stage? — No, actually it did not.Now the group of 200, you said a lot of them had white

headbands. Most of them or just a small number of them? —I think it was quite a number of them although I cannot approximately say what the number is.

Did you see any objects in their hands? — I could only see the spears as they were a distance from us.

How would you say they were about from you when the shots were fired at you? — I think if we look at the map of the township, I do not know how many metres can I say (10) but the street is not so long. It is between as I said on the statement Batsoana Street and Thaba Bosiu and the group was at the corner of Bapedi Street and Thaba Bosiu; the intersections of the same street.

So it was not very far from you when you saw it? — No.How many of them did follow you back when you decided

to go back to the gate again, Cape Gate again? — When I looked back at them I saw a group of them, I do not know the number because as I was already thinking about my safety I could not count how many of them were following me. (20)

But they did not manage to get behind you before you entered Cape Gate again? — No, they did not.

This SADF vehicle that you mentioned, that was the same one that you saw right at the beginning, the Toyota van, that again passed you at that stage? — Yes.

Do you know who the driver was? — No, I do not knowhim.

Now the armed vehicle that came later and you said Mr Pienaar was the driver of that vehicle; do you know whether that vehicle came along as a result of any request by the (30)

13.2226 - 306 - MAHASELA

Toyota/..

Toyota van or was it just a coincidence that they returned simultaneously? — Actually I cannot elaborate on that. I do not know why it came there actually.

Do you know Mr Pienaar? — Yes.From how long before that incident? — Okay, Mr Pienaar

was employed at Cape Gate months after me, so for approxi­mately six years.

And what is his occupation at Cape Gate? — Actually now Mr Pienaar is not having a specific function at Cape Gate. He was head of security, the senior security offi- (10) cer and he has presently been taken away from that function and I cannot say what his function is now.

But at that time he was doing a camp for the SADF at that time, is that not correct? — Yes, I mean even during that time he was already taken away from security.

And what was he doing just prior to going to the SADF to do this camp? — I think he was doing several jobs. He was a chauffeur, sometimes he was a handyman.

Chauffeur. Now you said here in your statement, page 4, paragraph 8, you told him about the shooting and he (20) replied that nothing was going on in the township. "We argued with him". Can you perhaps elaborate on that? Why did you argue with him? — We argued about the sounds that he and I could hear from that distance there and then the fact that we were chased out of the township, we could not go into our homes. I specifically mentioned to him that the very same streets where the shots were fired at us, I think my house was about six houses away from me and I could not enter my house. I had to run back for my safety away from my house. (30)

13.2339 - 307 - MAHASELLA

CHAIRMAN; /..

CHAIRMAN; In what street is your house? — Thaba Bosiu.MR DU TOIT: Anything else, did you discuss anything else at that stage? — No, actually we did not discuss a lot with him.

Do you know whether he was in command of that vehicle, whether he was the driver or what was his position? — I do not know what their positions are. I just saw he was the driver of the vehicle, I do not know who was the one who was commanding the vehicle.

When you spoke to him, did you speak to him while he (10) was sitting in the vehicle or did he climb out or what? —No, immediately after he stopped at the gate he climbed out of the vehicle and then we stopped him when he was about to approach the gate of the company.

You say further in your statement that he said that the SADF could not arrest anyone, but only take them out of the township. What do you mean by that? — Ja, in our conversa­tion we tried to point to him that why can't they go and arrest those people who are doing that, that is where the point of comment - that is where he commented that they (20) could not arrest anyone but they could only escort them out of the township.CHAIRMAN: What did he mean by "take people out of the town­ship"? What did you understand him to mean? — I actually understood that they could only follow the people behind and drive them out of the township. That was my understand­ing.MR DU TOIT: Did he in fact any stage tell you or did you have any impression at that stage whether in fact before he arrived there at the gate he in fact entered the (30)

13.2442 - 308 - MAHASELLA

township/..

township before that? — The impression that came to me from his statement, from his comment was that he knows what is going on. That is the impression that came to my mind.

Why do you say so? — Because we felt that we were so serious, even so - one of us was crying, one of the men who were from duty was crying and then we were trying all our best to express our problems to him that we are really in danger and we do not know what is happening to our families in the township.

