The door was open on his side? Not the window, that I. the policeman was busy with him or was he sitting in the car?

Transcription

1 30 C MATSAPU can realise, the door was open. The door was open on his side? Not the window, that I cannot say. The door was open? And did the reverend get out while the policeman was busy with him or was he sitting in the car? -- He was sitting and then they were looking through his papers. All right, and what else? What else happened to the reverend? -- Well, what I could realise is that the n-xt time I saw him out and then they threw his papers back to him, and (10 then what I realised is that I saw him going that way. The same men, they were chasing him with this shambock and throwing stones at that man. The sarr.e man who had assaulted you? No, no, one of them. I think this was done by the.1 an man, that time. He is the man who got him off. Now, was this happening after you were assaulted? -- No, my assault comes after the reverend was out of the car. Oh, all right, so, at that stage the other person was fetching his shambock, you saw this happening. That is (20) right. Between one, the lean, the thin policeman and the reverend? -- And the reverend. He was b>;sy with him. All right, you say he threw his papers back at him? At him, yes, he did not hand them nicely back to him. He said: Vat 1 Threw the papers at him? Yes, and then he grabbed him. And grabbed him? No, no, no, grabbed the papers back into his, he was having a smart briefc ise, back to his briefcase. ^ 1 All/

2 MATSAPU All right, so, the reverend then put the papers back into his briefcase? Yes. And then, what happened to the reverend then? -- They said he must clear off. Yes, and what did he do? He went out and then I saw him going that way and then I saw the same man taking stones, throwing at the man, who ran for his dear life. Oh, so, now he was thrown with stones? That is right. And the reverend was running for his life? This was also, must have been very serious to you, not so? It is important? (10) This whole thing became a circus, because definitely they were playing marbles with us. Well, it was a very serious circus, if you want to call it a circus, not so? -- It was. And the reverend was running away for his life?!or his life. him. Whilst one policeman was throwing stones at him? At How many times? More than once? -- It could be not more than two, one or two, not more than two. (2 0) Yes, was he close to the reverend? -- No, the reverend was running, he was running. Running, but was he... Yes, he did not strike him with one, he did not strike him. He did not strike him? All right, and in this time that you saw this, the aggressive policeman had fetched his shambock? That is right. And came back and assaulted you? That is right. Now, after the assault, what happened then, after he struck you with his fist? You were then still standing next (->0) to/

3 32 C MATSAFU to your vehicle? -- Yes. Okay, what happened then? -- Well, when he saw that I did not retaliate, as I have indicated, he threw his revolver on top of the bonnet of my car, challenging me to a fisticuffs fight, which I declined more, although I was assaulted. 3ut I still declined the challenge. What did he do with the sharnbock? -- The sharnbock, I cannot say if it was next to him or on the floor. I cannot say at this time what happened to the sharnbock. lie must have thrown that to the ground or somewhere, not (10 so? -- At this time I cannot say. He did not have it in his baud? He did not have it in his hand by that time. All right, he challenged you to a fight? What did he say to you? -- He said: Korn, laat ons dit novi uitbaklei met vuiste. Because he saw that I was not fighting. And then, when I refused to fight, I said to him, why should I? But what have I done, in order to warrant us a fight. Yes? Ek sien nie hoekom moet ons baklei nie. That is what I said. (20) Yes? -- Ek sion nie die rede hoekom moet ons baklei nie. There is no reason, whatsoever, why we should fight. All right, and what effect did that have on him? Well, I saw by that time he became hopeless, took it back to his holster, took the revolver back to his holster and then they... And then all of a sudden all the aggressiveness, et cetera, was out of him? -- No, he completely went off and then he said to me: Maak jouself skaars. Was he calm by then? -- No, he was still himself by that t ime. (30) <3/

4 33 C MATSAPU He was still himself? - Yes, himself. He was not being nice? -- No. All right. Now, and he then told you: Maak jouself skaars? -- Which means, get out of my sight:. Very strange behaviour, not so, Mr Matsapu? One of the strangest behaviours I have ever seen in my life. To me, Ui;.t is what I say, it looked like a dream. Surely this must have been the first time in your like that this has happened to you? My first experience and very nasty experience. (10) And the aggressive policeman, you smelled liquor on his breath? Alcohol. Alcohol? What would you say what was his condition? Would you say that he was drunk? -- No. Not drunk? Not drunk. Very aggressive? He was. And I take it it was the very first time the police had ev-r acted towards you in that manner? The first time. You had no problems with the police whatsoever before? - -- No, never, never. ( 3) And you must have found this very, very strange beh viour? Very, very strange. Because you did not do anything that warranted even being abused? -- Or the humiliation. Nothing at all? All of them abused you, not so, seriously, assaulted you c ciously? And then, all of a sudden challenged you to a fight and when you declined the fight, he said to you you must go? -- That is right. After he wanted to arrest you and wanted to force you into the van? ---- That is right. (30) Mr/

