COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF PUBLIC VIOLENCE & INTTMIDA

TOKOZA COMMITTEE HELD AT PRETORIA

ON 2 AND 3 JUNE 1992

CHAIRMAN : ADV. M.N.S. SITHOLE

MEMBERS : MISS L. BAQWAMR B. TUCKER

VOLUME 60 (BLADSYE 4720 - 4801)

tv

VLOK RECORDINGS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS CCREG. NO. CK89/21241/23

CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Tuesday, 2 June 1992 and we go on with our inquiry. This morning, I think, Mr Pretorius, we are going to have argument. Is it not?MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.CHAIRMAN: Mr Pitman, we said you have the duty to begin.MR PITMAN: Yes, that is correct.CHAIRMAN: Right, could you commence, please, with your argument?

MR PITMAN: I would like to commence by raising a few general (10) points about the terms of reference and the powers of this Committee. This Committee is essentially appointed as a fact finding committee, but as has become apparent during the course of the inquiry into the alleged events of 8 and 9 April, cer­tain limitations on inquiry into those facts have necessarily been imposed, for various reasons which I think all the parties agree were proper restrictions arising from the conflict of interests which may result in subsequent civil or criminal actions and therefore notions such as generic evidence have become words dandied about this committee and I think that it (20) might be just as well to have a look at those words in general, before proceeding with my submissions, because at the end of the day this Committee will be required to make factual find­ings not in specific evidence, but on what this Committee has called generic evidence, background evidence, and so forth.

I think it is common cause that facts have got different meanings in law. For instance in a criminal court an fact is something which is proven beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil court a fact is that which is proven on a balance of probab­ilities and it will be my submission that in a Commission of (30)

this /...

K322.0GOLDSTONE KOMM1S3E 4 7 2 0 ' OPENING

THE COMMITTEE RESUMES ON 1992-06-07

this sort, where the public interest, the protection of the public interest is really the underlying cause of a committee of this kind sitting to enquire into facts, this Committee will be able to make findings of fact which are proven on a strong prima facie basis, because after all at the end of the day this Committee is seized with the task of making recommendations to the powers that be the State President, the Minister of Law and Order, whomever in order to come to grips with the problem of violence which permeates our society. It is my submission therefore that this Committee will be entitled to make factual (10) findings which are proven merely as strong prima facie factual evidence might support and it is my submission therefore that this Committee must take cognisance at the end of the day of what it will conclude have been proven facts.

What I am suggesting is that the burden of proof is a light one, because what is at stake here, is not the incarc­eration of any person, it is not the saddling with damages for delictual wrongs committed. It is the protection of society as a whole through the making of recommendations. It is a very low prejudice and I am sure it will be argued by the represent- (20) atives of the battalion that any findings made even on a light basis will be seen by the public to be very prejudicial, et cetera, et cetera. My submission is that those considerations are entirely irrelevant. What the public perception is, is an irrelevant consideration where the Committee seeks to protect society by making mere recommendations.

If one then looks at what the evidence, what prima facie case has been made on the evidence before this Committee, I submit that evidence which is not part of the record which has been made available to us, but which is of considerable (30)

importance /...

KXZ22GOIDSTONE KOMM1SSIE 4721 ARGUMENT

022 .4

importance to this Committee, where the background facts is set down in the affidavit of Miss Sally Seally which I understand has been made available to this Committee, and the annexures thereto which are largely affidavits or solemn declarations.Some of these documents are not sworn affidavits, but they appear to be statements in the nature of a solemn declaration falling under the Commission of Oaths Act, which provides for both affidavits formally attested to in terms of regulations and solemn declarations taken in front of a lawyer enquiring into events of 8 April. These are untested allegations before (10) the Committee, but nonetheless they are there and they set down what appears to be a course of conduct amounting to consider­able lawless excessive use of force on 8 April.

As I have indicated, these allegations have not been tested in cross-examination, for very good reasons. It is agreed by both parties that they were not to be tested in cross-examination, but those allegations gave rise to conces­sions made by the battalion that troops of that battalion had indeed used force amounting technically to acts of violence against members of Phola Park community on 8 and 9 April. (20)

It is my submission that in the face of that initial evidence placed before the Committee, corroborated also, I understand, by an in camera witness which this Committee heard on its own, completely untested by cross-examination or unheard by representatives of any party, but heard only by the Commit­tee, I put those three aspects of evidence before the Committee as setting out a strong basis to require Battalion 32 to justify its conduct on 8 April. When one makes concessions of violent action towards people, then one is obliged to explain.One attracts an onus to explain why. What in law justified (30)

such /...

GOLDSTONE KOMM3SSIE 4722 ARGUMENT

such acts of violence.My submission is that if one looks at the evidence led in

justification, be it generic evidence, be it particular evi­dence led by Lieutenant Ras who was on the ground that night, Captain Hermansen who was not on the ground, but who was in a tent somewhere distant attending to radio communications with people committing acts on the ground, then it is my submission that the battalion has signally failed to provide any justifi­catory evidence for violence of any nature committed against the inhabitants of Phola Park. This failure, if one looks over (10) all at the evidence given by the battalion, it is my submission that not one of the witnesses actually gave first hand evidence which would assist this Commission in making up its determin­ation as to whether those acts were justified.

Let us look at Captain Hermansen sitting in the radio room, the radio tent of that evening. His evidence as to why Lieutenant Greyvenstein was taken into Phola Park, is hearsay evidence. Where is Lieutenant Greyvenstein, why has he not been put before this Committee? It is said that Lieutenant Greyvenstein found himself in a situation which he could not (20) extricate himself from without deployment of further troops, until there were 75 or 70 troops armed with high velocity sharp point ammunition in a built up area of 30 000 squatters, all protected by mere pieces of corrugated iron. Now the battalion has led Captain Hermansen to explain what Lieutenant Greyven­stein should have explained.

One of the essential features of this event is that there*

was a troop build up where it was necessary to explain why there was a troop build up. None of these people were armed with normal riot control equipment. None of them had shotguns, (30)

none /__

K322.7GOLDSTONE KOMMISSIE 4723 ARGUMENT

none of them had tear gas, none of them had a gas mask, none of them had a baton, none of them had a shield. They had four magazines of 35 rounds of high velocity sharp point ammunition each. 70 times that, they had thousands and thousands of rounds of very dangerous equipment and this surely requires explanation. Where is Lieutenant Greyvenstein? Why does he not come and tell the Committee what actually happened, why he could not in perfectly standard military procedure, why he could not withdraw from that place that he found himself caught in a fire of people shooting at him?

