=====================================================================
&#9;TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
=====================================================================
 &#9;TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

&#9;AMNESTY HEARING

DATE:&#9;&#9;&#9;4TH MAY 1999

NAME:&#9;&#9;&#9;ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA

APPLICATION NO:&#9;AM2778//96

HELD AT:&#9;&#9;&#9;ISCOR CLUB HALL, &#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;VANDERBIJLPARK

MATTER:&#9;&#9;&#9;BOIPATONG MASSACRE

DAY:&#9;&#9;&#9;&#9;2

______________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga? Is he here?

MR LOWIES: Chairman, if this is an appropriate time? A matter outstanding from yesterday is still the application, what is the situation if I may enquire regarding the application at this stage?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Yes, I've gone through your application, it seems to raise three issues. 

&#9;The one is the investigation of Mr Nosenga's application. &#9;The second one is in the form of a declarator, the issue there being whether or not this Committee is bound by the findings of the Commission.

&#9;The third issue is whether Members of this Committee ought to recuse themselves, right, because of their participation in the preparation of the Report which gave rise to the finding contained in the Truth Commission Report. Is that right?

MR LOWIES: I would submit, with respect Chairman, yes, with a rider. 

&#9;Pertaining to the first two issues I would agree with respect with your summary, however, the last aspect pertaining to the recusal of this Committee, if I may call it like that because it's strictly speaking not so, I would like to make the following observations and submissions. 

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR LOWIES: No, what I would submit there is the application is, at this stage there is a prime facie suspicion of bias which needs to be investigated.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Because Chair ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And that is bias on the part of the Committee?

MR LOWIES: Of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which arises from what fact?

MR LOWIES: Which arises from inter alia the finding by the TRC relating to the participation of police officers ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: And White people, which I would submit is crucial to the nature of the application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and what is the other fact which gives rise to this perception of bias?

MR LOWIES: The second leg of course is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because if you are correct in that first submission it means that this applicant would not get a fair hearing before any Committee of the TRC and for that reason they can't apply for amnesty if your argument is to be upheld?

MR LOWIES: No Chairman, that is why I said I must qualify the manner in which the last application was paraphrased by yourself in the beginning. The operative words are prima facie, in other words there's a prime facie view.

CHAIRPERSON: The fact of the matter is that you are relying upon the findings of the Truth Commission's in their Report in regard to the presence of the police which the applicants are denying and you are submitting that because of that finding, prima facie, the matter has been prejudged? This is simply the issue isn't it?

MR LOWIES: With the rider, Chairman, with respect, that if any Member of this Committee participated in deliberations, in that finding, it means there is annexes stronger than just, it is your parent body. The annexes is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In terms of the Act, I think it's Section 5, I think it is, the Amnesty Committee, whilst the Truth Commission may review the decisions and procedures of other Committees including the Reparations Committee and the Gross Human Rights Violations Committee, it has no power whatsoever over this Committee. That in itself should be sufficient to indicate the independence of the Committee, apart from the fact that when this Committee has to make it's decision, it has to base it's decision in terms of Section 20, Sub-Section 3 of the Act.

MR LOWIES: Again Chairman, the test to be applied whether of not a Member of the Committee or the Committee itself should recuse itself is not the following and I submit it's important to note that it's not the following because if this is the situation then it is easy to understand the nature of the application. It is not whether there is bias on the part of this Committee, there is no suggestion at this stage and I don't think there was at any other stage a suggestion that there is bias on the side of this Committee. As it is not a test and as it is common cause that there is no such suggestion, I now turn to the true legal principles pertaining to bias and that, with respect Chairman, is simply the following. Would a reasonable litigant in the position of these applicants or a reasonable applicant have reasonable cause to believe as a result of various objective facts that there is bias. Now let's look at these facts ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no. I'm not - the other parties still have to respond to your application.

MR LOWIES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All I want you to do is to make up your mind whether you want this Committee, whether you're making an application that this Committee recuse itself, or what?

MR LOWIES: Chair, I can respond to that. In the last part of the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because if that is what you want to do, it may well be that your application must be heard as soon as possible so as to deal with that issue.

MR LOWIES: Chair, page 6, main paragraph on page 6 reads as follows and this answers, with respect, the question put to me:

&#9;"Please take notice that the above applications are based in the pursuance of justice in that the applicants are dependent thereon to enable them ..."

And this is important:

&#9;"...to respond to the TRC findings which implicate them and are detrimental to their applications, thereby exercising the right to the rule of audi alteram partem"

and the second point ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies ...(intervention)

MR LOWIES: Chair, with respect ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: This is not the occasion to challenge the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Report. The issue before us here is whether these applicants are entitled to amnesty in the sense that they meet the criteria. If you want to challenge the findings of the Commission on the basis that you were not given a fair hearing, in other words there was no compliance with the audi alteram partem rule, this is not the forum to do that, the forum for you to do that is not this one. The issue here is whether the people that you represent meet the criteria set out in the Act for the granting of the amnesty. I can understand if the essence of the application is to ensure that you get information in order to deal with the issue of full disclosure which is an issue here which arises from the presence or otherwise of the police during the day of the massacre, but this is not the forum to challenge the Commission Report. If you want to challenge that Report you've got to go to some - this Committee has no jurisdiction to hear that matter, but what we can do is to hear that evidence surrounding the issues relevant to whether or not there has been full disclosure. I think that must be clear. You must be aware that the issue of the Report was challenged in the High Court?

MR LOWIES: Chair, with all due respect, I am not challenging the TRC Report. It is there, it's a given - and with respect I have not had the chance to read the second paragraph at page 6 which answers your question and that is, the information is needed and now I quote:

&#9;"Further, to consider whether to apply for the recusal of the Committee or any other member thereof"

In other words, with respect Chair, we are not asking you to judge the correctness of the TRC Report, you are the forum, with respect, where we apply for information. Firstly, you are the forum, with respect, where we apply for a recusal if needs be. You have to hear that and nobody else. We say the application that we are bringing is the following, there is a prima facie report wherein damning findings were already made against my clients. You are an extension of that body, brings in my argument of the reasonable suspicion of bias. Now, in order to make a value decision on this, based on all the facts, we say on behalf of the applicants, please supply us with information whereafter we can make a value decision whether or not to ask for your recusal. An important aspect would be the - the most important aspect - if yourself or any Member of the Committee formed part of those deliberations, with respect, it means that you were privy to a finding already on record, detrimental and prejudicial to my client's application and one of two things should then happen and I'm not asking you to rule on that yet because we're not there but the argument will go the relevance hereof is the following. If this Committee or a Member thereof had prima facie prejudged a lay person in the position of my clients, the applicants, will form the opinion that the matter has been prejudged and I say this with the greatest of respect, to proceed would be a farce but it is not the allegations yet.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you approached the TRC for the information that you're seeking before making a subsistive application?

MR LOWIES: No, we're approaching this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you approached the TRC itself?

MR LOWIES: I said no, with respect Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps that's where you should start first, if that is refused you make a subsistive application here.

&#9;Mr Berger, what's your attitude to this application?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, our attitude is that this application is ill-conceived, it's impertinent to this Committee, it's grossly insulting to the victims and above all, it's factually incorrect and when I say it's factually incorrect, I'm only dealing with that part of the application that relates to the application of Mr Nosenga. 

&#9;Chairperson, we're in the process of compiling affidavits to place the correct facts before the Committee, unfortunately we've only managed to make contact with one person, we will be meeting with him tonight, we hope to make contact with the other person tonight but there's no guarantee that he will be there. We will draft the affidavits and we will place them before the Committee as soon as we reasonably can, I can't say that will be tomorrow or the next day but it will be this week.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, well would you be in the position to have all the facts at least by Friday?

MR BERGER: We hope so yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR BERGER: And that there's one person, Mr Shongwene, who shuttles between Cape Town and Gauteng and so depending on where he is, will determine when we can get the affidavits for you. But Chairperson, we hope to get it before Friday. 

&#9;Can I just add that having read the affidavit of Mr Riaan Malan, there are certain documents referred to in his affidavit which we will require before we can finally settle our affidavits and they are the following. He says that he wrote four articles on the Boipatong Massacre, only two of those articles are annexed. 

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR BERGER: The second thing is, he said he had an interview with Mr Peens, he says that a copy of that interview is in the possession of the TRC, we need a copy of that interview and thirdly, he talks about certain Cell Registers which determine the whereabouts of Mr Kezwa. We need copies of those Cell Registers and if needs be the original but obviously Mr Malan wouldn't have that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay very well.

MR BERGER: Chair, in terms of the rules of the High Court relating to applications, we would be entitled to copies of those documents before we submitted our answering affidavits.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this is not the High Court.

MR BERGER: I know that, I'm well aware of that but I would ask in the interests of fairness so that we can place proper facts before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BERGER: That those three documents are given to us before we submit our answering affidavits.

CHAIRPERSON: This application will be heard on Tuesday at 9 o'clock and I require heads of argument to be finished at least by Friday and the very latest by Monday to the extent that the applicants are making serious allegations against the African National Congress, they shall serve a copy of this application on that body. And Mr Mapoma, would you make sure that the legal department of the TRC receives a copy of this application as soon as possible so that they can consider their response, if any, to this application and to the extent possible, would you provide Mr Berger with such information as he might desire in order to prepare a proper response and the applications will furnish to all the other representatives any other information in their possession which is referred to in the application which has not been included as annexures. Okay?

MR LOWIES: As you please Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lowies? Mr Nosenga, may I remind you that you are still under oath?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: (s.u.o.) That is correct.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: Sorry Chair, may I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, your version if I understand it correctly is that at a stage you went to the place called Ulundi and there you saw Chief Minister Buthelezi, you also heard him congratulating people regarding the Boipatong Massacre. That is your version, am I correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: So if I understand you correctly then, on your version, it met with the approval of the leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And if I understand you correctly so much so that he also in front of a crowd of people expressed his opinions in that regard?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: On your version, precisely what did the Chief Minister say?

MR NOSENGA: I heard him say his grateful, thanking the people for what they did at Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: How many people were at this meeting, you have to give us an estimate, only an estimate?

MR NOSENGA: There were many of them, I'm not in a position to approximate.

MR LOWIES: And on your version, if I understand you correctly, anybody who wanted to have been at this meeting would have been welcome, correct?

MR NOSENGA: I still maintain that it was the members of the IFP who had attended that meeting, not anybody who did not belong to the party.

MR LOWIES: The point is, any member who wanted to be there could have been there, do you agree?

MR NOSENGA: I would not say I agree with you, I am saying to you there were so many people at the conference, there were many of them. Yes, some of them did not go to the conference even though they were members of the IFP.

MR LOWIES: I'll make it simple, was it an open meeting where everybody who wanted to be there could be there? Question is, who wanted to be there?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, do you know whether there were any restrictions in terms of who could attend that meeting?

MR NOSENGA: As I have already indicated, it was a national conference, there were many Inkatha followers, some of them had come from Johannesburg and others from other different parts of the country.

MR LOWIES: And the press was no doubt there as well because it's a national conference? Do you agree or do you disagree?

MR NOSENGA: I cannot say whether I agree or not, I did not see them.

MR LOWIES: If needs be evidence will be led that the national conference, anybody who wants to be there including the press, television networks etc could attend. Will you deny this?

MR NOSENGA: I have already indicated that I don't know, I did not see them.

MR LOWIES: Therefore I put it to you Sir that you cannot deny it?

ADV SIBANYONI: I'm sorry Mr Lowies, is it not so that normally during conferences there would be a session which would be open for public where the press and media will be there but there will also be a closed session dealing with the issues pertaining to that particular organisation or body?

MR LOWIES: Not according to my instructions at a national conference. I will check, however I do not want to mislead anybody.

&#9;But at this stage, Sir, I put it to you that this was not a meeting in secret and I think you will agree with me, not so?

MR NOSENGA: No, I indicated that I do not know.

MR LOWIES: Well ...(intervention)

MR NOSENGA: I am saying it was a conference of the IFP, whether it was open or not I cannot say.

MR LOWIES: But let's get the picture here. Where was the Chief Minister when he congratulated the people, on your version? Was he in a building, was he in a hall, was he in a veld, what is the situation, that's what I want to get at?

MR NOSENGA: He was in a tent at Ulundi, there were many tents around.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless my memory is failing me here, I have thought that it is common cause that Mr Nosenga was taken to Ulundi at some point?

MR LOWIES: It's not denied, that's not the point.

CHAIRPERSON: At a rally that was in Ulundi.

MR LOWIES: It's possible that he could have been there.

CHAIRPERSON: Well wasn't it the evidence of the applicant, some of the applicants?

MR LOWIES: Yes but that's not the issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, just listen to what I'm saying.

MR LOWIES: I'm listening.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as I understand, I want to know where is this taking us to because it is not an issue that at some point Mr Nosenga was taken to Ulundi at a rally that was held there, that's not denied, is that right?

MR LOWIES: Correct, as you please.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay, then continue.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, returning to the scene where Chief Minister Buthelezi on your version congratulated the people. How many people from kwaMadala Hostel were there that you know of?

MR NOSENGA: I only know the ones with whom I travelled. Yes, others travelled in their own private vehicles but I remember names like Gatchene and Mr Zulu and others. The taxi in which we were travelling was driven by Darkie Chonco.

MR LOWIES: Sorry could I just get that clear, there was a noise in my microphone and I think it could probably be because you're touching the microphone, please don't. Who were the people?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying that I remember Darkie Chonco, Mtwana Zulu and Gatchene as well as many others who had come from KwaMadala Hostel, many Indunas actually.

MR LOWIES: I see.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you travel in a bus, kombi?

MR NOSENGA: No Sir, we travelled in a 16 seater Kombi E20.

CHAIRPERSON: Apart from the Kombi in which you were was there any other transport that went to Ulundi that you know of?

MR NOSENGA: I saw Oupa who is working at the offices and I saw some private vehicles, I would not no. 

CHAIRPERSON: Darkie Chonco, Mtwana Zulu, Gatchene, these were the people who were travelling with you in what you've described as the 16 seater?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Lowies?

MR LOWIES: Thank you Sir. Now Mr Nosenga, if you have to give us an estimate, how many people would you say were inside this tent where Chief Buthelezi was at that stage when he congratulated the people on the Boipatong Massacre?

MR NOSENGA: I said I won't be in a position, there were many of them really.

MR LOWIES: More than the people on the night of the attack, participating in the attack? More than those?

MR NOSENGA: I think they were less than the number of people that attacked Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: Why, why do you say that?

MR NOSENGA: Because some others had to remain behind at KwaMadala Hostel and I would not know as to why they decided to remain behind.

MR LOWIES: But were there people from Ulundi in the tent?

I'm talking at the time when the Chief on your version congratulated the people?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I did mention that there were people from around Natal. I don't know them, yes they were present.

MR LOWIES: How many people from Natal, not from the hostel would you say were there?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies ...(intervention)

MR NOSENGA: I would not know, there were many people really, I could not count them.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want Mr Nosenga to tell us how many people at that rally or meeting came from Natal, is that what you're asking him to do?

MR LOWIES: I'm asking him to give us an estimate as to how many people he would say were not from KwaMadala and were from Ulundi because he says they were from Natal, on his version.

CHAIRPERSON: But how on earth do you expect him to know that?

MR LOWIES: Chair I would have thought it works as follows ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's get the answer from him.

&#9;Mr Nosenga, had you been to a rally in Ulundi before?

MR NOSENGA: No, that was my first time.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in a position to tell us who of the people who were at that meeting came from Ulundi, Mashlabatini, Nomgoma, Durban, Johannesburg and Orange Free State?

MR NOSENGA: No I would not be in the position, there were many of these people.

CHAIRPERSON: The people that were in the 16 seater, was the Kombi full? The Kombi in which you were travelling?

MR NOSENGA: Yes it was full.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and did these people sit together with you, that is the people that were in the Kombi?

MR NOSENGA: I was sitting on the engine of the Kombi.

CHAIRPERSON: No I mean once you get to the meeting?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, turning to that issue in the tent, you said that you're of the opinion that some of the people from - I repeat - some of the people in the tent were from Natal and not from KwaMadala. Having got your opinion on record that there were some from Natal, my question is can you tell us how many people were there from Natal as you see it.

MR NOSENGA: I have indicated that I don't know, there were so many of them I still maintain.

MR LOWIES: More than 50? I'm asking for an estimate only.

MR NOSENGA: Sir, I cannot commit myself, I do not know, there were many of them.

MR LOWIES: Could there have been less than 50?

ADV SIGODI: Mr Lowies, sorry, where is this ...(intervention)

MR NOSENGA: I still maintain that I did not know these people, there were many of them, I therefore cannot approximate.

ADV SIGODI: Where is this cross-examination going to take us insofar as how many people from Natal were there, how many from Gauteng were there? I mean if you are trying to say, I mean that there were many people and what the applicant is saying did not happen that the Chief Minister did not say what he's saying he said, why don't you simply put it to him that this never happened and then get onto the other aspects?

MR LOWIES: On the face of it I should agree with you but that would be defeating the purpose of cross-examination, with respect, because one of the aspects of cross-examination which you would know is vitally important, is whether or not this witness is telling the truth and therefore I'm simply putting to him that it's denied, I will be effecting an important objective, being testing his credibility as to this aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: That may well be the case, no one challenges that proposition. The fact of the matter is, when the witness has repeatedly told us he doesn't know, he can't estimate, what else can he say? He doesn't know, he can't estimate, he didn't count them.