5 34 C MATSAPU Mr Matsapu, since this incident you say that your attitude towards the police fo^ce in general has changed dramatically? -- Hundred per cent, hundred per cent. Would you say that you at this stage hate any policemen? In actua3. fact, I do not like what they do towards. ople in general. You do not like them at all? -- Yes, at all. COURT; I did not hear. You do not like...? I do not like what they do towards people, which is unjust, which is not according to law. If they arrest a person lawfully, I am not (10) against them, but if they use force or they do thing they had done towards people, like fight and shoot, I am not for them. MR LABUSCHAGNE; For no reason whatsoever? -- For no reason, for no apparent reason. But do you not like the policemen now, at this stage, generally? It is not only those three that you do not like, you do not like, you do not want to have anything to do with any policemen? -- If I could help it, I want nothing to do with policemen, if I could help it. Would you say that, talking generally, that you actually (20) hate the police? -- I am keeping myself away from them. All right. Do you want them out of the township? -- If I could help it, now. Immediately? Immediately, immediately. Is it only the police force? The SADF has joined them. The things they had done to us, are a little bit perturbing, especially with me. They had done it even (inaudible). Things that the Defence Force have done? -- They have done it, yes. All right. We have not heard anything about that up to (30) now/

6 35 C MATSAPU now and until now, but I will not go into that. All right, and you said that at a later stage in January of this year your wife was shot by police? -- Was shot by somebody who could have been the police. By somebody that could have been the police? -- The police. Are you not sure of that? -- That one I cannot substantiate. Why not? Were you not I was not in and I do not know what really happened. (10) But you were told, surely? It is hearsay, which is very, very dangerous to work on. Your wife must have told you, Mr Matsapu? -- She told me, but... What happened? I think she is a person who is more conversant with this. X th'ink she can h-indle it better, expertly. Whe must have told you what 'lappened to her, Mr Matsapu? But I feel at this juncture it w.uld be more correct that she, she is c-i.lled upon, she must come and testify. I (20) would not like to stand on this side, because she can give a contradictory thing and then I do not think it would be right for the Court to hear... Now, do not shy away. Did she tell you that the police shot her, or that she was shot by members of the police? That is what she said. She told you that? It is what she said. There was no mistake about that? -- Hundred per cent. Was she injured at all? The bullet is still lodged in her shoulder. (30! In/

7 36 C MATSAPU In shoulder? -- Yes, right at the back. Did you see, actually you must have looked at the wound? You, being her husband, surely must have looked at the wound? -- I did. You did? Yes. You saw the wound? --- I saw the wound. One wound only? -- One. And the X-ray, so to say, brought it more clear, because she went to more than four X--rays It was in the shoulder? It is still in the shoulder. (10 In the left shoulder? -- I am going pass on that. I do not want to commit myself. I am only asking you that, because you indicated the left shoulder? No, no, no, I cannot say if it is left or right. At this juncture I would not like to say. It could have been, probably it could have been the left, but at this juncture I would not like to commit myself, and say left. When you find out, when you look at the plates, it is on 1 e right and then I am out. But you saw her? You looked at the wound. Surely you (2u) know v/hether it was on t e left. No, she was standing this way round. this side. Precisely when I came into it, she was standing The wound was here. On the left side? It could have been on the left, yes. In front, at the side or at the back? -- Here somewhere. You indicate on the left? --- Yes. And did she tell you that there was no reason for the police to have shot her? -- Hundred per cent, there was not. Did she tell you where she was at the time? Can I relate incidents leading to that, before she was shot? (30) Did/

8 MATSAPU Did she tell you where she was when she was shot? - She was right in my yard, next to the garage door, having a conversation with a neighbour when this thing happened. Doing nothing wrong? -- Nothing wrong. And who was the neighbour, or who is the neighbour? -- Mrs Modise, if I a.n> right. Mrs Modise? -- Yes, becau; we usually call her Mani. She is older than us, aunty. Irene. She did. But she is Mrs Modise? -- Modise. * all right, and your wife's name is Irene Matsafu? (10) She also made an affidavit in this particular matter? Did you read that affidavit? No, I did not see it. Because you refer in youx affidavit, you refer to iv.r affidavit. -- If, I mean, the Court would like to hear more what happened, he will get it from her affidavit. Well, you must ask her, because all that I am going to put to you, Mr Matsafu, is that in yc c wife's affidavit she does not say anything about having been shot by che police. COURT: You say she does not say? M R LAB^SCHAGNE: No. I know nothing. That is why I said, I did not want to commit myself. Somebody did, but they said it was the police, you know, it was the police. Your wife complains about the fact that the police worried your child, your child who is called Elias. There was some harrasment apparently. COURT: Are you looking at the affidavit at 346? MR LABUSCHAGNE; At 372, My Lord. COURT; There is an affidavit at 346 by Irene Matsafu, where (30) she/