It is not sustained in the cross-examination, I was not part of the cross-examination at that stage, but it is per­fectly standard military procedure and I am not leading expert evidence on the point, to suggest that there are standard military methods of retreating from a dangerous situation. You cover the people, while half of the people are withdrawing, you fire the odd shot at people who are firing at you. Then the people who are left in the front retreat and the other people cover them.

There are ways of getting out of a situation, instead of which two or three more battalions are deployed on that evening. There is no real explanation before this Committee why a troop build up to 70 well-armed soldiers had to be deployed on that evening.

That goes to the question of the firing of 200 rounds. That is what can be proven by way of re-issue of ammunition and I will argue in due course that that conduct in itself amounted to an excessive use of force in circumstances where it could not possibly be justified.

Then if you look at the remainder of the allegations, the (physical /...

GOLDSTONE KOMMLSSEE 4 724 ARGUMENT

physical force applied to the body, the person of numbers of people who claim to have been injured in this operation duringthe so-called "sweep" through Phola Park, once again the

\

witness called by the Battalion to explain that sweep, wasLieutenant Ras. This is a witness who spent 45 minutessearching for arms in a house. He was not on the ground whenthat sweep took place. He started on the ground and then he was otherwise occupied.

The allegations are that after this so-calle<f fire fight, the movement of the troops through that township resulted in the injury of a lot of people. Lieutenant Ras cannot testify to that. Lieutenant Van der Mescht cannot answer to that. He was also with Lieutenant Ras. in that house, searching for weapons at the time. The person who can answer that question, is Lieutenant Greyvenstein, once again not brought by Bat­talion 32. The whole of yesterday was available for further witnesses and yet a signal failure to produce a relevant witness. So far we have not really heard one signal witness who could testify first hand to the contentious moments of that operation.

If we stand back, that is an analysis of the witnesses called by the Battalion to explain what happened on the ground that evening. All hearsay evidence, all opinion evidence, all of them. Van Eeden says oh, this could not have happened, they could not have broken into a state of, they could not have assaulted people, because that would not have been in accord­ance with their military doctrine. They would have been in a line sweeping through the community. But Captain Hermansen was not there. How does he know what happened? The person who knew what happened during that sweep, was Lieutenant (

Grevvenstein /

K322.10GOLDSTONE KONfNOSSIE 4725 ARGUMENT

Greyvenstein, or one of the other platoon commanders. But Lieutenant Ras was otherwise engaged during that sweep. That was his evidence. He was not even there, he was in a building 45 minutes, searching for weapons during the critical phase of the alleged assault.

But if one now looks at the actual quality of those witnesses, I submit that there are major problems. Lieutenant Ras was superficially a plausible witness. If you look at the evidence he gave with regard to the single most important feature of that evening, namely why was force of the quantity (10) used, 200 rounds of high velocity sharp point ammunition, why was that fired into the community, we find Lieutenant Ras' evi­dence duplicitous and lacking in candour and honesty, because the first thing that Lieutenant Ras tells this Committee, is that he followed military doctrine. His evidence is littered with compliance with military doctrine. He sweeped through the community, that is military doctrine. Follow orders from Captain Hermansen. Why? Military doctrine.

Lieutenant Ras tells this Committee that on arrival and seeing these flashes coming out of the black, he puts two (20) tracers in the direction of those flashes and then the rest of the platoon carries on firing in that direction. That is in accordance with military doctrine, I have no doubt about that.But later, when pressed on the question of minimum violence and explain how this training that you alleged you have been given converting your conduct from that of a military task force to that of a civil police force, how that applied, then Lieutenant Ras comes and tells the Committee after he has given his evi­dence in chief, after he has been cross-examined by represen­tatives here, he comes back on another day and then he tells (30)

the /.. .

K322.llGOLD STONE KOMMISSIE 4 726 ARGUMENT

the Committee no, he was able to see this gentleman or this person illuminated by the flash of his rifle. He could see him standing against the door of the hut, a white door and he had phosphor on the sides of his rifle and he could pick that person off with one bullet.

Now that is a fundamental contradiction in the evidence of that witness and it goes to the heart of the dispute here, because the community, the complainants allege that there was just wild firing going on, there was no control over where 200 rounds were fired and this witness, who was brought to explain (10) how those rounds were fired, has fundamentally contradicted himself in this Committee by first of all explaining that he followed military doctrine to the book. Of that I think there can be no doubt, but this witness also came wearing the hat of ® Policeman and when it suited him, he then put on his police hat and said no, we have been given lectures on minimum vio­lence. I used minimum violence, I shot one bullet at this flash.

Forget the improbabilities, or the impossibilities of that story. If someone is shooting at you, you cannot see him for (20) long enough to get him in your sight so that while he is illuminated by his own shooting, you can see him sufficiently well to shoot him back with one round, or two rounds.

The probabilities are that he followed military doctrine.He put tracers in the direction of the shots and then he or­dered his troops to carry on firing in that direction. Very effective, no doubt, but that is not anywhere near complying with the rules of minimum violence, which we subsequently had debated in this committee room, and which I might say both Lieutenant Ras and Major Van Eeden was singularly unable and (30)

unhelpful /...

1022.12GOUDSTONE KOMM1SSDE 4727 ARGUMENT

unhelpful in informing this Committee what the contents of the rules of minimum violence were.

If one focuses on this question of minimum violence, really one of the essential questions that this Committee must deal with, is whether a battalion of soldiers who speak no local language, who are trained in military situations in Angola, where the concept of minimum violence has got no place whatsoever, where the concept of maximum fire power is the language of the soldier; a battalion whose average education, we are informed, not of the officers admittedly, but of the (10) troops who in fact on the evening were the ones allegedly to have committed the offences, their average level of education is about standard 5, some of them of standard 2. Of a bat­talion who then, having fought against the ANC-Swapo alliance for how many years in Namibia, comes and tries to police a civilise urban population. How can this transformation reasonably take place?

As a matter of policy, can this be done, where the educational levels are of such a degree of poverty, I am not blaming them for their circumstances. The question is, as a (20) matter of policing policy, is it reasonable to expect a battalion of the kind that we are dealing with here, to make this transformation?

If the witnesses Van Eeden and Hermansen, as senior officers of that battalion, could have explained just one of the concepts of minimum violence successfully to this Com­mittee, which exists in law, then I would have to concede that maybe some attempt had been made to transform a military bat­talion into a police battalion, but what we have is the very fundamental principle emerging of their understanding of (30)

minimum /...