MR LOWIES: I missed the part that he didn't say that he can't estimate, that he said that he can't estimate but I will move on, with respect Chair.

MR LAX: Mr Lowies, he said that right at the very beginning of his testimony under cross-examination. He said "I'm not sure, I can't estimate" but you carried on asking these questions. It's right at the very beginning of my notes of his reply to your answers.

MR LOWIES: Be that as it may, Chair, I will proceed. I take it then that I've missed that, the estimation then.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I understand that. Mr Nosenga, when you tell us that there were people from Natal as well, do you have any basis for that or do you just assume there must be people from Natal?

MR LOWIES: Yes that is true, there were people who had come from Natal and Mashlabatini, I'm just not in a position to give you a number.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, how many tents would you say were there on the day of the rally when the Chief spoke, on the day of the meeting, sorry, when the Chief spoke?

MR NOSENGA: There were many tents, I cannot say exactly how many. There were many of them.

MR LOWIES: You were a resident of KwaMadala Hostel?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: That being the case, my question is the following. At the meeting, tents included, would you say there were more people there that day than reside in the KwaMadala Hostel?

MR NOSENGA: I cannot explain.

MR LOWIES: Why?

MR NOSENGA: I did say I don't know, you asked me as to how many people were there, I said I don't know and you asked me about tents and I told you there were many, I don't know how many.

MR LOWIES: To summarise then, you can't even tell us how many people were at the meeting in total even with reference to the KwaMadala Hostel and I'm talking about the number of people residing there?

MR NOSENGA: I said there were many of them. Some of them had come from Johannesburg, Thokoza etc. I just cannot say, I'm not in the position.

ADV SIGODI: Mr Nosenga, were the buses bringing people at this rally?

MR NOSENGA: I found many buses at arrival or on arrival. I had left in a Kombi.

ADV SIGODI: Yes but what I mean is were the buses at the rally, bringing people in at Ulundi?

MR NOSENGA: I saw many buses on arrival, I did not see them arriving. I did not see them arriving at the conference, I just found them there.

MR LOWIES: Put simply, it was an open meeting, anybody could attend, not so?

MR NOSENGA: I did say it was an IFP rally or conference. Yes some people remained behind at KwaMadala Hostel, people who were interested attended and some remained behind.

MR LOWIES: I should maybe describe to you what I mean by open meeting. Open meeting does not mean that people stayed behind, open meeting means anybody who wanted to attend could have done so. Do you understand my question?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I understand but I cannot commit myself to something like that. All I'm saying is that some people remained behind.

MR LOWIES: Why can't you commit yourself as to whether or not this was an open meeting as defined? What is your problem in that regard?

MR NOSENGA: I am simply saying I cannot answer your question, some people I'm saying remained behind.

MR LOWIES: Was there anybody at the tents preventing members of the IFP who were there to enter these tents when the Chief Minister spoke?

MR NOSENGA: I didn't witness that, I didn't know anything about that.

MR LOWIES: Well let's talk about you yourself, you could come and go as you please, not so?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I was free to move as I pleased because I was an IFP member.

MR LOWIES: And there was no way of them checking whether or not you were an IFP member, not so? In other words it was not required of you to show a card or anything to say, listen I'm an IFP member, I'm entering this tent, correct? Or any other manner of proving that you're a member, correct?

MR NOSENGA: As I've already mentioned before, IFP members were known and it was not just anybody who could come through. I did see security guards at the gate. I was free because I was an IFP member.

MR LOWIES: Did you have to show your pass at the gates?

CHAIRPERSON: What counsel is - just listen to the question, Mr Nosenga, what counsel is trying to find out from you was as people were coming to the rally, was there anyone who was at any particular point checking whether people coming in were members of the IFP or not?

MR NOSENGA: Yes there were security guards.

CHAIRPERSON: Now were these people asking everyone who was coming in whether he or she was a member of the IFP?

MR NOSENGA: Yes they were asked.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, you were also asked if you were a member of the IFP?

MR NOSENGA: It was the Prince Mtwana Zulu who spoke on our behalf, I didn't.

MR LOWIES: And who were in your group with Prince Mtwana Zulu?

MR NOSENGA: It was Gatchene, Darkie Chonco and other Indunas that I did not know from Natal.

MR LOWIES: And all that happened is that the Prince said "we are from the IFP and you were allowed to pass?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, he produced an IFP membership card.

MR LOWIES: Only him?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that's the only person I witnessed producing a card.

MR LOWIES: Now besides your group, did anybody else at the gate when they wanted to go through have to produce a card or not?

MR NOSENGA: I cannot say because I did not witness, I did not see with regards to any other people because after we had gone through the gates that was it.

MR LOWIES: The reason why I'm asking is and I'd just like to get clarity there, I initially got the impression and you must now tell me whether this impression is wrong, the impression I got is that it is within your knowledge that you had to prove at the gates that you were an IFP member before you would be allowed because there was security? It now appears that they just basically asked you whether you were a member and you didn't see whether anybody else and also you, I mean your group, and you didn't see whether they asked anybody else whether they were members of the IFP. Am I wrong?

MR NOSENGA: No as the judge asked me, I explained that there were people who were security officers and the only person who produced a card was Prince Zulu.

MR LOWIES: And of the other members of the public you did not see anybody producing a card?

MR NOSENGA: As I said before, I was already inside the venue, I did not see any people, any other people producing cards, if they produced them or not because I was already inside the venue.

MR LOWIES: Now are you an IFP member at present?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct because I am here because of the IFP.

MR LOWIES: You're still a member?

MR NOSENGA: I have already answered your question that I am.

MR LOWIES: Now you as an IFP member, you are not a leader in the IFP of any sorts, is that correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I'm just a supporter of the IFP.

MR LOWIES: On your version you were part of the attack at Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: To come back to the structure, turn to the structure, is it correct that you are not always part and parcel of the decisions made by IFP members irrespective of at what level it is made, you as a normal member?

MR NOSENGA: No, there were meetings called at KwaMadala Hostel and all persons living in the hostels would attend those meetings.

MR LOWIES: And if the leadership of the youth brigade had a meeting, would you be part of that?

MR NOSENGA: Sir, if it was a meeting for leaders then I would not be but if it was a meeting, a general meeting then I would attend that meeting.

MR LOWIES: Ja, that's the point I'm trying to make. So it seems to me that there are different meetings, some of the meetings the leadership get together and they make decisions, correct and you're not part as a normal member of those decisions, correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: And is it not so that all the aspects pertaining to the IFP is not always related to normal members if it concerns a matter of say for instance tactics or campaigns etc. You're not always informed of all the details because it is held at a specific meeting and you're just informed of the smaller details, correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, there were matters that we were not informed all.

MR LOWIES: And I take it that if there is a meeting where a decision is made by the leadership of any party, I'm talking of any political party to attack people they would not just convey it to a normal member, that would be kept secret, not so?

MR NOSENGA: That is news to me, I do not know about that.

MR LOWIES: No, the reason why I'm asking is we've heard evidence that it was kept secret until the very last day of the Boipatong attack ...(intervention)

MR LAX: With respect Mr Lowies, you're not being fair to the witness. The decision as to which day the attack would happen on was kept secret. There's evidence before us that the decision to attack was taken before the meeting in a public meeting with many people present so - and there's conflicting evidence in that regard but be that as it may, it was not true to say that the decision to attack was only taken in secret. The date of the attack, some people have alleged, was only taken at a later stage. So just to clarify that.

MR LOWIES: That's also the way I have it and if I've put anything different I would retract and I would rephrase. I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to be sure, my understanding of the evidence was that in the days proceeding the real attack, everyone knew that there was going to be an attack at some point but no one knew when it was going to occur and I think the Boipatong was mentioned probably a day or two before, but still no date was fixed and again it was in response to the calls by the hostel residents that something at least must be done.

MR LOWIES: I agree, there are two important things which you raise, with respect, and I agree with those.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: The first is there was a decision to attack but there's evidence that there was no clear decision as to where the attack would be firstly and secondly there was no clear decision as to when it would be made. That was kept secret as one of the witnesses said, I think it's Buthelezi that gave that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Now having heard those aspects, Mr Nosenga, my question to you is the following. You would agree with the following proposition that not all aspects pertaining to the attack of Boipatong were conveyed to the normal members, it was kept secret by leadership, correct? Having heard the discussion now you would agree with that?

MR NOSENGA: It is possible they did mention that Boipatong would be attacked but they did not mention the date so I will not disagree with you.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon, just repeat what you have said?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying as there was a meeting held discussing the attack but the date was not mentioned, it is possible that some information was withheld from ordinary members.

CHAIRPERSON: But are you saying that you knew that there was going to be an attack on Boipatong but you didn't know the date?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I knew that an attack would be launched but I did not know on which date.

MR LOWIES: You see, you would also agree with me that the IFP operated as follows. There was the Youth Brigade and they had their leadership. Then there was the older people, the Indunas and they had their leadership, correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Chair, I am just trying to make a point, I would like to place one thing on record. The evidence pertaining to the structures of how the IFP worked will be canvassed by my learned friend but in order to just make a logical conclusion, I'm just asking these as preliminary aspects and I'm not going to delve too much into them. Having stated that my question to you is the following ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In mind that I think that was consistently in canvassed with the applicants and that was extensively canvassed with the individual applicants.

MR LOWIES: But there may be something regarding how he views it that will be covered by my learned friend. 

CHAIRPERSON: Yes indeed, yes.

MR LOWIES: I'm just trying to make the point, that I'm not going to delve too deeply into that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes very well.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.

&#9;The point I'm trying to make is the following for purposes of what we're busy with now, you would then agree with me, if the older people, the Indunas, had their separate meeting, where they make a decision to attack people in Boipatong and in the Vaal for that matter, you would not be part of it because you are a normal member and not part of that leadership, correct? You were not privy to that, you would not know about it?

MR NOSENGA: No I would have known because I did learn about it because we were told as IFP members that we were going to launch an attack but it was only the dates that was not mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what counsel is putting to you is this that the leadership of the IFP would meet at some point alone, take decisions and thereafter convey those decisions to the general membership of the IFP at meetings which are attended by the ordinary members of the IFP, such as yourself?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is so but with regards to the Boipatong attack, we were called to a general meeting where we were informed about the attack but the date was not mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but you have repeated now on more than one occasions that you were not told initially when Boipatong was going to be attacked. We've heard that, you don't have to repeat that.

MR LOWIES: I'm indebted to you Chair.

&#9;So Mr Nosenga, if they had plans at regional level to attack for instance people in Pretoria which does not concern KwaMadala, unless you are one of the attackers, you would never know about it, correct, because it does not concern you and it would remain with leadership, that's the point, do you agree?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And is it not so Mr Nosenga, did you hear the question so far? Is it not so, Mr Nosenga, that not everything that leadership decide will be conveyed to the members? Let me give you give you an example of what I want to know from you. If it is policy of leadership to attack everybody in the whole of Transvaal they would only convey to the people in a specific region, say for instance Boipatong, that which is necessary for Boipatong residents out of the KwaMadala residents to know and they would not convey to them all the other aspects which they have decided, correct?

MR NOSENGA: No, the Boipatong matter was conveyed to us by the leadership at a meeting.

MR LOWIES: Well I'll leave it at that, I'd like to turn to another aspect. Stripped of all the titles, the simple fact regarding Mr Themba Khosa is the following. He was a leader in the Vaal area, correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And we have your version and I emphasis your version that Themba Khosa actually approved of the attack on Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct, he did approve of it.

MR LOWIES: So on your version we have the following then. Chief Minister Buthelezi, leader of the IFP, approved of the meeting plus Themba Khosa, leader in the Transvaal or in the Vaal, approved of the attack in Boipatong, on your version?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And on your version, not everything that leadership decide is always conveyed, some of it is kept secret, a good example is that a decision regarding two things. One, when Boipatong should be attacked and two, that the specific place Boipatong should be attacked, correct? Those were excluded at that stage and was only revealed at a very late stage.

MR NOSENGA: Yes, as I mentioned before they said we should attack the place but they did not specify the date.

MR LOWIES: And having regard to this, what we've just said, one can understand that it would not be always public knowledge to all the applicants exactly what was decided by the general leadership pertaining to the attacks on the Vaal, correct? Because you would simply not know, not everything?

Do you agree?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: And it is not a matter of you hiding something from this Commission that you didn't know, it's just a simple matter of you as a normal member do not know specifics, correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And even you yourself, if I ask you what was decided at this leadership meeting, you would not know all the details, that would be unfair to say man, you are hiding something, correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes but with regards to the IFP meeting on Boipatong we were informed of the attack although they did not mention the date.

MR LOWIES: Ja, exactly illustrates the point, not everything is always conveyed to everybody. So we agree with each other?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: You said to us previously in your evidence that you were a resident of Boipatong at some stage?

MR NOSENGA: No, I did not say that I resided in Boipatong, you must have misunderstood me. Yes I stayed in Everton.

MR LOWIES: But you had some problems with the residents of Boipatong in the past, or not?

MR NOSENGA: No I said I no personal grudge against the people of Boipatong, it was only the people of Everton with whom I had problems.

MR LOWIES: How far is Everton from Boipatong more or less?

MR NOSENGA: It is a distance from Boipatong, I cannot estimate just how far it is but Boipatong is closer to Iscor.

MR LOWIES: Can you walk from Boipatong to Everton in an hour or less - I'm not sure, sorry, I just want to get a point here, maybe you can help us?

MR NOSENGA: I cannot give you an estimate.

MR LOWIES: No problem. Would you agree that Everton is in the Vaal area?

MR NOSENGA: Yes it is.

MR LOWIES: Now what were the problems that you had with the residents of Everton?

MR NOSENGA: The problem I had was that I had friends who were ANC members. There was a garage that was burnt down in Everton and it so happened that it was my friends who had burnt it and I was also implicated in that incident but I had not partaken in that incident, I was innocent. The comrades from Everton got hold of me and they took me to the garage and they locked me up in the toilet at the garage. Thereafter they went to the garage's owner and spoke to him. A certain girl who I cannot remember, whose name I cannot remember, asked me why I was locked up in the toilet. I explained to her what my problem was. She then opened the toilet back window and that is how I escaped. That is how I arrived at KwaMadala Hostel.

CHAIRPERSON: You mentioned ANC friends and you also mentioned the comrades. Now who was accused of having burnt down the garage?

MR NOSENGA: The ANC supporters alleged that it was myself and my friends who had burnt down the garage but I was not present when this happened. The comrades looked for me and they found me and captured me and took me to the garage.

CHAIRPERSON: Who are these comrades, I mean are these the comrades who were your friends?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, some of my friends had not been present in the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so is the position that certain comrades burnt down a garage?

MR NOSENGA: Yes ANC supporters.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were not part of that?

MR NOSENGA: No I did not take part.

CHAIRPERSON: And those other comrades who had not taken part in the burning of the garage accused you of having taken part in the burning of the garage?

MR NOSENGA: Yes they implicated me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Now are the comrades ANC members? I don't follow.

MR NOSENGA: Yes they were ANC members.

MR LOWIES: And are you saying some of the comrades burnt the garage and some of the comrades didn't and there was a faction or an argument between the two factions? Am I following your evidence?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct and that is how I was implicated.

MR LOWIES: Were you at that stage an ANC member?

MR NOSENGA: No I was not affiliated to any political organisation but I did have friends who were ANC members.

MR LOWIES: Now why would the comrades become involved in burning of garages, I don't follow that, why would the ANC want to burn garages? It doesn't make sense.

MR NOSENGA: I did not say it was ANC I said it was supporters of the ANC. When you speak of the ANC you refer to people like Oliver Tambo. I'm just referring to the followers, those were the people who burnt the garage. I do not know why they did it.

MR LOWIES: So do you have to be an ANC member to become a comrade or to be a comrade?

MR NOSENGA: No that's not what I was saying. You can join as a member of an organisation but what I'm saying is that the garage was burnt down by ANC followers.

MR LOWIES: And the comrades were they also ANC followers? You're not clear on this aspect. What is the situation?

MR NOSENGA: The ANC and ANC followers are two different issues. If I speak about the ANC I refer to people like Mandela.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, listen to the question please, what counsel wants to find out is whether were comrades members of the ANC?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Now once they'd decided, the comrades, to lock you up, did they say to you why they are acting in this manner?

MR NOSENGA: They said I was allegedly involved in the burning down of the garage.

MR LOWIES: But why would they become involved, it's not their garage or was it?

MR NOSENGA: No, I would not be in a position to respond to that question.

MR LOWIES: Were you afraid of them?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I was afraid.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr Nosenga, what counsel wants to find out from you the following, the garage had been burnt down, the comrades are not members of the police force, why would they get involved in looking for people who had burnt down the garage? 

&#9;Is that what you want to find out?

MR LOWIES: That's correct, I don't follow.

MR NOSENGA: At that time the comrades were responsible for all structures in the township and that garage's owner, Mr Gude, was aligned to the ANC and that is why the comrades got themselves involved in this issue.

MR LOWIES: What do you mean they were involved in all structures? Do you know what you're talking about?

MR NOSENGA: Please repeat that question?

MR LOWIES: What do you mean when you say they were involved in all structures, the comrades?