But I still cannot understand why he would say they (10) would only take them out of the township. What did he mean by that? — As I say I only got the impression (intervenes) CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, do I understand you correctly that what he was referring to by getting them out of the town­ship were the people who were attacking? — Yes.

That he could get them out but he could not arrest them? — Yes.MR DU TQIT: But you do not know whether he in fact did that on that night in question? — No, I do not know whether he did that. I would not say I did because if I elaborate(20) on that he, like on the statement, he drove away with some of our colleagues we were standing with at the gate, who could also hear the breaking of glasses and the shots that were being fired.

Do you know about the specific relationship between the SADF and the SAP in the township regarding who must go in and who can arrest people etcetera, etcetera. Whether the SADF is in fact entitled to arrest people in the town­ship? — No, I do not know.CHAIRMAN: I think while we are on this, can you give us (30)

13.2528 - 309 - MAHASELLA

the names of any of the white employees who were driven away by Mr Pienaar? — Ja, actually they were standing at the gate. You mean those who were standing with us at the gate?

Those that Mr Pienaar took off. — Ja, I know two ofthem.

Can you give us their names? — I know Mr Hunter and Mr Havinga, although I do not know their first names.MR DU TOIT: What was the first name, Hunter? — Hunter.It is his surname. (10)MR SITHOLE: And do you know whether Mr Pienaar knew you on that day? — I think Mr Pienaar knows me very well.MR DU TOIT; At that stage of the incident did you see any Casspirs moving inside or outside the township at that stage?— No, I did not.MR SITHOLE; Did you personally speak to Mr Pienaar on that day? — Yes, I did.MR DU TOIT: Before you left again round about 22:30 and 23:00 you said in paragraph 10: at that stage did you see any vehicles from either SADF or SAP moving into the town-(20) ship? — Before we left the gate?

Ja. — No, we did not.And while you were inside trying to see to the injured

and that, did you see any Casspirs then inside the township?— Ja, like I think the statements refers to that that after we stopped at house no.761, the house a few doors away from that one we met the kind of vehicle which we call the Nyala.

Nyala. Can you just look at EXHIBIT 10, do you see a Nyala on that photograph?CHAIRMAN: Before we go further, Mr Du Toit, will you be (30)

13.2613 - 310 - MAHASELLA

able /..

able to take steps to approach Messrs Hunter and Havenga?MR DU TOIT: Yes m'lord. — It is H.

Do you know any of the policemen whom you say tried to prevent you from going into the house? Do you know their names? — No, I do not know them.

Why did they prevent you from going into the house? —

That is a question we a^ked ourselves that night but we could not get the answer.

Now when you saw (intervenes)CHAIRMAN: Sorry, can I just find out, about what time (10) was this? — At this time I could not actually look at the time, I did not look at the time at that time but it was (intervenes)

Approximately how long was it after - you said the ambulances stopped outside the factory between 22:30 and 23:00? — Yes.

How long after that was it? — I think it was about five minutes or ten minutes, 5 to 10 minutes.

So it was between 22:30 and 23:00, thereabouts? — Yes. MR DU TOIT: Where precisely did you find this vehicle (20) when you saw it for the first time? — On that house where we found the two kids who were dead.

At 761? — No, not at 761.What house was that where you found them? — We did not

find them at 761 but we found them at the house where the two kids were dead and the mother still alived but injured.It stopped in front of the gate of that house.

The vehicle? — Yes.Yes, and what did the policemen then do? — When we

arrived in the ambulances some of them were surrounding (30)

13.2713 - 311 - MAHASELLA

the vehicle with their firearms in their hands and some of them were standing in front of the diningroom door of that house.CHAIRMAN: May I just ask you this: can you tell us about the ambulances, what sort of ambulances were they? Do you know where they were from? — I do not know actually, par­ticularly where they were from but they came to us at the main gate from the direction of Frikkie Meyer.

And were they white or black drivers, personnel? —Not, it was black personnel only in the ambulances. (10)

You do not know where they came from?. — One of them commented that they were from Sebokeng hospital but at that particular stage I do not know which place they were from.