K322.15GOLDSTONE KOMMJSSIE 4 7 2 8 ARGUMENT

minimum violence to include the right to fire back on anyone who is firing on you. And we have the very curious explanation when asked but what about the innocent by-standers behind those people shooting at you, what about their rights, how do you analyse the conflict of interest, we have the very curious explanation from Lieutenant Ras that no, because these people have got no regard for the innocent by-standers behind Bat­talion 32, this in some way justifies the return of fire with reckless disregard for the innocent by-standers behind those criminal elements who are firing at them. (10j

That is a signal failure, it is a criminal failure to understand what the duties of a policeman are when confronted with violence in a situation where innocent by-standers may get caught up and injured by your return of that fire.

It is a well known concept of the law of delict that both the defences raised of self defence and necessity require for that defence to succeed, for that defence to negative the unlawful element of conduct which is violent and prima fariP unlawful, that there must be a balance between the harm caused or likely to be caused in defence and the harm being experi- (20) enced by the wrong-doer. In this case to raise an argument that I am entitled to fire back when fired upon, notwith­standing the fact that I am a peace officer, the very cause of my being there is to keep the peace and to protect the in­nocents, but I justify my conduct, because these people shooting at me out of the dark, they have got no regard for the innocent people behind my back, this entitles me for some reason to disregard the innocent people behind their back. It is a criminal misunderstanding of the notion of minimum vio­lence and xt is clear evidence that not even Major Van Eeden (30)

has /.

K322.18COLDSIDNE KOMMISSIE 4729 ARGUMENT

has bothered to investigate his lecture notes which we werepromised, and which with disdain have not been forthcominguntil today. I do not believe that even it will be forthcoming from today.

There is an allegations that all the officers walk around carrying these documents indicating the principles of minimum violence. Where are these documents? This Committee has been treated with disdain. I do not suggest contempt, but with disdain. There are no documents before this Committee. They were promised to be made available in front of legal represent- (10) atives. Major Van Eeden himself is a major in the military establishment. Presumably he has the power to go and procure those documents and make them available.

That is the evidence of Lieutenant Ras, his understanding of the concept of minimum violence. The evidence of Major Van Eeden is breath taking in its failure to understand the concept as well. A major in a so-called police branch of the military who believes that to strike an innocent man with a balled fist is not an assault. I beg the court's pardon, Hermansen. Captain Hermansen. That was his evidence. (20)

These witnesses came to this Committee and declared that they would be open and candid with this Committee. Evidence of that kind can be seen as nothing other than an attempt to protect one's own troops from trouble when trouble flies. That is not even candid, that is dishonest evidence. How can a major in effectively a police unit claim that to strike a man with a balled fist is not an assault? And goodness help anybody who comes across troops trained by such an officer, where the tone towards minimum violence is treated by a senior officer in that fashion, what can it be expected of junior (30)

trooDs /__

K322.19GOLDSTONE KOMM1SSIE 4 7 3 0 ARGUMENT

troops with a standard 2 education who cannot speak a local language? Goodness helps such a population.

I submit that in the final analysis the evidence, the generic evidence led in order to attempt to rebut the prima facie case of misconduct, has signally failed and it points rather to an attitude of both the senior officers and the junior officers who were answered for by these witnesses, that they were a military unit, they were fired upon by the enemy and the went in and they treated those people firing on them as the enemy might have been in Angola in the bush, surrounded (10) by thorn trees. They treated them in a similar way and it will be the recommendation of the complainants in this matter and of the ANC Regional Committee that there has been absolutely no justification proven to this Committee that Battalion 32 is totally unsuited for police work in a civilian built up area, armed as they were, totally unprepared for civilian trouble, failed to contact the South African Police,, entered into a community of 30 000 sguatters protected by pieces of "sink- plaat , half a millimetre of mild steel between them and a hight velocity bullet that can go through 10 millimetres of (20) mild steel. That this Committee should find that for whatever reason Battalion 32 entered Phola Park on that night, which I submit is still not clear on a first hand evidence basis, that the firing as took place, constituted grave and gross miscon­duct and that there is a strong prima facie case that the assaults that took place thereafter amounted to misconduct and that Battalion 32 is improperly suited for police work in an urban environment and that they should be removed from such work until such time as it can be clearly demonstrated that they have undergone suitable training for the work at hand. (30)

II...

K322J0C>OIX»STONE KOMMISSIE 4731 ARGUMENT

I would finally like to just refer to the fact that as no evidence has been tested before this Committee regarding the detailed assaults that were alleged to have taken place, that this Committee is not capable of finding that in the absence of such detailed evidence no assaults took place, but that in the interests of justice and with the prima facie case that has been made out in front of this Committee, that another recom­mendation that this Committee make, is that these allegations be referred immediately to the Attorney-General for investi­gation, that the evidence of Sergeant Olivier, the invest- (10) igating officer, indicates a singular disdain for the inquiries that this Committee is attempting to make and that the Attorney-General should be placed in charge immediately of those dockets, if they are yet opened as dockets, or statements and that that be a further recommendation of this Committee.

So in conclusion, the main recommendation which this party that X represent seeks to make, is that Battalion 32 be found to have committed gross acts of impropriety on 8 and 9 April, such acts having been singularly failed to be justified and that Battalion 32 be removed from policing duties forthwith. (20) Thank you.CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Who is next, Mr Goldblatt?MR GOLDBLATT: Mr Chairman, CAST, the Civic Association of Southern Transvaal is the party who I represent, join with everything that has been said by Mr Pitman and I am going to lead no argument.CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Danie Pretorius?MNR•— P.-Q-— PRETORIUS: Soos u behaag, mnr. die Voorsitter.

My klient is die Minister van Verdediging en soos almal reeds weet, is daar 'n onderskeid in hierdie Komitee tussen die (30)

Minister /

K32Z23GOLD STONE KOMMISSIE 4732 ARGUMENT

Minister van Verdediging en die belange van 32 Bataljon, dat 32 Bataljon ook verteenwoordig word op sigself.

Die eerste submissie wat ek wil maak, is dat die Minister van Verdediging se bona fides. se goeie trou en se samewerking met die Goldstone Kommissie en hierdie Komitee as sulks, staan bo alle twyfel. Die Minister van Verdediging het hierdie ondersoek aangevra by sy edele regter Goldstone. Hy was een van die partye wat hierdie ondersoek aangevra het en dit is een van die redes waarom hierdie ondersoek dan juis gedoen is.