CHAIRPERSON: I think what was probably not translated is a portion or his evidence which is to the effect that the comrades were responsible for looking after the safety of the residents in the township

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Which is why they took the active part in looking for people who burnt down the garage of course apart from the fact that - is it Mr Gude I think it was, was also a member of the ANC? Is that right Mr Nosenga?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Were there any other structures where they were responsible for, the comrades?

MR NOSENGA: No I didn't know about that because as I mentioned before I was not a member of the ANC so I was not aware of their activities.

MR LOWIES: Now thereafter did you have trouble with the comrades again?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: I think what I should do to make it easy for you is the following. Tell us why were you scared of the comrades?

MR NOSENGA: I mentioned before that they said I was involved in that burning down of the garage at Everton and they were looking for me. That is why I was afraid of them.

MR LOWIES: Yes but you said there were also other reasons and that's what I want to find out, in effect of your evidence.

MR NOSENGA: You misunderstood me. I said the problem I had with the comrades related to the garage that was burnt down in Everton.

MR LOWIES: Okay but now you were punished, the matter is over, why would you then flee to KwaMadala?

CHAIRPERSON: With due respect Mr Lowies, he wasn't punished at all. What happened was that he was taken to the garage, locked up in the room and a good Samaritan women came up and opened the window for him. He then escaped through the window, he left straight for KwaMadala Hostel.

MR LOWIES: So were you going to be punished more than that by the comrades, just by being locked up? I don't follow.

MR NOSENGA: Sir I explained before the reason why I ran away. Those people had firearms, that is the reason why I fled the township for the hostel.

MR LOWIES: Why would they have firearms?

MR NOSENGA: I do not know, I cannot respond to that question.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would they have firearms?

MR LOWIES: Yes that was the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: I missed the answer, sorry Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't know.

MR LAX: He doesn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Now after escaping from the garage did you return to Sebokeng or did you go straight to KwaMadala Hostel?

MR NOSENGA: From that point I went to the hostel on the very same day.

MR LOWIES: Now why were you scared of the firearms, was there the threat that they were going to use it or what? Because you mentioned that they had firearms?

MR NOSENGA: I mentioned before that I feared for my safety because those people had firearms, they would have shot me. I had mentioned that before.

MR LOWIES: And then you joined KwaMadala. Now the question is, why did you join the IFP?

MR NOSENGA: I thought it was a good organisation because all the people who had fled the township joined the people at KwaMadala. That is why I also went there.

MR LOWIES: So were there other people fleeing from Everton as well that you know of and that took refuge there in the KwaMadala Hostel?

MR NOSENGA: What I'm saying is I am the person who fled from Everton to the hostel. I do not know with regards to others.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we didn't say that but do you know of any residents from Sebokeng who sought refuge at KwaMadala Hostel?

MR NOSENGA: Yes there were.

MR LOWIES: Now Mr Nosenga, were you ever involved with the SDUs or did they mean anything to you?

MR NOSENGA: I do not know anything about the SDUs.

MR LOWIES: You wouldn't know whether they're the same thing as the comrades or what? What is your opinion, can you express an opinion? If you can I'd like you to.

MR NOSENGA: I do not know anything about SDUs. What I knew about was that there were ANC supporters.

MR LOWIES: Now after this incident could you roam freely in the streets of Everton?

MR NOSENGA: No.

MR LOWIES: And Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: After I arrived at KwaMadala Hostel I was not able to walk freely at Boipatong as well.

MR LOWIES: Why? You've done nothing wrong to the people of Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: There were people who were residents of Serela who worked at Iscor and those people recognised me or they saw me when I wore my IFP tee-shirt and there was no way I could have gone back to the township after those people had seen me wearing that tee-shirt.

MR LOWIES: Why?

MR NOSENGA: As I mentioned before there were Iscor employees who resided at Boipatong and who had seen me wearing IFP tee-shirts.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is why wouldn't you go to Boipatong with your IFP tee-shirt?

MR NOSENGA: You wouldn't be able to go into the township if you had been seen wearing an IFP tee-shirt.

CHAIRPERSON: Why won't IFP members go to Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: Because all IFP members were prevented from going into the township.

CHAIRPERSON: What would happen to you if you had to go to Boipatong with an IFP tee-shirt.

MR NOSENGA: They would have killed me in Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: Who would have killed you?

MR NOSENGA: The ANC supporters from Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: Not just the comrades, any ANC supporter?

MR NOSENGA: What I'm saying is that ANC supporters would have killed me, those people who resided in Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: Even if you go there without your IFP tee-shirt?

MR NOSENGA: Yes they would have because they used to attack people even in Vereeniging.

MR LOWIES: But why would they do that, have you got a reason that you can advance?

MR NOSENGA: At the time there was friction between the ANC and the IFP people from the KwaMadala Hostel.

MR LOWIES: So can I summarise your evidence that irrespective of whether or not you wear an IFP tee-shirt, if you put foot in Boipatong you would be killed even if you didn't make any trouble there?

MR NOSENGA: That is what I'm saying. We did not go to Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: The reason why is because you are IFP and they are ANC?

MR NOSENGA: Please repeat that question?

MR LOWIES: And another reason why this is so because you are IFP and the residents are ANC?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: So it seems to me then that there was actually a state of war between the two factions here at Vanderbijlpark and in the Vaal?

MR NOSENGA: I would not be able to respond to that, I cannot say whether there was war or not.

MR LOWIES: Now if a Boipatong resident would see you in another town he would also attack you?

MR NOSENGA: What place are you referring to?

MR LOWIES: Well in town?

MR NOSENGA: Yes they would have, they could have abducted me and taken me to Boipatong where they could have killed me.

MR LOWIES: So you could even be abducted?

MR NOSENGA: Yes they could have taken me there to kill me.

MR LOWIES: Now would any member of, any resident of Boipatong do this to you or would it only be comrades?

MR NOSENGA: I said it was ANC supporters residing in Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: How many people have you killed in your life?

MR NOSENGA: In the case that I have been convicted for there were nine people that I killed.

MR LOWIES: So are you in jail for the murder of nine people?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Are you serious because I thought it was only three?

MR NOSENGA: No I did not say three, I said there were nine people that I killed and that is why I was convicted.

MR LOWIES: Were you convicted of nine charges of murder to put it simply?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Now we know of the nine that you were convicted of, it appears to me that you also killed people that you were not convicted of. Am I correct?

MR NOSENGA: No.

MR LOWIES: So you only in your life killed nine people? You killed nobody in Boipatong? 

MR NOSENGA: There were people that I killed in Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: Well then it's more than nine. Now you must please explain this. You were convicted of nine people and we know you were not convicted of anything happening in Boipatong. So how many people did you kill in Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: I do not remember.

MR LOWIES: Could it also be nine?

MR NOSENGA: No, what I'm saying is I do not know.

MR LOWIES: Why? The reason why I'm asking is it's quite extraordinary, I would have thought that if you killed somebody you would know about it? Why don't you know how many people you killed in Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: I did mention before that I had drunk the Indelesi and I was in such a state that I was not able to tell who died or who didn't. I just saw people falling.

MR LOWIES: So how many people did you see falling and if you can't give us exact figures give us an estimate.

MR NOSENGA: I do not remember well.

MR LOWIES: And the reason why they were falling is because they were gunned down by you?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And you're talking of people falling so we know that it's more than one?

MR NOSENGA: Yes but I do not remember how many there were, I was under the influence of Indelesi.

MR LOWIES: Are you serious because it sounds ridiculous, even the people in this gallery are laughing at you.

It sounds incredible.

MR NOSENGA: I am serious because I do not remember how many people I killed. I shot at them and they died but I do not know how many.

MR LOWIES: You shot at them and they died and you shot at them with an AK47?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And that was the only weapon that you had?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Do you know how to operate an AK47?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: By that I also mean how to load it, how to unload it, how to squeeze the trigger, how to make it safe etc?

MR NOSENGA: Yes you just load the bullets into the magazine and that which is what you put into the gun and then if you do not want to use it at the time you can lock the gun and you can set it so that you can only use single shots.

MR LOWIES: Now we know that you've killed people and we know that you have also killed people in Boipatong but there you're not clear about the figures. Besides these incidents, I'm talking about the nine for which you've been convicted on your version and the Boipatong incident, were there any other incidents where you shot at people, fired shots at people?

MR NOSENGA: No, the only incidents where I shot at people were the Sebokeng and Boipatong matters.

MR LOWIES: Now the Sebokeng matters, did all this happen on one day or more than one day?

MR NOSENGA: They happened on 15th June 1992, two days before the Boipatong massacre.

MR LOWIES: Did it all happen at the same place or at different places?

MR NOSENGA: It was at different places.

MR LOWIES: Where were these places and I'd like you to name them all?

MR NOSENGA: In Zone 12, it was in Zone 12 at a bus stop called Bosweni, there was a bus that was shot at at a small farm as well as in Everton at Jabu's place. Those were the places that we fired shots at.

MR LOWIES: Chair, at this stage if it's appropriate for you to take the adjournment, I see my colleagues draw my attention to it that it's time for an adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the tea adjournment now and come back at 11.13.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, you're still under oath.

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: (s.u.o.) Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lowies?

MR LOWIES: (continues) Thank you Chairman.

&#9;Mr Nosenga during the adjournment my attention was drawn to the fact that you were indeed convicted of nine charges of murder but what I would like to put further to you is that in addition to that, you were also convicted of six counts of attempted murder wherein you fired shots at six different individuals. Is that correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: How were you arrested on these charges that you were convicted for?

MR NOSENGA: I was arrested in Parys for a stolen vehicle, I was brought to Vereeniging and ultimately taken to the police station where they questioned me about the murder incidents of Sebokeng. Captain ...(indistinct) is the one who was questioning me.

MR LOWIES: But listen to this, you were arrested on a completely different charge and now they question you on murder charges. How did they link these two incidents with each other, that's what I want to know from you?

MR NOSENGA: I was questioned on the matters, I was brought here to be questioned about what had happened at Sebokeng and I ultimately ended up telling them about the Sebokeng incident as well.

MR LOWIES: Out of your own free will?

MR NOSENGA: No I was tortured, I ended up telling them the truth because I had to go out and point out the places where these things took place as well.

MR LOWIES: And then you pleaded guilty?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I did because I was being tortured.

MR LOWIES: So we have the following, you were arrested and tortured and you confessed to certain offences including nine counts of murder. Thereafter, you were again tortured and you must help me if I am wrong, so that you must plead guilty to these charges, is that correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: So what you're saying is your plea of guilty on these charges was done under coercion, you were forced?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I was being electrocuted, I was tortured.

MR LOWIES: But what I don't understand is why didn't you just tell them the truth in any event? I'm talking about the police firstly, let's leave the court out for a moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, ...(indistinct) one allows a cross-examiner a somewhat large latitude because one doesn't know what may or may become relevant from that line of cross-examination. I've been listening to you for some time now. Now having regard to what we'll have to consider in this matter, what is the relevance of the applicant not admitting to killings which have no relevance to the matters before us? You should know that our constitution guarantees to a suspect the right to remain silent, he was not in your application to admit or to say anything to the police and where's it going to take us?

MR LOWIES: I would answer this Chair, I would submit and I can state it categorically that this in my instructions. Mr Nosenga is an utter liar on various aspects. He is a liar in this regard and what I'm trying to do is to show to you that he has a propensity of telling lies even when faced with the consequences and therefore it is relevant as to his credibility. You would agree with me, with respect Chair, that the purpose of cross-examination is two fold, one of them is to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, all I want you to do Mr Lowies, sorry to cut you short, is simply to illustrate to us the relevance of your line of questioning. So you are saying that the purpose of this line of questioning is to indicate that Mr Nosenga is a stranger to the truth?

MR LOWIES: Yes and to prove a modus operandi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Perhaps in the interest of these proceedings you should endeavour to make sure that we get to the point at least as soon as we can?

MR LOWIES: I have instructions to do so Chair, I will endeavour to do so, I will give you an undertaking.

CHAIRPERSON: In addition to the instructions you now have a direction to that effect?

MR LOWIES: I'm indebted to you Chair.

&#9;Right, now Mr Nosenga, what I don't understand is, your plea then, you had legal representation in these matters for which you were charged in the Supreme Court and convicted of, not so?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Why did you not tell them listen I was forced and I'm still being forced to plead guilty to these charges because this is serious?

MR NOSENGA: I was afraid of the police at the time because the police would kill you if you denied all activities or involvement in all the crimes.

MR LOWIES: Now what has changed from then up until today, why are you not scared today to tell us these facts that you have hidden before?

MR NOSENGA: We have a Black government today, we no longer have this Boer government and we don't have things happening as they used to happen at the hands of the police then.

MR LOWIES: I have to take issue with you on this, because you were convicted on the 14th February 1995 when the present government was in power. What is your answer now?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: So, your argument then cannot stand. I'm going to repeat the question. What has changed in the meantime, why were you afraid in '95 and not today?

MR NOSENGA: It is because today we have a constitutional government which has the TRC as a platform where people can come forward to tell the truth, we don't have the Boer government anymore.

MR LOWIES: We had it in 1995 as well? We had a constitution in 1995, that's the point, Sir. One last chance.

MR NOSENGA: I don't know, I made my application to appear before the TRC a very long time ago, I don't know when exactly in which year.

MR LOWIES: But we know one thing for sure, Mr Nosenga, had you not been tortured you would not have done two things sitting here today and that is (a) confessed to these charges on which you were convicted and (b) plead guilty to them?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct, I would not have confessed to those charges, I would have denied everything.

MR LOWIES: Up until today?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: And you understand my question?

MR NOSENGA: Will you please repeat your question?

MR LOWIES: The question is up until today you would have denied these charges had you not been tortured?

MR NOSENGA: Which offences are you talking about, the Sebokeng or Boipatong offences?

MR LOWIES: It can't be that difficult, you were only tortured for the Sebokeng offences, not so?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Okay, so I'll rephrase then or I'll repeat. So had you not been tortured up until to date, you would not have pleaded guilty?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I would not because they would not have known who was involved in the killing of the people in Sebokeng.

MR LOWIES: That raises interesting questions, you were not implicated in these offences for which you are applying for amnesty now, why are you applying for something which you are not implicated in?

INTERPRETER: May the speaker please repeat the question?

MR LOWIES: You were not implicated in these offences for which you are applying for amnesty? Why are you doing to now?

MR NOSENGA: Are you referring to the Boipatong incidents?

MR LOWIES: Yes.

MR NOSENGA: I was involved as well. I felt bad about it, it was not only Inkatha that killed people there, the police were also involved. These people are telling the truth.

MR LOWIES: So, why are you asking for amnesty for something in which you are not implicated?

MR NOSENGA: I was involved at Boipatong except to say I was not arrested. The people who came forward to testify before this Commission are not telling the truth. Old ladies died on that day. People who could have lived to support their families.

MR LOWIES: Yes ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Wait a minute.

MR LOWIES: I'm sorry Chair, I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Are you saying that you applied for amnesty in respect of the Boipatong Massacre?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you realised that the people were not telling the truth?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you realise that?

MR NOSENGA: At the start of the TRC I think, you see I'm in Leeukop so I cannot keep track of the dates. I think it was at the time when I submitted my application after I was arrested for the Sebokeng offences. The people who had come forward to seek amnesty, I mean the people are involved in the Boipatong incident, there were police involved there.

CHAIRPERSON: You see you're saying that you decided to apply for amnesty firstly because you were involved in the massacre?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And in addition to that the people who were involved were not telling the truth about what happened during the massacre?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when did you realise that - well first of all, who are the people that you are referring to, are you referring to the other applicants?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when did you first realise that the applicants were not telling the truth?

MR NOSENGA: It's been a long time, I cannot say exactly but it's been quite a while now.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you hear them telling the what you consider to be the untruth?

MR NOSENGA: I was here at the TRC before I came to testify, they were still testifying.

CHAIRPERSON: But you had already applied for amnesty at that time?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.

&#9;So I didn't follow exactly what you said in this last response? So then you heard there were being lies told when you were here?

MR NOSENGA: I had already submitted my application when they told lies.

MR LOWIES: Well, if that is the situation, you are now telling a lie. Let me tell you why and I'd like your comments. You had been clear yesterday that one of the reasons why you applied for amnesty and I repeat why you applied for amnesty was because the people were telling lies. Now your version is you only heard that they were telling lies after you have applied for amnesty. This is a contradiction. Would you like to explain this?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying I was also involved during the Boipatong Massacre, that's the reason why I had come forward to seek amnesty because the people who came here to testify are not telling the truth. I had submitted my application pertaining to the Boipatong Massacre a long time ago.

MR LOWIES: The point simply is the following, then that could not have been a reason for you applying. The fact that the police are lying is not a reason for you applying for amnesty, correct?

MR NOSENGA: I still maintain that I was involved in the Boipatong Massacre.

MR LOWIES: Are you retracting your evidence that the reason for applying for amnesty is because lies are being told at this forum which was what you said clearly yesterday and earlier on today?

MR NOSENGA: No, I still maintain that I had come forward to tell the people of Boipatong what happened that evening.

MR LOWIES: But yet you would not tell the people from Sebokeng what happened because had you not been forced you would never have confessed to these crimes? Do you see the difference? Do you see the glaring inconsistency?

