/V
/
' -t t
2610
HOF
HERVAT
ADV
BIZOS
writing,
certain
NA
but
TEEVERDAGING
(13
Your
Worship
we
before
going
overall
questions
by
our
nesses,
they
would
Worship
that
unless
an
admission
then
similar
If
projected
with
the
that
your
in
ruling
there
was
no
force,
as
that
they
of
not
from
that
submit
does
it
was
there
of
to
in
they
as
had
by
to
re-examining
sir
it
begs
the
their
case,
was
with
other
Benoni,
established
one
that
on
your
there
is
that
has
been(l0
witnesses,
question
is
which
was,
very
there
as
he
young
we
we
issue
can
Worships
only
was
by
allegations
that
concerned,
the
not
statement
the
so
your
be
people
can
can
and
with
leave
it
is
whether
or
an
inference
complained,
and
as
(20
some
to.
clarification
aspect
that
it
whether
through
the
investigational
Cronwright,
treated
tendered,
whether
or
and
the
those
well,
ill-treated
that
matter
they
because
deposed
wit­
system,
very
obtain
denied
custody
as
make
the
the
to
in
answer.
that
evidence
one
not
Major
in
L e t s o k o 1s
say
insofar
have
is
was
argument,
categorically
in
Aggett
in
their
to
of
- unless
admissible.
to
sir
it
be
of
submit
not
system
the
It
is
some
investigational
investigational
witnesses
been
has
consideration,
Dr
to
an
officers
sir,
out
admission
police
far
respect
an
like
some
will
the
but
went
is
respect
based,
of
there
questions
evidence
friends
from
they
was
submissions
I would
if
going
Worship
them
our
as
evidence
the
made
appear
fact
is
1982)
Judging
learned
there
greatest
The
have
through
that
that
Oktober
submissions.
asked
*'
Argument
and
for
is
was
it
in
not
in
was
the
in
that
the
elsewhere,
it
concerned,
under
purposes
the
of
we
want
Heads,
Vereeniging
officers
team
mind,
or
to
that
whether
has
that
direct
control
L e t s o k o 1s
case/
(30
case
that
is
With
paragraph
certain
we
all
that
those
1 your
Worship's
affidavits,
and
that
broadly
davits
then
tendered,
to
decide,
ponents
said
physical
whilst
he
particular
and,
ble
evidence
and
team,
or
the
whether
as
to
of
the
John
where
the
during
date
were
is
the
in
until
affidavits
relation
Your
the
to
were
an
Worship
affidavits
entirely
in
your
provisions
your
Worship's
Lordship
not
of
Mr
Mr
de­
concerning
were
sir
in
the
John
that
in
the
I wrote
the
in
(10
death;
give
credi­
interroga­
operating
interrogation
Square
or
September,
and
other
similar
the
else­
1981
-
others
words
fact
whether
(20
evidence
admissibility
such
discretion,
sir,
to
Aggett
system.
a matter
out
his
and
Hogan
In
as
and
of
Vorster
Miss
Dr
the
investigation
such
1982.
Act.
to
a system
by
of
able
when
Holme
considering
the
prior
whether
consideration
Bizos,
; whether
Cronwright,
admissible
judgment
called
22nd
Inquests
Justice
necessary
After
the
was
approximately
Worship's
due
Worship
from
ruled
or
discretion
out
and
affi­
Sguare,
at
admitting
the
Vorster
of
in
of
state
investigational
evidence
such
bases
out
record,
emotional
Major
February
set
the
your
shortly
place
we
1982
affidavits
Square,
period
fact
two
carried
took
June
Worship
deponents
of
sir,
admissibility
existence
Vorster
detained,
these
the
in
which
John
the
command
ill-treatment
on
period
ill-treatment
under
out
and
in
during
the
their
at
mind
your
and/or
detained
secondly
tion
mental
in
upon
argued
in
established.
