidelberg 

Tavern.  

	I will explain why I say that justice in case I am questioned on 

that, why justice having to be carried out.  I have forgiven them so I 

will explain that line.

	I will just go on from here.  I feel that justice is that all 

aspects concerning this case, to me, that is not only the applicants, 

but the ones who gave the orders, they have the full knowledge of 

why this really happened.  If they can be brought here or at a 

separate hearing, we will be satisfied as I said.

	And as I will say to the applicants, as I heard all the time, 

they acted under orders which I understand.  I too, act under orders 

as I sit here now, just speaking directly to you because I firmly 

would like to believe that we all do believe there is a God above our 

heads.

	If I can be allowed to say this, and because I believe that God 

is God and I act under His orders and for me, His orders are to say 

to you and to all here, yes, I have forgiven you.  I will not oppose 

your amnesty because who am I, I am not your judge.  I can never 

judge you, but there is a way to find the freedom more than amnesty 

can free you from. And that is if you give your hearts to Him.  And 

you truly believe that He did send his Son for all of us here present, 

not only for a sinner, but for all and you give your hearts to Him, 

you will find the peace that I have found, with which I can say to 

you I have forgiven you and I will not oppose your amnesty.  Then 

you will know what I know regardless of how I feel, regardless of 

the three years and ten months that I thought I put behind my back 

and that I thought I had dealt with quite well, but that was brought 

back to me because of your application for amnesty.	It just 

brought back everything, it put me right back to where I had thought 

I had gone past, but my heart will feel satisfied to know if you can 

receive that.  And I think that is all I would like to say here.  Thank 

you.  I would like to thank Mr Chairman, for giving me that 

opportunity.

MR PRIOR:   Mrs Langford, you've indicated the financial hardship 

that the family suffered?

MRS LANGFORD:   That is so, yes.

MR PRIOR:   As a result of Bernadette's passing?

MRS LANGFORD:   That is so, yes.

MR PRIOR:   If I could just be permitted on one aspect, her 

education was paid for by whom?

MRS LANGFORD:   I paid for her education.

MR PRIOR:   And what was the understanding with Bernadette once 

she had obtained employment?

MRS LANGFORD:   Because I had to go to various lengths to be 

able to ascertain Bernadette's qualifying, this is very personal, go 

into my personal life.  I had to give her things like my policies to 

ensure that Bernadette could get through, it was very difficulty, as I 

have explained earlier.

	And Bernadette gave me the assurance that on so doing, that 

she would look after me, and not only that, she would educate her 

little brother who was seven when his dad died and then he was 

eight when Bernadette died.  I can't imagine what, I try to think 

what he must be thinking and feeling, but I don't think I can actually 

imagine what he must be going through.

MR PRIOR:   You indicated that since the loss of Bernadette, you 

received no financial support from the State whatsoever?

MRS LANGFORD:   None, whatsoever.

MR PRIOR:   You indicated to me before you were called to testify, 

that was some days ago, that you would like the matter, your 

particular case to be referred to the Reparations  Committee?

MRS LANGFORD:   That is so.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON:   Are there any questions, Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE:   None, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON:   I have read the statement that you and other 

victims and relatives have signed.  Without any reservation, I want 

to say that I am sorry if my remarks have caused you any hurt, they 

weren't intended to hurt you.

MRS LANGFORD:   Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON:   They certainly were not intended in any way to 

hurt you.  I want to assure you that I am sensitive to the feelings of 

people who have been injured in the tragedy that has taken place in 

our country.

	I have been entrusted like the other members of the Amnesty 

Committee, to hear applications, we have been doing that for more 

than a year now, nearly two years.  We had been hearing harrowing 

accounts of terrible deeds committed by applicants in Cape Town 

and in other parts of the work, we have listened as patiently as we 

can to these details.

	We have afforded the applicants every opportunity to put 

forward their case, because the law requires that they should be 

given a hearing.  We have never held back requests by victims and 

dependants to express their feelings in the matters that we had to 

deal with.  And if my remarks, have conveyed to you and the other 

parents and victims, that I am not sensitive to your hurt and your 

feelings, I am sorry for that.  I want to assure you that that was 

furthest from my mind.

	Such remarks as I may have made, at the time, about the 

evidence that was given by Mr Sibaya, were as a result of a lengthy 

hearing on evidence in a matter which was only tangentially related 

to the issues before this Committee.

	I haven't made up my mind, we haven't considered the 

evidence and we haven't rejected the evidence of any witness who 

has given evidence before us.  We will only be considering the 

evidence and evaluating the evidence and coming to a final 

conclusion after all the evidence have been led and counsel on both 

sides have had an opportunity of addressing us.

	Finally, to you and your colleagues, once more, I say that if 

my remarks may have seemed injudicious to you, I am sorry for that.

MRS LANGFORD:   I thank you for your explanation and I fully 

accept what you have just told me, Judge Mall, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON:   You are excused from further attendance.

MRS LANGFORD:   Thank you very much.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, will this be an opportune stage to take a 

short adjournment.  I have my next witness, Mr Cornelius.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, we will take a short adjournment.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, I call Mrs Fourie.   Mr Chairman, Mrs 

Fourie had requested to sit a little closer to the applicants, and I 

understand there is no objection to that, if that pleases the 

Committee.

JEANETTE ANNE FOURIE:	(sworn states)

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, the witness has not made submissions, 

her husband in fact, made written submissions, but she requested an 

opportunity to address the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, Mr Prior.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR:	Mrs Fourie, is it correct that 

your daughter was killed in the Heidelberg Tavern attack on the 

30th of December 1993?

MRS FOURIE:   That is correct, Lindi Anne was killed.

MR PRIOR:   Would you please continue, or proceed with what you 

want to address the Committee on?

MRS FOURIE:   I would like to address the Committee, Mr 

Chairman, but a bit more personally, I would like to address the 

gentlemen before us and if you don't mind being onlookers whilst I 

do that.

CHAIRPERSON:   Please proceed.

MRS FOURIE:   Molweni amadoda.

APPLICANTS:	Good morning Mama.

MRS FOURIE:   I am very sorry, that I can't express my thoughts 

and feelings in Xhosa.  I think you remember me.  At the criminal 

trial, I asked the translator to tell you that I had forgiven you.  Do 

you remember that?

APPLICANTS:	Yes, we remember.

MRS FOURIE:   And I shook your hand.   Mr Gqomfa, was 

unwilling and he looked the other way, but I certainly shook Mr 

Mabala and Mr Madasi's hands.  Nothing has changed, I still feel 

exactly the same way and I do forgive you because my High 

Command, demonstrated to me how to do that by forgiving his 

killers.

	I want to tell you who Lindi was.  She was known as Lindiwe 

by her Xhosa friends.  Lindi was a true child of Africa.  She was 

happiest hiking in the mountains, riding a horse with her dog out in 

the countryside.  She was just finishing a Bachelor of Science in 

Civil Engineering and had spent a lot of time designing and thinking 

about how it would be possible to improve the infrastructure in 

places like Khayelitsha, so that running water and waterborne 

sewerage would be available, to people who have been oppressed 

and discriminated against.

	She had spent her vacations with one of the big engineering 

companies in the Western Cape, and during lunch time the black men 

would come and tell her about their lives.  She would come home in 

the evenings, and tell me the tragic stories of hopelessness and the 

despair that they felt in never being able to get further than being 

labourers.

	She understood that.  She wept to know that that was 

happening in her country.  She helped me to understand how subtle 

my prejudice and bias and racial discrimination was.  But it was 

nothing blatant, it was in the very, very subtle fibres of my being.  

She helped me to understand that.

	She was totally willing to treat everyone as an equal and she 

did that openly and freely.  Her black friends were as important to 

her as her white friends.  	Lindiwe could have been your friend. 

 You did your own cause immeasurable harm by killing her.  She was 

totally opposed to violence.  She was a gentle person who cared for 

not only the people, not only the little people, but the animals and 

the flowers, the ecology of our country and the world.

	As a medical person, I had to go straight back into the wards 

of Groote Schuur and treat your colleagues who had been shot and I 

needed to do that without showing any bitterness or resentment.  

God gave me that grace.  	I think the reason that I am here, 

have been here through this week and particularly today which is 

very important to me, is to tell you that on that day you ripped my 

heart out.  Lindi was one of the most precious people and I am 

biased because she was my daughter, that this country could have 

produced.

	I resent being called a victim, I have a choice in the matter.  I 

am a survivor.  Lindi was a victim, she had no choice.  I have just 

had major surgery, which I trace as a direct result to the stress and 

trauma that resulted out of the Heidelberg incident.   It has been 

demonstrated that cancer of the colon is something that results from 

tremendous stress.  So first my heart was ripped out, and now half 

of my gut.  

	I am happy that you are well, I hope that emotionally and 

psychologically you can be well because my greatest concern is that 

you have been programmed killers, you repeatedly said that you 

were acting under orders from your high command.

	You could not tell us how you felt which indicates to me that 

possibly you have been trained not to feel and I can see that that 

would be important in a killing machine, to be unable to feel, but 

just to carry out orders indiscriminately.   And that is my greatest 

fear.

	I have no objection to amnesty for you, but we know there are 

enough indiscriminate killers on our streets and my fear is that we 

have three more who are capable, because of their programming to 

do exactly the same thing once you are released.

	I wished that it could be otherwise and perhaps with time and 

counselling things can be otherwise, and I would wish that that is 

possible and that it is made available to you as it has been made 

available to us, to have counselling for the tremendous trauma that 

we have been through and I am sure you have been through trauma 

as well.	Both through the incident and through your own 

experiences, which Lindiwe would have been delighted to hear and I 

would be also interested in hearing how you experienced oppression 

personally.  I have experienced oppression as a white woman and I 

am sure the oppression that you have experienced, may be much 

worse.  But I would like to know the details because that is what 

Lindi would have wanted to know too.

	We came here hoping to hear the truth about who the people 

in high command were who organised this whole dastedly affair.   I 

am not convinced that that truth has come out and until it is, and 

does come out, I am not happy that you could just disappear into the 

woodwork.

	I know that it must be terribly frightening to reveal who the 

high command is because your own lives are in jeopardy if you do 

get amnesty, and I appreciate that it must be very, very frightening.

	I thank you for being able to look me in the eye and for 

having to hear my story.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR PRIOR:   There is nothing further Mr Chairman, from this 

witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse, are there any questions you wish to 

put to this witness?

ADV ARENDSE:   No, Mr Chairman, there are just two things I 

would like to mention maybe for the record.  The first one is that in 

terms of Mrs Fourie saying that she hasn't had everything, we've 

only got three applicants here before us and they have said what 

they did, including killing her daughter.

	The other thing is it is a matter of record, certainly it is in the 

bundle that is before the Committee, that the APLA high command 

and this is what I am not sure about, the APLA high command is on 

record when they made submissions to the TRC Committee, I think, 

on the 7th of October, as having accepted responsibility for what 

happened and there is also a statement that we put to the applicants 

which had been handed up on behalf of Mr Xuma where he says as a 

member of the APLA high command they accept responsibility and it 

is also clear that they were the ones, including Mr Xuma, who had in 

fact organised this attack.  So that is a matter of record.

	I am not sure whether Mrs Fourie is aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON:   They are accepting responsibility for what has 

happened, appears from the papers, but we have to decide whether 

we would like to call the person who gave the orders to appear 

before us for having given the orders and to explain why he gave 

such orders.  We haven't decided that, we may very well decide that 

we would like to hear that evidence, if not now, but at some stage.

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, the evidence thus far, which is 

unchallenged, is that Mr Gqomfa got his orders directly from Mr 

Nonxuba who unfortunately is deceased and the other applicants 

Mabala and Madasi have said that they received their orders from Mr 

Gqomfa.

CHAIRPERSON:   We will deal with that during your address.

ADV ARENDSE:   As you please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes.

JUDGE WILSON:   The statement by Xuma which you referred to, 

which is being handed in, is not an affidavit.  It is merely a 

statement prepared by him and signed.

CHAIRPERSON:   Anyway that is a matter we will deal with at a 

later stage.  If there are no further points you would like to put to 

Mrs Fourie, then I would like to excuse her.

ADV ARENDSE:   No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mrs Fourie, thank you very much.

MRS FOURIE:   Mr Chairman, may I respond to Mr Arendse's 

comment.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes.

MRS FOURIE:   Yes, I do understand that the PAC as a group, have 

taken responsibility, but have the people who were directly involved 

with planning this whole thing, and getting these gentlemen to 

execute the orders, they are the people that we want to know about 

and have they applied for amnesty?

CHAIRPERSON:   These are factors which we will be considering.

MRS FOURIE:   We appreciate that Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mr Chairman, I call the next witness, Mr 

Quentin Cornelius.  Mr Cornelius is in a wheelchair, and I think it 

may be convenient, Mr Chairman, for him to sit where Mrs Fourie 

sat.

	He appears at item 2 of the submissions by victims Mr 

Chairman, thank you.

QUENTIN CORNELIUS:	(sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR:	Mr Cornelius, thank you for 

appearing.  Is it correct that you have prepared your own 

submissions which form part of the Bundle of documents that was 

handed up to the Committee?

MR CORNELIUS:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   Do you have a copy of the submissions that you intend 

to present in your evidence?

MR CORNELIUS:   I do.

MR PRIOR:   And you wish those submissions to be incorporated as 

part of your evidence?

MR CORNELIUS:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   Just for the record, how old are you now?

MR CORNELIUS:   I am 24 years.

MR PRIOR:   Are you married?

MR CORNELIUS:   No, I am not married.

MR PRIOR:   And where do you reside at present?

MR CORNELIUS:   I live in Randburg, Johannesburg.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you.  Will you please proceed with presenting 

your submissions to the Committee.

MR CORNELIUS:   Mr Chairman, I just want to go through the 

piece of my position and feelings regarding this amnesty application.

	From the 30th of December 1993, my life has never been the 

same for obvious reasons, being in a wheelchair, having lost the use 

of my legs due to the fact that I was shot in cold blood, at point 

blank range by the three applicants.  There is a lot a person can deal 

with and I thank God for the courage given to me and that got me 

where I am now.

	If it was not for that courage and strength and my optimism, I 

would not have been here today.  It is however, made very difficult 

when you have root nerve pain and various other forms of pain on a 

daily basis, pains that you can hardly explain to somebody, that I 

would never have had if this did not happen.

	I have lost a kidney and various parts of my intestines as well, 

as a result of the shooting.  This has been the reason and the cause 

why I initially ended up in hospital for several months and have 

subsequently been in hospital again a couple of times, because of 

various complications.

	Nobody will ever know what it is like, what suffering a person 

has to go through until it has happened to you.  I would like to have 

each of the perpetrators look me in the eye and choose whether they 

would not mind having a rifle stuck in their spines and the trigger 

being pulled on them in cold blood, to leave them emotionally and 

physically scarred and disabled as I have been or would they rather 

stay in jail and serve their sentences for the crimes that they 

committed?

	There was a freedom fight in this country for many years 

before, our current President, Nelson Mandela was set free in the 

early 1990's, in fact I think it was 1991.  He became President of 

this country due to the democratic elections that was held in April of 

1994, only four months after this horrific attack was launched on us.

	All political parties had by that time, come to agreement 

already that they are on the road to democracy in this country, 

including the perpetrators' party, including the PAC that had part in 

the interim constitution that was accepted on the 3rd of December 

1993, almost or just less than a month before this attack was still 

launched.

	Why was this attack executed, given all these things?  The 

time period and the fact that we already embarked on a road to 

democracy?  It was years after everybody had already accepted, 

several years after it was accepted and realised that the freedom 

struggle was over and in my opinion, and I believe that this is the 

common belief under South Africans, this attack was launched in a 

period when the struggle was over, there was no reason for any 

group or fraction to prove a point, by launching such attacks.

	This was completely out of and after the supposed accepted 

time frame when such terrorist attacks was executed to prove a 

point as part of the struggle, but the struggle was already over.