MR NOSENGA: I have already submitted an application with regards to the Sebokeng incident.

MR LOWIES: No sir ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) any further, man says that the reason why he came forward is because he realised that the applicants were not telling the truth and secondly because he was also involved. He was involved in the Sebokeng attacks, we know that he - whatever he may have said, you know, in the criminal court, I'm not too sure it is of any consequence to us here.

MR LOWIES: I would agree with you on one regard but I also disagree with respect but I just put the following to you Chair in respect the motive as you will see from the application of this witness is suspect and everything ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: A motive to do what?

MR LOWIES: For applying for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: But he has told us why he's applying for amnesty in regard to this. He said that yesterday, he's repeated it today on more than one occasion. 

MR LOWIES: No but Sir, with respect ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And the record speaks for itself. 

MR LOWIES: Chair if you rule that I can't proceed then I will abide by it but I would submit that there are various aspects that's still got to be canvassed in this regard and I would beg you to afford me the opportunity of doing so.

CHAIRPERSON: Provided you get on with the work, we can't ...(indistinct). Go on with the questions.

MR LOWIES: Thank you.

&#9;Mr Nosenga, the point is simply the following. You admitted on two occasions today that had you not been tortured by the police in regard to the Sebokeng shooting, you would not have confessed up until today, correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Yet for an offence you are not convicted you apply for amnesty, that does not make sense. Why in the one would you never have but in the one you do so freely and voluntarily?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand the question or do you want me to simplify the question to you? Here is the question. You were involved in the Sebokeng attack, do you understand that?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. You were not prepared to admit that to the police but because of the torture you admitted your part in the Sebokeng attack?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us that had it not been for the attack, I mean for the torture up till today you would not have disclosed that?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR NOSENGA: I will not have been sentenced for it.

CHAIRPERSON: If you had not been convicted you would not have disclosed the Sebokeng attack and your role in that attack?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in regard to the Boipatong Massacre you were not arrested?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What you are being asked therefore is why would you confess in regard to the attack, in regard to which you've not been convicted and not have been tortured and be unwilling to confess in regard to what you really took part in, tortured and so on. Do you understand the question?

MR NOSENGA: Yes. I mentioned before that I was involved in the Boipatong Massacre. No one coerced me to apply for amnesty, I did it out of my own violation.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, the point is, you raised a point and that's why I'm taking it up with you. In the nine charges where you were convicted of murder you also killed a woman by the name of Elizabeth Gadebe. You killed a sixteen year old child, Justice Skumeng and you killed a seventeen year old child, Jacob Ditebe. You fired shots at a lady by the name of Jane Mbele and Maria Mlangene. So what is the difference between those attacks and the Boipatong attacks if you want to rely on the fact that ladies were involved and children involved?

MR NOSENGA: I mentioned before that the Boipatong Massacre was not out of my own personal violation but it was following an order issued by Mtwana Zulu and I was with Tswe ...(indistinct)

MR LOWIES: Sorry, the last part was not caught by myself in interpretation Chair?

INTERPRETER: The applicant said that the applicant was with the people he mentioned when he went to Sebokeng to launch that attack, he was explaining that the attack on Boipatong was not out of his personal violation.

CHAIRPERSON: This is his question, perhaps if you answer this question or can't answer it let us know. You see what counsel is trying to put to you is this, why would you be willing to tell us about Boipatong attack because you were not arrested in regard to that attack and you were never convicted and yet be unwilling but for, you know, your confession to disclose your involvement in the Sebokeng attack. Did you understand the question?

MR NOSENGA: I did mention the Sebokeng incident in my application. 

CHAIRPERSON: But this follows up on the line of questioning that was being pursued in which you indicated that had it not been for the torture, had it not been for the conviction, you would not have admitted your role in the Sebokeng massacre or attack?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is so but because I've already been convicted there's nothing further that I can hide.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the question therefore is why would you be willing to disclose your role in the Boipatong where you were never tortured, where you were never convicted and yet be unwilling to disclose your involvement in regard to your matter where admittedly you took part? Do you understand the question? No, no, do you understand the question or do you want me to repeat it to you in Zulu?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I understand. You're asking me why I volunteered the information on Boipatong. I was present together with many others who were never convicted for that incident. With regards to the incident in Sebokeng I submitted an application because I was involved too.

CHAIRPERSON: You would have not disclosed the role you played in Sebokeng if you had not been tortured and made to confess, is that not correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: You have told us that you would have not disclosed this information up to this date if you had not been tortured?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words it would have remained your secret, no one would have known about it?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now with regards to the Boipatong incident you were never arrested for it?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: No one tortured you?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are willing to volunteer information?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The legal representative would like to know why you would volunteer the information on Boipatong and not on Sebokeng where you killed nine people where you have already informed us this, you would not have admitted to it. The attorney would like to know why you are willing to keep the information regarding Sebokeng secret and not the same with Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: I have already explained that I have already been convicted on Sebokeng therefore I have no reason to hide it any further but had I not been convicted, I would not volunteered the information. 

CHAIRPERSON: The attorney would like to know why you volunteered information on Boipatong because you were not convicted on it?

MR NOSENGA: With regards to Boipatong I felt bad because many people were effected, old people were killed and the police and IFP were involved in this attack. The people who survived know very well what trauma they went through.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.

&#9;So to take you up on an aspect is the following, you have killed in the past in cold blood, it appears that you suddenly have a moral attack. That does not make sense. The question is why all this morality all of a sudden?

MR NOSENGA: I did kill people but it was under the command of Prince Zulu that I should do so.

MR LOWIES: Which incident are you now referring to?

MR NOSENGA: I would like you to repeat the question because I am not sure the incident you're referring to.

MR LOWIES: Let's leave it at that, I'll repeat my question. You have killed people in cold blood before and you chose to hide it, now it appears that you have a moral obligation to talk on your ....(inaudible) I'm asking you what has happened, why the sudden change?

MR NOSENGA: It is out of my own violation out the bottom of my heart.

MR LOWIES: But I thought you also said to us that you were under instruction of Prince Vanana Zulu?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, with regards to the Sebokeng matter.

MR LOWIES: So Vanana Zulu forced you, am I correct to attack the people in Sebokeng?

MR NOSENGA: That is so, you would have not disobeyed an order if you were issued with one at KwaMadala Hostel.

MR LOWIES: And in Boipatong were you forced by anybody?

MR NOSENGA: That is something which was discussed in a meeting and the only people who were allowed to remain behind were women and children.

MR LOWIES: But I don't get your answer, was it yes or no, were you forced or not?

CHAIRPERSON: I think the import of his evidence is that if you were made resident of the hostel there was no way you could not have taken part in these attacks. I think implicit in that there was some kind of indirect order to go and do these things.

MR LOWIES: Now having regard to what has just been highlighted by the Chairman, I would like just to say this, what would have happened to you if you refused to go on the night of the Boipatong Massacre, would anything have happened to you? Did you have a choice not to go?

MR NOSENGA: The situation did not allow because every adult there was supposed to go out on that attack. The only people who were to remain behind were the children and the women.

MR LOWIES: Now to get back to your evidence yesterday, your evidence in chief and specifically when you were questioned by the Chairman, you said that you heard that lies were told here at the Commission regarding complicity of policemen and White people in the attack and that caused you to bring this application for amnesty for which we are here today. Do you still confirm that evidence or do you want to change it?

MR NOSENGA: I do not wish to change it.

MR LOWIES: So it's still the same?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I stand by it.

MR LOWIES: Then my question is when did you hear that lies are being told here regarding police complicity and White complicity in the Boipatong Massacre?

MR NOSENGA: I was present when they gave evidence, when the other applicants gave evidence.

MR LOWIES: So you say very first time that you wanted to apply for amnesty was when the proceedings in the Boipatong matter was already in progress and the amnesty I'm talking about is the amnesty for Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: No I had already submitted an application for the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this in respect of Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: Yes when the hearing commenced I'd already submitted an application form.

MR LOWIES: But then you could not have heard here at the hearing that they are lying and that could not have been the reason for your application?

MR NOSENGA: It is true that I've submitted my application form a while ago and later when I came to this hearing and heard the applicants telling lies about the incident.

MR LOWIES: Okay, there's some confusion now and I'm going to afford the opportunity to clear that up. I started off with the following, yesterday you told the Chairman specifically because he wanted to get clarity on the following point, you told the Chairman specifically that the reason why you applied for amnesty in Boipatong was because you heard that lies were being told here regarding the police complicity in Boipatong attack. Do you still agree with that evidence?

MR NOSENGA: I said I was involved in that incident that is why I submitted an application form and people were not telling the truth about the incident.

MR LOWIES: No but I want to hear whether you agree with what you said to the Chairman yesterday. Forget anything else, my question is focused on the following, do you agree with what you told the Chairman yesterday and that is the reason why you applied for Boipatong amnesty is because "I heard that there were being lies told here at the amnesty hearing regarding police complicity". Yes or no?

MR NOSENGA: I was present here, I was listening to them as they spoke, it's not that I heard about it, I was present myself when they said that the police had not been present but the police had been present when people were killed.

MR LOWIES: Yes, yes, yes, I think I agree with you but the important point is the following, the point is those lies that you heard here caused you to apply for amnesty in the Boipatong hearing, yes or no?

MR NOSENGA: I said the reason why I've lied for amnesty is because I was also involved in the attack, that is the truth. MR LOWIES: I agree with you but you also said and this is what I'm establishing with you, was the other reason, the second reason in other words not that you heard here during the amnesty that lies are being told and that made you Sir apply for amnesty in the Boipatong matter, that's what you said? Am I correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I had already submitted my application by then. 

MR LOWIES: So what you told the Chairman yesterday then was not correct and that is I heard lies being told and that is why I applied for amnesty. That cannot be correct, you can't have the one or the other? Or the one and the other?

MR NOSENGA: I said I was involved in the incident, that is why I applied for amnesty.

MR LOWIES: I agree with you but that's not the point in issue at this stage. I know that you said that. The point in issue is you told two things which are mutually destructive. The first is you said to the Chairman you heard lies being told about police complicity and that made you apply and you said on two occasions or three occasions yes that is the reason and that evidence is correct. Now I want to know finally from you, is that the correct version?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I was also involved in that incident.

MR LOWIES: Yes, we have one thing now and I'm going to leave it at that and that is you admit that you've heard here at the hearing that the other applicants are telling lies and that made you apply for amnesty.

MR NOSENGA: I was present when they told those lies.

MR LOWIES: And that caused you to apply for amnesty to set the record straight, yes or no?

MR NOSENGA: I mentioned before that I had submitted my application by that time.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, just to clarify something, were you not in prison, are you not in prison.

MR NOSENGA: I am in prison.

ADV SIGODI: Okay, so when you say you were here at the TRC when you heard the applicants telling lies, what had you come to do at the TRC if you had not applied by then for this Boipatong Massacre?

MR NOSENGA: I said I had submitted my application even before the hearing started and I was present here when the co-applicants have evidence.

ADV SIGODI: Were you here at this building when you heard them telling lies, were you here in this building?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I was in the premises, not in this hall.

ADV SIGODI: So when were you brought to these hearings?

For the first time, for the first time when were you brought from prison to these hearings for the first time?

MR NOSENGA: I don't remember but I was in Leeukop and I was transferred to the prison here, that was when the hearing started.

ADV SIGODI: So do you know why you were brought from the prison to these hearings, were you brought because you were an applicant or what? Do you know?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I was.

ADV SIGODI: So can you remember at what stage did you come? Who was giving evidence when you came here for the first time?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: No, who was giving of the applicants, who was giving evidence when you came to the hearings for the first time?

MR NOSENGA: I remember Victor Mthembu.

ADV SIGODI: And when he testified, when he was testifying you had already made your application, is that what you are saying for the Boipatong matter, is that what you are saying?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Just bear with me for a second please?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, we will be adjourning at 1 o'clock for lunch.

MR LOWIES: Sir, but when Victor Mthembu gave evidence you were not in the hearing, nobody knew of you at that stage of the applicants and it was at a different venue? Your answers preceding my questioning now can therefore not be true?

MR NOSENGA: When Victor gave evidence I was already here, I was present.

CHAIRPERSON: But Victor Kezwa was not an applicant was he?

MR NOSENGA: I mean Victor Mthembu.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you see the point that's being made is this, the very first occasion when you attended these hearings was when this Committee was sitting at these premises, is that right?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what's being put to you is that Victor Mthembu gave evidence not at this venue but at some other venue so you could not have been present when he gave evidence, that's what's being put to you, do you understand that?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I do understand.

CHAIRPERSON: So what's your comment?

MR NOSENGA: I must have misunderstood the question.

MR LOWIES: But Sir, why did you answer that you heard Victor Mthembu stating that there were no police involved? That was the effect of your evidence, you agree that cannot be true?

MR NOSENGA: Yes it is not true.

MR LOWIES: Let's hear this then. Did you ever hear what Victor Mthembu's evidence is all about?

MR NOSENGA: I think I heard it on TV.

MR LOWIES: So you heard Victor Mthembu's evidence on TV?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I was in the Stofberg Prison and I heard him on TV.

MR LOWIES: You actually saw Victor and you heard what he said?

MR NOSENGA: Yes he said that he - he gave evidence to the effect that a snake gives birth to another snake, that is why he killed those babies.

MR LOWIES: And that you heard over the TV?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Because I'm going to do the following and I want you to be quite sure in that so that there's no misunderstanding, we're going to request the raw tapes from the SABC and we're going to check whether you're telling the truth so I want to make sure. Your version is the following thus, it was on TV that Victor Mthembu was reported as saying a snake gives birth to another snake?

MR NOSENGA: Yes it was on the news, they showed it. I was also on the news yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Well is the position therefore this and if this is not correct would you let me know, do you understand that?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You first saw the hearings or heard of the hearings when you watched a television set whilst you were in prison?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, with regards to Victor Mthembu it was on the news and I was in Stofberg prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Victor Mthembu was the first person or the first applicant, that's why I'm asking you did you hear of this hearing for the first time when you were in prison that they were in progress?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I was at Stofberg.

CHAIRPERSON: So that's where you saw Victor Mthembu giving evidence?

MR NOSENGA: Yes but I listened to the evidence of others.

CHAIRPERSON: You were not present from what you are telling us when Victor Mthembu have evidence before this Committee?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I was not present.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were present when some of the remaining applicants gave evidence?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Now if you are saying you were present when the others were giving evidence, so I want you to be very clear and tell us when you came to the hearings for the first time from the prison, who was giving evidence at this hearing?

MR NOSENGA: If I'm not mistaken it was Buthelezi who was supposedly in charge of the IFP youth.

ADV SIGODI: And where were you taken to, I just want some clarity, I want to hear it from you, which venue did you go to, did you come to this venue or did you go to another venue?

MR NOSENGA: I was taken to this venue, the ISCOR club. 

ADV SIGODI: Alright and were you sitting with the applicants or where were you sitting, where were you sitting were you in the same hall?

MR NOSENGA: I was in the other back room, not in the hall with them.

MR LOWIES: Now was it the evidence of Victor Mthembu that caused you to apply for amnesty in the Boipatong matter?

MR NOSENGA: I have already mentioned that before that by that time I had already submitted an application form with regards to that matter.

MR LOWIES: The Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: Now when did you hear for the first time that mention or that it was denied rather that there was any police involvement in the Boipatong attack. When did you hear that for the first time?

MR NOSENGA: I don't remember quite well but I think I was brought here on a Tuesday where I heard that some of the applicants were giving evidence to the effect that the police were either not there or that they saw one or two Casspirs. I was present when Buthelezi gave his evidence with regards to Victor, I was still in prison.

MR LOWIES: So I just want you to be clear on this, so your evidence is the first time you heard that it's denied that there were any policemen involved was when Buthelezi gave evidence or the guy that you think is Buthelezi, correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes it was him and others. 

MR LOWIES: Then I want to put it to you that you've been telling deliberate lies in that, you specifically stated yesterday that that was the reason for you applying for amnesty? You said so on more than one occasion, yesterday and today.

MR NOSENGA: I am saying that I had submitted by application sometime before the hearing commenced.

MR LOWIES: I'm not talking about your application, listen carefully, we're talking about a lie that you told yesterday and today, the lie was the reason why you were applying for amnesty is because you heard people stating that the police were not involved, that is why you applied for amnesty. Then that is then a lie?

MR NOSENGA: I mentioned before that these people were not telling the truth because the police were present, I was present there. They are just trying to protect the police even the lawyer himself was trying to protect those people.

MR LOWIES: Is that your answer?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: I put it to you Sir, that the reasons why you apply for amnesty in the Boipatong matter is riddled by contradictions by yourself and I will list those. Firstly, you testified yesterday that the lies that were being told regarding police complicity caused you to do so, whereas today you say you only heard it after your application. Comment?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct. What I remember about yesterday is that the statement that was discussed that Mr Berger took from prison, that did happen.

MR LOWIES: Which Mr Berger? Did you say Dannie Berger, I think it wasn't translated as Dannie Berger.

MR NOSENGA: Berger, Mr Berger.

MR LOWIES: Is it Mr Berger sitting over there?

MR NOSENGA: Yes he arrived in Stofberg Prison and took a statement from me which statement I did not sign.

MR LOWIES: How do you know he took an unsigned statement from you? Did he write it down?

MR NOSENGA: They questioned me on what happened and they were writing this down but they never requested me to sign anything.

