Special Report Transcript Episode 72, Section 3, Time 35:08

Well if he was framed back in 1993 it wasn’t very successful, because the frame was never really used against him. Why was it brought up now? The Truth Commission’s investigator clearly believes Sibaya and after the hearing even challenged Ntsebeza to take a lie detector test. Another question, if this whole saga was a police set up job, it would have to mean they planned it all in the minutes and hours after the tavern attack. Because Sibaya went to the police in the midnight hours shortly after the massacre and before news of the attack had been on radio, television or a newspapers. Would that mean that the police knew of the attack before hand and did not stop it? Another question. Why was a thorough investigation into Sibaya’s background and financial affairs never done? Why was his German donor never traced and asked if he indeed gave him a house? Now we have lots of suggestions that Sibaya might be part of a frame, but no evidence. Clearly, Ntsebeza and Sibaya can’t both be speaking the truth. This issue is important enough for us the public to have answers. But there are more questions. If there were another car involved in the attack and the applicants deny it, it would mean they lied and therefore would not qualify for amnesty. But the Amnesty Committee’s evidence leader did not make this point and Judge Mall gave the impression early on that he did not regard this side hearing as crucial to the amnesty hearing.

Notes: Max du Preez

References: there are no references for this transcript