	This point was proved, and I can't understand why this attack 

was still sent through.  For this very reason, I am not prepared and I 

cannot find it in my heart, to forgive them at this point in time.  I 

therefore oppose this application for amnesty.  I do not believe that 

any murderers or criminals should be granted amnesty.  The 

murderers and criminals have been tried, convicted and sentenced by 

a Supreme Court in this country.  It proves to the ordinary person 

on the street and every other criminal, that it is just another one set 

free, or another three will be set free on our streets to roam as many 

other criminals in my belief, are still free on the streets.

	The fact that the command was given by your higher 

authorities, still does not give any, and I repeat I want to stress that 

it does not give any person the right to go out and shoot young, 

innocent people that sat in a Tavern that night, that had no 

connection whatsoever with the Security Forces in this country.  I 

had no political affiliation to anybody, I was merely visiting a very 

good lady friend of mine that has been killed in this attack, Lindi 

Anne Fourie, and I cannot see in my heart, ever, that any person has 

got that right to walk in and take another person's life in cold blood 

when you don't even know who you are shooting at.

	Lives have been taken and lives have been maimed because of 

these orders handed down.  There is in my opinion no reason 

whatsoever, to be such cowards, as to attack a pub full of cheerful 

young students in the middle of the most cosmopolitan area, 

Observatory, in Cape Town, on the eve of new year, whilst they are 

enjoying their youth together with youths of all other races, colours 

and creeds and all this whilst we were on our way to the first 

democratic elections in this country.

	I request of the perpetrators and their leaders, and I would 

like to echo what Mrs Fourie said, that was the higher command, the 

higher parts in the PAC and I believe, I heard what you said Mr 

Chairman, that it will be looked at further, and I do hope that it will 

be looked at further, but I request of them all, to explain to us why 

this was done, and if they have any logical reasoning for such a 

senseless attack at that time.

	Mr Chairman, I oppose this request for amnesty. 

	In conclusion, I just want to mention for the record, that I am 

not going into any detail whatsoever, as to my emotional suffering, 

physical pain, absolute distress and anger, fear I went through 

during those couple of months in hospital and the following years up 

to now, the absolute indescribable sacrifices and pain that my 

parents, my brother and my sister went through, pain and anger and 

fear that my family and friends experienced.  The humiliation of 

trying to adjust back into a very unforgiving society as an invalid, 

dependant on people for almost everything that you have to do, 

having to cope with the very unfriendly environment every day of 

your life.

	Needless to say I could write, mention of write another 200 

pages just on those few points, Mr Chairman, however, I have been 

able to cope in many respects and I will continue in my positive way 

as I believe I have been. 

	In conclusion to all of this, I am just interested in one thing, 

Mr Chairman, I want to see justice served.  That's all, thank you.

MR PRIOR:   Do you confirm the statement and the information you 

have conveyed to the Committee, as part of your evidence?

MR CORNELIUS:   I do.

MR PRIOR:   Now, you have been in attendance throughout the 

proceedings from Monday, the 27th have you not?

MR CORNELIUS:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   And you've listened to the evidence of the applicants, 

as to how the attack occurred?

MR CORNELIUS:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   I don't propose Mr Chairman, leading the witness 

through his summary on page 28, but are there any comments you 

would like to make about the incident, that differ materially from 

what you have heard presented thus far at the hearing?

MR CORNELIUS:   Mr Chairman, there is one point I would like - I 

have raised before and I would like to raise it again.  I think it was 

proved through the Police video and other evidence, that there must 

have been at least two shooters inside the Tavern and we have not 

been told for definite, if the second one was inside.  They have not 

disclosed that evidence and I believe and I would like to challenge 

them and say that there was two people inside.

	When I posed the question to Mabala I think, I asked him, or I 

think it was Madasi, I asked him where was Sibeko, the sixth 

person, he said he had forgotten.  In my opinion, he was inside and I 

would like them to comment on that again.

MR PRIOR:   Just another aspect, I think you mention it in the 

question that you had when you asked the applicants questions.  The 

sounding of the shots, or how the shots sounded whilst you were in 

the Tavern.  Are you able to describe that for us?

MR CORNELIUS:   Mr Chairman, the shots were fired in lots of 

two, one and two and maybe three shots at a time, as if it was 

directed at people specifically at the time, the way a rifleman would 

be taught to shoot - in spurs of two shots at a time, and it was not 

automatic, random fire.

MR PRIOR:   Is that your recollection?

MR CORNELIUS:   That is my recollection.

MR PRIOR:   Have you been able to compute or calculate the extent 

of your damages thus far?

MR CORNELIUS:   I have made a submission of a claim to the 

Truth and Reconciliation Commission in May of 1996, at the TRC 

offices in Johannesburg and at that time, it was in the region of and 

I stand corrected, but if I remember correctly the amount was in the 

region of R1,2 million in terms of physical, actual things that you 

could count up and see and that obviously excludes any emotional 

pain and suffering, loss of income and things like that.  That was 

purely on medical expenses and future medical expenses etc.

MR PRIOR:   Since the incident in 1993, have you received any 

assistance from the State in re-establishing or rehabilitating 

yourself?

MR CORNELIUS:   Up to this point, I have not received a cent from 

anybody.

MR PRIOR:   You indicated to me before you gave evidence, that 

was some days ago, when we consulted, that you would request this 

Committee to refer your matter, your case to the Reparations 

Committee, is that correct?

MR CORNELIUS:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE:	Mr Cornelius, you 

attended the hearings at court, the criminal court in 1994 which led 

to the conviction and sentence of the three applicants?

MR CORNELIUS:   That is correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   And you gave evidence in that court?

MR CORNELIUS:   I did.

ADV ARENDSE:   From the evidence and I am sure that on your 

own view, no one saw their faces so no one could identify these 

applicants?

MR CORNELIUS:   That is correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   Was there - and you know and it is also on 

record, that they were convicted on if I am wrong, the Committee or 

Mr Prior will correct me, there was a lot of technical evidence about 

their hair samples, the ballistics, the cap and things like that, in 

other words it was circumstantial as they call it, but technical 

evidence, nevertheless? 

	When you left that court after they were found guilty and 

sentenced, how did you feel about that?  How did you feel about 

them?

MR CORNELIUS:   I felt in the first place that due to the evidence 

that was there and they were convicted on that evidence, that it was 

the right thing to have happened, for them to be jailed or sentenced 

for crimes committed, so I felt that that was correct.

	I also felt that it was - justice had been served, but I hadn't 

heard the entire truth.  I hadn't heard everything behind it, so I did 

have a feeling of emptiness and I must admit that through these 

proceedings, it has been a lot more evident to me and a lot more has 

come up, come out than what we knew after that court case and for 

that I am grateful.

	I did feel, however, quite empty after that court case, as I 

haven't got out of it what I did now, after the court case.

ADV ARENDSE:   No, that is exactly, I think you have made the 

point.  You feel a lot better, that emptiness that you felt after the 

criminal trial, somehow whatever hole there was, has been filled 

through these proceedings, do you agree with that?

MR CORNELIUS:   I would agree with that, but I would still want 

to see justice served.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, you know these proceedings are held in 

terms of a law of Parliament and that law allows for amnesty to be 

granted even to these applicants, who committed the most heinous 

crime as long as they meet the requirements of the law, you accept 

that?

MR CORNELIUS:   I accept that that is what is stated in the law at 

the moment, however, I don't believe that they have met the 

requirements.  And if they haven't met the requirements, I still see 

that they should not be granted amnesty and should serve their 

sentence.

ADV ARENDSE:   I am just wanting to understand your opposition, 

or the basis of your opposition, that is why I am asking this 

question.  Justice was served and in fact, it has been confirmed, that 

they are the ones who participated and who committed this crime.

	Now, we come to the amnesty process, which you will accept 

is different from that court process.  Now, is your opposition then 

not based on the fact that justice must be served, but that they didn't 

make, they haven't told us everything?  Is that why you are opposing 

this?

MR CORNELIUS:   I would, Mr Chairman, through you, there is 

two reasons why I oppose this, and the one is purely an emotional 

reason and it is probably not grounds, it is my personal reason, but I 

oppose this because I don't believe that they have told us everything.

	I don't believe that full disclosure have been given.

ADV ARENDSE:   No, the first ground, I mean it is perfectly 

understandable, and I will be the first to say I am sure that if I were 

in your position, I would oppose it on that basis, too.

	But let's deal with the disclosure aspect.  You have mentioned 

today that and this you say have been proved by the video evidence, 

that least two of the attackers were inside the Tavern.

	That video was shown at the criminal trial.

MR CORNELIUS:   Correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   So you saw that?

MR CORNELIUS:   I was not allowed to see it.  As a witness and a 

victim in that court case, we were not allowed to actually be inside 

the court room before we had given our evidence.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, fine.  So you also now saw the video for 

the first time.

MR CORNELIUS:   I only saw it for the first time now.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, you gave evidence nevertheless. 

MR CORNELIUS:   Correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   And you also made a statement to the Police, 

now in your summary of your evidence which one finds on page 44 

from line 21 onwards, and I will just read it to you Mr Cornelius, 

line 19.  Two of the women, Bernadette Langford and Lindi Anne 

Fourie were flat mates of David Deglon.  They were with him and a 

friend Quentin Cornelius, a friend from Johannesburg.  They sat at 

one of the tables at a raised platform area in the Tavern.

	This table, probably because it was diagonally across from the 

opening of the door and fairly visible, suffered the worst under the 

attack.  Not only the deceased Bernadette Langford and Lindi Anne 

Fourie were killed here, but David Deglon and Quentin Cornelius 

were also seriously injured.

	Roland Palm were also sitting at one of the tables on the 

platform when the attack started.  Is that summary reasonably 

accurate?

MR CORNELIUS:   That is accurate.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, I am actually just looking for the part 

where, sorry on page 47 Mr Chairman, at line 20, because you will 

recall that the applicants were also charged with attempting to kill 

you, attempting to murder you?

	Quentin Cornelius, as we have already seen, was a visitor to 

Cape Town.  He was in the company of Lindi Anne Fourie, 

Bernadette Langford and David Deglon.  He sat at the same table on 

the platform.  He suddenly heard a pop sound and immediately knew 

that this was rifle fire although he did not see anyone firing.  He 

dived towards the left, but while diving, he was hit by one of the 

projectiles which flung him two metres further onto the ground.  He 

realised that his lower body was lame and pulled himself by his arms, 

under one of the tables to hide.  There was pandemonium in the 

Tavern.

	My question to you Mr Cornelius is, why are you only saying 

that there were two of these killers inside the Tavern because you 

saw the video evidence?  Is that the only reason why you are now 

saying - because may I just add before you answer, that in your 

statement to the Police which I had Mr Chairman, but somehow I 

can't get hold of it, I don't know if Mr Prior's got a copy, you don't 

say there either that anyone was inside the Tavern?

	Why are you  now insisting that there were two people inside 

the Tavern and also before you answer, in your own prepared 

statement which is in front of us, on page 28, you also say that you 

believe that there were five gunmen firing automatic rifles at random 

at the patrons inside the Pub.

	I've got the statement now in front of me, Mr Chairman, 

maybe I should just read this bit.  It is paragraph 3 and it is in 

Afrikaans.  Roughly at midnight I heard shots, I jumped up.  My 

back was turned towards the attackers and at that moment, I was 

injured in the back.

	"There were numerous shots fired, but these were single shots 

and not automatic fire".  

That is what you said in your statement.  The date is unclear because 

of the photocopy.

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, the original is available, it is dated the 

5th of January 1994.

JUDGE WILSON:   Shouldn't you read the next paragraph as well?

ADV ARENDSE:   The next paragraph says I subsequently fell to 

the floor and dragged myself away underneath one of the tables.  I 

did not see the attackers and do not know how many attackers there 

might have been.

MR CORNELIUS:   My response to that is I did not know how many 

people there were exactly.  As I said in this statement as well, there 

was a lot of shots fired, but I can distinctly remember and I never 

lost consciousness throughout this, I do remember single shots as if 

one and two at a time, and not automatic fire. 

	The reason why I say there were two gunmen inside is I heard 

and it was at a very, very close range, when you have a gunshot on 

this side and a gunshot on this side, from behind you, you can 

distinctly understand or remember that it is two separate rifles and 

although I didn't see them, it is my belief that there were two 

gunmen inside.

	And because of other evidence after the time as well, like the 

amount of spent cartridges found inside the Pub, is it to me obvious 

that there must have been two.  I distinctly remember the gunfire of 

two separate rifles from inside the Tavern.  I also heard gunfire 

outside, but you could hear the difference between inside and 

outside.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Cornelius, unfortunately I've got to take 

issue with you on that.  Firstly, I can understand why you said in 

your statement and at court, why firstly you never saw any of the 

attackers and also why you couldn't say how many of them were 

inside or anywhere at the Tavern.

	And I also want to suggest to you, and I think you've partially 

answered that question, that whatever view or suspicion you might 

have had as some are being influenced by what you saw on the video 

camera, when you saw the video here.  Would it be fair to say that?

MR CORNELIUS:   It could be fair to say that, I was obviously 

influenced by that, but I would like to say again that and I am 

tempted to use this as the applicants did as well, I was there and I 

really did hear gunfire from separate rifles inside the Tavern and 

they were single shots fired and not automatic fire at that time.  I 

might have been influenced later on by the video as well as by the 

Police records and evidence and the amount of cartridges found 

inside, but it just confirmed my suspicions and my belief.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, Mr Cornelius, on my reading of the 

summary that is contained in the Judge's judgement, apart from a 

Ciska du Plessis, who also happens to be a Captain in the South 

African Police, apart from her alleging that she saw two men come 

through the front door, no one else had mentioned anything about 

any gunmen, any of the attackers being inside the Tavern.  Do you 

remember that?  You were there during the whole of the trial?

MR CORNELIUS:   Yes.  I was however, not inside.  What I hear 

from you now, is from the records, because we were only allowed 

into the court when I gave my evidence.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, of course.

MR CORNELIUS:   So I wasn't actually in the trial.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, I am sorry then.  Yes, that would be right. 

 Whoever then came after you, I don't know in which order 

witnesses came.

	It also seems to me from reading of the evidence, and I just 

want to put this to you, I don't want to have a fight with you, that 

there were what is referred to in Afrikaans as two volleys and I am 

reading from the evidence or the summary of Mr Gary Donovan 

Atkinson who was the owner of the Tavern at the time, and it is on 

page 43 from lines 8 onwards, Mr Chairman.  He says, he is the 

owner, and then he goes on to say that at about ten to twelve that 

evening, I heard a loud popping noise, followed by gunfire which he 

thought was rapid fire.

MR CORNELIUS:   Sorry, was that ten to eleven or ten to twelve?

ADV ARENDSE:   Sorry, did I say ten to eleven, it is ten to twelve, 

sorry.  Followed by gunfire which he thought  was rapid fire.  He 

took cover and shouted at the other persons in the Tavern to fall 

down.  This firing continued for a brief while and it was then paused 

as though the attackers had departed.

	He stood up to approach the telephone and at that moment, 

the fire resumed.  He again shouted at the roughly  50 patrons, 

mostly in the central part of the bar, to fall down.  This second 

series of firing lasted longer than the first.

	So it seems to me, what is the English word, I forget now ... 

(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS:   Two sessions?

CHAIRPERSON:   Two bouts of firing, two separate occasions?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, bursts.  I think bursts is probably the better 

word.  There were two bursts of gunfire, it seems to suggest that, I 

don't know.

MR CORNELIUS:   I would agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON:   I think Mr Arendse, the only real difference is 

that he is drawing an inference, he doesn't say he saw two people, he 

is drawing an inference from the fact that he heard firing from two 

sides and that evidence was not given and was not asked in the 

court, at the trial.  Can you take it any further?