MR LOWIES: At that stage did you apply for amnesty yet or not?

MR NOSENGA: I had submitted a long while ago when they came, that is Mr Berger and Mr Brian.

MR LOWIES: No but listen carefully, I think it's common cause that you applied for two sets of amnesty, correct? Two sets of applications, the one for the Sebokeng matter and the one for the Boipatong matter, am I correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Now did you apply for these applications at different times, for these acts?

CHAIRPERSON: Who asked you about Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: Mr Berger and Mr Brian.

MR LOWIES: So the first people - I'm sorry Chair, can I proceed? I'm sorry, I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that you refused to sign the statement?

MR NOSENGA: They did not make me sign the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know why you didn't sign the statement?

MR NOSENGA: No I do not.

MR LOWIES: Do you say that the first person to whom you have mentioned your complicity in Boipatong was Mr Berger and Mr Brian?

MR NOSENGA: Yes but I had told Mongese at Leeukop, at Stofberg it was Mr Berger and Mr Brian whom I first told about my involvement.

CHAIRPERSON: In which prison were you first detained, is it Leeukop?

MR NOSENGA: I was kept in Leeuhof.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it Mr Mongese who visited you at Leeuhof?

MR NOSENGA: No I did not get the question quite well, I had already been convicted and he came to Leeukop Prison. Berger and the other one came to the other prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Once you were convicted you were then sent to Leeukop Prison?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay and is that where Mr Mongese visited you?

MR NOSENGA: At Leeukop?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he ask you about the Boipatong matter?

MR NOSENGA: Yes he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Now is it your evidence then that Mongese was the first person you told about the Boipatong matter?

MR NOSENGA: I think so if I'm not mistaken.

MR LOWIES: Yet it was not Mongese who took this unsworn statement from you it was Mr Berger?

MR NOSENGA: No, I am saying Mongese came to Leeukop and Mr Berger and others came to Stofberg.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr Mongese take a statement from you?

MR NOSENGA: Yes he did at Leeukop.

MR LOWIES: But I'm talking about the unsigned statement. Was that taken by Mongese or by Mr Berger?

MR NOSENGA: It was taken by Mr Brian and Mr Berger.

ADV SIBANYONI: I'm sorry Mr Lowies. 

&#9;Mr Nosenga, when Mongese visited you at Leeukop what is the position about your application, had you already applied or not?

MR NOSENGA: I think I had not yet submitted this application, I think I submitted this application when I was at Leeukop and it was before the TRC thing started. 

ADV SIBANYONI: Was that before Mongese's visit or after?

MR NOSENGA: I gave this application to Mongese and later on to Mr Brian when I was in Stofberg.

ADV SIBANYONI: Did you complete any form when Mongese visited you in prison?

MR NOSENGA: He was writing as I was speaking I only filled in my application form properly when my legal counsel came.

ADV SIBANYONI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And when was that?

MR NOSENGA: I cannot recall, well it's been a while now.

CHAIRPERSON: Had the hearings started already?

MR NOSENGA: No I think it had not yet started, I think it was just about to start, I cannot recall quite well.

ADV SIGODI: And which lawyer are you referring to, who assisted you with the filling in?

MR NOSENGA: The one legal counsel that is representing me now, that is after Mongese and Brian had arrived and then my legal counsel who is representing me now arrived. She found me in Stofberg and she is the one who assisted me in filling in the application form.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga you are making serious allegations and I want you to reflect on what you're saying. So you are saying that your application was only filled in by Ms Tanzer sitting here next to you, properly filled in, to use your words?

MR NOSENGA: Yes because she is still representing me now, the others did not come.

MR LOWIES: So if I understand your evidence correctly, the only application that we had previously was that for Sebokeng but the Boipatong was filled by Ms Tanzer, properly filled in, do I understand you correctly?

MR NOSENGA: She filled in two application forms for the Sebokeng as well as for the Boipatong incident.

MR LOWIES: Your answer?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, Boipatong and Sebokeng.

MR LOWIES: So to summarise then am I understanding you correctly that nobody else but Ms Tanzer filled in applications for amnesty?

MR NOSENGA: I did indicate that some came like Mr Brian came to me in Stofberg, another one came while I was in Leeukop and my legal rep came to help me fill in the application form for the Boipatong incident.

MR LOWIES: The legal rep as you call her, is Ms Tanzer?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, I want to urge you please to be honest with us because you see if that is the case there has been some fraud committed by various people and that cannot be allowed. Are you honest in your answers?

MR LAX: Chairperson I'd like Mr ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

MR LAX: I've been instructed to leave it.

MR LOWIES: So I want to urge you, can I proceed then Chair?

I want to urge you to be honest because it appears then that there must have been some fraud somewhere along the line. Are you serious that Ms Tanzer assisted you to apply for amnesty for Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, she's the one who assisted me because the other ones never came, she's the one who assisted me in filling in the TRC forms pertaining to the Boipatong incident.

MR LOWIES: And Sebokeng?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, that one too.

MR LOWIES: But Tanzer, Sir, was only briefed after the hearing had already begun, if I read the record correct. That means your application was finalised after the hearing began?

MR NOSENGA: I have no knowledge to that effect.

ADV SIGODI: Mr Chair excuse me, just to clarify something? &#9;Mr Nosenga, do you know what the TRC amnesty form looks like?

MR NOSENGA: No, it was filled in by my legal counsel.

ADV SIGODI: If you look at page number 6 where you have signed, page number 6 of the bundle R, you've confirmed that was your signature there?

MR LOWIES: With respect I think he did not, that was the one he denied?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I'm the one who signed here.

ADV SIGODI: Yes he confirmed.

MR LOWIES: I apologise my mistake.

ADV SIGODI: Now if you look at this form can you perhaps recall who filled in this form for you or who filled in this form? Form from page 1 to page 6? Can you recognise that handwriting?

MR NOSENGA: I do not see it quite well.

ADV SIGODI: Do you remember when you signed this form at page 96, when was that, do you remember?

MR NOSENGA: No, I cannot recall.

ADV SIGODI: Can you perhaps tell us if this was the form which you signed when you were assisted by Ms Tanzer?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, this is.

ADV SIGODI: Did you say this is the form which Ms Tanzer assisted you to sign?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, this is my handwriting.

MR LAX: You're not being asked if this is your handwriting. You must understand something, just listen to the questions carefully. You're being asked whether this is the form that Ms Tanzer assisted you to sign? Are you able to tell us whether this is the form that she assisted you to sign or not?

MR NOSENGA: May she please read it to me because I am not well educated?

ADV SIGODI: In other words you cannot read what is on this form, is that what you are saying?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I'll be telling a lie, I cannot read.

ADV SIGODI: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms?

MS CAMBANIS: I'll hold over till lunch time to discuss with my colleagues, there's some disagreement. It's almost lunch time, well deal with it then.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

MS CAMBANIS: I'll withdraw. I'll withdraw, no comment.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, did Ms Tanzer when she came there explain to you the purpose of her visiting you?

MR NOSENGA: She told me that she is my legal counsel.

MR LOWIES: And did she tell you that she's here to finalise your application and you must sign forms, is that what you're saying?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, to fill in the application form for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, various people came to see you in prison we understand from your evidence.

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did any one of these persons require you to sign a document, if you cannot remember say so. If you do, say so?

MR NOSENGA: No, I cannot recall because many of them came to me.

CHAIRPERSON: You may have signed such documents?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is possible, I cannot recall really.

CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr Nosenga, did Mr Berger ask you to sign any application form?

MR NOSENGA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Definitely not?

MR NOSENGA: No.

MR LOWIES: Did Brian ask you to sign any form?

MR NOSENGA: No, they just wrote things down and they took those things along.

MR LOWIES: So he definitely did not ask you to sign?

MR NOSENGA: No I do not recall them making me sign anything.

MR LOWIES: The only person that you can recall who wanted you to sign documents was Ms Tanzer? Or am I wrong in this? This is a question it's not something I put to you.

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: So even though you can't write, we have the following from you then and that is the only person who requested you to put your signature on TRC documents is Ms Tanzer?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: This you are sure about?

MR NOSENGA: Yes she came to me in Sun City.

MR LOWIES: And the reason that she gave you is "listen, you must sign these so that I can complete your application for amnesty for Boipatong" that was the crux of the discussion, correct?

MR NOSENGA: I am the one who gave her the statement, yes.

MR LOWIES: And you signed?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: In other words you signed the statement that you gave her? Sorry?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Who is Mongese?

MR NOSENGA: I don't know that person, the person identified himself as Mongese from Johannesburg.

MR LOWIES: Did he say why he is coming to visit you, on what authority, on whose request?

MR NOSENGA: No I cannot recall who had sent that Mongese to me.

MR LOWIES: Did he say why he is there?

MR NOSENGA: Mongese wanted to know, to get information about the Boipatong Massacre and wanted to assist me filling in the application form.

MR LOWIES: Did he assist you to fill in any form?

MR NOSENGA: I gave Mongese information which was written down.

MR LOWIES: But written down and filling in a form is a different thing, do you know the difference?

MR NOSENGA: Mongese used paper similar to the ones you are having here, I was speaking as he or she was writing.

MR LOWIES: Could you just show us the paper that you are referring to when you say paper similar to these here? Could you just identify these papers with the permission of the Chair?

MR NOSENGA: He would like - like this one, papers like this one.

MR LOWIES: He indicates a writing pad. Thank you Chair.

Is this an appropriate time to take the lunch Chair? Chair at this time I may still be for a half an hour or so.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

MR LOWIES: I say I may be with this aspect for half an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. We'll take the adjournment now and come back at quarter to 2.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, may I remind you that you're still under oath?

ANDRIES MATANZIMA NOSENGA: (s.u.o.) Yes thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: (cont) 

&#9;Thank you Chair.&#9;

&#9;Mr Nosenga, your evidence is somewhat confusing regarding this Brian person who went to see you. What was the purpose of his visit, did he explain that to you?

MR NOSENGA: No I cannot recall, he did come to me but I cannot recall.

MR LOWIES: Well, can I ask you this ...(intervention)

MR NOSENGA: I cannot recall what he said, yes he did come to me.

MR LOWIES: Can I ask you this, did you discuss with this Brian person the question of amnesty. It doesn't matter for what or in regard to what but did you discuss the question of amnesty with him at all?

MR NOSENGA: I only knew him when he came to Stofberg wanting to know about the Boipatong incident.

MR LOWIES: Wanting to know what?

MR NOSENGA: He wanted to know what happened at Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: Did he say why?

MR NOSENGA: No he just asked me what happened at Boipatong and I told him.

MR LOWIES: Now off the record - off the subject for a little bit, it is common cause that what happened this morning, Sir, is the following ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, off the record what?

MR LOWIES: I'm sorry, off the subject, that's what I meant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes very well.

MR LOWIES: To jump to another aspect it's common cause that there was an order this morning that certain documents should be handed to the ANC. My question is the following, Mr Mapoma the evidence leader introduced to us a certain Brian Kopedi from the ANC TRC Desk and we handed the documents over to him, now just before the proceedings started and my question is did you see this person when this happened, did you see the incident when the documents were handed over to him? Now, just shortly before he started?

MR NOSENGA: Which person are you talking about, I did not see anyone?

MR LOWIES: Okay. Now on the last occasion, according to my instructions, the same Mr Kopedi to whom these documents were handed had a consultation with you at the hearing according to Mr Fredrech, can you recall?

MR NOSENGA: I did not see him, maybe it's possible that I did speak to him.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the point of asking this witness whether the same Brian is the person who consulted with him when he tells you that he didn't see anyone? Shouldn't you first clarify, I mean whether he knows the Brian that you're talking about first?

MR LOWIES: I thought he would be able to do so if he saw the incident, but he didn't Chair. I hear what you say, with respect we'll go into that.

CHAIRPERSON: Or is that Brian here, is he here?

MR LOWIES: I don't know, I don't see him now. He's just left shortly before I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, very well.

MR LOWIES: Well Mr Nosenga, let me just hear this. Did you consult with the same Brian that went to see you in jail on the previous occasion when we were here during the TRC hearings? If I say we I mean you.

MR NOSENGA: I cannot recall quite well.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's put it this way, you mentioned that a certain Brian, is that his first name, is that his surname?

MR NOSENGA: I don't know whether it's a name or surname, I know him to be Mr Brian.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you consult with Mr Brian at any stage after these hearings had commenced?

MR NOSENGA: I do not recall quite well, what I remember is he spoke to me in Stofberg.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think what counsel wants to find out is whether after - I mean since you've been attending these hearings, did Mr Brian come and see you?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: Now where did he come to see you, this Mr Brian?

MR NOSENGA: He came here.

MR LOWIES: And what did he want to discuss with you?

MR NOSENGA: He told me that they would come to attend the hearing.

MR LOWIES: Yes?

MR NOSENGA: That's all that he told me.

MR LOWIES: Who would come to attend the hearing, if you say they? Who was he referring to?

MR NOSENGA: He was in the company of a certain lady.

MR LOWIES: Who was the lady?

MR NOSENGA: I don't know her.

MR LOWIES: You've never seen her before or after?

MR NOSENGA: Maybe but I do not recall, I was seeing her here for the first time.

MR LOWIES: Did they discuss the nature of your application with you like they did on a previous occasion maybe?

MR NOSENGA: As I have stated they just indicated to me that they would attend the hearing. They said they would come to listen to my amnesty application proceedings.

MR LOWIES: Why would they say that?

MR NOSENGA: I have indicated that they don't know.

MR LOWIES: And did they indeed listen to your amnesty proceedings?

MR NOSENGA: No I only saw them last then. I did not see them since.

MR LOWIES: Well that's strange, I mean they said they - that's strange because you said that they come here specifically with that purpose and then they don't do it? Are you sure that's all that happened?

MR NOSENGA: Maybe, I don't know what happened.

MR LOWIES: Now at that stage was your present legal representative Ms Tanzer already appointed and acting on your behalf when they approached you as such?

MR NOSENGA: I cannot recall.

MR LOWIES: Because I asked her if she gave anybody permission to consult with you and she said no, that's common cause between us. Do you know whether she was consulted by them, by Brian and the other lady?

MR NOSENGA: No I cannot remember.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, I've urged you before ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Could you just let me - when you first attended these hearings, you were already represented were you not?

MR LOWIES: I think yes, I think I did not have a legal counsel but then I later on had the counsel who is next to me now.

CHAIRPERSON: When you started to attend these hearings, you were already legally represented were you not?

MR NOSENGA: The one person who came is my present legal counsel, she's the one who came, she's the one whom I saw.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then she was your lawyer at the time, was she not? 

MR NOSENGA: Will you please explain?

CHAIRPERSON: When you started coming here to the hearings, you already had a legal counsel, right, the hearing had already started?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I had counsel.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and Brian, and Mr Brian you say came to see you after you had started to attend these hearings?

MR NOSENGA: 

CHAIRPERSON: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: And on what you can remember so far, only with the message they are here, they will be listening to your application?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Now the Brian person that you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you go on.

MR LOWIES: I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: You see shortly, a minute ago, you were asked, well one of your answers was when Mr Brian came to speak to you after you began to attend these hearings, you do not recall whether your present legal representative had already been appointed?

MR NOSENGA: Would you please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: You are telling us that your answer is at the time when Mr Brian came to speak to you here you don't know whether your present legal counsel had already been appointed to represent you?

MR NOSENGA: I might have said that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm telling you you said that.

MR NOSENGA: Maybe I didn't get you well, I might have said that.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your answer, did you say that or didn't you?

MR NOSENGA: I do not remember whether I said that. Would you please explain so that I can understand. I call him Brian.

CHAIRPERSON: You see what was being asked of you was when Brian came to speak to you here you already had a representative, a legal representative. You answered that you don't know whether your present legal representative had already been representing you at the time or not.

MR NOSENGA: I think we did not get each other well, I am saying my legal representative was already appointed.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you were speaking Zulu, that's what you said in Zulu, you said "I cannot remember whether my legal representative had been appointed at the time."

MR NOSENGA: I might have said that, I cannot remember but when I still remember very well, my present legal representative was here while Brian was here as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, your legal representative at present confirmed to me and I have no reason to doubt that that she was only appointed in August last year. She showed me a document - can I have a copy of that please? With your permission could I just ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm that your present legal representative was appointed in August last year, can you recall that or not?

MR NOSENGA: No, I don't recall that.

MR LOWIES: So if that is the situation, surely by then you must have already applied for amnesty before that? Why would she say to you she's finalising your documentation? The date that she showed me was the 17th August?

MR NOSENGA: Would you please repeat the question?

MR LOWIES: She said to me and she now showed the document indicating that she's been appointed 17th August 1998 by the Legal Aid Board. The question arising from that, how could she assist you with the finalising of your amnesty application and require of you to fill in documents in that regard as you said just before the lunch adjournment?

MR NOSENGA: She did come to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, would the person please who has the cell phone please try and switch it off otherwise it is interrupting us here? Yes?

MR LOWIES: Your answer?

MR NOSENGA: She did come to me and she took a statement, I don't know what she means when she says she only came in 1998 but she is the one who came and said she was going to represent me in this case.

