The evidence in camera of a key state witness in the Delmas treason trial was dismissed this week after the witness, a young woman, admitted she had invented it to satisfy interrogators who had assaulted her in detention.
The witness said she had been threatened on Monday with prolonged imprisonment if she departed from her written statement in court on the following day. Under cross-examination, she identified deputy attorney general PB Jacobs, who is heading the state’s legal team in the Delmas trial, as the person who made the threat.
The dramatic event was the latest development in the marathon trial of 22 men accused of treason The court has examined video footage of police action during the September 1984 uprising in the Vaal Triangle; it has considered several bail applications; and the presiding judge, Justice K van Dijkhorst, sitting with two assessors, has even questioned the direction the state’s case is taking.
Hundreds of office bearers in United Democratic Front affiliates have been listed as co-conspirators with the 22 treason trialists, accused of having conspired with the UDF, the African National Congress and SA Communist Party to bring about the downfall of black local government.
Before she retracted her evidence on Wednesday, the state witness – a young woman from Parys’ Tumahole township who may not be identified – told the court that one of the accused, Patrick “Terror” Lekota, and others had taught a group of Tumahole residents how to make petrol bombs.
Under cross-examination, however, she said she had signed a statement continuing this evidence only after being sjamibokked and interrogated detention by nine policemen.
Lekota was not known to her, she said, when she was arrested in 1984. “…They said they were going to hit me and that I must tell the truth about Terror Lekota. I repeated, ‘I do not know Terror Lekota’ to which they said ‘How does it happen you don’t know him, being a comrade?’
I said ‘It doesn’t help to make me say I know a person I do not know… I do not know this person. …
But on their forcing me to say things about Terror Lekota which are not true, in fact things I have said about Terror Lekota here are not true.’
I did not know Mr Lekota at all yesterday before … (they) described to me what he looks like, that he does not have one tooth in the front. That is all that was explained to me.
The witness said she identified Lekota in court solely on the basis of the missing front tooth.
When I came in here I noticed Mr Lekota smiling,” she said, “and I noticed that he has a tooth missing.
The trial is likely to drag on for months as the state changes the focus of its attention from the Vaal Triangle to unrest in 31 other areas around the country. At the same time, there appears to be little clarity as to what the hearing is about. Admissibility of evidence is a frequently-raised question.
Asked Judge van Dijkhorst at one point: “Where is this going? “I have listened to cross-examination on two funerals which took place after September 3 and I have admitted this because the state saw fit to place the evidence before the court. Why exactly I don’t know. How far must we divert from September 3 and why?
New evidence which could shake the state’s case includes the following:
- The tabling of the official Van der Walt Commission’s findings on the causes of the September 1984 uprising. The report found grievances against rent increases and corrupt councillors, and not “agitators”, were responsible for the revolt. (See separate report.)
- Brigadier G Viljoen, the policeman in charge of the riot units in the Vaal during the uprising, conceded under cross-examination that he had received no briefing on the situation in the Vaal before taking control.
- Esau Mahlatsi, mayor of the Lekoa Town Council, seemed to give substance to allegations of corruption in the councils when he divided liquor outlets amongst themselves.
A judge’s own notes on police activities
NOTES made by a judge while watching video footage shown by lawyers for the treason trialists in Delmas throw remarkable light on police action during the September 1984 unrest. Lawyers submitted the film to support their contention that violence after a mass funeral in Evaton was the result of police action. What follows is presiding judge Justice J van Dijkhorst’s record of the video footage: “A group of people are seen running to the side of the road – presumably trying to get away from their bus which has been stopped. One of the Hippos veers right to cut them off. The cameraman then records the following incidents:
- Police sjambokking through windows — no obvious reason.
- The Brigadier (G Viljoen, in charge of riot control in the Vaal during September 1984) is seen, his back facing the camera; he is waving his arms and presumably says something to the police sjambokking at the windows because they stop. He then turns and walks out of the
- view, at which stage police continue sjambokking at the windows.
- A person is then struck in the face by a policeman.
- A policeman is seen sjambokking perhaps three people in the top of the bus. They talk to him and he stops. However, when he sees another policeman climbing up he suddenly starts sjambokking again.
- You then see a person being kicked on the ground.
- You then see a youth running away, jumping over a fence and being hauled back.
- You then see the aforesaid two policemen on top and taking a swipe at his hands with batons as he is about to drop.
- You then see a person in grey pants and a white shirt in the custody of a policeman. A black policeman comes up and starts to assault him.
- You then see the Colonel on the top of the Land Rover. His smile is questionable.
- You again see the person in grey pants and white shirt being taken to where a number of people have been grouped on the side of the road, seated. On his way you see him being struck on the head by the butt of the rifle. On reaching the group he is tripped and almost immediately thereafter he is again struck by a baton. What did this poor fellow do to deserve all this attention?