Ruling
give
and
anything
was
be
speaking
was
and/or
to
observations
say
upon
has
as
and
should
We
be
don't
I was
told
Appellate
the
in
of
present
oral
is
exercising
given
intend
once
to
certain
reading
by
Division,
his
"It's
it".
appropriate
(30
sections
of
and/
the
Act
and
various
your
to
authorities,
Worship
be
came
exercised
to
the
arbitrary,
vague
and
it
exercised
honest
fine
man
of
to
Worship
leading
evidence
relevant
meant
fanciful
within
that
but
the
discharge
that
it
legal
limit
his
that
a discretion
was
and
of
-
was
to
be
regular,
which
office,
with,
the
and
discussion
of
instructive.
G o t s h o (?)
consider
from
case,
the
question
and
investigational
to
"The o b s e r v a t i o n s
or
an
to
con­
quoted
from
and
the
The
the
now
in
of
of
Your
the
Judges
matter
the
these
admissibility
system.
analysis
instant
admissibility
the
learned
issues
with
of
not
clear­
case
observations
the
cases
are
is
Letsoko
(10
in
evidence
and
mind
given
by
persons".
Your
approach
Worship,
applying
enunciated
by
your
following
the
affidavits
be
and
give
called
persons
As
Worship
that
held
Security
not
similar
sir,
that
your
Worship
Momoniat
the
was
were
and
been
not
of
of
will
of
evidence
deponents
the
names
and
affidavits
at
the
in
under
hands
view
the
of
of
the
the
Rule,
fact
excluding
these
two
affidavits,
sir
that
complaint
at
all
best,
it
that
relating
submit
of
your
concerning
would
first
(20
of
Momoniat,
We
recall,
a minor
the
out
Lerumo
admissible
nexus
the
the
called.
on
them
that
set
their
evidence.
basis
we
adopted
admitted
directed
affidavits
sufficient
fact
and
portions
principles,
Worship,
already
ill-treatment
Police
was
the
that
the
evidence,
have
regards
alleged
there
length
an
the
these
at
relating
in
I will
dealt
the
distinguishable
to
which
conclusion
on
ly
the
the
authorities
concluded
stating
the
to
himself.
Worship
by
and
competent
Your
the
be
came
conclusion
judicially
not
must
he
with
respect
the
didn't
to/
as
one
appear
on
(30
to
be
was
equated
to
concerned
reference,
any
sir,
that
it
probably
when
was
nexus.
In
Narsu,
Samson
in
case
the
an
of
nexus
established
to
under
the
fact
In
not
case
sufficient
team"
who
by
the
and
them
I emphasize,
could
stage
sir,
mind,
in
Kgatshalia
there
their
your
me
same
team
Dr
Aggett
I just
that
taken
that
is
by
ask
your
could
your
it
after­
there
Montgomery
Worship
not
found
sufficient
admissible
held
that"there
find
that
of
the
was
that
my
not
this
the
is
(10
same
policemen
also
learned
the
Attorney-General
Deputy
to
the
questions
would
whether
or
have
not
it
in
our
that
is
no
connected
omission
In
he
made
the
did
his
which
addressed
affidavit,
there
was
interrogated
the
fault
in
the
that
case
of
affidavit
case
persons
Worship's
Narsu
was
of
the
affidavit
addressed
the
the
that
we
full
legal
on
of
your
nor
(20
their
representa­
question
as
to
supplementary
clear.
Narsu
So
sir,
represent
in
or
anybody's
relation
to
affidavit.
Ndao
state
makes
Mr
this
representative
family's
but
at
Swanepoel
have
themselves
the
of
Mr
legal
to
note
escaped
a very
appear
submission,
with
it's
admissible,
from
not
Mr
have
colleage
N a r s u 's
neither
to
affidavit
but
ted
to
Worship
naturally,
that
a passing
of
of
affidavits
before
and
any
Lerumo
place,
was
Worship
A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l 's o f f i c e
fault
aware
took
as
for
affidavits
that
"the
late
something
fact
originally
tives
except
became
the
far
Narsu".