Die Minister van Verdediging het 'n getuie beskikbaar (10) gestel aan regter Goldstone om 'n weergawe te kom skets en reeds in daardie weergawe het die Minister van Verdediging en die Suid-Afrikaanse Weermag oop kaarte gespeel en is daar reeds op daardie geleentheid die toegewing gemaak dat daar mag hard- handige optrede gewees het.

Voorts is daar gevra dat die Suid-Afrikaanse Weermag twee getuies moet beskikbaar stel om te kom getuig met betrekking tot wat gebeur het op 8 en 9 April en dit is gedoen. Die getuies is beskikbaar gestel, die getuies het getuig. Dit was gemeensaak dat 32 Bataljon daar was daardie aand en dat hulle (20) die volgende oggend daar gepatrolleer het en doppies opgetel het.

Nadat die getuies getuig het en vir drie dae gekruisver- hoor was, was dit die beurt van die opponerende partye om te getuig en dit is waar hierdie Komitee in my respekvolle sub­missie begin skeef loop het, want nadat die eerste getuie, 'n mnr. Msimango, in hoof getuig het, en daar in kruisverhoor geblyk het dat hy 'n vorige eedsverklaring gemaak het wat teenstrydig is met sy getuienis voor hierdie Komitee, was daar gewag gemaak van allerhande argumente om sy getuienis in te (30)

kort /...

K322.27GOLDSTONE KOMMissm 4733 ARGUMENT

kort vanwee die feit dat dit sy moontlike verdere kriminele aksies en deliktuele aksies mag benadeel. Die getuie het toe voorts getuig, maar daar is toe besluit dat hy nie sou klaar getuig nie en die Weermag het die toegewing herhaal, weer eens bona— fide ter goeie trou, dat daar inderdaad hardhandige optrede kon wees en was.

Die getuienis was dat nege mense uitgewys was by die identifikasieparade. Die getuienis was dat hierdie mense aan kaptein Hermanse toegegee het dat hulle hardhandig opgetree het. Daar was nooit ooit toegegee dat daar nie regverdiging (10) kon wees vir hierdie hardhandige optrede nie. Daar was nooit toegegee dat hierdie optrede regstegnies op misdade kon neerkom nie. Maar om die argument te volvoer, is dit my submissie dat vanaf die weermag se kant, en dit sluit 32 Bataljon in, is dit ook my submissie, het alle moontlike hulp aan hierdie Komitee gegee om hierdie aangeleentheid te besleg.

Voordat ek tot my argument namens die minister wil kom, wil ek net handel met sekere aspekte van my geleerde vriend se argument. Ek is seker en ek wil dit baie kortliks doen, dat my geleerde vriend, mnr. Roux, in detail daarop sal ingaan. (20) Ons sit hier met getuienis in vacuo. My geleerde vriend se ons het nie ons optrede geregverdig nie. Watter optrede moes ons inderdaad regverdig? Hier is geen getuienis voor hierdie agbare Komitee van enige spesifieke dade wat gepleeg was nie.Goed, mnr. Msimango se vrou is geskiet. Daardie aspek is ook nie voltooi nie. Of dit inderdaad deur vuur was deur 32 Bataljon, of dit inderdaad was deur vuur van die mense wat op 32 geskiet het. Dit staan nie eers vas nie. Wat moet ons regverdig?

Goed, kom ons se ons moet regverdig dat ons ingegaan het. (30)Die /...

K322_29GOLDSTONE KOMM1SSIE 4734 ARGUMENT

Die weermag is in diens gestel in 1984 om dieselfde pligte te he om binnelandse onrus te bekamp. Die indiensstelling is gedoen en die indiensstelling staan steeds vas. Phola Park is 'n onrusgebied verklaar gewees in April. Steunpunt is 'n kilometer of wat weg van Phola Park af, die weermag is daar ontplooi. Die weermag is ontplooi vir die hele Tokoza area, daar word skietery gehoor wat nie betwis is nie. Die weermag stuur mense om te gaan ondersoek instel. Die weermag kom daar aan en daar word op die weermag geskiet. Ook nie getwis nie.Mnr. Joseph se woorde toe hy nog een van die partye verteen- (10) woordig het by hierdie Komitee, was dat hy het geen getuienis tot die teendeel dat daar eerste op die weermag geskiet was nie en die weermag word in 'n posisie bevind op die getuienis van luitenant Ras, wat op die toneel aangekom het, dit moenie vergeet word nie. Sy getuienis kan geensins as hoorsegetuienis beskou word nie. Waar hy op die toneel kom en sien dat luite­nant Greyvenstein in 'n lokvalsituasie is, hy kan nie daar uitkom nie. Dit is sy getuienis en dit is my submissie dat luitenant Ras se getuienis was goeie getuienis, en dat sy getuienis op hierdie punt aanvaar moet word, want daar is geen (20) getuienis tot die teendeel nie. En dat al wat toe gebeur, is daar word vuur beantwoord totdat die vuur staak. Daar word net geskiet totdat die vuur van die ander kant, van die opposisie, ophou. Dit is al. Dit was die getuienis en dit is wat bevind sal moet word, aangesien daar geen getuienis tot die teendeel is nie.

My geleerde vriend maak die stelling dat "the allegation was that there was wild firing". Waar word hierdie bewering gemaak? Dit word nie eers gemaak in mej. of mev. Seally se eedsverklaring nie. Vir wat dit mag werd wees, moet ek byvoeg. (30)

Dit /...

K322J0GOLDSTONE KOMMISSIE 4735 ARGUMENT

*32232

Dit word nie gemaak deur mnr. Msimango nie en niemand anders het getuig behalwe die geheime getuie. Die geheime getuie het nie gepraat van 'n wilde geskietery deur die weermag nie, so waar word dit gemaak? Waar word hierdie bewering enigsins gemaak teen die weermag?

Dit is my respekvolle submissie dat die weermag is hier op verhoor, mens kan dit amper so noem, op hulle eie weergawe, want daar is nie 'n ander weergawe nie. Al wat getoets moet word, is die weermag se weergawe, want die weermag het ter goeder trou hulle totale samewerking gegee. (10

So nou moet ons beoordeel, ex post facto, en dit is belangrik, ex— post facto moet hier beoordeel word of die skietery wat plaasgevind het, die perke oorskry het. 200 skote is gevuur. 70 man, dit gee jou omtrent drie skote per persoon wat afgevuur is. Dit, noodwendigerwys, se alreeds dat daar kon nie op outomaties gevuur gewees het nie en dit was ook die getuienis, dat niemand het op outomaties gevuur nie. Luitenant Ras het gese hy sou dadelik gehoor het, hy is 'n soldaat, hy sou geweet het as op outomaties gevuur is.