9 38 C MATSAFU she talks about being shot. MR LABUSCHAGNE: I have got the wrong person. My Lord, I am sorry, the reference to the affidavit being EXHIBIT A64 is the wrong reference. I am sorry, I must withdraw that. COURT: It is A5_9? M R LABUSCHAGNE: Well, My Lord, then I am not going to proceed with this and I am not putting that to this witness anymore. COURT: Yes. MR LABUSCHAGNE: Now, about this complaint of yours, Mr Matsafu, you say your impression was that the police, was it (10) at the Xagiso Police Station that you complained, or was it at Krugersdorp? Krugersdorp one. At Krugersdorp? -- In town. They did not really want to know anything about your complaint? They were not interested in it? -- No~ necessarily. I said I spoke to the man who was in charge. He referred me to a senior on Monday. On Monday I wanted no see the D.C. From the D.C. I was put to a Captain, to a Captain, to a Captain. Ultimately I ended my story or my complaint being taken by a Black man, of which I thought, the way I gave it to (20 him, he singling out what he thought was important and leaving out important things. Now, the Black man, did he speak to you in his language, sorry, in your language? -- Hundred per cent. He was translating into Afrikaans when he was writing. And was he reading whilst he was translating into Afrikaans? -- No. COURT: As I understood it, on the first day when you went,.it was a Friday, was it? -- Yes, My Lord. Then the policeman you saw wrote in the Occurrence Book. Is/

10 39 C MATSAFU Is that correct? --Yes, My Lord. M R LABUSCHAGNE; So, your complaint was taken down on the first day, but as far as taking down the statement and opening a docket, that was done later on? -- Later on. Was a docket opened? -- It was opened. And it was done in your presence? It was done. And your statement was put into that docket? -- It was, yes. Now, did you ask for a chance to read through your statement after it had been taken down? No. (10) Why not? You were asked to sign the statement, not so? - Procedure, what they do, generally. Yes. All of them, they do that thing, formality, sign. They do it all over. They write, from there sign. We always have to sign. Do they not read it back to you? He did not read it back to me. Right. Did you, because of that, did you not say to him, can I just read through this, because after all, I am signing this? You are an educated man, Mr Matsafu? -- Well, that is (20) how they do it with most of the Blacks. They just write and then from there, sign. And you can read Afrikaans, not so? You speak it fairly well, too, -- I do, I can, I can. Ek kan Afrikaans goed lees. I can. So, there was no problem with reading your- statement? -- I could, yes. It was written in simple Afrikaans also. But I do not, I still do not understand why you did not ask for a chance to read through it, or why did you not just read through it before you signed it? I m-an, he told you to (30 sign/

11 40 C M ATSAPU sign it. Surely you could have taken the statement, read through it and then signed it. As I previously indicated, I peeped in while he went to go and collect papers. But why v/as it necessary to peep at the statement? He did not refuse you a chance to read it? -- The police usually, when they are with us, they are themselves. When they are themselves they are telling us what to do, not for us to ask them questions. If you want to be... I understand that he told you to sign your statement, but he at no stage said to you you cannot read it, you must only (1! sign it and give it back. Yes, he never said it. You could have read it. I could have read it. Had you wanted to? Yes. Now, I want to know from you, why did you not read your statement before you signed it? Procedurally, as I hav; said, most of them, when they have done their thing, they usually pass the papers and say, sign, and I did exactly that. I am not talking about mostly or usually. Yoxi have now just told me, Mr Matsafu, that this person did not refuse anything. He took down the statement. He handed it to you. (20 He actually went and did something else and you had a peep at the tatement. He then came back, told you to sign the statement, but he never refused you a chance to read your statement before signing it? -- Yes, he did not refuse. And why did you not ask, or why did you not do it? -- I did- not know that it was so important that one should read it before you sign. No, but you had a problem with the statement, not so? Because he never mentioned the alcohol? My one thing, which I had in the back of my mind was that had I pursued that thing ( i that/