MR LOWIES: I agree with that, she may have done that but we're not talking on representation, we're talking about your application for amnesty and please don't confuse the two. Now regarding the application for amnesty ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, in fairness to this witness, he's told us repeatedly, I think the record speaks for itself in this regard, that he's told us repeatedly that when these hearings started he had already made the application for amnesty and he has also told us that when Ms Tanzer came to visit him, wherever that was, she explained to him that she was there for the purposes of assisting him with an application for amnesty. I mean the record speaks for itself in this regard, what that assistance entailed with the pursuant application which had already been launched, one doesn't know, the witness cannot read and write, he can't tell us which of these documents, you know, he completed. You can't be debating this matter with the witness. The record speaks for itself here, his evidence stands.

MR LOWIES: Thank you. However, there is one thing that concerns me from what you said, Mr Nosenga, and that is she was the only person who requested you to sign an application for amnesty?

MR LAX: Mr Lowies, with the greatest of respect, he used the word form, he used the word statement, he used the word application, interchangeably in answering your questions about those things. You never clarified the matter, I know the man's illiterate so I'm not going to get picky about it but really, do you seriously expect an illiterate man to know what documents he signed?

MR LOWIES: No Mr Chairman, but my questioning is to ensure whether that was the only application lodged. Now there he can from what people told him the purpose is, he can give an opinion and that is the nature of the cross-examination.

MR LAX: Except to say...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: When I clarified these issues with him because I asked him I think whether these persons who came to see him, whether at Leeuhof or at Leeukop, did any one of them require of him to sign a document and his answer "I cannot recall, I may well have" but the only person that he says he clearly recalls requiring her to sign a document was Ms Tanzer. I think that's what the evidence says.

MR LOWIES: Correct, thank you. 

&#9;Now Mr Nosenga, one thing is clear though, if you signed a document you would now that this is my signature if it is presented to you, not so?

MR NOSENGA: Yes if they can produce the papers maybe I can try.

MR LOWIES: No the question is simple, I will show you some documents just now but listen to the question first. The question is simple, if I show you a document and ask you whether you signed this, you would be able to see this is my signature, not so?

MR NOSENGA: Yes maybe if you can produce these documents.

MR LOWIES: Well you were asked yesterday and I would like to show you certain documents and I'm referring to Exhibit R in this regard. We've got on record today that you've admitted that page 6 was signed by you. Look at the signature only which Ms Tanzer has pointed out with her finger to you. That's yours?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I am the one who signed here.

MR LOWIES: Because you know your signature and you can say "that's mine" correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes. 

MR LOWIES: Now we have another document which I'd like to show you, and in the sequence of my documents the next signature which may appear to be yours but you denied yesterday is on page 14. Ms Tanzer again points you to the correct place. Oh sorry, 13. With your permission may I rephrase Chairman? With your permission may I just retract the question and rephrase?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes indeed.

MR LOWIES: Sorry Sir, I made a mistake. The first document thereafter is page 13. Ms Tanzer again will show you a signature. You've denied that that is yours. Look at her finger?

MR NOSENGA: I do see that but that is not my handwriting.

MR LOWIES: Okay.

MR NOSENGA: It's not even legible.

MR LOWIES: I have a better copy, hers is not good, I have a better copy.

MR NOSENGA: I did mention that I might have signed other papers but this is definitely not my handwriting.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, you are not being asked how many documents you signed, you're simply asked to tell us whether the signature which occurs at page 13 of Exhibit R is your signature?

MR NOSENGA: No.

MR LOWIES: And you say it because you know your own signature, correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: Page 14, Ms Tanzer will again show you with her finger, point you to a signature appearing on page 14. You said yesterday it's not your signature. Do you confirm today?

MR NOSENGA: No, this is my signature. Yes this is mine, it's written Nosenga Matanzima.

MR LOWIES: Now you say it is yours.

MR NOSENGA: Yes, here.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the answer?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, I am the one who signed here.

ADV SIGODI: Mr Lowies, I wonder if - I don't know if my notes are hundred percent correct but if I remember well, yesterday he was not asked about the signature on page 14, he was asked about the signature on page 15?

MR LOWIES: With the greatest of respect, I think I made a mistake here and I must apologise, I think you are correct, Chair. I apologise. 

&#9;Mr Nosenga, it was put to you and I apologise to you as well, that you said yesterday it was signature but apparently it's not, you were not even asked about page 14.

&#9;Then Mr Nosenga, page 15, again Ms Tanzer will indicate to you an application for amnesty and the signature. Is that your signature? Look at where she's pointing to.

MR NOSENGA: Is this the Stofberg one? This is not how I sign, this is not how I write.

MR LOWIES: It's not the Stofberg one in any case, but nevertheless, then there's a letter which starts at page 16 and continues onto page 17. Again Ms Tanzer will point you right at the place where a signature appears. Is that yours?

MR NOSENGA: That is not my signature. There's only Matanzima written in that space and somewhere else they've written Nosenga Matanzima.

ADV SIBANYONI: Excuse me, is that word Matanzima - was that word Matanzima written by you or not?

MR NOSENGA: I think the statement was made in court but I do not remember. This letter was written in court but I do not remember. It is possible that I may have written it.

CHAIRPERSON: Now where does that leave us are you saying that you signed the letter at page 17 or you could have signed it? 

MR NOSENGA: It is possible that I signed it because this was written in court.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, do I understand you correctly, is your evidence not that you have a specific way in fixing your signature to documents and this is not the manner in which you do it?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Now I'd like you to just look at it finally and just give us a final opinion as to whether or not this is your handwriting, not signature, handwriting and I'm referring only to the place where Matanzima is written. Again Ms Tanzer points out the place to you.

MR NOSENGA: What I'm saying is I do not dispute that I may have written that.

MR LOWIES: Now the next page that I'd like you to turn to and again a request from you, your opinion, it's page 22. This your handwriting? I see there are two places where the name Matanzima appears, is that your handwriting at the bottom of the page?

MR NOSENGA: I don't see this clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, would you just speak up please, I can't here you.

MR NOSENGA: What is written here is illegible.

MR LOWIES: I'll give you a better copy which is available, have a look at this one and see there are two places?

MR NOSENGA: It is possible that I may have written that word Matanzima.

MR LOWIES: On both occasions?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying that it is possible that I may have written it.

MR LOWIES: Now yesterday you denied it? Sorry, I retract. If you could just bear with me please Chair?

MR LAX: Mr Lowies, it wasn't put to him yesterday at all. The only pages that were put to him yesterday were 6, 13, 15 and 17.

MR LOWIES: I'm indebted to the Committee. Now Chair, I've compared notes and the way I see it is that he said that he did sign this statement, it was put to him at a later stage.

MR LAX: Yes at a later stage, quite right.

MR LOWIES: But still, there was some confusion I must say.

&#9;Now you will recall that the whole issue about your statements so forth arose whilst I was still busy putting to you the discrepancies in your version and I put to you it's riddled with inconsistencies and the second point that I would like you to comment on is the following. You first led us to believe that you would never have disclosed the Sebokeng attack up until today had it not been for the fact that you were tortured by the police. Do you still agree with me?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I do.

MR LOWIES: But yet in this case you will come forward out of your own accord, no threats made, correct or not?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And Mr Nosenga, on your own version you have also committed acts of theft before, correct? Stealing cars, breaking into shops and houses, correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And when you were tortured on your version by the police you never conveyed to them that you broke into motor vehicles, stole cars, broke into shops, stole motor vehicles etc, or did you?

MR NOSENGA: No I did not.

MR LOWIES: Why not?

MR NOSENGA: I would have not told them unless they had arrested me for it just like they did in Parys.

MR LOWIES: But in Parys you were arrested on a different charge yet you confess to murder?

MR NOSENGA: I confessed to it because I was tortured. When I was arrested in Parys it was for a stolen vehicle. 

MR LOWIES: Who arrested you?

MR NOSENGA: I do not know those police officers, they were patrolling officers.

MR LOWIES: Who tortured you?

MR NOSENGA: It was Havenga, Captain Havenga and others.

MR LOWIES: Can you mention the names of any others?

MR NOSENGA: They were white people who used to work with Black officers at Leeukop.

MR LOWIES: Was Peens one of them?

MR NOSENGA: Peens tortured me when I was in Vereeniging Police Station, he was not present when I was being tortured by the others.

MR LOWIES: Why did Peens torture you?

MR NOSENGA: He said if I ever divulged information with regards to the attacks that were happening in the Vaal Triangle they would kill me, including that one of Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: When did he torture you like this? Before or after the arrest on the murder charges?

MR NOSENGA: It was after I had been charged.

MR LOWIES: Did Chaka torture you?

MR NOSENGA: Yes they were all involved in threatening me not to divulge information I had about the attacks in the Vaal Triangle. 

MR LOWIES: Did Rooikop torture you?

MR NOSENGA: No he did not it was only Peens and Chaka.

MR LOWIES: And Danie, did he torture you?

MR NOSENGA: No.

MR LOWIES: Now how did it happen that they tortured you? Did they just come to you out of the blue and say you mustn't talk or what happened?

MR NOSENGA: They came to me and they told me that if I ever mentioned the Vaal Triangle incidents I would be killed. I was at the Vereeniging Police Station.

MR LOWIES: Why were you there?

MR NOSENGA: It was the murder and robbery unit who were taking me to that Vereeniging Police Station.

MR LOWIES: But for what purpose?

MR NOSENGA: I do not know.

MR LOWIES: Were you already convicted?

MR NOSENGA: I was still attending trial, the trial was still in progress at that time.

MR LOWIES: So whilst the trial was in progress in the Supreme Court you were taken to Vanderbijlpark?

MR NOSENGA: They took me to Vereeniging, from there they transferred me to Leeukop and from there I was taken to Vereeniging, from there I went to Leeukop and from there I was transferred to Meyerton.

MR LOWIES: For what purpose?

MR NOSENGA: I do not know because I was being tortured and being made to point out the spots where I had committed these offences.

MR LOWIES: And it's then that Peens came to you whilst in custody?

MR NOSENGA: I do not remember the time. He came to Vereeniging, he was in Chaka's company, I think they were driving a Sierra but I do not remember the exact time.

MR LOWIES: You said you were tortured to make pointings out, or not?

MR LAX: He didn't say that, he said - is that correct - he said I don't know, being tortured and made to point out where these events occurred, so he did actually say that, you're quite right.

MR LOWIES: Now where - what was the reason, what did you have to point out?

MR NOSENGA: It was Captain Havenga and them who informed me that I should take them to the spots where I had shot people and also point out where I stayed in KwaMadala Hostel.

MR LOWIES: And this already started after your hearing in the Supreme Court or not?

MR NOSENGA: My case was in progress in Leeukop. It was at the regional court.

MR LOWIES: Were you convicted in the regional court on murder, on these murder charges for which you're applying for amnesty?

MR NOSENGA: I was convicted in the Supreme Court for murder and attempted murder charges.

MR LOWIES: No, there's some confusion then, what was the situation regarding the hearing in the regional court, what were you charged with there?

MR NOSENGA: My case was transferred to ...(indistinct) where they transferred it to Vereeniging.

MR LOWIES: What was the nature of the charges at the regional court?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the position Mr Lowies, that he appeared in the regional court in connection with the charges and he was subsequently arraigned for trial in the High Court? Well is that right Mr Nosenga?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You appeared in the Regional Court in connection with the same charges but you were only convicted by the High - your case was subsequently transferred to the High Court where you were convicted?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and was this after the Boipatong Massacre?

MR NOSENGA: Yes it was after, I was not arrested on the same date because the Sebokeng incident took place on the 15th and I was only arrested in 1993. 

CHAIRPERSON: Yes indeed and I understand your evidence, once you'd been tortured the police wanted you to tell them the role that you had played in the Sebokeng attacks?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, did they also enquire from you about the role that you played in Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: No, I am the one who ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You told the police that you were also involved in the Boipatong matter?

MR NOSENGA: No, I did not inform them.

CHAIRPERSON: And they didn't ask you about that?

MR NOSENGA: No, they did not ask me. The people who were investigating the Sebokeng issue only enquired about that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: No but who raised the Boipatong matter with you?

MR NOSENGA: It was Peens and them in Vereeniging. Please repeat the question?

CHAIRPERSON: What was said about Boipatong, what did the police say to you about Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: They said if I mentioned their names and implicated them in the Boipatong matter they would kill me.

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat that again and speak loudly?

MR NOSENGA: They said if I ever tried to divulge information about Boipatong they would kill me, they said in Vereeniging.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes so they threatened to kill you if you mentioned what happened in Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How did the Boipatong issue come up?

MR NOSENGA: They knew that I was an IFP member staying at KwaMadala Hostel and they knew people like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR LOWIES: So do I understand you correctly, you are being tortured to go and point places out. Whilst this is going on you are tortured by other police not to tell about the Boipatong Massacre or not?

CHAIRPERSON: I do not know what you want me to say because I already stated that I was tortured by police, Captain Havenga and I did not discuss the Boipatong issue with those people, I do not understand what you are asking me about.

MR LOWIES: No, everything you will recall started off by you saying you were tortured by Peens and Chaka?

MR NOSENGA: Yes they did torture me at Vereeniging Police Station. The people who tortured me before and who insisted that I take them to the spots where I had killed or shot at people were Captain Havenga and others.

MR LOWIES: Now did they torture you at the same place and the same time more or less, being Vereeniging and being the same time whilst you are held at Vereeniging, same period of time?

MR NOSENGA: Havenga and them would take me and torture me at Hoorkop Police Station. Chaka and Peens tortured me at Vereeniging Police Station.

MR LOWIES: But everything started off by my wanting to know why were you taken to Vereeniging Police Station and I thought it was to point places out as well, am I wrong in that perception?

MR NOSENGA: I do not know why I was transferred to these many police stations, I do not know why I was being taken to all these police stations.

MR LOWIES: Now Mr Nosenga, in the drive by shootings, I think those were the Boipatong matters, sorry my mistake, the Sebokeng matters, were there any policemen involved in those?

MR NOSENGA: I do not remember the police being involved in that, we were the people who shot at the people. I do not remember the police being present on that occasion, it was us who went out and shot at these people in Sebokeng. You have asked me this question before.

MR LOWIES: Why did you go out shooting ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why were the police not there, why did they go out shooting? I mean he says "we from the hostel went out to shoot, I don't recall seeing the police."? Now what is the question?

MR LOWIES: The part that he didn't see the police I didn't hear so I thought my question's clear. But I can rephrase it.

&#9;Now why did you go out to shoot the people at Sebokeng.

MR NOSENGA: The command was issued by Prince Zulu.

MR LOWIES: Why did he say so, do you know, what was his reason, what did he say?

MR NOSENGA: At that point we had been driven out of the township therefore we were residing at the hostel, that is why we had to go out and attack.

MR LOWIES: Did you at that stage know about police involvement in these drive by shootings or not?

MR NOSENGA: In every township there were police patrols and if there were gunshots being fired they would hear about it, they would know that people were being shot at.

MR LOWIES: Maybe I should rephrase then. Do you allege police complicity in the drive by shootings for which you were convicted?

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, I don't know if I'm not hearing him correctly, did he say that they would drive - which area are you referring to? Sebokeng?

MR LOWIES: Sebokeng.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what is the answer Mr Nosenga?

MR NOSENGA: I understand his question. My response is in every township there would be police present but what I'm saying is that it was we as residents of the hostel who went out to attack.

CHAIRPERSON: I think his question was directed at establishing whether the police also took part in the shooting at Sebokeng. That's what you wanted to find out?

MR NOSENGA: No I do not remember that.

MR LOWIES: And if I talk about drive by shootings the cases on which you were convicted were drive by shootings, correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: So in all those cases where you were involved, to your knowledge there was no police involved, correct?

MR NOSENGA: I did state before that when we went out to shoot I did not see any policemen. We drove by the police station on the way back to the hostel.

MR LOWIES: Did they assist you in the drive by shootings in any manner, did they incite you to do so in any manner?

MR NOSENGA: Sir, with regards to the Sebokeng drive by shooting they were not involved but they were implicated in many instances in the Vaal Triangle.

CHAIRPERSON: We've heard that, what he wants to find out is, we know that they did not take part in the shooting in Sebokeng when you were there, but what he wants to find out is to your knowledge and if you don't know, you say so, to your knowledge did the police assist you in connection with the shooting in Sebokeng?

MR NOSENGA: No, I don't remember.

MR LOWIES: But if they did you would have known because it's something extraordinary, not so?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I would have known if they had played a role.

MR LOWIES: So now we can deduct they did not?

MR NOSENGA: With regards to Sebokeng they did not take part.

MR LOWIES: Were you a friend of Mr Victor Kezwa?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: Were you part of his gang?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Was Kezwa involved in the drive by shootings, the ones for which you were convicted?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: You did not tell the police he was involved, did you?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I was afraid to say so because the way police who worked in collusion with Inkatha, Victor Kezwa was known and he never used to spend time in prison, he would be arrested and released later so I only mentioned the others about the ...(indistinct).

MR LOWIES: So despite, now let me ask you this, did the police torture you to say who were involved in the drive by shootings with you?

MR NOSENGA: Yes they questioned me on who had been with me. It was Captain Havenga and others who were involved in torturing me.

MR LOWIES: And despite these acts of torture, you never conveyed to them that Mr Kezwa was involved?

MR NOSENGA: No, I did not mention Kezwa, I only mentioned Bapi Mswake.