And what colour was the ambulance? — They were red, white with red stripes and orange ones.

They were white with red? — White, it was an E20, two E20 ambulances, white, their colour is white, there is written "ambulance" with a red colour and then they also got, I do not know if I can call it orange stripe on them.MR DU TOIT: Did you speak to one of the policemen (in- (20) tervenes)CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Mr Du Toit, do we know where the ambulances came from?MR DU TOIT: Not at this stage.CHAIRMAN: Can you assist us, Mr Hattingh?MR HATTINGH: Yes, indeed, Mr Chairman, they did indeed come from Sebokeng.CHAIRMAN: From Sebokeng hospital?MR HATTINGH: Yes.MR DU TOIT: Did you speak to one of the policemen that (30)

13.2818 - 312 - MAHASELLA

was /..

was standing in front of this house? — We only spoke to them when we asked the reason why can't we enter the yard of that house.

What were they doing at that stage, the policemen? —One was at the gate and he was preventing us from entering the gate. He told us we cannot enter that house.

Why not? — He did not give us the reason why.What did you think, why did he not want you to enter?

— That struck my mind also on that night because we ac­tually felt that maybe he was preventing us from seeing (10) something that was going on in that house.

Was he not just doing his job to try to get to the people inside the house? Because it was a dangerous situ­ation? — I do not know in which sense was he doing his job because we were carrying the stretcher. I do not know in what sense was he doing his job because we were carrying the stretcher.

Now you said they just left, they drove away shortly after the woman was brought out of the house? — Yes.

Did they at any stage go into the house to see what (20) was going on or did you do that job? — I do not know whe­ther before we arrived they went into the house, that I cannot sound because we found them at that scene.

And they just left after you went into the house? —Ja, after we took the lady out of the house they told us that we can go home, they will take care of the situation and then we were not satisfied about their answer.

Why were you not satisfied at that stage? — Because when we realised, when we, when I thought personally of their comment that they will take care of the situation (30)

was /..

13.2904 - 313 - MAHASELLA

was had they already identified how many people were injured because they were at one house and from that house down the street there were people who were injured also and from that house they did not stop anywhere.

f

Where did they go, in what direction did they go? —They went to Hlube Street, down Hlube Street towards the intersection of Hlube and Batsoana and the other intersec­tion is Hlube and Bafokeng Street.

And you did not see that van again? — No.That vehicle again? — No, I did not see it. (10)Did you see any other police vehicles while you were

busy trying to get to the injured, except that one? — No,I did not see any other vehicle except that one.

And any other SADF vehicles that you witnesses? — No,I did not see them.

The only vehicle that you saw was this specific vehicle that you mentioned? — Yes, the only time I could see a police vehicle was after 01:30, I was already in my house.

Yes, and what happened then? — It was passing via my street. I do not know what was the mission thereof, but (20) (intervenes)

What type of vehicle was that? — It was a - I call it a Hippo, that is what I call it.

They call it a Casspir also? — Yes, they call it a Casspir.

What colour was it, do you remember? You can look at EXHIBIT 10 again. — Ja, it was like that on B.

Was it the same colour as that?CHAIRMAN: A camouflage colour? — Yes it was a camouflage colour. (30)

13.3015 - 314 - MAHASELLA

Thank /..

Thank you, that is all at this stage.CHAIRMAN: Mr Tip?MR TIP: No questions now, thank you.EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Can I just go through with you your times again. In paragraph 3 you say you were at the gate of the main factory at about 21:55, is that cor­rect? — Yes.

Then you decided that you were going to enter the township in a group. For how long did you wait before you actually moved off? — I think we stood at the gate, (10) I personally arrived there at 21:55 and we stood for about5 minutes to 8 minutes at the gate.

And then did you then have enough people together to move into the township? — Yes.

And along which route did you proceed into Boipatong from the main gate? — Seiso Street, down Seiso Street.

Seiso? — Seiso Street.Right, and when you got to the T-junction with Batso-

ana Street did you then, did you get up to that point? —Yes, we went down Seiso Street towards Batsoana Street (20) and then we turned to the left.

To the left? — Yes, and then immediately to the right, that is Thaba Bosiu Street.