12 41 c MATSAPU that the alcohol (inaudible), he could have done away with this thing after I had left, which is quite a common thing. You lay a complaint and the next time you turn your back, the same docket is taken and thrown into the rubbish bin. But that, one can always t 'ce that up again, not so? It is not as easy as that, Mr Matsafu. But the time... I mean, if there is a re.ord of it and there was something written in the Occurrence Book, your complaint was written into the C currence Book, you cannot just thro.7 a registers of that nature away, can you? -- But usually, I have (1.0 5 heard stories that they went missing, and I did not want mine to be missing also. That is why I becam e.> calm. I wanted them to go the right way, if there is the right way. Well, I am putting to you, that you had a problem. You saw that there was nothing mentione in the statement about alcohol, and why then did you sign it, and even more g o, why did you sign it without first having read it? I just do not understa 1 that. Well, as I was at the mercy of th >. policy, I felt let me be calm, so that I must be treated correctly. No, no, there was nothing wrong. There was no (~-0) aggressiveness on the part of this Black person who took down your statement, surely. Yes, there was not. there was nothing. He was calm. Surely you had all the time in the world. You told him what happened. He wrot i it down. Asked, told you to sign it. Why did you not read it? I find that very strange. -- As I have indicated that, if I had pursued the matter', this could have ended in the rubbish basket. Are you not just trying to put the police into a bad light because of wh it happened to you, Mr Matsafa? Not ( <0) necessarily/

13 C MATSAFU necessarilyi I am placing nothing but facts. What do you mean if you say not necessarily? Are yoi, or are you not trying to put the police into a bad light? t 3, not know. I am saying what precisely happened. All right. So, you say you did not want to pursue tl,e question of the alcohol, although it was a very important factor, not so? -- Yes. As far as you were concerned, it was because of the alcohol that the whole incident happened? Pro! bly because of it, correct. Now, is it correct if I say to you, Mr Matsafu, that because of, let us say, three policemen who had taken alc,,)10i because of their behaviour on one evening, that you do noi want to know anything about the police, generally? If 1 could help it. If I was not staying in this country, I w.,uia say I have got nothing to do with them., 'If I had my own country to stay in, but at the moment I cannot say, becau e they have the right to come to me and ask me -this and that If I had the right I would say I do not want to see them. COURT ADJOURNS FOP TEA.

14 1 C MATSAFU COURT RESUMES: MARCUS L MATSAFU (still under oath) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LABUSCHAGNE (continued) Now I want *o go back to the notes made by the police in the Occurrence Book, this is on the same niqht, on 3 January? -- Yes. That was also at the Kagiso, the Krugersdorp police office? -- Yes. And to whom did you speak there, was it a White man ofor was it a..? -- It was a White, hefty man. (10) Did he have any rank as far as you could see? Was he a sergeant? -- He had, what do you call this, safari suit on. Oh a safari suit, you say it's a hefty man, you can't recall or didn't you hear his name or his surname perhipsv No, I ve seen him twice, he didn't even have a name tab also. I see, and he took down your complaint? -- He wrote it down in the Occurrence Book? -- Yes. Did you see what he wrote down in the Occurrence (20) Book? -- Very short, very short. Well shortly, I mean that is what it's there fore, he made a short note about your complaint? -- Ja. Is that so? -- That is so. And did you see what he wrote down, could you see? - -- (No audible reply-) Did you ha1,o any problems with him, with what he wrote down in the Occurrence Book or did you take it that he wrote down what you told him? Well what I saw is that I told him what happened, but he just wrote it so short. (30) i Yes/

15 2 C Yes he made a short note? -- Short notes. Just the gist of your complaints? -- That's right, a summary. A very short summary? -- Mmm. And were you satisfied that he, although it was very short that he wrote down what the gist of your complaint was? -- No as I indicated when I started that this thing of alcohol I started noticing it with him, he is the first man I noticed that, when I said this said gentleman, the man, the assailant, the man who assaulted me smelt of (10) alcohol, he just giggled, then he said well "Jou saak is bietjie swaar ek kan dit nie hanteer" that's what he said. Correct? Ja, that's what he said to me. Yes all right and he then referrc 1 you to somebody else to come back on Monday, etccetera, for purposes of making a more detailed statement? -- Statement. This was just noting down your complaint not so? Y es. You know that's what the Occurrence Book is for, or don't you? -- No I have no idea how they work. (20) All right, now can you, you have already toll us that you told this policeman what had happened, did you tell him in as much cletail as you told us today or did you also just tell him just briefly? -- No I told him.. Just about the main incidents? -- In actual fact he wanted to know what happened and I related everything wh t happened and how I was assaulted. Yes, and he then, after you'd told him everything ho then wrote it into the Occurrence Book? -- That's what he did. (30) Yes/