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, thanks.  No, in fact Mr Cornelius, the 

evidence here of the applicants is in fact that Mr Madasi who is 

sitting nearest to you with the white top, came inside the Tavern 

through the side door and sort of partially hiding behind the wall 

there, was firing at you and I think that is what the Judge meant that 

you, on the raised platform were immediately closest to him and 

visible, and he fired and at the same time, the evidence of the 

applicants is that Gqomfa was on the far right, and Mabala in the 

middle, sorry not Mabala, someone else who is now not here, 

Jantjie, were firing from outside the Tavern through the double 

doors and through the windows.

	Would that correspond with what you felt was happening that 

night?

MR CORNELIUS:   I can't say that that is any different from what 

might have happened, it sounds correct to me.  There were gunfire 

through the windows as well, and outside in the street, but I heard 

gunfire inside the Tavern.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, we've also heard from Mr Cerqueira, I 

think I've got his pronunciation right, Mr Cerqueira who appeared to 

know a bit about guns.  He also, when I asked him what he heard, he 

spoke about I think, I speak under correction, rapid gunfire which I 

asked him like automatic fire?  Would you not disagree with that?

MR CORNELIUS:   I can't say if others were on automatic fire 

outside or wherever they were, if there is five or six or four rifles 

for that matter, firing at the same time, two shots at a time, it will 

most certainly sound like automatic gunfire.  But I for definite heard 

single shots fired at the time, and not on automatic fire.

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, just for the record, we put that in issue Mr 

Cornelius, because that is my concern as the representative for the 

applicants.  You must correct me if I am wrong, but the impression 

that you want to create is that they, two of them came inside the 

Tavern, and not only randomly and indiscriminately, they actually 

aimed at you and they aimed at some of the deceased.  Is that the 

impression that you are creating?

MR CORNELIUS:   That is the impression not that I want to create, 

that is the impression that I have.

ADV ARENDSE:   I want to put it to you that that impression is a 

wrong impression, it is not supported by the facts.

MR CORNELIUS:   I don't agree.

MR PRIOR:   I think that is incorrect, with respect, and I must 

object.  Exhibit A has gone in, there has been evidence about Exhibit 

A, and if we look at the photograph at page 2(b), the cartridge that 

is against the wall, between the two deceased on the raised platform, 

has never been explained and certainly would seem to suggest on the 

inferences, that that was ejected from a rifle very close to that 

position.  Certainly not anywhere near the door.

	So, my objection is simply that to say that it is not being 

substantiated by anything, is misleading.

JUDGE WILSON:   There may be some merits in your objection if 

we had any evidence about it.  Don't you think we should have some 

evidence Mr Prior, from someone who is an expert in R4 rifles to 

tell us where the cartridges are discharged, how far away they can 

be thrown. 

	It may well be that the evidence will be that they are 

discharged to the right, so someone standing where this young 

gentleman said he was standing at the gap in the wall, cartridges 

from his rifle could never have gone anywhere near the raised 

platform.  But we haven't got that evidence before us at the moment.

	This question about where cartridges go to, is we all have to 

rely back to the time we last used a rifle and try to remember.  And I 

think it would help because, can I while we are on this, and I am 

interrupting you Mr Arendse, I don't want you to look at the 

photographs - I think that they are, I would rather you don't look at 

the moment, but can you look at that plan, it is Exhibit B.

	Can you indicate to us approximately where it was that you 

were sitting?

MR CORNELIUS:   The closest I can explain, if you can see the "d".

JUDGE WILSON:   "d"?

MR CORNELIUS:   The "d" is pointing to a raised platform and 

there, what seems to be tables.

JUDGE WILSON:   In fact, Exhibit D is where one of the bodies 

was found.

CHAIRPERSON:   Okay, because it was on that platform, the 

second table into the shop.  There was one other table that was 

slightly below us and right behind us, and that was the table that Mr 

Palm and his daughter sat at.

JUDGE WILSON:   And you were the second table on that raised 

platform?

MR CORNELIUS:   We were the second, on that raised platform.

JUDGE WILSON:   I think we all know what you mean by the raised 

platform, that is on the right of the plan, marked off by a double 

line.

MR CORNELIUS:   Correct.

JUDGE WILSON:   And you were approximately somewhere near 

where the "d" would have been?

MR CORNELIUS:   More or less there, yes.

JUDGE WILSON:   Where the, sorry not where the "d" is, but where 

the line from the "d" ends, thank you.

ADV ARENDSE:   Just on the other aspect, with respect, Judge 

Wilson is correct is that all we have up to now before and which is 

not in dispute and then Mr Prior is correct, is that these cartridges 

were found close to or next to, on top of the deceased bodies.  

There is no evidence, the only evidence is that from the applicant's 

side is Madasi was standing, sorry maybe I could just deal with this 

Mr Cornelius, you were at the end of that line which comes from 

"d", is that right, more or less there?

MR CORNELIUS:   Where I was lying after the attack or before?

ADV ARENDSE:   No, where you were sitting and chatting and 

having a drink?

MR CORNELIUS:   I was sitting, correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, now how far is that from the corner of that 

wall?  Or rather, let me put it this way, you see "h" there, "h" is an 

entrance.

MR CORNELIUS:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, now if Madasi says that he went down that 

entrance and there is a wall there on his right as you go down, is 

that right?

MR CORNELIUS:   Yes.

JUDGE WILSON:   What we've got at the moment is a little bit of a 

wall and a wide open space and then another little bit of wall, should 

that all be wall on the right?  That is to about the level  of "b", that 

is all wall and then there is an opening, and that is what we see in 

the photographs.

ADV ARENDSE:   Thank you Judge.  Is that opening directly 

opposite where you were sitting?

MR CORNELIUS:   I would say it was diagonally opposite.

ADV ARENDSE:   Diagonally, okay.  And how far would that 

opening be from you, four, five metres?

MR CORNELIUS:   At least, at least five metres.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, because I want to put it to you or just for 

your comment, my information is, and maybe we will test this with 

whoever is going to be called to give us maybe some expert evidence 

on where, how these cartridges land up there, is that when you are a 

position of four to five, or even six metres away and you are firing 

like Mr Madasi was firing with an R4 rifle, then it is quite possible, 

and in fact it would happen that these cartridges could land some 

four to six metres away from where you fire.

MR CORNELIUS:   I do not believe that that is possible.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, fine.

MR CORNELIUS:   I do not believe that you can stand behind a 

wall, as he says, and supposedly as we all know, cartridges shoot 

out to the right if we want to use that, if he is behind a wall, 

shooting at people in that direction where the wall that he took as 

cover here, his cartridges should land against the wall, towards, and 

not four or five or six metres, between the heads of two people lying 

on the raised platform.  I do not believe that it could go that 

distance.

ADV ARENDSE:   There is just something which momentously 

slipped me Mr Chairman, I am just trying to think what it was.  It is 

this Mr Cornelius, and perhaps this is for the record Mr Chairman, 

but obviously Mr Cornelius can comment.

	Before a criminal trail starts Mr Cornelius, the State 

Prosecutor, the State Advocate would give a summary of the 

evidence that he intends to lead at a criminal trial.  He gives it to 

the other Advocates.  Now I have that summary in front of me and I 

want to read it to you.

	I can obviously make it available if it needs to be.

CHAIRPERSON:   What purpose does that serve, the summary?

ADV ARENDSE:   The only purpose it serves is that it doesn't 

mention anything, Mr Cornelius, about these gunmen, these 

attackers having gone inside the Tavern.

CHAIRPERSON:   That is not evidence in any case.

ADV ARENDSE:   No, no, but we've had, Mr Chairman, with 

respect, we've had statements which is not evidence, photographs 

which is also not evidence being put to witnesses.  I am putting it to 

him for his comment, to be fair, he can tell me whether he agrees 

with it or not.

ADV SANDI:   Sorry, Mr Arendse, is it not because that is just a 

summary of facts as the basis on which the State will found its case 

and doesn't necessarily have to state everything?

ADV ARENDSE:   Well exactly, the point is one would have 

thought that the summariser will presumably ...

CHAIRPERSON:   (Indistinct)

ADV ARENDSE:   I don't want to take that any further.  The point 

is just, and it is maybe something more appropriately raised in 

argument.

JUDGE WILSON:   We know there were 48 cartridge cases 

scattered around inside the Tavern.  There must have been people 

inside there, mustn't there?

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, the applicant, one of the applicants 

Madasi, says he was inside there.

JUDGE WILSON:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

JUDGE WILSON:   Well, the fact that it is not in some summary 

shows that the Prosecutor forgot to say it.

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, he also then forgot to say that there were 

two or five or two or more attackers inside the Tavern.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, I don't think we can take that matter further 

as to what the Prosecutor said in his statement.

	Mr Cornelius, lastly, I want to ask you these applicants have 

come before the Committee, you've heard them, you've been sitting 

here all the time, you've heard them say that they are responsible for 

what happened.  They attacked the Tavern on orders, they killed the 

deceased, they injured you.  Is there any reason that you can think 

of why they wouldn't want to say or except for the applicant Madasi, 

is there any reason that you can think of why Mabala and Gqomfa 

would deny or wouldn't say that they were inside the Tavern?

	They have been found guilty, they have been sentenced, you 

know that.  They are in jail for 27 years, they are here at the 

amnesty, this is the only, it is not the last opportunity, it is their 

only opportunity to get out of jail.  Is there any reason that you can 

think of why they wouldn't want to make full disclosure including 

saying but we were inside the Tavern, we shot and killed these 

people?

MR CORNELIUS:   I do not see any reason why Gqomfa or Mabala 

should hide it, but why don't they tell us where the sixth person 

was?

ADV ARENDSE:   Thank you Mr Cornelius, I've got no further 

questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON:   Any re-examination Mr Prior?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR:	Thank you.  You indicated 

where you were seated and where some of the deceased were seated, 

your companions.  And you were asked a short while ago can you 

think of any reason why they wouldn't make full disclosure.

	There has been evidence led and it has been suggested that 

this was a Bar or a Tavern frequented by military personnel.  As far 

as you were aware on that evening, were there anyone that 

resembled military personnel in uniforms or the like?

MR CORNELIUS:   As far as I can remember, not one.

MR PRIOR:   How were the people dressed on that occasion?

MR CORNELIUS:   It was as if we were holiday makers, which I 

was at the time, dressed in shorts, T-shirts, sandals, caps on, leisure 

wear.

MR PRIOR:   And if someone, we heard from I think Mr Madasi, 

who indicated that the lighting, there was sufficient lighting to see 

people?

MR CORNELIUS:   There was.

MR PRIOR:   A person could see clearly who was enjoying 

themselves in the Tavern?

MR CORNELIUS:   Correct.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

JUDGE WILSON:   Had you been there before?

MR CORNELIUS:   No, Judge.  That was the first time I had been 

there.

JUDGE WILSON:   And what door did you use to get in?

MR CORNELIUS:   On the sketch it is marked by "h".

JUDGE WILSON:   Now, the door that is marked "g" on this sketch, 

I don't know if you remember it, it is a double door with glass, was 

that door open?

MR CORNELIUS:   No.  It was locked and bolted from the inside.  

And I specifically remember even looking at it, it seemed to be just a 

feature, it hadn't been opened for years.  That is certainly the 

impression I had when I arrived because it is the first time I had 

been there, and I looked at the place.  

	It was as if that was an old door, never used, and locked just 

as a feature, it was completely painted closed.

ADV SANDI:   Mr Cornelius, you say there was or there were no 

members of the Security Forces in that Tavern, did I heard you 

correctly?

MR CORNELIUS:   To my knowledge, I couldn't identify anybody 

by their dress, as military people or Security Forces, for that matter.

ADV SANDI:   Save for uniform, is there any other way in which 

one could have identified any such members at the Tavern?

MR CORNELIUS:   Mr Chairman, the only way I think you could 

maybe have identified them is if they openly wore weapons on them, 

and I certainly and I was never in that frame of mind, to even look 

at things like that.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE:	Mr 

Chairman, just one question.  Were you going to ask a question?

CHAIRPERSON:   No.

ADV ARENDSE:   Just arising from Adv Sandi's question.  We 

know now that Ciska du Plessis was in the Tavern and she I think 

still is a member of the South African Police.  So there was one 

member of the Security Forces in the Tavern.

MR CORNELIUS:   I believe there was, and I believe she is a PRO, 

working in the Police Force.  I don't believe that she is an 

operational person, but she works in the Police Force and she is a 

Public Relations Officer.

ADV ARENDSE:   Then also following on that, at that time of the 

night, would one expect members of the Security Forces to be in 

uniform unless it is at the army barracks or at a military base which 

clearly this wasn't?

MR CORNELIUS:   Security Forces in my opinion include 

Policemen and if we are led to believe that this venue was chosen 

because it was frequented by Security Personnel, on that basis, I 

would certainly expect that it would at least be at least maybe 30 or 

40 percent of the people inside would be Policemen, whether they 

were off duty or not, whether they were clothed in Police clothes or 

not, I believe there was only one person in there, amongst a packed  

place full of students.

ADV ARENDSE:   No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you.  You are excused from further 

attendance.

MR CORNELIUS:   Thank you Mr Chairman.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, I call Michael January.  The witness' 

submissions are made at item 1 on the submissions by victims, pages 

1 to 25.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

MICHAEL JANUARY:	(sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR:	Mr January, how old are you 

at present?

MR JANUARY:   At present I am 30 years old.

MR PRIOR:   Are you married?

MR JANUARY:   No, I am not married.

MR PRIOR:   Is it correct that you were injured at the Heidelberg 

Tavern during the attack by the applicants, on the night of the 30th 

of December 1993?

MR JANUARY:   I was injured in the Heidelberg Tavern on the 

night of the 30th of December 1993.

MR PRIOR:   Is it correct that you have compiled your own 

submissions together with certain annexures supporting your claim 

for compensation?

MR JANUARY:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   And it has been explained to you that we will not deal 

in any detail with the claim for compensation but this will on your 

request, be referred to the Reparations Committee?

MR JANUARY:   That is what I understand, yes.

MR PRIOR:   You indicated to me as well, that you wanted to read 

out onto the record, to the Committee your submissions as you had 

prepared them, is that correct?

MR JANUARY:   Yes, that is correct.

MR PRIOR:   Would you please proceed?

MR JANUARY:   Thank you Mr Prior.  Before the attack on the, Mr 

Chairman, I will just be paraphrasing my submissions, because they 

are quite extensive, I will just paraphrase them.

	Before the attack on the Heidelberg Tavern, I was a 

businessman.   I was the sole proprietor of a business which 

supported myself and also in a large measure, supported my parents 

who at the time were on pension.  The business I owned where I also 

employed specifically my younger brother and it was his sole source 

of income at that time.

MR PRIOR:   What kind of business was it?

MR JANUARY:   The work was computer related.  We did a full 

range of services from desk top publishing through to installations 

of computers.

	On the night of the incident, the 30th of December 1993, 

myself and my cousin, Grant January stopped at the Heidelberg 

Tavern in Observatory.  Within minutes of entering the Tavern, we 

had barely sat down, there were loud popping noises which I 

immediately identified as gunfire.

	I wasn't at that point sure whether the gunfire was inside or 

outside the Tavern, but judged it safe to or the safest course being 

to take cover under the table at which I was sitting.

	Early in the shooting, I was hit in the back of my left leg 

which caused extensive injuries to my leg and pelvis.  I will briefly 

outline the nature of those injuries.  The bullet resulted in a 

shattered thigh bone and I got a 40 cm steel pin which runs from my 

knee to my hip joint.  I have also since about a year after the 

incident, on the 8th of November 1994, I had a nerve graph to try 

and repair extensive nerve damage within my left leg, but this has 

not had much effect.  With the result that my left leg is still pretty 

useless today and I walk with a limp.

	I have been recommended by a family Doctor to walk at least 

with a stick.  For the first year I used crutches exclusively, but since 

1995 I have been able to walk without the use of crutches and 

although on recommendation I should be using a stick, I find this 

impractical for the type of work I do at the moment.