And did you actually proceed along Thaba Bosiu Street?— I would not say we proceeded because I think it was at the second house where a shot was fired.

A shot, yes. And did you then immediately run back to the factory? — Like I said in the statement we ran after the second shot.

Yes, right. Now how long would you estimate did it (30)

13.3113 - 315 - MAHASELLA

take /..

take you to get from the gate to Thaba Bosiu Street whereyou were shot at? — It took us minutes.

Minutes? — Yes.A very short time? — Yes.And from there I take it you ran back to the gate?

— Yes.Would I be correct in saying that it must have been

shortly after 22:00 that you got back to the gate? You arrived there at 20:55, you said you waited about five to eight minutes. (10)CHAIRMAN: 21:55.MR HATTINGH: 21:55, sorry, you waited between 5 to 8 minutes before you started walking. It took you only mi­nutes to where you were shot at and you ran back, so it must have been shortly after 22:00 when you got back to the gate? — Yes.

When you got back to the gate for how long did you re­main there before you entered the township again? — I think we stood for quite a long time until the ambulances arrived at that specified time in the statement. (20)

And before the ambulances arrived were you standing at the main gate all the time? — Yes.

And I assume that from there you could see Boipatong, from where you were standing? — I would not say I could see Boipatong as a whole but I could have an - my eyes could have access to part of the township.

And then, how long did it more or less take for the ambulances to arrive? Just an estimate? — No, I do not estimate actually but I said it was - the ambulances arri­ved between 22:30 and 23:00. (30)

13.3238 - 316 - MAHASELLA

Then /..

Then when the ambulances arrived you accompanied them into the township, is that correct? — Yes.

Where did the ambulances go first, the ones that you accompanied, which house did they go to first? — The am­bulances stopped atvus at the main gate and then we drove with them in Seiso Street and then turned to the right side of Bafokeng Street.

Turned right into Bafokeng. Right, and then you pro­ceeded in the direction of..? — The intersection of Bafo­keng and Lekoa Street. (10)

Lekoa Street. — Yes.Along your way to Lekoa Street did the ambulance stop

at any place? — No, it stopped where we were clearing the barricades for it.

Not to attend to injured people? — No.Right, you got to Lekoa Street and what did you do then?

— At the corner of Lekoa and Bafokeng Streets, Mrs Mgcina was, we found she was lying dead there with her husband next to her.

That was on the corner of Bafokeng and Lekoa? — Yes.(20)And did you then from there proceed along Lekoa Street

or did you continue along Bafokeng Street? — No, we con­tinued at Lekoa Street and then we stopped at 761 Hlube Street.

761? — 761, I do not know whether it is in Hlube Street but it fronts or faces in Lekoa Street.

Right, so that must have been a corner house? — Yes, it is a corner house.

What did you say the number of that house was, 761?— Yes. (30)

13.3359 - 317 - MAHASELLA

Now /..

Now that is not the house where the injured childrenwere, is it? — No, that is not the house.

The injured children were at 765, not so? — I do notknow the number of the house really.MR ROSSOUW: 765 Lekoa Street or 765 Hlube Street?■ ■ ,*i

MR HATTINGH: No, we are talking about 765 Hlube Street.MR ROSSOUW: Thank you.MR HATTINGH: When you got to 761, that is the house on the corner of Lekoa and Hlube, did you enter that house?— I stopped at the kitchen door.' # (10)

Did anybody prevent you from entering that house? —No, nobody prevented us but one of the guys who stay in that house told us that the mother is late already.

And did they inform you that the body was still there?Was the mother's body still in the house or had she been . removed already? — Actually the question that we posed to them: Is there anyone who is injured that can be taken away and then they replied no, but the mother is late.

Yes. — They did not talk of the body was there or not. And from there then you proceeded where? — To the (20)

house where the two children were killed.How many police vehicles did you find there? — We

found one.Just one? — Yes.Could that have been around 22:45? — I do not know

actually the time, what it could have been but it was still between 22:30 and 23:00, but I would not say it was 22:45.I would not know.CHAIRMAN: It could have been 22:45 obviously? — Yes.