Now
mind
as
Rule.
Narsu
the
appear
Phiros
render
of
and
investigation
information
interrogated
Mr
not
Cronwright
and
each
similar
others,
rejecting
Ndao
of
the
did
Major
wards,
no
of
your
where
and
Worship
by
whom
inadmissible,
said
that
the
fact
he
had
been
assaul-
under
the
notion
of
similar/
(30
similar
facts.
In
the
allegations
nexus
case
in
his
required
months,
or
mention
the
of
affidavit
because
even
the
names
of
now
lating
the
of
been
to
their
should
17th
be
made
Public
and
the
There
of
Eric
have
of
father,
by
van
Mr
to
your
Heerden
Denis
van
van
is
dates
nor
Ndao,
order
to
he
and
by
in
supported
with
(10
Reference
and
to
these
were
the
the
the
affida­
tendered.
The
by
re­
reason
Hall
Chikani
and
Kgatshalia
deal
September
which
Ruth
did
and
Heer d e n , Barbara
Heerden,
the
or
information
affidavits.
Worship
it
the
them.
Dewar
Frank
other
Auret
in
15th
of
the
establish
affidavits
terms
of
three
Ntonga,
further
Bell,
in
affidavit
sir,
Narsu,
the
that
responsible.
excluded
dated
to
happened,
was
from
officer
letters
submitted
affidavit
his
are
who
previous
Prosecutor,
new
vague
ill-treatment
their
found
mention
this
person
addressed
Kolise
been
in
to
not
when
Worship
too
providing
alleged
presiding
September
Senior
vits
the
did
affidavits
submitted
deficiencies
which
the
your
were
he
period
Supplementary
have
Kgatshalia
affidavits
Anne
case
Hogan
of
the
affidavits
Becker
and
Dr
sir
that
from
Ivor
(20
Cohen .
Yes
had
we
not
seen
could
was
to
my
relating
to
a decision
missible
The
Dr
your
to
friends
Cohen's
Cohen's
Worship
correctly
affidavit,
affidavit
this
it
available
submissions
it
is
the
credibility
whether
only
of
similar
Mr
fact
to
say
we
are
earlier,
morning
make
on
or
Ivor
get
whether
in
learned
Dr
not
handed
decide
sir,
- my
van
sorry
that
he
-
and
your
- but
in
a supporting
Heerden
they
is
it
Worship
any
will
event
affidavit
and
not
on
evidence
would
be
ad­
submitted
under
cover
not.
affidavit
of
Ntonga
was
of
a letter
Handed
of
to
your
affidavit
It
Heerden
the
of
is
Eric
on
basis
below
and
and
for
submitted
sir
that
the
supporting
with
Ntonga
and
and
for
the
by
Frank
the
the
supplementing
now
are
their
out
below.
It
also
submitted
sir
that
deponents
orally,
sir,
that
is
ample
should
above,
handed
Lieutenant
examine
sir,
Venter
them
in
If
one
mitted
their
or
at
case
they
other
an
affidavits
at
might
be
a late
fully
of
to
Barbara
be
set
out
Narsu,
in
Ndao,
their
admissible
Worship
should
called
24
suggested
stage
a bar
affidavits
affidavits
it
or
and
of
are
hours
to
the
time
by
Mr
and
of
to
admissibility,
police
deal
Smith
as
have
in­
had
therewith.
and
were
these
proceedings
tendered,
to
we
that
the
the
were
and
was
in
reasonable
each
of
found
basis,
earlier
admission
deponents
of
van
Venter
able
to
-
cross-
sir.
the
ing.
it
sufficient
some
Satisfactory
given
as
September
and
Auret
admissible
evidence
your
the
inquest.
the
during
each
are
affidavits
constitute
that
opportunity
were
the
submitted
submitted
dicated
these
insofar
are
this
at
on
of
deficiencies
set
the
and
was
September.