	While I was in hospital and on crutches and in the first few 

months after I was shot, the nature of my injuries was such that I 

was unable to continue with my business.  It resulted in the loss of 

that business.  My brother was without work and my parents were 

without the support I had provided them.  In fact the situation had 

been reversed, it was now my parents who supported me and my 

brother was left to find employment elsewhere, which he eventually 

did.

	Needless to say, being a cripple today as it were, I have 

suffered extensively in terms of pain, discomfort, I've had a 

complete change of lifestyle, the loss of my business, the loss of 

income and the work I do today, in no way can be compared to what 

I used to do before I was so injured.

	In this last four years, I have also lost many friends and 

alienated family members as a result of behaviour and personality 

changes due to depression, frustration and bitterness.  Many days I 

was unable to get myself out of bed in the morning, because I felt 

not only had I lost the use of my leg, I had also lost my business, my 

income, my whole future as it were.  Often I felt that there was no 

reason to go on, or to do anything.

	Even today I suffer from continuous discomfort and after a 

long day of work, I often have to ask a family member for a massage 

to ease back pain and pain in my hip.  The loss of sensation which I 

have suffered in my left leg, is extremely dangerous as well, as I 

often step in things or bang my leg or foot against obstructions 

without realising that I have done so.

	If I am lucky this only results in a fall which is not too bad, 

and I have learnt to cope with it, but sometimes I have hurt myself 

more than I realised.  

	Regarding my position on amnesty I would also like to say the 

following.  It has been an exceptionally difficult four years since my 

disability.  I have suffered from a great many things.  I have 

undergone various operations.

	I lost my business, etc.  I have continually prayed to God to 

give me strength to face these hardships and the courage to forgive 

the men who inflicted this disaster on my family.  This forgiveness 

did not come easily and for many years I dreamt of vengeance as it 

were, of somehow getting my own back, but I can now say that the 

Lord God, my Saviour, has given me the strength to unconditionally 

forgive these men regardless of whether they are asking for 

forgiveness or not.  I unconditionally forgive them for what they 

have done to me personally, however, I obviously cannot - it is not 

my place to forgive them for what they have done to the other 

people who have suffered as a result of their actions.  Or as it were 

for what this country has had to go through as a result of the 

actions.

	I cannot say with any truth that I have forgiven the people 

who sent them.  Neither can I say with any truth that I have forgiven 

the system that left my family and me to suffer for the last four 

years.  We did not receive so much as a phone call to provide us 

with relief in the last four years, not from any person in Government 

or any Commission set up by the Government.

	This is the bitterness that drives me to thinking of the Truth 

and Reconciliation Commission as no more than a mechanism of the 

system to forgive itself and whitewash the suffering that myself, my 

family and the people of this country, have endured.

	Despite having forgiven the men who shot me, I still wish to 

hear the truth.  Why were we victimised, what did they hope to 

achieve by what they did to us?  I can't honestly think that they 

believed that what they did to us, has achieved anything.

	I hope that these men will not receive amnesty unless they 

come forward with the whole truth and expose all the (indistinct) 

behind this event.  I don't know if the Truth Commission will follow 

up all the people responsible, or even if all of them have applied for 

amnesty.

	As a result of attending, further to the submissions that I have 

made and which I have summarised, I also wish to say that as a 

result of attending these hearings now and listen to the applications 

and read in fact some of the applications that has been made, I find 

it most disconcerting that the applications these men have made, are 

very vague.

	In fairness to them, I would say that regarding the position 

they were in, they were probably not given enough time to make a 

full application, but the impression certainly as in this hearing is that 

the full disclosure has not been made.

	More facts are continually being extracted in these hearings 

and added and amended to the applicants' statements but which for 

some reason, was not part of the original statement, that these 

applicants have made.  For their sake, I hope that this is not 

construed as deliberate attempts to be vague, but for example Mr 

Madasi's admission that he was inside the Tavern, was a crucial 

piece of information which should have been in his original 

statement.

	I hope that this does not negatively impact on Mr Madasi's 

application.

	I do also feel that I know something of where these men come 

from emotionally and politically as I myself have experienced 

oppression in the schools and in the townships in which I was raised. 

 And yet for all that our family have experienced, I can say that my 

family has experienced a lot under Apartheid and under the racist 

regime of the National Party, yet, we never turned to the course 

they took.

	It has often been said by various people in Government, that 

the actions of freedom fighters should be considered in the light that 

they were fighting a just cause, a just and noble cause, being the 

freedom and justice for all the people of this country.  However, in 

the light of that cause shouldn't the actions they take to further that 

cause, reflect the nobility and the justice of the cause for which they 

are fighting?

	I don't think indiscriminate murder can properly be considered 

in the light of a just war.  Many freedom fighters, many soldiers for 

the cause of liberation, have done sometimes many brave things and 

very courageous things and all of this, in a very noble course and I 

think that many of them, would not want to be considered as 

indiscriminate murderers.

	My differences are not with these individuals though, but with 

the mentality of an organisation which led to its soldiers and allowed 

those soldiers to attack its own Government.  We all know that the 

peace negotiations were well on the way by the time this attack took 

place.  In fact the National Party, the racist regime, had already 

transferred power to the Transitional Executive Council and the 

elections was almost inevitable, but this organisation had the gall to 

allow these men to be tried and sentenced while its leaders embraced 

the gravy train as it has been called.

	Where are these leaders today?  They are hiding behind these 

men who are being duped into losing their chance at amnesty while 

the leaders continue on that gravy train.  I am opposed to amnesty, 

not on the grounds of truth or the disclosure of these men, but that 

amnesty cannot be given to us the survivors.

	Mr Prior has attempted on various occasions to explain to me 

the nature of these proceedings and amnesty, and he explained to me 

that the word amnesty as derived from the Greek word amnesia, 

which means to forget.  Well, we cannot forget.

	A just war is understandable, but granting amnesty to people 

who killed indiscriminately will be condoning the actions of every 

single individual worldwide, who has ever planted a bomb on an 

airplane, machine gunned a restaurant or killed innocent people in 

the name of political idealism.

	I don't think that is the message South Africa wants to send 

out to the world that killing innocent people is justifiable, 

politically.  If you are going to be fighting a just war, then you must 

consider your actions in the light of the cause for which you are 

fighting.

	I would almost go so far as to say that the actions, not 

necessarily by the three gentlemen I have in front of me, but the 

actions of their leaders by sending them on such an attack, I would 

almost go so far as to say that the actions are treasonous in that 

their attempt was to derail the peace process and to derail the 

elections and would have resulted in great bloodshed for this 

country.

	So their actions are treasonous to the people of this country 

and I don't believe that the attack on the Heidelberg has in any way, 

furthered their cause.  In fact, I believe that it was a set back to 

their cause and in that light, their actions are treasonous to the 

cause for which they fought, or claim to have fought.

	That is all I have to say at this point, Mr Chairman, thank 

you.

MR PRIOR:   There is no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse, are there any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE:	Thank you Mr 

Chairman.  Mr January, you gave evidence at court.

MR JANUARY:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   And your summary is on page 51 of the record.

MR JANUARY:   Okay.

ADV ARENDSE:   And then you also prepared your own statement 

which is on page 2 of the second bundle.  And just your comment 

from reading both, it doesn't seem to me that you are saying that the 

attackers were inside the Tavern.  Maybe I should read it to you.  

On page 51, the second line Mr Chairman.

	Michael January and his cousin Grant, were also sitting on the 

platform.  Like other persons, he first heard a loud pop sound which 

he could not identify and then from close by a series of hard sounds, 

very loud sounds, which made it impossible for him to think of 

anything else.  All that he could do was to lie down flat on the little 

seat.

	After a two or three second pause, the shooting started again. 

 He wanted to hide under the seat when he felt that he was wounded 

in the leg.  He attempted to close the wound, the opening of which 

was larger than the palm of his hand, while he could see the bullets 

hitting all around him.

	For a frightening while he lay down very quietly.  Grant them 

asked him whether he had been wounded and fetched assistance. 

	Then in your prepared statement on page 2, under the sub-

heading the incident you say in the second line of that paragraph 

within minutes the shooting started, I didn't see much since the 

shooters were in a dark entrance way and shooting through 

windows.  I hid under a table but was hit anyway in the back of my 

upper left leg thigh.  Just your comment.

MR JANUARY:   Yes, I don't know, I am sure that it must have 

been taken down in a statement at the time.  I spoke to many 

Policemen while I was in hospital.  My feeling has always been, 

although I never specifically saw the attackers, from the position I 

was at, I didn't have a clear view towards the entrance way, but I 

was aware that there was shots coming from the direction of the 

entrance way.  I was also aware of shots being fired through the 

window as from the position at which I was lying, I could clearly see 

the windows and the double doors.

	And I could actually see holes appearing in those double 

doors and in those windows where the shots were being fired into 

the building from outside.  But I was also aware of people shooting 

from the direction of the entrance way.

ADV ARENDSE:   Can I just pass you the photographs, photograph 

11 through to 16.  One can see from those photographs Mr 

Chairman, that shots were fired there through broken windows, 

through the door.

JUDGE WILSON:   As I see it, there were four shots fired through 

the double door.  Do you agree Mr Arendse?  Two through the glass 

and two higher up?

ADV ARENDSE:   Then there is a broken window.

JUDGE WILSON:   There is a broken window to the right, facing ...

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

JUDGE WILSON:   ... where other shots were fired through the 

stained glass?

ADV ARENDSE:   That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON:   What is the question you want to put to this 

witness, Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE:   Is that what you were describing, that when you 

say you heard or saw shooting through windows, it must have been 

that then?

MR JANUARY:   Yes, I was sitting on a raised platform.  At least, 

at that time I had thrown myself down, but I was on the raised 

platform, and I had a direct line of sight to the double door and 

those windows and that was definitely one of the directions from 

which shots were being fired.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, now how far is the raised platform from 

the double doors and maybe you could just mark again, if someone 

could just hand Mr January the sketch plan which is Exhibit B, from 

the point - you've got the sketch plan there?

MR JANUARY:   Yes, I've got the sketch plan.

ADV ARENDSE:   You see "g" and "f", those are the double doors?

MR JANUARY:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   From the furthest point in, because we can also 

see from the photographs, the double doors are now sort of in, they 

are not like that any more today, but they were in then, from the 

furthest point in to the raised platform, what is that distance?

MR JANUARY:   The entire area of that front room from about the 

staircase to the double doors, the dimensions of that room is about 5 

metres in width to about 10 metres in length.  I was sitting right at 

the back of the raised platform where there is a pillar indicated in 

line with the staircase, that is above the point "d" that is indicated 

on the sketch, there is a pillar above that point, and I was sitting 

close to that pillar.  So that would have put me about eight, nine, 

maybe ten metres away from the double doors.

ADV ARENDSE:   And you heard the evidence of Mr Cornelius, 

how far would you have been from the opening in the wall?

MR JANUARY:   As you can see the opening in the wall is rather 

closer to the double doors, but diagonally across from myself, from 

where I was sitting in the Tavern, to where that opening is, the 

distance would have been about five to seven metres maybe.

ADV ARENDSE:   Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further 

questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON:   Any re-examination Mr Prior?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR:   I have no re-examination Mr 

Chairman.  Is there anything else that Mr January would like to add?

MR JANUARY:   There is one thing that I would like to add.  The 

only reason I would like to add this, is that I feel that this hearing is 

the only place where such things should be voiced and in terms of 

reconciliation it is things that I would like to get off my chest.

	But in some measure, I have a very negative opinion towards 

what the Truth Commission is intending to or proposing to do.  I 

see, I often see the Truth Commission as merely a mechanism for 

politicians to give their soldiers amnesty, while those same 

politicians are never going to be implicated in the actions which 

resulted from decisions they made.

	I believe that amnesty is the reward for the soldiers taking the 

fall for decisions which the politicians were responsible for.  Thank 

you.

JUDGE WILSON:   Can I ask you something completely different.  

You have been sitting in all this morning, haven't you?

MR JANUARY:   Yes, Judge Wilson.

JUDGE WILSON:   Are you in a position to tell us whether the 

shots you heard were single, double, treble shots or whether they 

were automatic fire?

MR JANUARY:   Well, during the shooting I wasn't paying much 

attention to  how the shots were being fired, there were lots of shots 

being fired, but I seem to recall in the hearing from Mr Madasi's 

statements that he perceived movement and that he directed his fire 

towards that movement.

	I would infer from that that Mr Madasi implied that he was 

directing his fire at movements he could perceive.

JUDGE WILSON:   Thank you.

MR JANUARY:   Thank you, Judge Wilson.

CHAIRPERSON:   You are excused from further attendance Mr 

January.

MR JANUARY:   Thank you Mr Chairman.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, I still have three witnesses to go and 

there are one or two other aspects.  One of them that Judge Wilson 

raised and it was in my mind all along and we have discussed that 

with the Investigators to obtain better evidence regarding, if such 

evidence is available, to assist the Committee.

	I see it is one o'clock, I don't know what the ruling would be 

regarding the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON:   We will take the long adjournment now, but can 

we resume at a quarter to two Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Will you arrange to see that your clients are 

brought in in time?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.  It would of course help Mr Chairman, if 

any of the other witnesses, if their statements are not already with 

me, if it could perhaps be provided during the break so that we can 

just, whatever delay there might be, so that we could just avoid that.

CHAIRPERSON:   What is the position Mr Prior, is there a 

likelihood that we would finish with the oral evidence this 

afternoon?

MR PRIOR:   Of all the victims?

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes.

MR PRIOR:   There seems a possibility at the rate that we have been 

able to get through the evidence, but I don't have the other 

evidence, the technical evidence regarding cartridges and I may also 

indicate to the Commission that I am investigating whether a residue 

test was done on the body of Mr Cerqueira, particularly on his hand 

to indicate possibly whether he fired or not.  I am trying to locate 

that information.

CHAIRPERSON:   Well, then we are bound to - we are faced with 

the situation that at some stage or the other, we are going to 

adjourn, leaving this matter incomplete.

MR PRIOR:   That is so Mr Chairman.  But certainly I would be able 

depending on my learned friend, but we seem to have got through at 

least more than half of the witnesses this morning, to maybe even 

complete the submissions of the victims.

CHAIRPERSON:   Are there any victims who come from outside of 

Cape Town who might be inconvenienced if we didn't hear their 

evidence this afternoon?

MR PRIOR:   The remaining victims are from the Cape Town 

surrounding area, except that at least two of the persons work is 

being effected.  I have been informed by their employers that they 

loath to extend any further time from work, however a letter from 

the Commission will suffice, but they have indicated they have 

already given a week to these people.

CHAIRPERSON:   We will resume, we will adjourn now, and resume 

at quarter to two.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mr Chairman, I call as my next witness Mr 

Roland Lewis Palm.  His submissions appear at page 34 of the 

bundle.  Mr Palm has requested that I assist him in reading out the 

statement to the Commission.  Is there any difficulty with that Mr 

Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON:   No difficulty at all. 

ROLAND LEWIS PALM:	(sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you, do sit down Mr Palm.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR:	Mr Palm is it correct that you 

are the father of one of the deceased in the Heidelberg Tavern 

attack, Rolanda Palm?

MR PALM:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   Is it also correct that you were present during the 

attack at the Heidelberg Tavern on the 30th of December 1993?

MR PALM:   That is also correct.

MR PRIOR:   Mr Palm is it correct that you pursuant to appearing 

before the Committee, have consulted with me on a number of 

occasions?

MR PALM:   That is also correct.

MR PRIOR:   That you supplied me with documentation and a 

statement relating to submissions that you wish to make to this 

Committee?

MR PALM:   That is right.

MR PRIOR:   Is it also correct that you requested me to assist you 

drafting the submissions you wanted to make to the Committee?