' MR HATTINGH: The police will say that round about that time or(30)

13.3475 - 318 - MAHASELLA

shortly/..

shortly before that time there were two police vehicles at 765 Hlube Street, the one being a Casspir and the one one being a Nyala? — I disagree.

We are not sure whether they were still there when you, whether both of them were there when you arrived but you did find a Nyala, is that correct? — Ja, we found that one.

When you say they tried to prevent you from entering the house, is it not possible that they did not want you to disturb the scene of the possible crime; they did not want you to fiddle with the evidence that was there? — (10) Like I say, I did not get an answer to myself why they were preventing us.

You then forcibly went into the house, is that correct?— With the stretcher, yes.

And did you find anything that appeared to you to be something that they tried to prevent you from seeing? —No, actually when we entered the diningroom we saw the kid and the mother and then we just put the mother on the stret­cher and we did not look for anything from there.

You have described to us all the police vehicles that(20) you saw over the period from about 21:55 until you got to the houses at 761 and 765 in Hlube Street? — Yes.

There is just one aspect I would like to ask you about, one further aspect. You state in paragraph 9 of your state­ment that at some stage after the SADF left an SAP Big 6 Ford sedan with a space for a dog passed by. Along which street was that vehicle travelling? — Noble Boulevard.

I beg your pardon? — Noble Boulevard.Thank you. And in was proceeding in which direction?

— It went into the direction of Sharpeville. (30)

13.0063 - 319 - MAHASELLA

That /..

That would then be in more or less an easterly direc­tion, is that correct? — Yes.

Now you specifically described this vehicle as a Big6 Ford Sedan so I assume you must be certain of that fact, is that correct? — Yes.

We have not been able to establish whether there was such a vehicle there, in the time that we had at our dis­posal, but we have been able to establish that the police have not been using Big 6 Ford sedans since about 1982.— I do not know sir, but I think I personally can go into(10) the country and find that Big 6.

Yes. — For the SAP.Are you sure (intervenes) — And I think at one stage,

I do not think it is true when they quote from 1982 because they were still used by the De Deur police, those vehicles; mostly *1 know they were from that direction.

Now how do you know that it was a police vehicle? —I saw it, it has the SAP logo on the doors.

And what was the colour? — It was - No, actually the colour of the vehicle is not light as this one but it was (20) darker.

As light as which one? — Of those yellow ones.The yellow ones shown on EXHIBIT 10. You say it was

darker in.colour? — Ja, I may describe it as orange.Orange? — Yes, that is how I may describe it.Well, at present we have no knowledge of such a vehicle

having been in the area at the time. Did it drive past you fast? — No, it was not so fast.

Did you see how many occupants there were in the car, and were they wearing uniforms? — Camouflage uniform, yes.(30)

14.0143 - 320 - MAHASELLA

Camouflage/..

Camouflage? — Yes.And you say the vehicle had space for a dog in the

back? — Yes.You mean a sort of a cage like the dog units, used

by the dog units? — Yes.Thank you, we have no further questions.

MR MOSTERT: Mr Chairman, may I address the commission in the absence of the witness, please?CHAIRMAN; May you..?MR MOSTERT: Address the commission the absence of the (10) witness, please?CHAIRMAN; Yes. Would you mind going outside, please.MR MOSTERT: The object is to try and prepare my cross- examination.

WITNESS STANDS DOWN MR MOSTERT: Mr Chairman, it is a question of what the issue is which is at this moment before you and we are inquiring into. I know that initially you announced that we would be looking into the involvement of the security forces in the Boipatong massacre. Now if it means so (20) far as the SADF is concerned whether we were involved in the killing or escoring the killers or anything else; if that is what it means then the issue is that this witness supports my case which I outlined on the first day at least at the level that he does not involve us and therefore very little cross-examination need be conducted. Similarly, if on the other hand we are concerned with the actions taken by members of the South African Defence force who were in the vicinity of the KwaMadala hostel immediately after the massacre, if we are involved with that at this stage then (30)

14.0223 - 321 - MAHASELLA

again/..