Dit alleen wys dat hier was streng beheer oor die vuur wat (20) beantwoord was. Daar was geskiet en teruggeskiet en daar was omtrent drie skote per persoon geskiet. Daar was geen outomatiese vuur van ons kant nie, van die weermag se kant nie.

Nou se my geleerde vriend dit is 'n bekende deliktuele beginsel dat in die twee verwere van noodtoestand en noodweer moet die skale geweeg word. Maar dit is net so 'n bekende beginsel dat in die geval van noodweer, wat selfverdediging of self defence insluit, word die skale juis nie so gelyk geweeg

soos in noodtoestand nie, want in noodtoestand word die belange opgeweeg van twee onskuldige partye. In noodweer, waar jy (30)

jouself /.. .

GOLD5TIONE KOMM1SSIE 4 7 3 6 A R G U M E N T

jouself verdedig, is dit juis nie so nie, want die persoon wat teen jou optree, tree reeds buite die reg op.

Nou goed, nou moet ons kyk, ex post facto. 200 skote is gevuur, daar is een persoon gedood en dit staan voor hierdie Komitee, staan dit nie eers vas of hierdie persoon gedood is deur die Suid-Afrikaanse Weermag nie, of vuur wat gelewer is deur die Suid-Af rikaanse Weermag nie. Daar is geen ander eers selfs bewering van iemand wat raakgeskiet is nie. Goed, daar is 'n ander man dood aangetref, maar twee dae later. Dit op sigself moet alreeds daarop dui dat daardie geval kan nie vir (10) die doeleindes van hierdie Komitee in berekening gebring word nie.

So wat het ons? Ons het een persoon wat raakgeskiet is en wat gesterf het na aanleiding van die wonde. Een persoon uit 200 skote. Dan wil my geleerde vriend die submissie maak dat die "wild firing" was. Met respek, daardie submissie kan net nie opgaan nie.

Die vraag kan gestel word, wat moes hulle nou inderdaad doen? Die getuienis was hulle kon nie retireer onder daardie omstandighede nie. Hulle trek vuur uit verskillende oorde. (20) Hulle vra versterkings, die versterkings kom, die versterkings vuur op vuurleidingsbevele aan die hand van "tracers" vuur hulle op geidentifiseerde teikens van waar af die vuur kom, en hulle vuur net totdat die vuur gestaak word.

Dit is my submissie, in 'n noodweersituasie wat hierdie inderdaad uiteraard was, kan daar nie fout gevind word met. hierdie optrede nie, want ex post facto is niemand raakgeskiet nie en ex— post— facto getuienis moet in ag geneem word. Hier is geen getuienis van enigiemand wat raakgeskiet is nie. Mens kan nou gewag maak van die feit dat om in beboude gebied te (30)

skiet /

K322J6GOLDSTONE KOMM1SSIE 4 7 3 7 ARGUMENT

skiet, gaan net nie op nie. Die voorbeeld is genoem van 'n polisieman wat in Eloffstraat afhardloop en skiet op 'n dief.Dit is nie 'n voorbeeld wat opgaan nie, want 'n dief hardloop inderdaad weg. Hier word inderdaad op die mense geskiet, hulle moet iets doen.

Nou was die submissie gemaak hulle moet retireer, hulle moet onttrek. Hoe onttrek jy as daar op jou gevuur word met AK47 gewere? Hoe doen jy dit? Ek wil nie my geleerde vriend vir 32 Bataljon se argument voorafgaan nie. Ek wil net handel met sekere aspekte van my geleerde vriend en dan tot die (10) argument kom namens die minister.

My geleerde vriend se hierdie mense is nie vir polisie- pligte aangewend nie, hulle het nie "riot control equipment" gehad nie, is sy woorde. Waar was die "riot"? Hierdie was nie skarebeheeroptrede nie. Dit was aan niemand gestel dat hulle moes knuppels gehad het, rubberkoeels nie, dit was nie sodanige optrede nie. Die.Suid-Afrikaanse Weermag gaan na 'n skarebe- heersituasie toe met skerp ammunisie as 'n laaste uitweg, met traanrook, met knuppelrondtes, "rubber bullets", maar dit is as daar 'n skare gevorm is. Hierdie was, daar was geen sprake (20) van 'n skarebeheersituasie hier nie. Die mense hoor skietery, hulle gaan doen ondersoek en word op gevuur. Waar is die skare? Daar was juis nie ' n skare nie.

My geleerde vriend maak geweldig staat op die feit dat hierdie is 'n polisie-eenheid. Dit is ook verkeerd, met respek. Hierdie is nie 'n polisie-eenheid nie. Hierdie eenheid het nie die pligte van polisiemanne nie. Hulle doen nie ondersoek na misdaad nie. Hulle is daar om binnelandse onlus te bekamp, dit is hulle indiensstelling. Dit is die parameters van hul bevoegdhede. Goed, hulle kan arresteer, ja, (30)

hulle /__

K322-38GOLDSTONE KOMM1SSIE 4738 ARGUMENT

hulle kan dit doen. Hulle kan visenteer, hulle kan beslag le, maar slegs vanuit 'n binnelandse onlussituasie. Hulle kan nie daar ingaan en gaan soek vir dagga nie. As hulle dit kry terwyl hulle besig is met binnelandse onlus, ja, goed, inderdaad, hulle kan daarop beslag le, maar dit is nie hulle primere funksie nie.

Nou se my geleerde vriend dit is uiteraard van wat gebeurhet op 8 April en 9 April, dan moet ek ook dadelik byvoeg datdie toegewing wat gemaak is, het slegs betrekking op 8 April.Dit het geensins betrekking op 9 April nie en die weermag se (10)saak was nog ten alle tye dat daar kon hardhandige optredegewees het op 8 April en daar is geen getuienis ten opsigte van 9 April nie.

Nou is die argument hierdie mense, hulle optrede, hierdie een insident moet nou die maatstaf word van die weegskale om hierdie mense te toets of hulle bevoeg is om hierdie werk te doen. My submissie is, moet mens nie eerder let op hul trekrekord, as mens dit so kan noem nie? Op al die getuienis was hulle vir twee jaar al in hierdie gebied ontplooi. Hierdie is die eerste insident, gedokumenteerde insident waar 32 (20) Bataljon moontlik kon verkeerd opgetree het, of dat die bewering gemaak word.