16 3 C MATSAFU Yes and except for the fact that you say that he smiled when you mentioned the alcohol you didn't have any particular complaint about how this man was taking down your..? - No he was very, very, very gentle. Very, very, very gentle. He was gentle and he was nice to you? -- Very, very nice. Yes, like you knew the police for this incident actually occurred? -- That's how they usually be. Now an I just read to you Mr Matsafu, I have got the Occurrence, the OB, the register in which the note was (10) written on that evening, was it similar to this or can you say that it was this register? -- I cannot precisely say if that is the one but it looked more or less like that. It looked similar to this one. Now I have got an entry in this Occurrence Book on page 166 ther eof, I am going to read it to you and just ask you whether you agree with that. On top it is dated "Friday 3rd January 1986". The entry is entry No 222 and the note or the entry was made at 19h55. COURT: But then would that be correct, it was five to (20) eight? MR LABLtSCHAGNK: About five to eight in the evening? -- It could be right, it could be right My Lord. More or less? -- It could be right. Now what is written down here reads as follows; "Report Mr M Matsafu of 4945 Kagiso 2 reports that unknown policeman harassed and assaulted him in Munsieville location"? Correct. That's correct. Then it reads "They were riding with an unregistered yellow van"? -- Correct. (30^ Is/

17 4 C MATSAFU Is that correct? -- Correct. "He does not require criminal action against these policemen but feels such behaviour should be rectified" is that correct? Correct. You didn't want any criminal action taken against them? %. You only wanted this..? To be brought to the light, I mean to the seniors, they must know how these people handle us. Ye- you didn't necessarily want them to be prosecuted?(10) -- That is what I wanted to do firstly. COURT: Is it correct that the police vehicles was unregistered? Yes My Lord, that's how they appeared for a long, long time, no registration number. They moved in the location without any registration number. You say you've seen a number of police vehicles with no registration number? Especially during this time My Lord. MR LABURSCHAGNE: Well according to this note you only mentioned the yellow van? Precisely that is the one which(20) didn1t have sir. You mentioned that they-were r.iding with an unregistered yellow van? Didn't have registration numbers. Just the one? Just the one. And the white one? -- The white one did have I think. You think? -- I think there was, I mean in front, but that one didn't have. Are you sur-: about that? 100%. That it was not register d? -- I have seen it even after this incident for months, or weeks. Yes/

18 5 C MATSAFU Yes, all right, now this morning before we adjourned I forgot to ask you about the incident with your nephew. You say that your nephew came onto the scene during the assault upon you? Is that correct? -- After. Or tfter the assault upon you? -- After. Your nephew came onto the scene? -- Yes, he was approaching us. Approaching from which direction? -- From my left a distance away. From your business? -- From my business, I left him (10) at the shop. From the direction of your business? %. And would that be from in front of you or from behind you? -- As we were standing this side he was coming from that end, from the left. From your left hand side? Left hand side. Was he coming down the street? -- Yes. Was he alone? -- He was alone. And what is his name again? -- Natha. Na ha? -- He is commonly known as Natha, his correct(20) name is Cassim but all of us call him Nata* N-a-t-a. N-a-t-a? -- Mmm. And his correct name is? -- Cassim, same surname with me. Cassim Matsafu? -- Yes, How old is he more or less, is he a young man? -- He is young, as my child is young. A child, would you call him a child? -- No, no, no. About what age? More or less? I could say between plus twenty-five, between, but he is lower thanuthirty I (30; I think/

19 6 C MATSAFU think but I'm not too sure about that. He is still young. But certainly not under twenty? -- No 100%, he is not under twenty. He is a grown-up? -- He is a grown-up. Yes and did he approach you in a normal manner, he just: walked? -- He was still coming from far when this thing happened. When what happened?-- When this policeman pointed the firearm, this long-barrel thing to him and then he had to retreat and go back. (1.0) Now which one, which policeman was this? I think \ it's a thin one, the one with that goggles on. The one who had chased the reverend too, and thrown stones at the reverend? -- That's the one. Where did he get this long gun from? From his vehicle, the yellow one. Did he when your nephew approached, did he actually specifically go to the vehicle and fetch the rifle? -- The rifle. For what reason? -- I don't know, he should know, at(?:0) least if he was in here he could tell you why he did it but I don't know. In any event approximately at that stage when he fetched the rifle, how far away was your nephew, just more or less, just a guess, an estimate? -- Plus or minus fifty yards away, he was, no I'll say a hundred, he was quite a distance away. Well I mean there is quite a difference between fifty and a hundred. -- Say seventy-five. So we settle at seventy-five? Seventy-five ja. (30) All/