14.0291 - 322 - ADDRESSagain the evidence of this witness insofar as it concerns my client is corroborative. I must tell you that the evi­dence of the members of Vaal Commando who can depose to this part of the case largely supports what this witness says. Peripherally there are differences as one would expect there to be. The major difference between them is that Pienaar denies that - Pienaar, who was the driver - Pienaar denies that he spoke to this witness or anybody else. He was in the cabin and it is impossible to talk to anybody if you are in the cabin as a driver. Then, what turns on it? If(10) Pienaar spoke to him, so what? If Pienaar did not speak to him so what, if you will forgive both those expressions.Now if you would please confirm that in the expression SADF to use the shorter version, not the specific version, SADF's involvement in the Boipatong massacre, if that is aimed specifically at the participation of the SADF in the massa­cre then I know what to cross-examine on and whether we are at this stage inquiring or considering (c), or if that is going to be considered at a later stage.CHAIRMAN; Well, I must say, speaking for myself and my (20) understanding of it, and I think I speak for the members of the committeee, the involvement relates to direct involvement at the time of the massacre itself, either assisting or fa- ilitating and so forth. The only question that strikes me is the conduct of security forces immediately after may be relevant in respect of assumptions that can be made about their conduct prior - I raise it because it seems, it struck me as you were making the remark, that it could be relevant in that regard. I am not suggesting that that applies or does not apply to this evidence. (30)

MR MOSTERT; /..

MR MOSTERT: Well, I am not quite sure how to handle this but it seems to me that I must accept with respect, at face value what you tell us and that what we are finally concerned with now is whether the SADF were or were not involved in the actual massacre, the killing and then I can put what I have to say to the witness very briefly because it is then simply a question of dealing - and if necessary when we come to deal with the other aspects of the matter, if the differences between his version and my witnesses are of mo­ment in relation to the rest then he can always be recal- (10) led but at this moment it seems to me to be an utter waste of time to embark on a long cross-examination which may stretch into the afternoon and to no end, because (inter­venes)CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I could just hear from Mr Chaskalson what his - but please continue.MR MOSTERT; If I can just repeat on the version and the facts which are placed before you and so far I have not been (inaudible, not in microphone)..by any witnesses, we were not involved in that massacre and even assuming that you (20) accept that there were these Casspirs involved that is crucial because we did not have Casspirs on the strength.So that is it.CHAIRMAN: Mr Chaskalson, do you have any comment?MR CHASKALSON: Yes, Mr Chairman, the difficulty as I see it is this that it seems that at a certain stage the South African Police and the South African Defence Force were moving together. We do know that the South African Defence Force played some part at the time that people were crossing the road and thereafter. It seems very difficult to (30)

14.0367 - 323 - ADDRESS

isolate/..

isolate the movement of one SADF vehicle by ten or fifteen minutes from other SADF vehicle because as it was put to my learned friend by you, Mr Chairman, what happens before might be relevant to what happens after. Now if it is merely'1! a question of detail then obviously nothing turns on it, but if my learned friend would put his case we would know what the issues are at any rate.CHAIRMAN: Yes, well, I think Mr Mostert, as I understand Mr Mostert (intervenes)MR MOSTERT: Oh, that really is not correct about putting(10) my case. I put my case as.fully and as succinctly as I could on the first day and you found it to be so, so really,I. .

CHAIRMAN: Your point is that this evidence is not inconsis­tent and does not contradict the case as you put it.MR MOSTERT: On the main issue it is supported. My problem is with the periphery where there are differences which if you resolve them in my favour or in the witness' favour take your inquiry no further and all I am simply saying is this, there is no point in embarking on a long cross- (20)examination on differences on peripheral issues which will not take you, which will not assist you in any way. That is all I am saying.CHAIRMAN: I think Mr Mostert, the most you can ask us to do is to state what the issue is.MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is what (intervenes)CHAIRMAN: And that is really what I want confirmation or disagreement from Mr Chaskalson, that the (intervenes)MR CHASKALSON: No, I understand that. What I am suggest­ing my learned friend might do without cross-examining (30)

14.9435 - 324 - ADDRESS

the /..