MR PALM:   That is true.

MR PRIOR:   And is it also correct that you have indicated to me 

that you wish me to read out on your behalf, the submissions that 

you have made?

MR PALM:   That I have done, because the reason being I don't 

want to go through that emotions again.

MR PRIOR:   I just want for the record, are you on any medication 

at the moment?

MR PALM:   Well, I am taking depressive tablets.  Well, I have been 

on it for quite a while, that is all.

MR PRIOR:   All right.  Please listen, and we will go through the 

statement.  During October of 1992 my son, Brandon Clinton Palm 

was convicted of attempted murder and robbery and sentenced to 12 

years imprisonment. 

	Brandon had always maintained his innocence and after five 

years of incarceration, still maintains that he was falsely implicated 

in these crimes by members of the Murder and Robbery Unit, Cape 

Town.

	By all accounts the crimes lacked motive and seemed 

improbable as the victim worked in the same building where my son 

was employed as a security guard where the alleged attack took 

place.

	Since 1992, my wife and I have pursued an arduous course of 

leave to appeal for retrial, review, Ministries of Law and Order, 

Justice, Correctional Services under the old and new Governments.  

The office of the Public Protector, Human Rights Commission, 

office of Mandela and lastly the Truth and Reconciliation 

Commission all to no avail. 

	As a result of this situation, my daughter Rolanda Lucille 

Palm came to live in Cape Town in order to assist her brother and 

family in pursuing justice.  On the evening of the 30th of December 

1993, Rolanda and I were discussing the information she had 

obtained concerning the complainant in my son's case.

	We were sitting in the Heidelberg Tavern in Observatory, 

enjoying a drink.  She had agreed to accompany me to the Tavern in 

order to get out of the house for a short while.  We left home at 

about 10h35 pm and walked to the Heidelberg as it was five minutes 

away from my residence.

	On arriving, I ushered my daughter into the restaurant area of 

the Heidelberg, because I wanted to have a private discussion away 

from the noise of the music they were playing there.  On sitting her 

down at the dining area, I walked to the bar, ordered a beer for 

myself and a cooldrink for her.

	Upon sitting down at the table, I referred to my watch.  The 

reason I looked at my watch is that my daughter had just arrived 

from an afternoon shift at work and she was quite tired.  My 

intention was not to keep her out late.

	We sat down, had a discussion which on estimate could have 

lasted for about 20 minutes.  While we were talking, I heard a 

spattered noise which was very strange.  I glanced up, over her 

shoulder to where the sound was coming from.  I noticed sparks, 

smoke, glasses breaking.  I realised this was because someone was 

shooting into the Tavern.

	I did not see who was doing the shooting as my vision was 

blocked by a column in the Tavern.  On realising it was gunfire, I 

immediately stretched over the table, pulled my daughter and said 

get down.  In that motion, I fell onto the bench and rolled onto the 

floor.  My daughter dropped with her head to the table, and her back 

was exposed.

	A hail of bullets was directed at us and a bottle and other 

things on the table, fell onto the floor.  As I tried to look up from 

under the table to see who was shooting, I noticed my daughter 

reaching the floor slowly.  In the same instance I noticed two other 

girls to my right, fly out of their seats.

	Unfortunately all I could see was a cloud of smoke and the 

shadow withdrawing.  The next instant I saw this torch light object 

which knocked the side panel in the passage and rolled over to 

where we were.  I screamed it is a grenade, stay down, not realising 

she was already hit.

	I still pressed her to the ground, under the table and counted 

to ten, waiting for this explosion.  When I realised nothing had 

happened, I glanced over to where the object had fallen.  

Immediately I noticed a trickle of blood on her shoulder as she was 

lying face down.  I immediately jumped from out of where I was 

lying to where she was, I turned her over and she just slumped in my 

arms.

	I realised when looking at her, she was dead and I jumped out 

and ran to the door, to look for those responsible for the attack.  As 

I got to the door, I looked to my right and my left and immediately 

saw a yellow van parked on the corner of Observatory and Lower 

Main Road, outside the chemist, facing Mowbray.

	My immediate reaction was, oh, the Police are here already 

and I went back into the Tavern to double check on my daughter.  

My thoughts were that if the Police were there so soon, they had 

obviously caught the perpetrators.  I lifted my daughter up, felt for 

her pulse, but my hand just sunk into her neck.

	I laid her down on her back, tried to close her eyes, but they 

would not close.  This is when the realisation got to me she was 

dead.  I immediately made my way home to tell my wife.  I was 

blinded by the shock and the tears.  I passed this van on the corner. 

 When I passed, I noticed one figure there who had on a white 

garment.

	When I got to the next corner to turn on my way home, I 

looked back, still noticing the van standing on the corner.  Thinking 

it was very strange that for a person who had just come out of a 

place that had been attacked, that nobody stopped me.  Well, I 

managed to get home all hysterical and my wife could not 

understand me as I was hysterical and incoherent.

	My wife went to the Tavern to find out what was going on.  A 

few days later Des Segal, the Investigating Officer came to my house 

to take a statement.  In the course of my making a statement to him, 

he said that I must have been drunk as there was no such thing as a 

Police van standing there.  I insisted he take it down in his statement 

and he did.

	He said to me that if there was a Police van there, it must 

have been a Police van which had been patrolling the area and had 

been radioed to the scene.  It must have been told not to go into the 

Tavern as there was a bomb in there.

	I immediately became suspicious as I could not understand 

how those Policemen could have been radioed and told about a bomb 

that was in the Tavern.  I asked him that if they were radioed and 

knew about the attack, why they did not stop me after I had come 

out of the Tavern.  He could not answer my question and told my 

wife that I must have been drunk.

	At the time of the court case, I was never used as a witness.  

Des Segal told my wife that he could not use me as I would let the 

suspects walk and they are APLA and they are the perpetrators and 

they are used to killing people.

	He went on to say that if they did not nail them for 

Heidelberg, he would not nail them for St James.   Am I going too 

quickly?

MR PALM:   Sorry, he didn't say that.  He said if he didn't nail them 

for the Heidelberg, he will nail them for the St James.

MR PRIOR:   I beg your pardon, can we correct that Mr Chairman.  

Just delete the not.  I would like now to describe what kind of 

person Rolanda was.

	She was a kind, caring and warm hearted young woman.  She 

was 22 years old and was a qualified primary school teacher.  She 

had shown great tenacity and character in pursuing her studies and 

ultimately qualifying.  She was determined and succeeded in making 

something out of her short life refusing to conform as so many 

young people did to the anti-social drug culture or aimless lifestyle 

so many have adopted.

	Rolanda was a devout Christian and Roman Catholic.  She 

believed in the equality of man and was as a teacher dedicated to the 

upliftment of her fellow man, particularly children and the aged.

	She did not support any political party.  She appalled 

violence, particularly as a means to settle differences.  She believed 

in God and that all men were created equal, irrespective of race, 

colour or creed.

	The irony of her death is that she was not a white person who 

according to APLA were the legitimate targets of the death squads.  

Neither was Bernadette Langford and Michael January.  I cannot 

begin to describe the rage I feel and have felt for the past four years 

at her senseless killing.

	Rolanda had a tremendous zest for life.  She loved sport, 

swimming and athletics were her passion in which she excelled.

	I say to the PAC and APLA and to the applicants you killed 

the wrong person.  Rolanda was also joined in the struggle against 

the injustice of the Apartheid system, particularly in Education.

	You simply ended her life as if she was a worthless piece of 

rubbish.  You say you did so to liberate AZANIA.  I say you did so 

for your own selfish and criminal purposes.

	You prevented Rolanda from helping rebuild our broken 

nation, which if you had simply waited another few months, in fact 

came to pass when we had free elections.

	There is a reference to Brigadier Nene, it is actually Brigadier 

Phitla.  The spelling in the submissions of the PAC is Phitla, but it 

could also be spelt Fitla.  Your Commander, Brigadier Phitla stated 

that it was difficult to control the forces on the ground due to lack 

of proper communication and proper political training.

	These are simply empty excuses that in fact exposed APLA for 

what it was, an unguided missile out of the control of the PAC at 

loggerheads with each other and unable to accept the political 

decisions of their political masters.

	The Brigadier also stated that the cadres as in the case of the 

applicants, were simply carrying out orders of their Commanders.  

Well, if that is so, why haven't the Commanders Letlapa Maphalela 

or Andile Mayo Sciceka applied for amnesty?  What are they afraid 

of?

	APLA have stated that they were at war with the white 

supremist settler regime and that in terms of that were their soldiers 

or cadres tasked with destroying the enemy targets, ie the white man 

wherever they found them, particularly in order to obtain firearms.

	White households and farmers were regarded as military 

targets.  What APLA has not explained is how the Heidelberg 

Tavern was selected as a military target.  If proper planning and 

surveillance had been done, APLA would have discovered the 

following.  (1) the Tavern catered for the multi-racial clientele, (2) 

the predominant patrons were young students from the University of 

Cape Town, (3) the Tavern did not cater exclusively for military 

personnel, not could be described by any intelligent person as a 

military target where arms could be obtained, (4) its resident 

musician was one Josh Sithole, a black man who was loved and 

respected throughout the country by multi-racial audiences 

countrywide and who was entertaining the patrons at the time of the 

attack, (5) a better military target and that put in (indistinct), which 

fulfilled their criteria, was the Woodstock Police Station, a short 

distance away.

	APLA as well as the applicants cannot be truthful when they 

state that by murdering patrons at the Heidelberg Tavern, this was a 

bona fide act associated with the political objective.  What these 

amnesty applicants seek to do is to clothe criminal acts which have 

already been adjudicated upon by the High Court, in the mantle of 

political type conduct.

	It was amazing to hear from APLA military intelligence, 

Brigadier Phitla that he have never heard of the protocols of the 

Geneva Convention governing the waging of a war of liberation and 

that he had only heard of such rules and regulations when he 

recently joined the SANDF.

	It would therefore seem that ignorance of the protection given 

to innocent civilians, unconnected to the offensive regime or its 

administration in times of conflict, by the Geneva Convention is now 

raised as an excuse to justify the very inhumanity witnessed at the 

Heidelberg Tavern.

	I maintain that the perpetrators of the killings, when they 

entered the Tavern, could have as trained soldiers so we are told, 

assessed the situation and seen first hand that the people they were 

going to kill, in fact were not the targets they were ordered to kill 

and could have turned back, but they did not.

	The systematic shooting of the patrons as they did, three 

females deceased, together with the attempt to explode the nail 

studded rifle grenade was not to further any political objective.  

What does APLA command mean when it says that it assumes 

complete responsibility for the Heidelberg Tavern attack?

	Does APLA command realise that with responsibility comes 

accountability?  I repeat my question, if APLA is genuine about 

taking responsibility, why have none of the Commanders applied for 

amnesty?

	However, APLA tells the world that for what they did at the 

Heidelberg Tavern and to my daughter, they will never apologise.  

The killings at Heidelberg Tavern and the attempted justification 

thereof by the APLA command, must be viewed soberly against the 

background of the political reality as of 30th December 1993.

	(1) The peace process had progressed towards democracy and 

the first ever democratic elections were only months away, in fact in 

April 1994, (2) the PAC which must have informed its military wing, 

APLA, had committed to the peace process and was a willing and 

vociferous participant, (3) the PAC had in November of 1992 

pledged a cessation of violent struggle and imposed a moratorium of 

violence.  It was reported in the Rapport newspaper on the 2nd of 

January 1994, (4) the Apartheid Government had handed control to 

the politically negotiated TEC until the elections only a short time 

away.

	History indicates that a politically negotiated settlement had 

in fact won the day.  The liberation struggle had delivered the 

goods.  The was was over and that majority ruled.   It seems from 

the submissions made by APLA on the 7th of October 1997, before 

the TRC, that APLA had on its own decided the war was not over 

and in order to keep its support from its followers, it had to be seen 

to be retaliating against white people because black people were still 

being killed.

	If this was the rational behind the attacks, then in this context 

the Heidelberg attack was nothing more than a reprisal or revenge 

attack.  If this is so, political objective cannot be argued.  What the 

act of terror did achieve, was the broad condemnation by all 

political groups as well as international rebuke.

	Both Zimbabwe and Tanzania are reported to have severely 

rebuked APLA, reported in Argus newspaper, 12 January 1994.  The 

ANC condemned the killing as being acts of (indistinct) aimed at 

derailing the peace process and preventing free and fair elections, 

reported in the Rapport, 2nd of January 1994.

	Despite the numerous TRC hearings, amnesty applications and 

Police investigations involving hundreds of personnel, thousands of 

man hours and possibly millions of rands, we are still no nearer the 

complete truth not only in the Heidelberg Tavern matter, but in all 

others where gross violations of human rights occurred.

	I firmly believe that a wider conspiracy exists which is yet to 

be uncovered.  I shall not rest until it has been and only then 

perhaps, shall I be satisfied that justice has been seen to be done and 

only then, if those faceless and gutless politicians, military and 

Security Force personnel are exposed and prosecuted to the full 

extent of the law.

	My unease in this regard is as a result of the following 

circumstances.  (1) although I witnessed the attack, saw a Police van 

on the scene, I was bullied by Des Segal, the Investigator, to forget 

that fact.   When I refused, he tried to discredit me by saying that I 

was probably drunk at the time and if I did say what I had seen, at 

the trial, it would upset the Prosecution.  As a result I was kept out 

of the witness box.  If Segal had simply explained why a van could 

have been there, I would possibly have accepted it and called it a 

day. 

	(2) What was the Police doing there in the first place, where 

were the occupants and what were they doing?

	(3) The Police investigation had within a very short space of 

time, three or four days, solved the case despite six persons arrested 

and charged, only three perpetrators stood trial.  The charges were 

withdrawn against the rest.  If the evidence was strong enough to 

arrest and charge them, why were they not prosecuted?  Was the 

conspiracy only limited to these six?  These persons were Theo 

Mabusela, Michael Siyolo and Richard Dala.

	(4) The person who supplied the weapons and ammunition to 

the perpetrators were known to the Police.  Were they arrested and 

later released or are they still at large?

	(5) Letlapa Maphalela, the Director of Military Operations of 

APLA is implicated in Heidelberg Tavern, yet is allowed to go free. 

 He is not applying for amnesty for the Heidelberg Tavern, nor has 

he been arrested.

	(6) Other implicated persons are Basie Mcombusi and 

Theofolus Sibeko.  Why are they still at large?  There whereabouts 

are known to the authorities?

	(7) Denzil Potgieter who defended the killers of my daughter, 

now is a Commissioner of the very Committee called upon to grant 

them amnesty.

	(8) Dumisa Ntsebeza, a Commissioner with the TRC, has been 

mentioned in connection with the Heidelberg Tavern attack in that it 

is alleged that his vehicle was used in some way or the other.

	(9) Des Segal died in a car crash early this year.  In the 

wreckage an R4 rifle, an RPG rocket launcher was found.  The press 

report talked about a possible link with the notorious Vlakplaas.  I 

realise some two years have elapsed between these two events, but 

somehow I can only attack some sinister meaning to this.  The public 

have heard no more about Segal's R4 rifle, strangely it is the same 

type of weapon used in the Heidelberg Tavern incident.  My 

question is whether this weapon has been tested or checked to see 

whether it was the same one used at the Heidelberg Tavern.  I 

appeal to the Amnesty Committee to urgently order an inquiry into 

the Des Segal affair.

	(10) As at the 30th December 1993, the murders at Heidelberg 

Tavern fell outside the time frame set for amnesty applications, yet 

it was decided to extend this cut off date.  My question is why?

	I have a perception that the real perpetrators of the most evil 

acts, are not going to be exposed and that the wrap will fall on the 

few hirelings who did their bidding.  People who by their own 

admission have committed gross violations of human rights and who 

are required simply to tell the truth, are assisted by high powered 

legal representatives in order to do so.