20 7 C MATSAFU All right, and he was just merely walking in your direction? -- He was coming towards us. Towards you, yes. -- Mmm. Did the thin policeman say anything when he fetched his rifle? -- No he didn't say anything. Did he wait for your nephew to come closer? -- No. So at that distance he just pointed the rifle at your nephew? -- That's what he did. Were there any other people coming, you know, people interested in what was going on? On the street? -- As (10) it was, the situation was quite volatile everybody ran away, scared away because they felt there was now trouble here. There was trouble? -- Yes. So there weren't any people.on the scene? There weren't any people. Now we have your nephew walking towards you not doing anything? -- That s correct. And the policeman went to fetch his rifle and he shot at him? -- That's what he did, he pointed to his direc- (20) tion and started shooting. He pointed in his direction and started shooting? -- Mmm. Can you tell us what rifle this is? --- It's a longbaiicslled thing. Is it the shotgun used? No, no, it's, this thing is.. COURT: You indicate about a metre long? -- Y s it.:ould have been plus or minus a metre long. MR LABUSCHAGNE: A long-barrelled rifle. Did he load (30)

21 8 C MATSAFU it, did he adjust it at all, the rifle, before he shot that you saw? -- No I only saw him pulling, pointing it at him and started firing shots. Ye:* you indicate that he actually aimed at him? -- No he.. He put it against his shoulder before he shot Mr Matsafu? -- I could say that he aimed towards his direction, not exactly at him, towards his direction. Well what's the difference? -- This thing, if you aim at a person the bullet will come direct to, you but if you(10) aim towards a person it can easily miss him. Now how could you tell that he was only aiming in his direction fmd not at.. COURT: He's not sa.ing Mr Labuschagne, he said it was aimed in his direction, it may or may not have been aimed at him. MR LABUSCHAGNE: As Your Lordship pleases. COURT: In fact you are not saying, you don't know whether he was aiming to hit him or not? -- No My Lord that is what happened. MR LABUSCHAGNE: Well there was nobody else that he could(20) have shot at, not so? It was only your nephew? That's right. Yes and he then si t, how many shots were fired? -- Two. Are you sure about that? -- Yes. Could it have been more than two? No. Certainly not two? -- Not more than two. I mean not more than two, yes, I'm sorcy? -- Yes. Less than two, could it only have been one shot? --Not one, I said two. And you re sure about the fact that two shots were (30) f ired/

22 9 C MATSAFU fired? -- Two shots. Now, and were the shots fired whilst your nephew was still approaching in your direction? -- Ja and then he started running back and when he saw him.. But the first one was fired he turned round and he fled? -- And then he fled. So can you tell us when the second shot was fired, was he then already running away? -- That's right, he was not in the sight. Now was, did you see whether your nephew was struck (10) at all? -- No he wasn't struck. He wasn't hit at all. Did you speak to him after this incident? -- About? Your nephew about the incident? No I didn't. Not at all? -- I was just, I was more concentrating on the assault, I was very very worried about the assault. Yes but I am now referring to afterwards, after 3. J anuary. COURT: Until today? MR LABfJSCHAGNE: Yes until today even? -- No. (20) You've never discussed this with your nephew? -- No. And neither did he discuss it with you? -- No. He didn't ask you about what was going on on that day? No I just told him what transpired. The time after I have left the shop. So he did ask you? -- Yes he did, aid then I related to them what took place. Yes, you told him exactly what took place? -- That's right. Where does he, is he also living in Kagiso or in (30) Munsieville/

23 10 C MATSAFU Munsieville? Munsieville. And he is still living there? -- Still. What is his address? -- He is staying at 954, at home, that1s my home. Is he staying at your home? -- Ja with my mother, his granny. Is he still staying there? -- Still staying there. Yes, Mr Matsafu you told us "hat a docket was opened on the Monday being 6 January? -- Y<-s. And thereafter the police again approached you, or (10) somebody from Pretoria I think you said, approached you about this matter? -- He did, Colonel King and his.. Colonel King and his staff? I spoke to him personally, Colonel King. About this incident? -- Ja he wanted to know more about the affidavits. More about the affidavits and about what you say about this incident? -- That's ri ht. Did he take a separate statement from you?-- He wrote it in Afrikaans. (20) Yes but separately? -- Separ itely. It was not the same docket as the one which was opened in Krugersdorp? -- It was not. As far as you know that docket in Krugersdorp is still open or can't you say? -- You know I don't k.,ow the legality, how these things function because I don't remember pursuing a case against that person, I have no idea. I am merely at their mercy. COURT; Do I understand you correctly Mr Matsafu, Colonel King took a separate statement from you? -- Yes My Lord (30) that/