MR LOWIES: But what I don't understand is, did you say in your amnesty application that Kezwa was involved in the drive by shootings? That is now for Sebokeng matter?

MR NOSENGA: Yes in my amnesty application I did mention that he was present.

MR LOWIES: If you could just bear with me Chairman? I'll revert to that question later, to that aspect later.

&#9;Now what was Kezwa's involvement in the Boipatong Massacre?

MR NOSENGA: I did not see him on the night of the attack, I last saw him during the day.

MR LOWIES: The day of the attack?

MR NOSENGA: Yes during the day of the 17th June, I didn't see him thereafter.

MR LOWIES: Did you see him after the drive by shootings of the 15th June '92?

MR NOSENGA: I said I last saw him on the 17th, I was with him when he attacked in Sebokeng on the 15th June and I last saw him on the 17th June during the day of that date.

MR LOWIES: I see what you're getting at but the point is now on the 15th, once everything has now been finalised, you return back to KwaMadala, thereafter did you see him again and I'm not talking about the 17th, I'm talking the same day.

MR NOSENGA: Yes I did see him.

MR LOWIES: What was he doing, was he just around, was he walking, was he in his room where he stays or what was the situation? Driving around?

MR NOSENGA: He was at the hostel.

MR LOWIES: And on the 16th, did you see him the next day, in other words after the shooting?

MR NOSENGA: I did see him on the 16th. 

MR LOWIES: And he was available the whole day?

MR NOSENGA: Sir I saw him on the 16th, he would sometimes leave so I don't know if he did leave on that day but I did see him at the hostel.

MR LOWIES: On more than one occasion on the 16th, or just on one occasion?

MR NOSENGA: I don't remember but I did see him.

MR LOWIES: You see I must put it to you that I have instructions and endeavouring to lay this before the Committee and call necessary witnesses, but Mr Kezwa was at that stage in custody, 16/17 April he was in custody? June, my mistake, June.

MR NOSENGA: I said I last saw him on the 17th during the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but Mr Lowies, are your instructions that Mr Kezwa was in custody as from the 15th June?

MR LOWIES: He was already in custody.

CHAIRPERSON: On the 15th June.

MR LOWIES: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You see what Mr Lowies is saying that according to his instructions, Victor Kezwa was already in prison about the 15th June.

MR LOWIES: As a matter of fact I think he was already late April in custody and he was released after the 29th June. He was held in terms of the emergency regulations.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you understand what is being put to you?

MR NOSENGA: Yes ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: No, what he says he was already in prison by the 15th.

MR NOSENGA: Yes but I last saw him on the 17th.

CHAIRPERSON: You saw him on the 15th?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I did see him on the 15th.

CHAIRPERSON: With you with him at the drive by shooting?

MR NOSENGA: Yes. That vehicle was driven by Itswe.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see him on the 16th?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I did see him.

CHAIRPERSON: And you saw him on the 17th?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, during the day.

MR LOWIES: So I must put it to you that you're a blatant liar and you don't care who you implicate in matters because ...(intervention)

MR NOSENGA: I am not lying.

MR LOWIES: You never before mentioned before the fact that Kezwa was involved in the drive by shooting, you did not mention it during your hearing or during investigation?

MR NOSENGA: As I said before I was afraid to mention his name, that is how I came about to mention Babi Mswake.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say Mswake and who?

MR NOSENGA: Mswake and Babi.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they take part in the shooting?

MR NOSENGA: No they did not, I was just trying to get the police stop.

CHAIRPERSON: So in order to defend yourself, you simply pointed out to completely innocent people?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: So who were completely innocent, give us all the names of the people that you pointed out as being involved?

MR NOSENGA: I did say that it was Babi and Mswake.

MR LOWIES: Were they the only innocent ones falsely accused by yourself?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: So were they also convicted? What happened to them, were they tried?

MR NOSENGA: They were tortured and they were charged.

ADV SIGODI: And what was the outcome?

MR NOSENGA: No they were released in Sebokeng at the Sebokeng Court.

MR LOWIES: Did you ever speak to them afterwards, after their release?

MR NOSENGA: No I only spoke to Jabu.

MR LOWIES: So are you not implicating Peens and the others in a similar manner that you have implicated Mswake and Babi just because you don't care?

MR NOSENGA: No, I do not implicate them. I have just explained what happened in Boipatong.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the one Peens and Chaka came to you in Vereeniging, the only thing what they said was that if you reveal what happened in Boipatong they will kill you?

MR NOSENGA: That is what they said.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the only thing that they said when they visited you in Vereeniging?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that's what I heard.

CHAIRPERSON: They were speaking to you Mr Nosenga, so don't tell me that that's the only thing you heard. Is that the only thing they said to you? They were speaking to you were they not?

MR NOSENGA: That is what they told me that if I divulge information about Boipatong they would kill me, they said I should not reveal that information.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all they said and thereafter they left?

MR NOSENGA: Yes after that they left.

MR LOWIES: And was that the end of their story, the end of their contact with you regarding Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, I last saw them in Vereeniging.

MR LOWIES: And you only saw them in Vereeniging once or more than once?

MR NOSENGA: I recall them telling - arrived on one occasion and they informed me that if I divulged information about Boipatong they would kill me.

MR LOWIES: That's all they did?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is what they did.

MR LOWIES: But your evidence earlier on was that they tortured you, now they just threatened you, what is the truth now?

CHAIRPERSON: I think in fairness to the witness, she made a difference between Captain Havenga did to him and what Peens did and I think the Zulu word that he used insofar as Peens is concerned was "Ugshugumesa" as opposed to ...(indistinct) referring to what Havenga said, is that right?

MR NOSENGA: Havenga and them tortured me with electric shocks.

MR LOWIES: And Peens?

MR NOSENGA: They threatened me that I should never divulge information about Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: To cut a long story short, you were never assaulted or tortured by Peens? Never ever in your life?

MR NOSENGA: That is what they said, they said if I ever mentioned Boipatong I'll be killed.

MR LOWIES: No but that's not the question, the question is, is it your version that you were never ever tortured or assaulted by Peens as opposed to threatened?

MR NOSENGA: They threatened me but they did not torture me. The people who tortured me were Havenga and the other police officers.

MR LOWIES: And then Chaka himself, he never tortured or assaulted you?

MR NOSENGA: No he just threatened me.

MR LOWIES: And Rooikop did he ever in his life - wait - did he ever in his life threaten you? I'm talking about threats?

MR NOSENGA: I said Rooikop did not speak to me. He did not say anything at Vereeniging, it was only Peens and Chaka who talked to me then.

MR LOWIES: Were you ever assaulted or tortured in any manner at any time by Rooikop or where he was present?

MR NOSENGA: I have responded to that question before, I just did before that Rooikop has never tortured me.

CHAIRPERSON: No, in his presence?

MR NOSENGA: No I do not remember, I remember him being at Boipatong only.

MR LOWIES: So you were never present or according to you he was never present when you were tortured?

MR NOSENGA: I don't remember him being present.

MR LOWIES: When did you meet Chaka for the first time?

MR NOSENGA: I knew him from the Grambies, he was residing at Zone 6 at Sebokeng and from there he went to live in Vanderbijlpark.

MR LOWIES: Did he ever arrest you?

MR NOSENGA: Please repeat that question?

MR LOWIES: Were you ever arrested by Mr Chaka?

MR NOSENGA: I do not remember well, maybe he picked me up from Parys but I don't remember him arresting me.

MR LOWIES: So you know Chaka from before the Boipatong Massacre?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: It would seem to me then that at least pertaining to Chaka, that he was involved in the investigation of the drive by shooting?

MR NOSENGA: I do not know, what I know is that Havenga who was the person who handled the investigation, I did not see Chaka, I did not know about him. There were many incidents that occurred in Sebokeng but the person who handled my Sebokeng case was Havenga.

MR LOWIES: The reason why I'm asking is, in one of your affidavits you state the following and I would just like to check the correctness with you. Page 20 of Exhibit R paragraph 14, Mr Chairman. I quote:

&#9;"I knew Chaka because he once came to fetch from Parys Police Station where I had been arrested for car theft. Chaka took me to Vereeniging Police Station where I was kept for two weeks before taken to court and released."

MR NOSENGA: I did say that the one person who came to fetch me from Parys was Chaka, I was not seeing him for the first time, I knew him from Zone 6, Sebokeng not that he was seeing me for the first time in Parys.

MR LOWIES: You see the reason why I'm asking you this further is contradictory slightly to what you say because it appears from paragraph 14 that the first time that you met him or the reason why you met him was because he once came to fetch you from the police station and that was why you knew him, according to this statement. Nothing in this statement stating that I know him because I know also where he resides and I saw him there. Can you maybe explain this?

MR NOSENGA: Maybe it's the problems with the interpretation. I am saying I knew Chaka at the time when he was residing in Zone 6 where he was a Green Beans or a member of the Green Beans. Yes it is Chaka who fetched me from Parys. Green Beans are the Municipality Police who would later on graduate to become members of the South African Police.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, when did you meet Mr Peens for the first time? Very first time?

MR NOSENGA: He usually arrested me, I saw him around the hostel or at the hostel in the presence of ...(indistinct)

MR LOWIES: Now you have to explain ...(intervention)

MR NOSENGA: I saw him in the presence of Gatese during the day at the hostel.

MR LOWIES: No but you said he usually arrested me, what do you mean by that?

MR NOSENGA: He would arrest me and I would be released but I used to see him, I saw him in the presence of Gadise in the hostel.

MR LOWIES: No but let's talk about these arrests of you. When were you first arrested by Peens and for what?

MR NOSENGA: I cannot remember well, it pertained to a vehicle.

MR LOWIES: And on how many occasions were you arrested by Peens?

MR NOSENGA: Could have been twice or once.

MR LOWIES: It must be more than once because you said he usually arrested me. Think again?

MR NOSENGA: I think I made a mistake. He arrested me for the first time and arrested me after some time, I cannot recall exactly when.

MR LOWIES: Now the first time that you were arrested you say you think it was in connection with a motor car. The second time? What was it in connection with?

MR NOSENGA: It was robbery.

MR LOWIES: And this all happened prior to Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: I was still staying in the township at the time before I had actually went to the hostel.

MR LOWIES: Rooikop, when did you meet him for the first time?

MR NOSENGA: I started to know him when we attacked Boipatong in the evening on the 17th, I saw him at the veld near Serela.

MR LOWIES: Danie, when did you meet him for the first time?

MR NOSENGA: I saw him at an Inkatha meeting at the hostel. He had come with Themba Khosa.

MR LOWIES: When was that? In June 1992 or not?

MR NOSENGA: Yes it was in June, even though I cannot recall the month.

MR LOWIES: How many times after that did you see him? I'm talking about Danie?

MR NOSENGA: I saw him at the hostel meeting and saw him at the time when we were attacking Boipatong that evening of the 17th June.

MR LOWIES: Did Peens torture you in connection with the motor car theft case?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, one could not have escaped torture from Peens. Even though I cannot remember exactly as what happened in my case but one could not have escaped torture from these people.

MR LOWIES: I'm talking about Peens, you should not blame Peens for stuff, things that other people did, I'm talking about Peens, did Peens torture you in connection with the motor car theft, yes or no?

MR NOSENGA: Yes because he is the one who was in charge of the group, he was torturing me.

CHAIRPERSON: Peens, did he torture you?

MR NOSENGA: Yes he did pertaining to the stolen vehicle that's when they put a tube on me and applied some electric shock on me, they put something on my nails, on my fingers.

CHAIRPERSON: Who else was present when Peens tortured you?

MR NOSENGA: There were many other people with whom I was arrested, they too were being tortured.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, you say Peens, you've described how Peens tortured you, who else was, you know?

MR NOSENGA: Other police who were present were Chaka. There's one other police called Abe.

CHAIRPERSON: Rooikop, was he there?

MR NOSENGA: Yes he was present but he did not lay his hand on me.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you told us a minute ago that Peens and Chaka had never tortured you before that wasn't correct was it?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I think I made a mistake because he did not ask me about Peens, he asked me as to when I started to know Peens and Chaka and I explained to him as to how I came to know them and where he resided. He did not explain it to me accordingly.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, you are telling lies. I specifically asked you did Peens ever torture you. You said no. Now we hear one could not have escaped torture by Peens. Those two statements cannot both be the truth. What is the truth?

MR NOSENGA: You did not ask me as to that, you asked me where I knew or met Peens for the first time. He did not torture me when we discussed or when I was being questioned about the Boipatong incident.

MR LOWIES: I beg to differ with you Sir, my colleagues all nod in confirmation that you said you were never in your life tortured and I like this expression "never in my life" and I used it in connection with Peens as well and you said never ever. You are telling lies.

MR NOSENGA: I am saying Peens tortured me before I actually went to the hostel at the time when I was still staying in the township. This pertained to a vehicle, nobody could not have known Peens or should I say people around the township knew Peens.

MR LOWIES: Another aspect, I also asked you were you ever in your life tortured where Rooikop was present and you said no. Now we hear that he was present during the arrest of the motor vehicle, of yourself of the motor vehicle theft?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying Rooikop was present, I did not say he tortured me, he did not torture me. This gentleman is trying to protect the image of the IFP.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, would you please listen to the question and just answer the question correctly? You will recall that a series of questions were asked of you in connection with being tortured by the police. Peens, Rooikop and Chaka, and I clarified the question to you saying the question is were you ever tortured at any stage in the presence of Rooikop, not that Rooikop tortured you, that question was put to you and your answer was no?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, I said no.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: But then that was then a lie because we now hear that in the motor car theft case he was present, not so?

MR NOSENGA: Yes they were present, he was present but he did not torture me. He did not torture me, I was tortured by Peens. That was before I actually went to KwaMadala Hostel, I was still staying in the township. I am not telling lies, I cannot tell lies before the TRC.

MR LOWIES: Let's just check. Did Peens torture you in connection with the robbery case?

MR NOSENGA: I said it's a robbery and a vehicle.

MR LOWIES: The way I understood it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, is the position this, Peens and Chaka have tortured you before?

MR NOSENGA: They threatened me at the Vereeniging Police Station.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we know that, we've dealt with that but they've tortured you at some stage?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, Peens using the tube?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: This was in connection with robbery is it, was this in connection with the robbery?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: But I thought and you can assist me in this regard, that you were arrested on two occasions by Peens, one for robbery and one for motor car theft? Is that correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that's what I said.

MR LOWIES: Right and the arrests were at different places, different times, correct?

MR NOSENGA: Correct.

MR LOWIES: And the first one for which you were arrested was the motor car theft, correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: The second one for the robbery, you were also tortured by Peens, is that correct?

MR NOSENGA: Correct.

MR LOWIES: And the second occasion, that is now in connection with the robbery. What did he do to you?

MR NOSENGA: He applied some electric shocks on me using a tube to blind me or to cover my face.

MR LOWIES: Yes, anything else?

MR NOSENGA: He applied electric shocks on me and after that he put a tube over me. He could not - Peens would not arrest just simply arrest you without torturing you.

MR LOWIES: Now I understand if I'm not mistaken that Peens and Chaka used to work together? Is that correct?

MR NOSENGA: No, they were not working together. But the one person who tortured me who was Peens. Rooikop was working with them and others.

MR LOWIES: So is your evidence then that pertaining to the motor car theft case, Chaka was not involved, he was not present, he didn't do anything to you? Or did he also take part in the assault?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying Chaka was present but he did not torture me, the one person who was torturing me was Peens.

CHAIRPERSON: This thing is taking us to some point, let's get to the point now. I think we've canvassed this aspect sufficiently.

MR LOWIES: You see, the reason why I'm asking you all these questions, Sir, is I'm putting it to you herein lies your motive to implicate Peens falsely. He had been involved in arrests previously and on your version he assaulted you?

MR NOSENGA: I would not implicate him, what reason do I have to implicate him?

MR LOWIES: I've just put it to you.

MR NOSENGA: Would you please repeat the question I did not get the question.

MR LOWIES: The question is simple. Because Peens arrested you previously, because on your version he tortured you before, you are placing him at the scene of the attack in Boipatong and you make him play a leading role.

MR NOSENGA: No, I am not implicating him falsely, I was present but even my legal counsel was not there that evening. You see you are trying to protect the IFP or he was trying to protect the IFP and the police at the time.

MR LOWIES: Who was trying to protect the police at the time?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying the manner in which you are asking me questions, you present yourself as if you're trying to cover up for the wrong deeds or should I say protect the leadership of the IFP and the police for what roles they played. I cannot come here to tell a lie.

MR LOWIES: Do you want to answer the question as to whether you have a motive to implicate Peens?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying that I cannot implicate Peens falsely, he was present when people were being massacred at Boipatong, I don't know him, I cannot implicate him wrongly or falsely. There are so many police that I know, why is it that I decided to pick Peens of all the police that I know.

MR LOWIES: Probably because you hate him the most?

MR NOSENGA: I do not hate any police. If the police are involved I will say so and if they are not involved I will also say so concerning the Boipatong Massacre. People are parentless today, people don't have families that are taking care of them today, they had lost their people or the members of the family who were taking care of them.

MR LOWIES: And they were killed by you?

MR NOSENGA: I was present, Inkatha and the police.

MR LOWIES: You killed people not so?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying I am not the only one, I am saying Inkatha and the police were present when people were being killed. Do you think I can kill 45 people single handedly? Well please clarify your question.