	In the majority of these cases, other than Heidelberg, the 

funding of these lawyers is paid for by the very victims against who 

they apply for amnesty from criminal prosecution or civil liability.

	I have lost two children to the system, my son to the 

Apartheid system of justice and my daughter at the hands of killers 

that the system seems to protect.

	In an attempt to find out who politically was also guilty of the 

acts of murder at Heidelberg Tavern, I approached members of the 

PAC namely Ms De Lille, Barny Desai and Richard Zinani.  Ms De 

Lille told me that she had personally spoken to the applicants in this 

amnesty application and that they had steadfastly denied involvement 

in the killing.  I have noticed that the applications for amnesty of the 

applicants say very little about the actual attack.

	Gqomfa suggests that the attack was launched from outside 

the Tavern.  He does not suggest that anyone entered the premises 

and shot whilst inside.   Madasi and Mabala had given no details 

whatsoever.  I am forced to wonder why not.

	Is this a tactic?  Have they not yet decided what to say and 

who to implicate or will those details only be filled in after 

consultation with the hierarchy of the PAC or APLA?

	I also wonder whose interest ought to safeguarded here.  I 

urge this Committee that common sense and justice prevail in your 

assessment of the evidence and refuse amnesty.  I do not wish to 

dwell on my personal circumstances, however, I have been advised 

that such information is important to reveal to you.

	The pain of losing my son was compounded a million times by 

the death of my daughter.  I felt responsible and guilty for both of 

them.  I have lived with that for the past four years.

	My personality has changed.  I have not been able, despite 

extensive therapy and counselling at Valkenberg Hospital, to shed 

the anger, rage, guilt, feelings of revenge and helpless desperation at 

the system that allows murderers to escape punishment.

	Suffice to say my marriage has suffered irreparable harm.  My 

wife suffers from extreme anxiety and nervous tension.  We are both 

on constant medication.  I am not being able to forgive the killer of 

my daughter Rolanda, and cannot be a hypocrite and say so when my 

heart has feelings of murderous rage towards them and their 

masters.

	Finally, I challenge the leader of the PAC, Bishop Magoba, 

not to justify atrocities like Heidelberg Tavern with reference to 

similar atrocities perpetrated by the Apartheid regime, but to 

acknowledge it as a gross violation of the human rights of all those 

young people who were killed and maimed and to name all those 

who were involved in the authorization, planning and execution of 

the attack  so that the truth will be known.

	This was dated at Cape Town on the 27th of October, that 

was Monday, 1997.  Mr Palm, you heard the statement read out on 

your behalf?

MR PALM:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   Do you confirm that statement?

MR PALM:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   Do you adhere to the contents of that statement?

MR PALM:   That is correct.

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, I was also requested by Mr Palm there 

was a letter addressed to the TRC Committee by Mrs Palm and I 

have not opened it.  Her wish was to hand it to the Chairman, may I 

do so?

CHAIRPERSON:   I understand this is to the TRC Committee, not 

the Amnesty Committee?

MR PRIOR:   I think in error she said the TRC Committee, I 

understand from Mr Palm ... (intervention)

MR PALM:   She wanted the Chairman to read it out.

MR PRIOR:   Maybe you could elaborate, could you explain?

MR PALM:   No, she said I must give it to the members of the 

Committee and them to have it read out publicly.

CHAIRPERSON:   It is addressed to whom it may concern.  It is my 

understanding that during the struggle the main aim and objective 

was to free Mr Mandela and lead our people out of bondage to 

ensure a brighter future for all.

	On the 30th of December 1993, the struggle was supposedly 

over as Mr Mandela was free.  For my family and I, it brought 

nothing but sorrow and pain.  Bitterness and hatred eats away the 

soul, but our soul was destroyed the day APLA brutally murdered 

my daughter.

	I have nothing but contempt for these (indistinct) who now 

are enjoying the new South Africa, while others weep and mourn 

their loved ones.  These demons are now being integrated into our 

already corrupt Police Force.  What was wrong with Mr Mandela to 

allow these monsters to take over?

	Surely they will kill their colleagues who are now forced to 

work with them, these power hungry, evil (indistinct), sworn by 

Satan himself, seek only to overthrow the Government as they claim. 

 They are the Government in waiting.

	I hope the Commission keeps this in mind when granting 

amnesty to these wicket lost souls.  APLA's main goal in life is to 

seize power for themselves, they have shown the world that they 

have no regrets for their crimes and evil deeds.

	They will kill again, that I can assure you.  The word APLA 

spells fear in the people's hearts and the leaders embrace this 

knowledge, that is why they say and do as they deem fit.  As for 

amnesty, whether I oppose it or not, they will definitely be freed to 

continue their devious work by repossession or whatever they can 

lay their filthy paws on, even if it does not belong to them.

	APLA have taken from us one of the most precious gifts the 

Lord can ever give us, my daughter was everything a mother, a 

father and brothers and sisters could ever want.  And the void her 

death has left us all, an and will never be filled again.

	I will never in all the time left to me, forgive anyone that had 

a hand in her death.  I ask God every day to understand and forgive 

me for feeling all this hatred and contempt that I have for her 

murderers.  My daughter was the type of person that would have 

wanted me to forgive these killers, as she believed in our Creator.

	I would just like to thank the Commission for taking the time 

to read my letter and I will also like to ask the Commission if they 

could read this letter to the amnesty applicants because I would like 

them to know exactly how we feel.  Thanking you in anticipation, 

Mrs M.E. Palm.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Palm, is there anything 

that you wish to add to your submissions?  Is there any further 

evidence you would like to give, or any statement you would like to 

make?

MR PALM:   I think I have covered most of what I want to say.  But 

as everybody is talking about reparations, I would like to ask the 

Commission for reparations.  I am not looking for any monetary 

assistance, I would like, I appeal to the amnesty board to please 

look into my son's case and try and take these obstacles that is 

holding us back, to get at that truth first.

MR PRIOR:   Is that all?

MR PALM:   Thank you.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse?

ADV ARENDSE:   No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE

JUDGE WILSON:   Have you seen a plan of the Tavern?

MR PALM:   I know if off by heart Your Honour.

JUDGE WILSON:   Could you indicate on that plan where you were 

seated?

MR PALM:   The arrow shows at point "b", but I was sitting more 

against the wall, just below the raised platform.  It is the very first 

table below that.

JUDGE WILSON:   Was that the restaurant section?

MR PALM:   That was the dining area, yes, which is directly 

virtually opposite the opening where the shooting came in.

JUDGE WILSON:   But you didn't see anybody?

MR PALM:   No, as I explained to the Investigating Officers, there 

is a column and whoever did the shooting, was behind that column 

so I didn't see a figure.  All, when I realised that the shooting was 

going on, it was just the sound, splinters, things breaking and the 

smoke rising and that is the time I tried to get my daughter out of 

the way and pulled her down to the floor.

JUDGE WILSON:   Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Palm, thank you very much.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE:	Sorry Mr 

Chairman, just one question.  Mr Palm, you said on page 35 of your 

statement that Mr Prior read, the second paragraph, while you were 

sitting and talking, I glanced up over her shoulder to where the 

sound was coming from, I noticed sparks, smoke, glasses breaking 

and I realised this was because someone was shooting into the 

Tavern.

MR PALM:   That is correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, where you were sitting at - you referred to 

the end of that line there that shows "b".

MR PALM:   Yes, it was the first table below the raised platform.  

The very first table, I had my back towards the wall facing the 

opening and her back was towards that opening.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, when you say the  shooting was into the 

Tavern, was that shooting coming through the windows, through the 

door?

MR PALM:   Well, I can't say I note the shooting through the 

windows, but that shooting sort of seemed to be directed down the 

passage way into the bar, because as I said it narrows there by the 

step, the stairway and there is a bar area beyond that, it was sort of 

directed into that direction which gave me the edge to get out of the 

way in time.

ADV ARENDSE:   You seem from the marking that I have made and 

I could be wrong, you seem to be sitting closer to the double doors 

than to the stairway?

MR PALM:   That is correct, the stairway is actually beyond the 

point.  I wouldn't be able to see the stairway from where I was 

sitting, because there is also another column just in front and there 

is a telephone on that corner.

ADV ARENDSE:   So how far, can you remember how far you were 

sitting from the double doors?

MR PALM:   Which double door are you talking about, the one on 

the road side or are you talking about the entrance?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, from the road side, maybe the best thing is 

if you look at where "g" and "f" is.

MR PALM:   Yes, I was sitting quite close to that.  Well, it was 

quite near.

ADV ARENDSE:   When you say near, can you maybe just indicate 

or can you say two metres, three metres, four metres, five metres?

MR PALM:   I would estimate about four metres.

ADV ARENDSE:   Four metres?   Thank you Mr Palm.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, Mr Palm, thank you.  You are excused from 

further attendance Mr Palm.

MR PALM:   Thank you, Your Honour.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mr Chairman, I call Mr Brode.  His name 

appears on item 7 on the submissions by victims.  

BENJAMIN BRODE:	(sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR:	Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr 

Brode, you have also prepared submissions in this matter and you 

have handed them to me, is that correct?

MR BRODE:   That is correct, yes.

MR PRIOR:   Would you like me to read that out for you to confirm 

or would you like to read it out yourself?

MR BRODE:   I would like you to read it out Mr Prior and there is 

another submission.

MR PRIOR:   Yes.  Mr Chairman, I am going to skip all the other 

detail and just read from paragraph 3 onwards.  His personal details 

and employment history is clear.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

	Regarding the incident, paragraph 3 at page 73 of the bundle 

of submissions, you said as follows:   I had been on duty at 

Machados restaurant on the night of the 30th of December 1993 

when the incident in question took place.

	The restaurant had been quite full that evening, being the 

festive season and everyone was in a jolly mood.  After the 

restaurant had closed, the owner Joe Cerqueira, his brother and 

another colleague whose name I can't remember, had been clearing 

the restaurant and set about preparing the restaurant for the next 

day's business.

	When we heard what we assumed was a car backfiring in the 

road outside, the sound continued and we thought that it may also 

be the sound of fireworks thrown by some partygoers outside.  I was 

the first to walk out of the restaurant to investigate and was 

followed by my colleagues.

	I saw individuals coming out of the Heidelberg Tavern, which 

is located next to Machados restaurant.  They were making their way 

to a dark coloured car.  I saw what again I thought was flares or 

fireworks and then noticed these individuals were firing automatic 

machine gun fire in all directions.

	Once they spotted me and my colleagues, they fired in our 

direction.  In the resulting confusion, we pushed our way back into 

the restaurant and took cover as best we could.  I remember lying 

flat on the floor of the restaurant.

	Once the firing had stopped, I ran out of the restaurant.  It 

was at this stage I saw the deceased, Joe Cerqueira lying, dying in 

the gutter, he had been shot in the chest.  The result was complete 

mayhem as people ran around in shock, shouting for help.  It was 

only at this stage, when I knelt down next to the deceased that I 

realised that I had been shot in the leg.

	My thoughts at that stage were about Joe Cerqueira and I 

remember thinking Joe, you can't die now.  The exact details of what 

happened after that are not clear to me.

	4.  The effect of the incident.  A month after the shooting, my 

life had fallen to pieces.  I withdrew totally from the day to day 

activities of life.  Interests that I once had such as mountain 

climbing were now of no importance to me.

	I withdrew from all sporting activities that I had been 

involved in.  I began drinking alcohol heavily, suffered insomnia and 

a lack of concentration of things going on around me.  The most 

traumatic effect that this had on me, has been the loss of contact 

with those closest to me, my family.

	I was referred to professional help to the psychology 

department of Groote Schuur Hospital.  I also saw a psychiatrist at 

the hospital, who diagnosed me as suffering from post traumatic 

stress and was placed on medication for one year.

	After the incident I applied for a job at the Crab Shack 

restaurant in Milnerton.  During my first shift deliveries were being 

made to the restaurant via the back entrance.  I was unaware of the 

delivery and when I saw the black gentleman walking into the back 

entrance, I thought this could also be an attack on the restaurant.  I 

broke in a sweat and had a panic attack.

	Resulting in the fact that I broke down and was unable to 

continue working at the restaurant.  I never returned to this 

restaurant, the realisation as how quickly one's life can be taken 

became a nightmare for me.  Joe's death had effected me adversely 

and as I feel I have become a total nervous wreck.

	I was once again referred to the out-patient department of 

Groote Schuur Hospital and also to the welfare department, who 

after consulting with me, applied for disability family grant.  It was 

also recommended that I attend Valkenberg Hospital for further 

observation.

	Because of the connectation attached to Valkenberg Hospital, 

I refused and stayed away.  I feel as if I have become a monster.  I 

feel distanced from my family and unable to guide them as leader of 

the household.  My life seems to be a constant see saw in that I feel 

up one day, and down the next.

	I feel as if my manhood has been taken away from me.  I 

seldom feel as if I would be able to be a normal person again.

	My view regarding the amnesty application.   If this had been 

an accident, I could find it in my heart to forgive the applicants.  

This was purely a terrorist attack for which the applicants had 

willingly trained and executed their orders.  And they too, like those 

of us who have suffered the trauma because of this incident, should 

pay the price.

	I am sure they were reimbursed by their employers, something 

that we have not been.  I therefore oppose the application for 

amnesty for these individuals. 

	How I see the future.  The future seems bleak for me and my 

family as I have been unable to hold down a permanent job.  The 

inability to be the leader of my family, has been debilitating to say 

the least and I really fear for the future of my children.

	Reparation and compensation.  I feel that what has been taken 

away from me and my family, should be compensated for and I 

would appreciate the Reparation Committee to look into this.  

Signed at Cape Town, the 22nd of October 1997.

	Do you confirm that statement?

MR BRODE:   Yes.

MR PRIOR:   Do you adhere to its contents?

MR BRODE:   I do.

MR PRIOR:   I want to ask you a few questions regarding the 

incident.  You were present at the hearing when Mr Cerqueira, Mr 

Francisco Cerqueira gave evidence regarding the incident, is that 

correct?

MR BRODE:   Yes.

MR PRIOR:   He mentioned in his evidence that you at some stage, 

after the shooting, brought the firearm, a firearm which had 

belonged to Mr Cerqueira the deceased, to him.  Did you hear that 

evidence?

MR BRODE:   Yes.

MR PRIOR:   Could you explain to the Committee the circumstances 

surrounding that?

CHAIRPERSON:   Where did you find the firearm?

MR BRODE:   I can't remember.

MR PRIOR:   What do you remember of the incident?  You 

mentioned about the shooting and that you ran inside the restaurant?

MR BRODE:   Yes, that is correct yes.

MR PRIOR:   Where was Mr Cerqueira deceased, Joe Cerqueira, at 

the time when you ran back, moved back into the restaurant?

MR BRODE:   When I went back into the restaurant, and I shouted 

for Joe ...

MR PRIOR:   Did you know where he was, did you see him?

MR BRODE:   No, the last that I can remember is that he was at the 

back of the restaurant.

MR PRIOR:   Can you remember what you did after the shots were 

fired?  The initial shots, when you were out on the street?

MR BRODE:   I was out on the street.  

MR PRIOR:   When you were on the pavement and you said they 

were shooting at you, you then turned and moved back into the 

restaurant, you ran in?

MR BRODE:   Yes, that is correct yes.

MR PRIOR:   What did you then do?

MR BRODE:   I ran into the restaurant, you know it was a complete 

confusion at the door.  I know that Frans went into the restaurant 

and there was three of us.  We went back into the restaurant, I 

didn't see Joe anywhere.

MR PRIOR:   When was the first time to see him after the shooting?

MR BRODE:   After the shooting, the first time I saw him was when 

we came out and he was lying outside.

MR PRIOR:   Did you see a firearm next to the body?

MR BRODE:   No, I didn't.

MR PRIOR:   Can you remember, and you indicated to the 

Committee you don't remember where you picked the firearm up 

from?

MR BRODE:   I've got no recollection of that.