24 11 C MATSAFU that is what he did. MR LABUSCHAGNE: That was fairly recently? -- Recently. During or about April of this year? That's right. Yes and did you again give him a detailed statement? -- That's what I did. Tell him exactly what happened? That s what I did. Yes, My Lord would Your Lordship bear with me one moment. Thankyou My Lord. Could I just refer you to your statement which you made at page 109 of the papers Mr Matsafu. Have you r ;ad that statement of yours fairly recently or do (10) you want to read it quickly now? I take it you'read and understand English also? -- I do. COURT: When last did you read this affidavit? -- Just recently.. LABUSCHAGNE: A few days ago? Ja. You must have read it before you gave evidence today not so? -- That's right. And do you recall what is stated in your affidavit or do you want to go through it again quickly? -- I think I have read through it. (20) I beg your pardon? -- I've gone through it. You have gone through it, now I want to put it to you Mr Mitsafu that in your statement, in this affidavit, you create the impression that it was only the one policeman, the aggressive one who swore at you and spoke to you all the time, you don't say anything about the other two, that they actually also swore at you? -- In this one? Do you recall that, in this affidavit? Tf you want to go through it quickly I think you can start at paragraph 7 and just go through your statement and tell me whether (30) I'm/

25 12 C66.ll MATSAFU I'm correct or not? -- Although it appears this way, if you look at the one where Colonel King, because why I remember the one f Colonel King, what that man, that Captain did, he recorded what I could tell him in my own way, but word for word what I told him, he didn't even, if you can look at that one you'll see that I did mention that all the.. All I am going to put to you is that when you made the statement surely you also made it word for word as you recalled it and this statement was made on 11 February t-iis year? -- Ja. (10) It was fairly recent, fairly close to the incident itself? -- Ja, that's what happened. That's what happened they did swear at me. All right, you didn't leave anything out of the statement-, this affidavit, or didn't you tell the person io whom you, or who took the affidavit, you told him everything that you told Colonel King and what you've told us today not so? -- That's right. Yes. Now can I then ask you why the clear impression here is created that it was only the one policeman who (20) made all the trouble, because you keep on referring to "this policeman" or "the very same policeman" in your affidavit. COURT: Do you understand the guestion? -- No My Lord, It's so to say puzzles me in a way, I don't really see why.. What is being put to you by Mr Labuschagne is in your affidavit..? -- Yes My Lord? You only talk about what the policeman who assaulted you did. -- I see. There's no reference to anything that any of the (30) other/

26 13 C MATSAFU other two policemen did, there's no reference to the other two policemen having sworn at you. I'm not sure that there is anything else, is there anything else in the evidence implicating the other two M-r Labuschagne? Apart from them having joined in the swearing? MR LABUSCHAGNE: The swearing, no except for chasing the reverend, etcetera. COURT: Pardon? MR LABUSCHAGNE: Except for chasing the reverend and.. COURT: Yes, but as far as Mr Matsafu is concerned. (10) MR LABUSCHAGNE: As far as this witness is concerned. COURT: In other words, so really the question boils down to why didn't you mention in your affidavit that the other two policemen also spoke to you in this blasphemous way and rude way? -- My Lord I think that.t that juncture I would say that the way I have it, the man, the third man, that's why he came, he was more pronounced, he is the man whom I felt he was, if they were three, could have been accused No 1, the man who was taking.all the blame. He didn't only do the swearing, he did the hitting you see. Even if (20) there was a shooting he could have done the shooting. MR LABUSCHAGNE: But he didn't? No, no, no, I say if ever there was a shooting. Yes? -- He could have done it, not the others. The others no, they only talked, that's why, merely that's what they did, they didn't do anything serious like hitting and all that, I couldn't have done any case against them. But the swearing, surely that was serious as well? I mean it was very vulgar language? -- But now I use spectacles