In die Citizen koerant wat majoor Van Eeden na verwys het, se 'n mnr. Geoff Bucklander van die Legal Resources Centre, doen hy 'n beroep op die weermag dat 32 Bataljon juis daar moet bly vanwee hul onpartydigheid en die feit dat hulle goed saamwerk met die inwoners van Phola Park.

Voor hierdie Komi tee getuig mnr. Mhlambi en ek sal die bladsy vir u kry, indien u dit benodig, 'n voormalige leier van Phola Park, getuig hy, nadat hy die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisie (30)

K322.40goldstone kommjsste 4739 ARGUMENT

gekasty het, dat hy nie met hulle wil saamwerk nie, op 'n vraag van my getuig hy dat hy inderdaad goed saamwerk met die weer­mag, dat hy goed saamwerk met kolonel Loubser, dat hy goed saamwerk met majoor Van Eeden, maar juis dat hy baie goeie verhoudinge het met die Portugeessprekende swart soldate, en dit is sy getuienis ipsissima verba, en dat dit al soldate is wat hy graag in die gebied sou wou sien diens doen, want hulle het 'n goeie verhouding en die mense is onpartydig. Hy wil juis nie wit soldate daar sien nie, want hulle het probleme met wit soldate. Dit is sy getuienis. (10

Nou vra ek myself die vraag af, om nou 'n insident te neem en dan te wil se vanwee hierdie insident is hierdie mense nie geskik vir die werk wat gedoen word nie, dit gaan net nie op nie. Hulle het die werk vir twee jaar gedoen, hulle word goedgekeur deur die Legal Resources Centre in die koerante, hulle word in die ope Komitee, word daar gese hierdie mense is die geskikste mense vir die werk, selfs beter as die polisie, die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisie, deur leiersfigure van daardie gebied.

Dit gaan net nie op om nou te se juis vanwee 8 April wat (20) daar gebeur het, en ons weet nie eers wat daar gebeur het nie, want die mense wat moes kom getuig het, die mense wat getuienis moes voorle, het nie. Ons weet nie. Daar is bewerings, daar is bewerings in die pers, ja, maar ons weet nie werklik wat daar gebeur het nie.

So, op die weermag se eie weergawe, en dit is al wat u het, met respek, op die weermag se eie weergawe, is daar hardhandige optrede. Daar is geen konsessie, toegewing gemaak dat hierdie optrede nie geregverdig kon wees nie. Al wat die weermag se, is hierdie is nie die forum om dit te ondersoek (30)

nie /...

K322.42GOLDSTONE KOMM1SSIE 4 7 4 0 ARGUMENT

nie. Die forum waar dit ondersoek sal moet word, is die strafhowe. Op daardie weergawe gaan dit geensins op om te se dat hierdie eenheid is nie geskik vir die werk wat gedoen moet word nie.

Om aan te sluit, om voort te gaan met my argument met betrekking tot die minister, ek het sekere aspekte reeds afgehandel. Die opleiding, daar was getuienis van majoor Van Eeden, daar was getuienis van 'n majoor wie se naam my nou ontgaan van 32 Bataljon, majoor Frey. Hierdie mense het opleiding verkry in Pomfret ten opsigte van bekamping van (10) binnelandse onrus, teen insurgensie operasies stedelik, in Pomfret en dat hierdie opleiding herhaal is, inderdaad, by hul aankoms in groep 41 hoofkwartier in Germiston. Dat hul opleiding gekry het in regsaspekte deur 'n gekwalifiseerde regsoffisier met betrekking tot hul regte en bevoegdhede, welke opleiding ingesluit het die gebruikmaking van minimum geweld, die aanwending, hulle regte met betrekking tot visentering, beslaglegging, straffelose doding in terme van artikel 49 van die Strafproseswet.

Dit is my respekvolle submissie dat wat meer kan mens nou (20) inderdaad doen? Die weermag het nie gevra om in diens gestel te word nie. Die weermag is in diens gestel en is getaak om die werk te doen en dit is wat hul dan inderdaad doen. Hul kry die opleiding van 'n regsgeleerde en op die geskiedenis lyk dit asof hulle die werk by uitstel verrig het. Twee jaar sonder insidente verrig hulle die werk, werk word goed gedoen.

Nou my geleerde vriend se nie een van hierdie mense kon vir hom die beginsel van minimum geweld verduidelik nie. Minimum geweld, wat beteken minimum geweld? Dit is daardie mate van geweld wat redelikerwys nodig is om 'n situasie te (30)

hanteer /...

1022.45GOLDSTONE KOMM1SSIE 4741 ARGUMENT

GOIX)STONE KOMMISSTE 4742 ^RGUM^NT

hanteer. Dit is al wat dit beteken. En welke geweld moes nou inderdaad aangewend word? Daar word op hulle geskiet, wat moes hulle doen? Die getuienis is duidelik, hulle kon niks anders doen as om terug te vuur nie. Dit is aan hulle gevra, as julle om Phola Park ry en daar word op julle geskiet, vuur julle terug, die antwoord was nee, ons kan nie, want ons skiet hier in 'n gebied in. Maar onder hierdie omstandighede, wat nie betwis kan word nie, want hier is geen getuienis tot die teendeel nie. onder hierdie omstandighede moes hulle vuur en hulle het net aangehou vuur tot die vuur gestaak is op hulle. (10)

Nou kan daar gese word en dit is ook gestel, maar hoekom het julle nie iemand raakgeskiet nie? That is being wise after the event. Daar is geen getuienis dat daar nie gevuur was nie.Daar is geen getuienis, daar is selfs getuienis dat daar doppies opgetel is. Dit is die ondersoekbeampte se getuienis, AK47-doppies is gekry op hierdie toneel. Dit is duidelik dat daar geskiet was op die weermag en dat hulle op die vuur moes beantwoord onder hierdie omstandighede.

Daar was getuienis voor die Komitee dat die mense weet hulle mag nie mense aanrand nie, hulle weet hulle mag, sekere (20) optrede is verbied selfs in hulle eie dissiplinere kode, wat 'n bylae tot die verdedigingswet is. Daar is 'n hele strafreg- telike stelsel in die militer. Die getuienis van majoor Hermansen is ja, inderdaad is mense al gekrygsraad vir misdade gepleeg, so die mense is bewus hiervan.