MR PRIOR:   Did you receive any medical treatment at the scene?

MR BRODE:   Yes, they said they were going to take me up to the 

hospital.

MR PRIOR:   Did you receive no injections or medication?  Can you 

remember?

MR BRODE:   I think, yes they led me to an ambulance and they 

gave me an injection.  They gave me something to calm me, I think, 

yes.

MR PRIOR:   Do you have any difficulty recalling the events of that 

evening?  You seem to have ...

MR BRODE:   Yes, there are things that I can remember, but just 

after the shooting, there is big gaps, you know, I can't remember.

MR PRIOR:   Is there anything else you wish to tell the Committee 

regarding the application for amnesty?  You said you had some 

statement or further points?

MR BRODE:   Yes, well this is just something that I would like Mr 

Prior to read for me.

MR PRIOR:   Is that possible Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, assist him.  Is this something which you 

have written out yourself?

MR BRODE:   This is something that someone had written out for 

me, that I have expressed over to him and he has put it in writing for 

me.

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, to balance properly the interest of 

society with those of the applicants, and to reflect such balance in a 

verdict that is both just to society and just to the applicants so often 

calls for deep insight and for the wisdom of a Solomon - qualities 

with which we are blessed in some small measure.

	One must look carefully at the offender and try to understand 

his background and what moved him to act as he did in the 

particular situation in which he found himself.

	Then the demands of society have to be considered.  This 

includes the need to express appropriate disapproval of what was 

done as well as the need to deter both the offender and others from 

committing crime.

	The rehabilitation of the offender is also in a suitable case, a 

fact to be weighed.  The crime in this case is particularly horrifying. 

 And it is difficult to think of a more terrible crime than of innocent 

young people being killed in such an attack.

	The way in which these young people were done to death, was 

heartless and cruel.  The cover up operation which followed, was 

cunning and evidence of coldness and deliberateness about the whole 

operation which I found disturbing when such relatively young 

people.

	The crime is heinous.  It is clear from the evidence that all the 

accused were very much under the influence of the military high 

command under which they trained.  Yet having said all that, it is 

nevertheless clear that they embarked on this evil course of their 

own free choice.

	We have not been told the full truth of the applicants, it 

remains difficult for me to find reconciliation in my heart.  

	Is that what you wanted me to read out?

MR BRODE:   Thank you, yes.

MR PRIOR:   It is available Mr Chairman.  Is there anything else 

that you wish to bring to the attention of the Committee?  Is there 

anything else in this matter?

MR BRODE:   No.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRIOR

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE:	Thank you.  Mr 

Brode, let me tell you that on, I speak for myself and my colleagues 

here, that we feel for you and for the other victims about what 

happened.

	Indeed, there is none of us sitting at this table, who haven't 

experienced the kind of experiences that you are going through, 

personal and friends and relatives, tortured, maimed, killed, by the 

State, so it is not that we don't appreciate your suffering at this 

moment.  But I've got to ask you a few questions, you appreciate 

that?

MR BRODE:   Not really, but go ahead.

ADV ARENDSE:   Not really?

MR BRODE:   No.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, is it important for you that we must get as 

complete or as full a picture as possible about what happened there 

that night?

MR BRODE:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   Are you prepared to help me to establish that 

picture, knowing that I have mentioned you have been here this 

whole week, that I am not here to defend the indefensible, that I 

agree with you that it was a heinous crime?

MR BRODE:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   I just want to actually deal with one aspect 

which is an important aspect.   And that aspect relates to whether or 

not you know or whether you can't tell us with any certainty, 

whether or not Mr Jose Cerqueira used a firearm that evening?

MR BRODE:   Just repeat the question please?

ADV ARENDSE:   Can you just tell us whether you can remember 

whether or not Mr Cerqueira used a firearm that evening?

MR BRODE:   Not to my knowledge.

ADV ARENDSE:   Can't you say or are you certain that he did not? 

 Let me put it another way, is it possible that he may have used a 

firearm without you knowing?

MR BRODE:   No.

ADV ARENDSE:   Why are you so certain?

MR BRODE:   Because when I went out of the restaurant, I didn't 

see Joe outside the restaurant.

ADV ARENDSE:   Isn't the reason why when you went outside, he 

had already gone outside and had gone just a little way to the right 

of the door where you had come out with Frans and with the other 

waiter, isn't that the reason why you never saw him?

MR BRODE:   No.

ADV ARENDSE:   How can you be so certain?

MR BRODE:   Because when we heard shots, I was the first one to 

leave the restaurant.

ADV ARENDSE:   Were you the first one, was Frans not the first 

one?

MR BRODE:   No.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay, let me ask you why - you say you can't 

remember where you found the firearm?

MR BRODE:   No.

ADV ARENDSE:   Why is the firearm in issue?

MR BRODE:   It wasn't an issue to me.  As you can see from my 

first and my second statement, I didn't mention that.

ADV ARENDSE:   You gave evidence in court?

MR BRODE:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   And you mentioned the firearm in court.  Can 

you remember mentioning the firearm in court?

MR BRODE:   No.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay.  You appear to have mentioned it in court. 

 The Judge, on page 47 of the record, mentions that you in 

Afrikaans you called at Cerqueira for his firearm, which he kept 

behind the counter.  Can you recall saying something like that?

MR BRODE:   Yes, that I do recall.

ADV ARENDSE:   So you did mention a firearm?

MR BRODE:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   Why did you call to Mr Cerqueira for his 

firearm?

MR BRODE:   I called to Mr Cerqueira to get his firearm, because 

we were attacked and that is you know, while I was running back 

into the restaurant.

ADV ARENDSE:   Isn't it possible then that he heard the cracking 

sound or the sounds emanating from the Tavern, that he took his 

firearm and ran outside before you even got outside.  Isn't that 

possible?

MR BRODE:   No.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now if the, you are certain about that, or you 

appear to be certain.

MR BRODE:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   Why did the firearm feature?  Why did you - did 

you hand the firearm to Frans or did you hand it to the Police?

MR BRODE:   I can't remember that.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Frans Cerqueira says that you handed him the 

firearm and he handed it in turn to the Police.

MR BRODE:   That could have been a possibility.

ADV ARENDSE:   So why did you hand him the firearm?

MR BRODE:   I can't answer that.

ADV ARENDSE:   Because at that point, and Mr Frans Cerqueira 

says it was about ten minutes or so, I speak under correction, it was 

about ten minutes or so after he had picked up his brother, after he 

had been shot.  So, and you were in quite a state, so was Mr Frans 

Cerqueira, is that not right?

MR BRODE:   That is right.

ADV ARENDSE:   So, we are trying to establish here for what 

reason would you give a firearm to him, to give to the Police?

MR BRODE:   There is the possibility that when I went back into 

the restaurant, during the shooting, calling out for Joe, calling out 

for the gun, that after everything had you know, when we went out 

the second time and - well, I will start again.  There is the 

possibility that when I went out, when I came back into the 

restaurant the first time and called out for Joe and the gun, that 

when this was all over and after seeing Joe lying there, getting up, 

going inside, I know that I did contact my parents, there is the 

possibility that the gun could have been underneath the counter.

CHAIRPERSON:   You don't have a definite recollection of that, is 

that so?

MR BRODE:   Under oath ...

CHAIRPERSON:   You don't have a definite recollection of that, do 

you?

MR BRODE:   I have no definite recollection of how I got the gun 

in my hand to give it to Frans Cerqueira.

ADV ARENDSE:   I want to suggest to you another possibility Mr 

Brode, and that is the possibility that Mr Cerqueira could have taken 

the gun, he reacted, he took his gun, he ran outside.  If you look at 

photograph 22, he had run outside, turned right, was in the vicinity 

of the drain you see there and fired a shot or shots with his gun at 

the attackers as they were approaching.  At that same moment or 

more or less at the same moment, you and Frans and the other 

waiter, came out of the Machados, the shots were then also coming 

in your direction, the car was by that stage already passed the door 

of Machados and hence you see those marks on the inside of the 

entrance to Machados, and that is when you took cover and ran back 

inside.

MR BRODE:   And that is your suggestion?

ADV ARENDSE:   That is what I am suggesting.

MR BRODE:   That is your suggestion, could I make a suggestion?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR BRODE:   Okay, my suggestion is okay the facts are that I left 

the restaurant first, followed by my colleagues.  And you kept 

stressing the point that I didn't mention anything about Frans and 

one thing and another, I want to try and control myself.

	My suggestion is we heard the shots, Joe was not in the front 

of the restaurant, I am talking about the front area of the restaurant, 

not near the front, just the front area of the restaurant, he was not 

there, he was not there, he was at the back.

	He was at the far end of the restaurant, not in the front end of 

the restaurant.  We heard the shots, I went out.  Right, when I went 

out, I saw guys coming out of the Tavern next door and as they 

were coming out, getting into their cars, they were shooting, but to 

me it was like as if they were just ushered out, you know because 

they were causing disturbance there and they were just told to leave, 

that is the way I saw it.

	Right, they got into the car, the car was moving towards us, 

the lights were still off.  Still shooting, still firing away, blindly, 

then suddenly they fired at us.  I felt a push from the back, you 

know, that is when I turned to run in.  And at no stage, at no stage, 

I will stress at no stage, was Joe Cerqueira outside there with us.  

He was not lying in that gutter, there at that yellow pole in front of 

us.

	My suggestion is there is a possibility that when we turned to 

run back inside, in the confusion there at the door, we running 

inside, no one verbally said Joe, duck, someone is shooting, no one 

said nothing, I can't remember seeing Joe or anything.  In that 

confusion as we were running for our lives, Joe could have come 

through.  That is my opinion.  And to answer, you know, about the 

gun, as I said I don't, I have got no recollection.  I have taken an 

oath and I can't recall giving the gun to Frans.  There is the 

possibility, after what happened I was a total wreck.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Brode, did you say you ran inside?

MR BRODE:   I said I ran inside.

ADV ARENDSE:   Were you not dragged inside by Frans?

MR BRODE:   There is the possibility of that.  I will tell you why, 

because when I - well I did as Frans said, you know, froze because I 

did not realise that they were actually, physically shooting at us.  

And then at that stage I heard, I felt someone sort of nudge me from 

the back, that could have been you know, when he grabbed me to 

pull me inside.

	But I felt that I made headway inside.  We were all sort of, it 

was almost like in a scrum.

ADV ARENDSE:   I also want to suggest to you Mr Brode, that 

you, when you saw the attackers, they were inside the car and the 

car was coming in your direction.

MR BRODE:   The first time I saw what I saw, was the car standing 

there and guys, gentlemen, well not gentlemen - there were people 

standing outside, to me it looked as if they were throwing flares.

ADV ARENDSE:   How far outside Machados did you go?  Did you 

go into the road, onto the pavement, near to the drain, where did 

you go?

MR BRODE:   Yes, I would say I was standing between, well at an 

angle of between the yellow pole and - well, on that corner there.  

You know, when you come out, to the right of the photo, off the 

step there where that white marks are.  I would say just before that.

ADV ARENDSE:   Tell me, why would you be calling for the late 

Mr Cerqueira's gun when you initially or sorry, let me be fair, so 

that initially you thought that this was a bunch of guys I think you 

called them partygoers or something throwing crackers or 

something?  That is the first time?

MR BRODE:   That is correct, that is when I was standing out there.

ADV ARENDSE:   So, it was only the second time ... (intervention)

MR BRODE:   No, no, no, can I interrupt you?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR BRODE:   I did say while I was looking at them, I was under 

the impression they were throwing firecrackers.  When they were on 

top of me and they shot in our direction, and there was smoke and 

you know, parts of the wall here and you know, you are getting all 

this into your eyes, what is it when a bullet sort of splinters up, the 

shrapnel of the bullets, you know, when that was all, they were 

virtually on top of me when I realised wow, you know, here my life 

is in danger.

ADV ARENDSE:   So the first time you saw them was they were 

standing immediately in front of the Tavern, shooting inside?

MR BRODE:   That was what I thought.

ADV ARENDSE:   Shooting inside the Tavern?

MR BRODE:   Well, shooting all around you know, it was all 

around.

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes.

MR BRODE:   It was all around, to me it looked like just you know, 

it is the festive season.  We had a nice busy evening and you know, I 

took it they were partygoers just told you know, okay back off now. 

ADV ARENDSE:   And the next time they were inside the car when 

you saw them when you came out?

MR BRODE:   No.  No, you are not hearing me.

CHAIRPERSON:   When you say the next time Mr Arendse, what do 

you mean by the next time?  It was still while he was still there on 

the pavement.

MR BRODE:   Yes.

JUDGE WILSON:   He's explained he stood there, he saw them, the 

car then came towards him.  There was no next time.

ADV ARENDSE:   So you were only outside once?

MR BRODE:   That is correct.  Wait, okay, what is it that you want 

to know?  You are talking about how many times I went outside 

during, after or before the shooting or what?  What is it?

ADV ARENDSE:   I want to know you saw them the first time, they 

were shooting as you say all over the place?

MR BRODE:   That is right, that is what brought to my attention.  

The reason why I went outside is because I heard shots, but it 

sounded like a car backfiring or the throwing of crackers.

	And I went outside and I went through the whole scenario 

while I was outside.

ADV ARENDSE:   Because Mr Brode your evidence is summarised 

as follows by the Judge in the criminal case at page 46.  And I will 

read it to you in Afrikaans.  Have you got the translation?  They 

were busy clearing up when he heard something that sounded like a 

car backfiring.  He ran outside and saw three men who looked as if 

they were throwing fire crackers and they got into a car.

	I just want to pause there.  So at that point, according to you 

- the Judge's summary, unless you must tell us that that summary 

was wrong or incorrect, at that point you see them get into the 

vehicle.

MR BRODE:   At that point yes, but go back two lines or two 

sentences.

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, I will read to you from the beginning.

MR BRODE:   No, no, I've picked up from the beginning you know, 

going outside, now we are outside.

ADV ARENDSE:   Go back or forward two sentences?

MR BRODE:   I said back.

ADV ARENDSE:   When I go back two sentences, then it is the 

beginning of the summary of your sentence.

MR BRODE:   Okay, I apologise.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, where do you want, must I just read the 

whole thing?

MR BRODE:   No, no, go back.

CHAIRPERSON:   I think, Mr Arendse, you shouldn't ask him where 

you should read.  You've got a question to put to him, read the 

portion that you think is relevant for the purposes of your question.

ADV ARENDSE:   Well, he asked me to read it Mr Chairman.  

Benjamin Brode, like Jose Cerqueira the deceased of whom mention 

has just been made, were working at the restaurant Machados.  He 

along with Jose Cerqueira, his wife as well as another waiter stayed 

behind while all the guests have left the restaurant at quarter past 

eleven.

	They were clearing up when they heard something like a 

motor vehicle backfiring, he ran outside and saw three men who 

appeared to be throwing fire crackers and they were getting into a 

car.

	As he stepped down from the step of the restaurant onto the 

pavement, he saw a large, dark motor vehicle parked against the one 

way.  He had not at that point realised that something was going 

wrong.  The motor vehicle then slowly moved in his direction.

	Now my question was, I am sorry if it wasn't clear to you, my 

question was are you seeing all this as you come out of Machados?  

Are you seeing these men who are looking like they are throwing 

these crackers, getting into the car and the very next moment, they 

are coming towards you in the car?

MR BRODE:   That is correct.

ADV ARENDSE:   And when they come towards you while they are 

inside the car, they are firing in your direction?

MR BRODE:   They turned their fire on us.

ADV ARENDSE:   While they were in the car?

MR BRODE:   Yes.

ADV ARENDSE:   So they never fired at you while they were 

standing outside or whatever they were doing, where they were 

standing outside the Heidelberg Tavern?

MR BRODE:   Well, no bullet came passed my head, no.

ADV ARENDSE:   Okay.  So would it be correct to say that they 

fired only at you once they had been in the car, once they got into 

the car?