27 14 C MATSAFU I know? -- I find that, I know that one is more serious. I agree with you, all that I'm saying to you is that the swearing was also serious? I agree. Not so, now why didn't you mention it here in this statement? Isn't it perhaps because the other two did not swear at you at all? -- They did. They did, as I've repeatedly said they did. They did? -- They did. All right, now can you tell us why don't you say so in your affidavit? -- I would say is it not maybe a typo-(10) graphical error or what, but they did swear, definitely 100% that I am cocksure. Yes well you can't really xplain that, can you? -~Ja. Mr Matsafu I take it that you read through this affidavit before you signed it?-- I did. Not so, you read through it carefully? -- Ja. Now also in your affidavit I don't find any reference of the one policeman chasing the Reverend who had nothing to do with all this and that he actually threw stones at him, why was that not mentioned? -- In my affidavit? (20) Yes, do you want to have a look at it again? -- No, no I did look at it but I think it s just, why maybe the police, nothing is said of the reverend, you see the injuries which I sustained, I don't think the reverend did sustain any injury, if there was any assault nothing, I mean seriously, was done to him in excepting that they only took his papers, perused through them, the next time he was chased, besides that he was not injured. Had he been injured definitely this could have appeared. No but to you, surely, a policeman chasing a reverendfbo) who/

28 » 15 C MAT AFU who has not done anything at all, down the street, you told us he had to run for his life, stones were thrown at him, why didn't you mention it in this affidavit? I am not asking you why the reverend never mentioned it or made an affidavit, I am asking you why didn't you mention that in this affidavit. -- Can you explain that to me? -- No I can't no. Is it alsonot possible that it is because it never happened? The chasing of the reverend and throwing stones at him? -- If the Court desires, if ever this man can (10) be traced where he stays, I definitely I am 100% that he can be collected now he will tell exactly what happened as I am putting it. Yes, but you have no explanation why it does not appear in your affidavit? That's right. Now if you look at paragr ph 16 of your affidavit, that's the reference to your nephew in your affidavit you said, you say that three shots were fired at your nephew, today you say you re sure that only two shots were fired, ornot more 1 an two, that s what you said? Do you (20) see that? Is that a mistake or what do you say about that? Why that difference Mr Matsafu? -- My explanation is the time factor, from the time this thing occurred and to now, time factor, this could have slipped my mind in a wav. What, the fact that actually three shots were fired? J 3 Because this morning you said.. That's right, I precisely said two, but the time factor, from the time it occurred up to now, it's quite a length of time I cannot recall everything in detail.. (-50) What/

29 16 C MATSAFU What are you saying, would you say that three shots is probably more correct? This was said the day, it was said I think after, some time back now.. Only a few weeks after the incident itself? A few weeks after the incident, ja. And your memory was fresher and better at that stage? Fresh as ever, ja, as ever. Yes, and better at that stage as when you made a statement to Colonel King, it was fresher in your mind,the whole incident because the statement to Colonel King you only (10) made in April, is that correct? -- I cannot remember the dates correctly there. No I am not asking you about the dates. I am just saying to you that your memory was better in February of this year than it was in April of this year? I'm not trying to catch you Mr.. -- Correct, correct. Yes, now the statement that you made to Colonel King were you given an opportunity to read that? Me read it to me. He read it to you? The Captain read it to me. (20) In Afrik ans? -- Afrikaans. And that is correct? 100%. You have no problems with it? -- No complaint whatsoever. Can I ask you Mr Matsafu, speaking generally, about 3 January in Munsieville, were there problems in Munsieville? -- Ja, what happened is that I remember precisely from about 3.00 in the afternoon. Not very far off from our place there was a bus which was burnt, but it was why the poli< were in the vicinity. In the vicinity? Ja. The/

30 17 C The bus burnt by youths or..? -- I have no idea whatsoever who did that damage. Was it burnt right in the street? Right, it was completely on the outskirts of the location. In the outskirts? -- Ja, a place a little bit removed, a little bit away from the houses. Was it in any street, can you..? -- No it's gravel, gravel. A gravel road? Ja it's gravel road, it's usually where they take a turn before they go back to their routes.(10) Now did you travel, did you at any other stage on 3 January, did you travel by car in Munsieville? -- I did prior to that, I did. On one occasion or more than once? -- Could have been more than once beca se I usually collect my commodities up and down. A busy businessman? Every time they need this I run to town. Keep on the road not so? -- On the road all the time. Yes, did you notice any roadblocks being put pp. in (20) the streets? COURT: Barricades? MR LABUSCHAGNE: Barricades yes My Lord, I'm sorry. No, barricades, nothing My Lord, nothing. I'm not talking about police barricades. -- You mean general barricades? General? -- No sir, none whatsoever. None whatsoever? Mmm. No tyres or..? -- Nothing, nothing,-it was very quiet. Or rubbish burnt in the streets? -- Nothing sir. All/

31 Collection Number: AK2145 KRUGERSDORP RESIDENTS ORGANISATION AND 4 OTHERS v. THE MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER AND 2 OTHERS 1986 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.