Dan was daar getuienis deur luitenant Ras dat daar genoegsame beheer en kontrole op die grond was. Hulle het 'n

%sweep , 'n vee-operasie gevoer. Die getuienis van majoor Van

Eeden, dit is 'n standaarddril in die infanterie dat jy na 'n operasie 'n vee-operasie doen. Dit is nie asof hier 'n keuse (30)

was /

K322.49

was' 'n mala fide keuse om deur die gebied te loop nie. Dit is 'n standaard optrede. Daar was 'n kontak, daar was geskiet op mekaar, dan doen 'n mens 'n vee-operasie. Dit is die getuienis en dit is inderdaad uitgevoer. Daar was 'n leiers- figuur tussen omtrent elke tien soldate op die minimum.

Dit is my submissie dat die weermag op sigself kon nie beter beheer en kontrole daarstel nie. Dit is my submissie voorts dat indien daar nog steeds selfs onder daardie beheer en kontrole persone was wat gewelddadige dade gepleeg het, en daar is geen getuienis selfs voor hierdie komitee dat dit (10) inderdaad gebeur het nie, behalwe vir die toegewing wat deur die weermag gemaak is van hardhandige optrede, dan het hierdie mense dit gedoen buite hul bevoegdhede. En soos luitenant Ras gese het, ' n mens is 'n mens. Daar word op jou geskiet, dit is donker, daar kan weer op jou geskiet word, want daar word altyd op jou geskiet uit Phola Park uit. Die provokatiewe aard van hierdie omstandighede op sigself is regverdiging, met respek. Nie dat dit toegegee word nie, maar as iemand dan so iets sou gedoen het, dan is dit my submissie, dan het hy buite sy bevoegdhede opgetree en dan kan die weermag as sulks nie (20) aanspreeklik gehou word daarvoor in die omstandighede wat vir hierdie Komitee ter sprake is nie.

Indien daar dan hardhandige optrede was, wat u dan op die toegewing wat gemaak is sou kon bevind, dan is dit individuele hardhandige optrede wat nie teen die minister van verdediging gehou kan word nie, aangesien die minister van verdediging aHes gedoen het wat redelikerwys moontlik was om hierdie mense in 'n posisie te plaas om hul werk te doen. Hulle het die opleiding gehad, hulle het die beheer en die dissipline gehad en hulle het 'n totale stelsel van strafprosesregtelike optrede (30)

aehad /__

KS22J0GOLDSTONE KOMM1SSIE 4 74 3 ARGUMENT

gehad, indien iemand sou verkeerd doen.Die minister was juis die party wat juis wou uitvind of

daar verkeerd gedoen was. Die minister het aangevra virhierdie Komitee. Die minister het 'n raad van ondersoek bele.Die raad van ondersoek kon nie sy werksaamhede voltooi nie,aangesien die inwoners nie hul samewerking wou gee nie, maaral die dinge is gedoen, totaal bona fide en in akkoord met die vredesverdrag.

Ten slotte, die twee vrae is hoekom het 32 Bataljon ingegaan, daardie vraag is beantwoord. Hulle het ingegaan (10) omdat daar geskiet was. Hulle wou gaan ondersoek instel in terme van hul pligte, in terme van die wet. Hulle is in diens gestel om dit te doen. Hulle het dieselfde bevoegdhede as die polisie, hulle hoef nie die polisie se toestemming te he nie, hulle het presies dieselfde bevoegdhede en hulle kan dieselfde werk doen. Die gewag wat gemaak is met betrekking tot toestem­ming van die polisie, is totaal irrelevant, aangesien dit nooit 'n noodsaaklikheid was nie. Onder geen omstandighede nie.Hulle kan outonoom opereer en hulle het in die verlede en sal in die toekoms, want hulle is in diens gestel om dit te doen. (20) Hulle het ingegaan, want hulle het skietery gehoor en daar is op hulle gevuur. Daar is geen getuienis tot die teendeel nie. Daarna het hulle in terme van strenge militere optrede 'n vee- operasie gedoen. Daardie vraag is beantwoord.

Het hulle onbehoorlik opgetree? Die enigste greintjie getuienis wat daartoe kan aanleiding gee dat u so ' n bevinding maak, is die toegewing wat self gemaak is, dat daar hardhandige optrede was. Niks meer nie. Die feit dat mnr. Msimango se getuienis gestaak is, moet op sigself daarop dui dat dit pro non scripto geag moet word.

K322.52GOLDSTONE KOMM1SS1E 474 4 ARGUMENT

Dan het ons die geheime getuie. Die geheime getuie het een geisoleerde insident gesien waar iemand aangerand was, dit is al. Dit is al wat hy gesien het en hy was ook nie onderwerp aan kruisverhoor nie en dit op sigself is dit my submissie, moet sy getuienis weer eens met versigtigheid bejeen word vanwee die feit dat dit nie behoorlik getoets was nie.

Goed, dit is die vrae wat u moet beantwoord. Aanbeve- lings, soos ek reeds gese het, dit is my submissie dat daar geen aanbeveling kan wees dat 32 Bataljon ongeskik is vir die werk wat hulle gedoen het nie. Dit is my submissie dat die (10) aanbevelings wat in hierdie verband gemaak moet word, eerder moet let op die omstandighede wat geld daar, eerder moet let op die toestande waaronder daar geverg word van 32 Bataljon en die SAP om hui werk te verrig; eerder moet let op die feit dat daar op hulle gevuur word as hulle slegs om die gebied ry en dat daar nie soseer gelet moet word om vingers te wys na 32 Bataljon nie, want welke vingers kan inderdaad gewys word?Hier is geen getuienis van onbehoorlike optrede voor u nie.Daar is 'n toegewing wat bona fide gemaak is en dit is my submissies. Baie dankie. 2̂0)VOORSITTER: Mnr. Roux?MNR. ROUX: Dankie, mnr. die Voorsitter.

As mens nie van 'n vorm van 'n boom hou nie en jy wil graag die tak afsaag, is daar seker niks mee fout nie, maar mens moet versigtig wees dat wanneer mens daardie tak afsaag, dat jy nie self op horn sit nie, want dan gaan jy saam afval en deel word van dit wat nie moet wees nie.

Hoekom ek dit se, is dat ek het aandagtig na mnr. Pitman geluister en hy het iets baie mooi gese wat baie waar was. Hy het vir u gese dat dit verstaan moet word in verrigtinge soos (30)

h i p -rr? i p /

0 2 3 .0GOLDSTON'E KOMMISSIE 4745 ARGUMENT

hierdie, dat ons nie verwar moet word met die bewyslas, die plasing daarvan, en die maatstawwe van bewys nie en dit is reg.