the witness, is just put what the peripheral issues are.CHAIRMAN: Yes, no...(intervenes)MR CHASKALSON; and if he puts what the peripheral issues are then we will know what they are and then maybe apparent­ly everyone that nothing turns on it.CHAIRMAN; As long as, I think as long as we agree on what the issues are I think Mr Mostert must put what he wants to put or not put what he does not want to put.MR CHASKALSON: Yes well, can I put what our position will be and I would not like there to be any misunderstanding (10) on it.CHAIRMAN: Yes.MR CHASKALSON: We have a number of questions we certainly wish to ask the SADF in regard to the happenings of that evening in regard to the way their vehicles behaved or people on the scene behaved during and after the event. It seems to us that that is relevant to the broader question particularly since there was co-operation between the police and the SADF at a certain stage. I do not know whether the differences which my learned friend talks about are in(20) any way relevant to that, that is why I suggest if he would simply put to the witness - you have said this, we will say that; you have said this, we will say that and then it will be possible for all of us to know if that is any­thing which may be relevant or not.CHAIRMAN: Well, I do not think I can take it any further.MR MOSTERT: No, no, let me (intervenes)CHAIRMAN: I think the question you have asked, I hope has been answered with sufficient clarity.MR MOSTERT: No, you have answered it, you have answered (30)

14.0479 - 325 - ADDRESS

it in the first few minutes and that is the only guidance I wanted. As far as Mr Chaskalson is concerned, yes of course; of course I will put my case. I am not going to hide, it keep it under a blanket and I just restrained a retort which will come later.CHAIRMAN: Well, perhaps we should take the adjournment now until we meet to inspect T2 I think it is, at 14:00.MR CHASKALSON: T2 at two.CHAIRMAN: Yes, tea (T?) for two.THE COMMISSION ADJOURNS THE COMMISSION RESUMES (10)ISHMAIL MAHASELLA, s.u.o.EXAMINATION BY MR MOSTERT: Mr Mahasella, I won't keep you long. Before dealing with the events of that night, may I ask you a few questions about what happened in that area before the night of 17 June. Is it a fact that there were a number of incidents of what one might term unrest before that night? — Can you repeat the question, please?

Is it correct that there were a number of incidents of unrest in Boipatong long before that night, or let me make it more explicit, involving the people of Boipatong (20) and involving the people of KwaMadala? — I do not know.

Don't you live in the area? — I live in the area. I say I do not know what happened that led to that or not. CHAIRMAN: No, no, you are being asked: was there unrest in the area before 17 June? Were there incident of unrest?— Yes, there were some.MR MOSTERT: What seems to have been the trouble between the two groups? — No, I do not have the picture of the trouble between the groups.

Mr Mahasella, you live in the area and you see it is (30)

14.0522 - 326 - ADDRESS

very /..

14.0612 - 327 - MAHASELLAvery important to this commission to know what had happened before that people don't just go on the rampage and kill each other without a reason.MR SITHOLE: Could you specify the groups to him, Mr Mos- tert, so that he should know (intervenes)MR MOSTERT: No the residents of KwaMadala and the resi­dents of Boipatong, let me specify. — Sir, you want me to explain the incidents, what led to the incidents?CHAIRMAN: If you know. — That is why I said earlier I do not have the picture of what led to the two groups to have(10) that. I do not have the picture.

Was there to your knowledge or had you heard that there was trouble before 17 June between the KwaMadala residents and the people of Boipatong? — Yes.MR MOSTERT: What form did that trouble take? — Sorry?

What form did that trouble take? You say there was trouble before. What was it fights, debates, what? — I would say it was in the form of some sort of attacks.

Attacks? — Yes.Attacks by both sides on the other or only by one side(20)

on the other? — When I explain I would say that I have always been hearing and seeing that there has been an attack on the township. I do not know on the other side.

You see, something appeared in the newspaper called The Star dealing with this very problem. It appeared shortly after the Boipatong massacre, it appeared on 28 June and it details some of the incidents which occurred. One of them is for example and I want to read this to you - if I am go­ing too fast, please stop me:

"On June 13/14th, the weekend before the massacre (30)at / . .

Collection Number: AK2672 Goldstone Commission BOIPATONG ENQUIRY Records 1990-1999 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.