MR LOWIES: Sir, I have news for you, I'm not going to be drawn into a debate with you, but I want to put the following to you. You have shown a tendency on your own version to falsely implicate people. You've implicated Mswake and Bapi on your own version falsely before and there you didn't even have a motive. Comments?

MR NOSENGA: There is no one who is falsely implicated. If there are leaders of the IFP that I know, how would I implicate them?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, listen properly to the question. What is being put to you is that you are falsely implicating Peens in the Boipatong attack, you've denied that and then what is being put to you further is that in the past you have falsely implicated persons, that is Mswake and Bapi who have done nothing and because of that what is being put to you is that you have a tendency of just doing that, falsely implicating people and that is why today you are again falsely implicating Peens. What is your comment to that?

MR NOSENGA: No Sir, I cannot falsely implicate Peens. Yes I do not deny that I implicated Mswake and Bapi because of the torture at the hands of the police but I was not tortured when it comes to Peens, I am the one who volunteered the information. See I was present on the evening of the attack at Boipatong. Now I am seeing a pattern here as if the police and IFP are being protected. The TRC is meant for the divulsion of the truth.

MR LOWIES: Let's examine Mr Chaka. So you say on the first occasion where Peens tortured you on a motor car theft case he was present, is that correct?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying he tortured me at the time when I was still staying in the township. Chaka was present but he did not torture me. He tried to threaten me in Vereeniging but he did not torture me.

MR LOWIES: What was he doing being present at the time when you were arrested for motor car theft, I'm talking about Chaka, why was he there?

MR NOSENGA: He's a member of the murder and robbery unit. He did not torture me.

MR LOWIES: Was Peens also a member of the murder and robbery unit or was he at that stage?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: So Chaka and Peens belongs to the same unit?

Correct?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Now in the robbery case where you were tortured by Peens, what did Chaka do?

MR NOSENGA: He did not lay his hand on me I just saw him there, I cannot say he tortured me. The one person who was busy with me was Peens, not Chaka.

MR LOWIES: Rooikop, was he a member of the murder and robbery squad to your knowledge?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Danie, is he a member of the murder and robbery squad to your knowledge?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: Rooikop, was he present when you were assaulted by Peens in the first instance, the motor car theft case?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying he was present but he did not torture me.

MR LOWIES: What was his role, what was he doing whilst you were being tortured? I talking about Rooikop now.

MR NOSENGA: I cannot say he participated in any way, I do not want to commit myself. The one person who tortured me is Peens.

MR LOWIES: Was Rooikop present when you were tortured in the armed robbery case?

MR NOSENGA: You asked me that question and I answered it and I said that Rooikop was present at the police station in Vanderbijl but he did not tortured me, only Peens tortured me.

MR LOWIES: Let's make it clear, did he observe the torturing of you, Mr Rooikop, when Peens was so busy torturing you?

MR NOSENGA: I did see Rooikop as I was being tortured, he did not participate in the torture. He was present but he did not participate.

MR LOWIES: And Danie, was he present?

MR NOSENGA: These people are working together, yes they were present.

MR LOWIES: Now I may not have canvassed this with you so bear with me. Please be patient. Danie was present during the torturing of you in regard to the motor car theft case as well?

MR NOSENGA: Yes they were all there.

MR LOWIES: And also in the armed robbery case or in the robbery case, he was also present? I'm talking about Danie.

MR NOSENGA: I cannot say I saw him. I saw him when I was arrested for robbery.

MR LOWIES: Do you know any other policemen but for Peens,

Chaka, Danie and Rooikop belonging to the or being attached to the murder and robbery squad at the time?

MR NOSENGA: Yes there were some others but I cannot - I do not know their names. One other person that I can recall is Abe.

MR LOWIES: So you can recall Abe?

MR NOSENGA: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Besides those you do not know anybody else from the murder and robbery squad by their names?

MR NOSENGA: No, I don't want to tell a lie.

MR LOWIES: When did you meet Abe, before or after Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: I only started to know Abe when I was arrested for the vehicle.

MR LOWIES: So that is before Boipatong? No, no, no, it's after Boipatong, sorry.

MR NOSENGA: It was before I went to stay at the hostel, I was still staying at the township, I only knew him at the police station after the vehicle offence.

MR LOWIES: Now Mr Nosenga, what I'd like to put to you regarding the role players that you have heavily implicated the night before the attack is the following. We will prove that Mr Kezwa who you have implicated was physically in jail, could not have been there. You say that's a lie?

MR NOSENGA: I don't know about that, I saw Gadise, I don't know that he was in jail.

MR LOWIES: No, you would agree if he was in jail he could not have been there?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying I don't know, I saw him last on the 17th. I am saying that he was for example sentenced to four years he would not serve all the four years, he would just come and go.

MR LOWIES: You see the evidence of some of the other applicants were also at that time of Boipatong, Mr Kezwa was definitely in custody, at least three other applicants testified the same. So they're also lying?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying here yes Victor Kezwa was not present during the attack at Boipatong, I only saw him last during the day. We should not play house here.

MR LOWIES: I'm not sure what you're saying?

MR NOSENGA: We should not play house here, I am saying I saw Victor Kezwa last June the day of the 17th, I did not see him during the attack at Boipatong. You see, people died there. We should not waste people's time here at the TRC. Other legal counsel should be given a chance to ask questions.

MR LOWIES: I have to earn my money, Sir. No, be serious. I apologise too. 

CHAIRPERSON: You still have approximately 35 minutes.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair. 

&#9;Now Sir, the next question that I'd like to canvass with you pertains to your knowledge of the complicity of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished putting what you wanted to put to the witness? The only aspect you've put so far relates to Kezwa, is that the only aspect?

MR LOWIES: Sorry, I was going to turn to the next one.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, yes.

MR LOWIES: Hunter Ndhlovu, who is he and did you know him before?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I did, he stayed in Zone 7.

MR LOWIES: Was he part of Victor Kezwa's gang?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: You never implicated him when you were tortured by the police regarding the drive by shootings. Was he part of the drive by shootings?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct but I did not divulge their names.

MR LOWIES: But why did you give his name but chose to mention Mswake and Bapi?

MR NOSENGA: I was trying to avoid being tortured.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the answer?

MR NOSENGA: I am saying I implicated, falsely implicated Bapi and Mswake because I was trying to avoid being tortured.

MR LAX: The question was, why didn't you implicate Hunter Ndhlovu?

MR NOSENGA: I would not have given those names onto the police because they were known, those people were known.

MR LOWIES: So what difference would that make?

MR NOSENGA: I already stated before that they worked with the police, they would not be arrested for long. I do not know how else to explain it to you.

MR LOWIES: But they were your friends so it would be in your favour if they are not in custody for long? What is the point you're trying to make?

MR NOSENGA: It would have put me at a disadvantage, telling the police those names would not have ...(indistinct) an advantage, it would have done the opposite. If I had mentioned Victor Kezwa's name and the other person's name they would have not have been arrested along with me, I would have been the only one who would have been arrested because Victor Kezwa never spent even six months in prison after killing people. He had been sentenced for four years but he only spent six months.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is that person?

MR NOSENGA: Victor Kezwa.

MR LOWIES: But the point I'm making is so that's good for you because they are your friends, you don't want to see them in jail. What is the point you're making, why were you not conveying their names to the police?

MR LAX: Maybe I could put it a different way for you, Mr Lowies, are you not trying to say to him, why didn't you say "I'm a friend of Victor Kezwa and Hunter Ndhlovu and therefore you would not be arrested the same as them?"

MR LOWIES: Yes, much better put, I agree with the Chair.

&#9;Could you just answer the question then?

MR NOSENGA: I did not mention that they were my friends. It was difficult to mention Victor Kezwa's name because even if he would be arrested he would be released later.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't it a good reason therefore to implicate him because he would have been released in any event?

MR NOSENGA: I was not in a position to mention their names because thereafter I would not have been on good terms.

CHAIRPERSON: But if he learns that you had implicated him, he might harm you? Isn't that the fact of the matter?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you tell us?

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, I see you get angry when you talk about the IFP and my wanting to protect them. Why, why do you get angry?

MR NOSENGA: There is no truth within the IFP. An example is Ingandla, a person who was arrested and thereafter, after he had committed an offence the Chief Minister denied any knowledge of him or as he had been sent by him. That is what makes me angry because he unlike other leaders denies knowledge of his followers. The same goes for Themba Khosa as well.

MR LOWIES: So you're angry with Chief Minister and with Themba Khosa?

MR NOSENGA: That is so. They deny knowledge of something that they themselves said at the rally in Ulundi.

MR LOWIES: Do you hate them?

MR NOSENGA: I do not hate them, I hate their actions.

MR LOWIES: And you're still a member of the IFP you say? Are you serious?

MR NOSENGA: I said it before that I am still a member of the IFP because my presence here is because of the IFP, they ordered me to go kill people at Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: But you are here out of your own free will applying for amnesty, not so?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct, no one coerced me.

MR LOWIES: Mr Nosenga, I would like to check certain aspects with you pertaining to statements that you made for amnesty and I'd like to turn to page 1 of your application. Your first application you state that your date of birth is October 1993, that is yesterday you - I'm sorry it says October 1973, page 1 paragraph 5. Yet your evidence is that you do not know which month you were born correct?

MR NOSENGA: Yes, that is what I said.

MR LOWIES: If one has a look at page 18 of your sworn statement, you give a date as follows in paragraph 1:

&#9;"I was born on the 12th October 1973."

MR NOSENGA: I do not know about that, what I stated was I do not remember the month in which I was born.

MR LOWIES: Now this raises some interesting questions. The first aspect, do you deny that you told the person who took this statement that you born on the 12th October 1973?

MR NOSENGA: I said I was born in 1973 but I do not know the month. Maybe that person misunderstood me but that is not what I said.

MR LOWIES: But it's rather exact, it mentions two things. It mentions a day and a month, the 12th October. You say this person acted on a frolic of his own?

MR NOSENGA: Maybe that person did not hear me properly, I said that I did not know then, what would help to assist is to maybe get my birth certificate.

MR LOWIES: I see. Now in paragraph ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well are you - just before you go on - is the position therefore that you don't know how the date 12th October 1973 came to be written there?

MR NOSENGA: I do not remember, I gave the statement but I mentioned there that I do not remember the month that I was born.

CHAIRPERSON: You told the person who took the person who took the statement that you don't know when the month in which you were born?

MR NOSENGA: Yes but maybe we did not understand each other because there could have been a problem with the interpreter.

CHAIRPERSON: I see and similarly the date the 12th October, that you didn't give out either?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I did not.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry Mr Nosenga, do you have an I.D. document?

MR NOSENGA: No I do not.

MR LOWIES: So he could no have even got this from your identity document because you don't have one, correct?

MR NOSENGA: As I stated before, maybe the interpreter did not understand me properly because I did not mention the month.

MR LOWIES: Chairman, my attention is drawn to the hour, if this is an appropriate time?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) about the statements?

MR LOWIES: Okay, in this statement I think I will be another four or five hours at least.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon.

MR LOWIES: I said I think I could still be another four or five hours.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not serious Mr Lowies? You're not serious?

MR LOWIES: I'm not lying, I would not do that.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you're not serious. You cannot tell me that you're going to spend five hours on the statement?

MR LOWIES: Well not only the statement, what I'm saying is the events regarding the statement as well, so in other words what is said must then be checked against the events and the statement of course would be ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well in that event continue then.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Till what time to?

CHAIRPERSON: Well we'll adjourn at quarter past 4.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.

&#9;Mr Nosenga, in paragraph 9 of your statement, page 2, you were requested to do the following. Page 2 of Exhibit R.

MR LAX: You mean the form 1, not his statement.

MR LOWIES: Ja sorry.

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry to interrupt Mr Chair, may I please be excused just to make phone calls just to reschedule? Thank you.

MR LOWIES: And ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, we will rise at quarter past 4 so if it's quarter past 4, you don't have to come back. Okay.

MR LOWIES: Now first of all, it appears to me that this was the very first application for amnesty and that was whilst you were in Leeukop according to the date stamp at page 7 thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, do you know whether this was the first statement you made or not? Do you know whether this was the first application you made or not?

MR NOSENGA: I think the first person who took the first statement was Mongese at Leeukop.

MR LOWIES: Then let's get the following clear, Mongese only took one statement for one form on your behalf, correct? Ever?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: He just took a statement?

MR LOWIES: I brought in the question to include filling the forms yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well don't bother if that's not what the witness said.

MR LOWIES: No, that was a question. Sir, I don't want to take it further.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES: What I'm trying to find out from you, to break it up in two sections then, it is correct that the only person who took statements from you - sorry - is it correct that Mongese only took one statement from you ever or not?

MR NOSENGA: If I remember correctly, Mongese came to Medium C and that is where I made my statement.

MR LOWIES: And you never thereafter saw him again, did you? In your whole life?

MR NOSENGA: No I never saw him thereafter.

MR LOWIES: Now would you be able to tell us whether you know whether Mongese filled in any application on your behalf?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nosenga, do you know what an application is?

MR NOSENGA: Yes I did say that I did not know it.

MR LOWIES: Now did he say to you listen I'm going to file an application on your behalf for amnesty?

MR NOSENGA: No, he said he had come to take a statement with regards to Boipatong.

MR LOWIES: So where does he come from, did he say to you I'm from such and such an institution or what?

MR NOSENGA: No, he did not explain that to me.

MR LOWIES: And right at the outset he said to you I'm here for Boipatong, is that your evidence?

MR NOSENGA: Yes. I did not question him where he came from.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mongese come and see you of his own accord?

MR NOSENGA: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: You had no idea who sent him?

MR NOSENGA: I do not have knowledge thereof.

MR LOWIES: Sorry I may have interrupted you, may I proceed. I'm sorry I must apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: Bearing at mind at quarter past we have to wrap it up, we have to finish by quarter past 4.

MR LOWIES: I will do so Chair.

&#9;But surely, when a man just arrives there out of the blue you would ask him what are you there for but he himself tendered the fact that he is here regarding events of Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: Yes when he arrived in prison he enquired about me, he called for me and told me that he was from Johannesburg and he said I should provide him with information about what took place at Boipatong. 

MR LOWIES: And you're quite sure that he introduced Boipatong, you didn't speak of Boipatong first?

MR NOSENGA: Sir, I told you that Mongese arrived and he said that he was from Johannesburg and he wished to know about what happened at Boipatong at which time I told him.

MR LOWIES: Did you also talk to him regarding the drive by shootings at Sebokeng?

MR NOSENGA: Yes that is correct.

MR LOWIES: Which came up first, Sebokeng or Boipatong?

MR NOSENGA: If I remember correctly, I think it was Sebokeng. He questioned me about the Sebokeng incident first and then later on about the Boipatong incident.

MR LOWIES: And the impression that you got is he already knew that you were part of an attack in Boipatong, correct?

MR NOSENGA: I cannot say that he knew about it beforehand. ...(inaudible) for me, I'm just Nosenga, I cannot be in a position to claim that.

MR LOWIES: But you see the reason why I'm asking this is in paragraph 9 the date on which these incidents occurred is stated by you to be 1993. That is page 2 Chairman, paragraph 9(ii). How is this possible?

MR NOSENGA: As I stated before there may have been a problem with the interpretation. I mentioned that these incidents happened in 1992, not 1993.

MR LOWIES: Now what interpretation, what language did he speak?

MR NOSENGA: He spoke in English and there was an interpreter and the interpreter was a police officer.

MR LOWIES: So Mongese is not a Zulu.

MR NOSENGA: I do not know but I think the language is Xhosa.

CHAIRPERSON: What language did you speak to him?

MR NOSENGA: I spoke in Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Mongese?

MR NOSENGA: He spoke in English and there was an interpreter through whom we communicated.

MR LOWIES: But are you not Xhosa?

MR NOSENGA: No I'm not.

MR LOWIES: Whilst we're on this aspect pertaining to languages, I have a document here which I obtained from the police which states that when you did pointings out of the places where people were shot in the drive by shootings, spoke in Sotho and interpreter in the confession also interpreted from Sotho to Afrikaans?

MR NOSENGA: I do not know anything about that. I speak Zulu because my father is Zulu and my mother is Xhosa.

CHAIRPERSON: What is being put to you is that there are police documents amongst which there is a confession which indicates that you spoke through a Sotho speaking interpreter, you denied that?

MR NOSENGA: I spoke isiZulu. I am Zulu and I speak isiZulu and my mother is Xhosa. 

MR LOWIES: Can you speak Sesotho?

MR NOSENGA: Not well, I understand it here and there.

CHAIRPERSON: They did not use a sort of Sesotho interpreter when you made a confession?

MR NOSENGA: No, wherever I've been in prison, the prison authorities would inform me that I speak isiZulu.

MR LOWIES: Chair it's quarter past now, it's an appropriate time.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are those documents, are we going to see those documents? 

MR LOWIES: It's deep inside some of the others, millions of documents here.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay I'll see counsel now or tomorrow before we start?

MR BERGER: Could we ask that it's tomorrow morning, we have a consultation in Johannesburg at quarter past five.

MR LOWIES: I have a similar problem I would also appreciate it.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Alright, what time shall we see you, shortly just before we start round about, you know, around about ten to or five to.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We will rise now, we will start tomorrow at 9 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