Ek dink wat ons hier nodig het, is dat u moet tevrede wees dat wat voor u geplaas is, u met veiligheid kan aanvaar en hoe groot en hoe swaar daardie toets van veiligheid sal wees, sal afhang van die omstandighede waarbinne daardie getuienis voor u geplaas is. U is 'n opgeleide regspersoon en behoort daardie oefenxng maklik te wees. So tot daar loop ek en mnr. Pitman hand aan hand en dan saag hy die tak af terwyl hy op hom sit en val hy na ondertoe.

Hoekom ek dit se, hy gaan dan en terwyl ons saamstem oor die bewyslas en die afwesigheid daarvan, plaas hy vierkantig die bewyslas op 32 Bataljon en kritiseer hy van die begin van sy betoog tot die einde 32 Bataljon vir die versuim om aan daardie las te voldoen. As daardie fout reggestel word, dan skep dit 'n heel ander beeld van wat mnr. Pitman werklik kan se, want ek wil vir u drie vrae in u midde laat wat u self moet oor gaan dink, asseblief.

Waarom is daar nie getuies geroep van die verontregtes nie? U het so mooi by drie, vier geleenthede 'n ope uitno- (20) diging gerig, u het samewerking gevra en u het gese bring daardie getuies, dat ons kan kyk. Ek stem saam dat ons weg moes beweeg van spesifieke insidente, maar daar moet tog 'n horde getuies wees wat vir ons 'n algemene prentjie op waarnemings kan gee. Waarom is dit nie aangebied nie?

Die tweede vraag, u weet, daar was vrae en antwoorde gestel, probeer om die verrigtinge te verkort. U het nie daardie vrae en antwoorde van die teenkant gekry nie. Dit is nog steeds nie daar nie, u moet maar aansukkel. Dan word ons beskuldig en gese ons werk nie saam nie. Mooi woorde soos (30)

"disdain" /__

K323.2GOLDSTONE KOMMISSIE 4746 ARGUMENT

"disdain" en so aan, word gebruik, maar kom ons kyk net as ons die soeklig net gooi, na die eie toetse gestel deur daardie kant, dan sien ons dat presies dit wat hulle oor kla, is geensins gedoen nie. Daardie getikte vrae en antwoorde is nooit vir u gegee nie. U weet daar was 'n onderneming dat dit voor u geplaas sal word, maar dit maak nie saak nie. Daar was ' n raad van ondersoek gehou deur die weermag om te se kom ons kyk wat is hierdie vergrype, hierdie misdrywe. Daar is geweier om getuies te gee.

So nou sit u Komitee in die baie moeilike posisie, en dit (10) is presies wat deur hierdie hele verrigting gebeur het, is dat die partye aan al die kante was hakerig om vorendag te tree.Die een het vir die ander een gewag en in die proses dink ek, het die een die ander een saam gesink en sit u nou aan die einde met baie meer beperkte inligting as wat u op geregtig was. Dit is 'n ongelukkige verloop en al wat ons vandag kan doen, is om vir u te probeer se na ons mening, wat is dit, wat is daardie beperkte inligting wat voor u geplaas is.

Daar word vir u gese, en dit was baie goed gedoen en ek het werklik hier na mnr. Lewies toe gedraai, toe se ek dit is (20) baie mooi voorgedra deur mnr. Pitman en dit was mooi voorgedra, maar.dit is die enigste manier hoe hy kon verduidelik waarom daar nie getuies geroep is nie. Waarom nie daar bewysmateriaal van hulle kant af voor u geplaas is nie. Se hy daar was Sally Seally en Sally Seally, so verstaan ek die argument, sal dan vir ons insidente gee, en 32, julle moet dit antwoord en julle het dit nie gedoen nie. Daarom moet u dit aanvaar. Kom ons kyk of dit so is.

Waar ons weet daar nie werklik ' n bewyslas is nie, weet ons dat Sally Seally is nie voor die Komitee gewees nie, maar (30)

vnn-r /

K3Z14GOLDSTONE KOMM1SSIE 4 747 ARGUMENT

voor die Kommissie in die bree, om mee te begin. So Sally Seally is nie hier nie, maar selfs al luister ons wat sy se en al kyk ons na haar verklaring, dan weet ons dat Sally Seally stel iets op hoorse saam. Sy se, ek hoor van daardie insi- dente, en ek gaan nou-nou daarna terugkom. Dan wil ek vir u se, weeg dit dan met kaptein Hermansen op. Hy se ek het ook gehoor daarvan en ek het ondersoek ingestel en ek kon niks daaroor kry nie wat dit staaf nie. So wat het ons nou in die skaal? Een hoorse aan daardie kant wat se daar was en 'n ander hoorse aan die kant wat se daar was nie. Wat nie u help nie, (10) juis vanwee al die partye se onwilligheid om vorentoe te tree.

Nou wie se skuld dit was, is 'n ander vraag omdat ons nie met 'n bewyslas te doen het nie, maar dit plaas u en u lede in n baie moeiliker posisie, want ons het laas week gesien wat

gebeur met verslae wat uitgebring word. Die publiek sit en wag. Daar gaan 'n groep wees wat hom gryp na die een kant, en daar gaan 'n groep wees wat hom gryp na die ander kant. Dit is onvermydelik. Dit is deel van die publieke oog waarin ons inbeweeg het en waarin u u gaan bevind en al wat u kan doen, is om dan te reageer op wat voor u is. Wat nadat u, en hier (20) is so baie gese in hierdie ondersoek waar ek teenwoordig is, waar nou die kaf van die koring geskei is. So daarom sit ons met 'n hoorse Sally Seally en 'n hoorse Hermansen, die een so min werd soos die ander een.

Maar as ek aan Sally Seally wil waarde gee, kom ons kyk na daardie waarde. Ek het hier gelees wat se sy in paragraaf 37:

None of the persons from whom we have taken statements, or whom we have interviewed, heard gunfire on that evening prior to the arrival of the SADF in Phola Park." (30)

n-i +■ /

K323.7GOLDSTONE KOMMISSIE 4748 ARGUMENT

Collection Number: AK2702 Goldstone Commission of Enquiry into PHOLA PARK Records 1992-1993 PUBLISHER: Publisher:-Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand Location:-Johannesburg ©2012

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of the collection records and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.

This document is part of a private collection deposited with Historical Papers at The University of the Witwatersrand by the Church of the Province of South Africa.