MR BRODE:   Yes, well, I don't think - they didn't fire at me before 

they got into the car.  Before they were on top of us.

ADV ARENDSE:   The firing came while the car was moving 

towards you and these three people they had by now gotten into the 

car?

MR BRODE:   They got in the car firing yes, but they were firing at 

the Heidelberg Tavern and they were firing you know, just all 

around, but nothing came towards us.  To me I have seen flares to 

both sides of the street, but not down the street.

ADV ARENDSE:   Now, at that point, you are now observing this 

and you don't see the late Mr Cerqueira in the vicinity?

MR BRODE:   Not at all.

ADV ARENDSE:   Isn't it then possible that he comes out somehow 

passes you and had on his own, shot at the attackers, inviting them 

or maybe that word is entirely inappropriate, but then resulting in 

shots being fired also in your direction?

MR BRODE:   I didn't see that.

ADV ARENDSE:   Because your focus must have been on this car 

and this car coming at you?  Surely that must have been your focus? 

 You must have been terrified?

MR BRODE:   Yes, that was our focus.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on please.

ADV ARENDSE:   Did you pick up anything, did you pick up 

anything Mr Brode at the scene or from the deceased?

MR BRODE:   I can't remember much.  It was difficult you know.

ADV ARENDSE:   Could you remember whether Frans picked up 

anything?

MR BRODE:   I can't remember.

ADV ARENDSE:   And I mean it is because you can't remember that 

is why you didn't mention the pouch at court or in any of your 

statements?

MR BRODE:   I am trying my utmost to assist where I can.  I can't 

remember.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, Mr Arendse, are there any other questions?

ADV ARENDSE:   Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ARENDSE

MR PRIOR:   No re-examination Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR

ADV SANDI:   Mr Brode, when you keep on saying I cannot 

remember, is that because of the manner in which your health has 

been effected by all this?

MR BRODE:   Yes.

ADV SANDI:   Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Brode, thank you very much, you are excused 

from further attendance.

MR BRODE:   Thank you very much.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, I call the last witness, that is available, 

have we got enough time?  It is Mr Fourie?

CHAIRPERSON:   I understand the interpreters have to leave at 

quarter to four.

MR PRIOR:   Can we fit him in, I don't want to curtail his 

submission.

CHAIRPERSON:   I don't know how long you will be, so I can't tell 

you whether you should call him or not.

MR PRIOR:   I understand my learned friend will be 

accommodating, he is not a witness to the events, he simply wants to 

make a submission, so if my learned friend can maybe give the 

Commission an indication, then we can fit Mr Fourie in.

CHAIRPERSON:   Is he going to give evidence or make a 

statement?

MR PRIOR:   He is going to give evidence, simply refer the 

Committee to the statement and confirm the statement.

MR FOURIE:	(sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRIOR:	Mr Fourie, is it correct that 

Lindi Anne Fourie was your daughter and she died in the attack at 

Heidelberg?

MR FOURIE:   That is right.

MR PRIOR:   You have prepared a submission for the Committee?

MR FOURIE:   That is right.

MR PRIOR:   Would you read those submissions out?

MR FOURIE:   I do believe you have a copy of what I have typed 

here?

MR PRIOR:   Yes, and so does the Committee.  If it is at all 

possible, we don't want to curtail you, but where you can 

summarise, would you be willing to do that or would you want to 

read it all out?

MR FOURIE:   Would you rather I give it to you on Monday in a 

typed out form, so that you can then consider it at your own time?

MR PRIOR:   Well, we have the submissions that you have prepared, 

that bundle.

CHAIRPERSON:   They are on oath, are they?

MR PRIOR:   They are not on oath, but I will ask him to confirm 

them.

MR FOURIE:   I have signed a document here, you can have it if 

you wish Mr Chairman.  But there are other observations that I wish 

to make based on what I have seen and heard here this passed week.

	Mr Fourie, if you could make your submissions.

MR FOURIE:  Reads:-

		"Chicken, please be careful when you and your friends 

visit in and around Mowbray and Observatory areas.  

Why Pops?  My girl, there is some strange people in 

this world and strange things happen in some of these 

parts of town.  Ag pappie, moenie worry nie, we will be 

all right."

	Isn't it ironic that these would be the last words that my 

daughter and I would exchange on that evening, her last words in 

her life.  

	Mr Chairman, panel members and others, my wife and I am 

here to honour and defend the memory of our only daughter, Lindi 

Anne, we also speak for our son who is in England and the rest of 

Lindi's family and her many friends who are may add are of many 

persuasions and some of whom are, if you will pardon the term, not 

white.

	As Lindi's father, responsible for her existence, I accepted the 

responsibility of raising and caring for her to the best of my ability, 

together with the help and input of my wife and our son Anthony as 

well as those around us.  Those have made up Lindi's family, her 

school teachers, her fellow church members and her many other 

friends, to these I say thank you for returning the love that Lindi 

gave of so freely.

	Now that Lindi's mother has stated her position and feelings 

on the death of our only daughter, I thank her publicly for being a 

wonderful mother to Lindi.  Her example and encouragement will 

long be remembered by the rest of her family, especially by Anthony 

and myself.

	I will then now continue and leave out the rest of my written 

submission, my typed submission and I  will make some 

observations, based on what I have seen and heard here Mr 

Chairman.

MR PRIOR:   Mr Fourie, do you adhere to the contents of those 

submissions contained in that statement and which is before the 

Committee and which will be considered by the Committee in its 

totality?  Do you adhere to those?

MR FOURIE:   Mr Prior, yes, I do and I will refer you to the bottom 

of page 7 where I said to Mr Chairman, I mean every word I have 

said, especially in regard to bringing all the perpetrators and 

accomplices to court, and charging them.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you, would you like to make your additional 

submissions.

MR FOURIE:   I would like to do that if I may.  I will keep it as 

brief as possible.   I am looking at you right now, what is this, tell 

me, I am listening, what is this?  Is this a man or not?

	Right, you are men, I am a man, I will talk straight to you and 

to the Chairman.  How do you know that you fatally wounded Mr 

Jose Cerqueira, are you a seasoned or regular killer?

	You pleaded not guilty at the trial, yet you say here that you 

intended killing and wounding as many people as possible and now 

say you want amnesty.  How do I understand you?

	Mr Chairman, I do find it very difficult to accept that the 

statements given by these people are genuine, genuinely from them 

and perhaps not some concocted story to save their necks.  I am 

being blunt Sir, and I apologise if I do that, and I offend anybody, 

but I am also not apologising.

	Accepting that I was not at the scene of the crime, I still 

believe I may ask why must I believe you when you say you did not 

enter the Tavern, when you say anything for that matter because 

bearing in mind what you have admitted to, that is the killing of 

innocent people.

	I cannot believe anything you say because I cannot trust 

murderers.  Why must I believe your statement about why you think 

you should be absolved of this crime, the murder of my daughter and 

others?

	The post mortem should reveal quite accurately how close the 

killers were to the victims when they were shot.  I refer to page 12 

in the court proceedings, three young women were shot that evening 

in the Heidelberg Tavern.  It is on page 44 of the bundle.  

Bernadette Langford's heart was torn apart by the impact of the 

bullet, Lindi Anne Fourie was shot in the right hand side of the 

neck.  The bullet dragged all of the main blood veins off, and 

crushed her neck bones.  Rolanda Palm was also shot in the heart.

	If we were firing wildly, how coincidental is it Mr Chairman, 

that three of the victims were shot in positions which would 

certainly have meant virtually instant death?  I also was trained in 

the use of firearms.  It is a frightening reality that lives with me 

every day of my wife, I regret having been trained to aim at another 

human being and shoot.  I hope to God I never will have to do it.  

That is sincere and from my heart.

	The apparent attitude of the applicants and particularly the 

so-called Commander of these men, tells me that their bona fides 

could be suspect and essentially destroys their possible chances of 

being given amnesty.

	Excusme me Mr Chairman, I highlighted what I wanted to 

refer to from the notes.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on.

MR FOURIE:   Surely as a soldier you were trained to have no 

regrets, so why do you now say you regret your actions, those of 

killing innocent people?  Because one of your so-called leaders, 

speaking for all of you supposedly, on page 21 of their statement 

said the following and he was here on the 7th of October.  Page 24, 

this is a Brigadier Mofokeng.  

	"We do not therefore regret that such operations took place 

and there is therefore nothing to apologise, because we 

believe of the justness of our war and the correctness of our 

struggle."

	I find that statement contrary and contradictory to what the 

objective is here today in these hearings.  I am greatly disturbed by 

that Sir and it would appear that this has been carried over to these 

people.

	Mr Madasi, your impatience was very evident whilst you were 

being asked questions by Adv Prior.  Why do you get impatient and 

bear your teeth, you are asking and if you want to receive, surely 

you need to ask in a reasonably humble and if not civilised manner 

and tone of voice.

	I would like to caution the applicants that perhaps they are 

better off in jail, than out on the street and I will just give you one 

reason.  I arrived home two days ago only to read in a newspaper 

five armed robberies in 48 hours in the little dorp where I live.  

You've got competition and I am not being flippant here.

	Beware of your attitude Mr Mabala, you are asking for 

something, something bigger than you care to think about whilst you 

were busy with your dirty work.  So it is not in your best interest to 

appear cheeky or impatient, even when your own Defence Counsel 

asks you questions, questions that you are required to answer before 

your request can even be considered.

	Now, I will say something which you might find strange, but I 

am still a person, okay, despite my anger and my hurt.  Have you 

seen an elderly person crying, look at me today, just look at this.  

To the three and all of you related to this matter, I would not like to 

be in your shoes.  I also feel very, very sorry for your parents and 

others who are interested in you because they've got to bear it with 

you and with us.  That is very difficult.

	Mr Chairman, I wrote to a few people asking them to tell us 

who Lindi Anne was because I thought perhaps the Committee here 

would like to get a different perspective onto the type of person, as 

to the type of person that Lindi Anne was.  Some of them sent you 

some of these, do you have them Mr Chairman?

MR PRIOR:   Mr Chairman, they are annexed to his statement 56 to 

61.

CHAIRPERSON:   They are.

MR FOURIE:   I won't read them, except Sir, if I may with your 

permission, read just one of them.

	It is written by a man I have known for many years and for 

whom I have the greatest respect and he is one of the persons after 

whom I named my son, Anthony Johan Fourie.  He addressed it to 

the Chairman, it is from a Mr A.W. Hall.

	He said:  

		"re the Heidelberg Tavern murder.  I have known the 

Fourie family for many years and can remember Lindi 

Anne virtually from birth.  I carried her on my 

shoulders when she was a child and I remember her as a 

young girl who was mad about horses and loved 

animals.

		I remember her as a shy and conscientious schoolgirl 

and I remember her showing off the magnificent matric 

dance dress that she had made herself.  Lindi Anne had 

a strong character and an enquiring mind and was not in 

the least bit surprised when I learnt that she had chosen 

civil engineering as a career.

		In fact being a civil engineer myself, I was proud of her. 

 The one thing that never failed to impress me about 

Lindi Anne was her pleasant and gentle nature.  She 

gave the impression that she didn't have an enemy in the 

world.

		Lindi Anne was not class or race conscious and 

accepted people as they were.   She always looked for 

the good in people.  She had grown into a charming and 

talented young lady who would, I am sure, have become 

a valuable citizen and would have contributed positively 

to the future of this country had she not been murdered 

in her prime a few short months before graduating as a 

civil engineer.

		I cannot express the anger I felt when I learnt of the 

senseless murder at the Heidelberg Tavern, quite apart 

from the obvious anguish and irreplaceable loss suffered 

by her family and friends, our nation has been deprived 

of a really good above-average person, that had so 

much to offer society, murdered by a bunch of morally 

bankrupt nobodies, who have nothing to offer anyone.  I 

will be extremely disappointed if those responsible for 

Lindi Anne's death, are granted amnesty.

		At the time of the attack, the political climate in south 

Africa was already changing dramatically and I cannot 

see that the perpetrators of the attack, can justify their 

actions on political grounds in any way whatsoever.

		My feelings are not biased on racism.  Civilisation is 

not man's natural state, it is an ideal that requires 

constant and diligent effort.  We all harbour violent 

thoughts from time to time, but the difference between 

a civilised person and a barbarian, like the Worcester 

bombers and the Heidelberg murderers, is that the latter 

have no moral integrity to guide their actions.

		Such people are a menace to any community and should 

be removed from society permanently".

	Mr Chairman, I will close with the statement that I have, one 

paragraph Sir.  

	You see Mr Chairman, for too long now, I want the people 

here to hear this, a few people in this country of ours, have had any 

respect for each other, the people, the courts, not anything that 

resembles a normal society.  Do wish to see this type of thinking 

continue?

	Nobody in their right mind would wish it to continue, 

therefore I have empathy for you, the Police, the Justice system and 

all others who are trying to bring about a change of attitude and 

hopefully a change in behaviour of all people, so as to ensure a 

return to a normal and safe society.

	May you be granted all the courage and strength necessary to 

carry out the task that you face.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Arendse, are there any questions you wish to 

put to this witness?

ADV ARENDSE:   No, Mr Chairman, except to say that Mr Fourie 

made a number of controversial statements which if I do engage him 

on it, it is not going to take us any further.

CHAIRPERSON:   You will address us if you think it is relevant at 

that time?

ADV ARENDSE:   Yes, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ARENDSE

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you Mr Fourie.

MR FOURIE:   Thank you.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you Mr Chairman, I have, due to the lateness of 

the hour and there are several other matters which will be decided 

upon in due course, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Will the date for the resumed hearing be finalised 

between you and Mr Arendse?

MR PRIOR:   Yes, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON:   Can I request, as I have already requested, that 

the evidence be obtained as to how cartridges are expelled from 

firearms, request that you get someone to go through that video and 

insofar as possible, indicate on the sketch plan, or a larger sketch 

plan, where the cartridge cases as are shown on the video, are in 

fact.  This could perhaps be done by agreement, that that correctly 

reflects what is shown in the video.

	So if we want to see where they are in the building, we don't 

have to go through the whole video again, we can just put it onto a 

sketch plan.

MR PRIOR:   Thank you, Mr Chairman, we will comply with that 

request.

ADV ARENDSE:   Mr Chairman, will we also have a transcript 

available?  A transcript of the proceedings, a typed transcript?

CHAIRPERSON:   You can raise that with the administration.

ADV ARENDSE:   Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you very much, the meeting will now 

adjourn.

JUDGE WILSON:   I am told Mr Arendse, that the practice is to 

prepare transcripts in all hearings.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS UNTIL A DATE TO BE DECIDED

UPON

MR ARENDSE	501	F CERQUEIRA

CAPE TOWN HEARING	AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

COMMITTEE	544	F CERQUEIRA

ADV ARENDSE	547	F CERQUEIRA

MR PRIOR	558	A J LANGFORD

CHAIRPERSON	560	ADDRESSES

JA FOURIE

CAPE TOWN HEARING	AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR PRIOR	564	J A FOURIE

MR PRIOR	567	J A FOURIE

Q CORNELIUS

CAPE TOWN HEARING	AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR PRIOR	571	Q CORNELIUS

CAPE TOWN HEARING	AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

ADV ARENDSE	591	Q CORNELIUS

MR PRIOR	592	Q CORNELIUS

COMMITTEE	593	Q CORNELIUS

ADV ARENDSE	595	Q CORNELIUS

MR PRIOR	603	M JANUARY

ADV ARENDSE	608	M JANUARY

610

MR PRIOR	602	R L PALM

CAPE TOWN HEARING	AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR PRIOR	630	R L PALM

ADV ARENDSE	632	R L PALM

B BRODE

CAPE TOWN HEARING	AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR PRIOR	640	B BRODE

ADV ARENDSE	654	B BRODE

COMMITTEE	655	B BRODE

MR FOURIE

CAPE TOWN HEARING	AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR PRIOR	656	MR FOURIE

674