affidavits
fully
is
Heerden
affidavits
which
the
render
of
affidavits
Chikani
reasons
van
September
22nd
the
supllementary
Auret
of
on
affidavits,
affidavits
the
20th
Hogan
that
Now
We
the
more
testify
it
on
and
reasons
order
and
September
Barbara
Kgatshalia
original
of
Worship
together
Hogan,
the
13th
the
to
the
stage,
be
fact
for
have
been
late
tender
otherwise
admissible,
that
were
In
reasonably
supplementary
affidavits
should
evidence.
not
explanations
they
not
the
constitute
case
practicable
affidavits
not
at
an
of
to
on
sub­
a bar
each
obtain
earlier
Now/
of
to
the
their
stage.
Now
of
any
rule
time
of
sir,
sir
it's
as
the
true
to
time
that
this
judicial
discretion
guidance
in
the
Rules
I don't
Worship
wants
way,
a negligent
time
period
ful
there
provided
Rules,
have
Heerden
was
in
was
not
was
under
was
made
tion
beforehand,
prepared
although
to
as
soon
have
they
were
go
tent
with
himself,
that
says
she
far
in
was
unreasonable
to
as
her
He
has
now
- as
the
attorneys
affidavits
at
than
Hogan's
affidavit,
as
an
have
a very
and
on
your
accused
Auret
and,
- whilst
been
the
filed
other
has
(20
it
family
from
early
he
he
affidavit,
release
and
we
Swanepoel,
deten­
sir,
which
stage,
been
consis­
matter.
concerned
Worship
trial
respect­
this
he
for
is
terms
had
an
that
the
Mr
the
he
very
affidavit
a criminal
for
his
this
knows
which
made
after
of
him,
Mr
in
that
Worship
affidavit
rather
attitude
to
it
our
contended
to
(10
within
in
affidavit
your
Court
have
sir,
your
if
put
matter
Courts
But
but
let's
or
an
it
find
Supreme
Supreme
or
the
as
will
the
cases
the
access
credibility
Miss
facing
no
executed
his
when
the
of
this
sir.
these
available
done
supplementary
only
she
had
made
he
27
seriously
about
make
as
they
As
be
detention.
reasonably
and
he
Rule
a thing
because
We
in
Rules,
I submit
which
Worship
condone.
anything
which
do
a reasonable
your
to
absence
and
- on
a deliberate,
the
cannot
notice
which
with
as
to
to
detention.
information
could
it
done
van
by
a power
submission
could
failure
its
the
within
condonation
sir,
been
sir
in
and
cited
dealing
has
to
a matter
with
guidance
where
the
deal
should
it
required,
propose
even
of
is
is
do
coming
authorities
which
a party
limits,
information
again,
Court
that
must
sir,
have
it
is
not
person
to
adopt
noticed,
an
until/
(30
that
until
his
or
her
to
become
an
unreasonable
there
this
is
involved
other
on
Worship,
and
aspect
before
that
Jacobson
is
relevant,
prepared
family
hibit
to
because
him
we
make
she
does
causes,
take,
we
it
but
could
sir
he
an
can
give
and
his
can
respect
take
an
injuries
thought
not
is
in
not
want
not
any
have
really
that
the
on
event
put
called
the
to
from
at
Dr
one
in
and
not
of
Mr
the
that
members
to
private
give
is
in
the
the
evidence
it's
pro­
evidence
in
evidence
not
dealt
with
in
to
Miss
relation
sir
others,
Worship
(ID
may
in
and
this.
relation
I would
consider
investigating
(20
as
officer
Jacobson.
stage,
to
place
court
in
relation
but
be
your
is
practitioners,
dealt
and
he
rules
corroborating
not
Dr
of
departmental
in
on
compliance
when
we
it
that.
left
the
evidence
to
at
with
an
relation
to
the
Heerden,
we
make
of
certain
reconsideration
case,
van
view
one
attention
of
another
affidavit,in
affidavit
ask
Hogan
may
Worship's
these
is
evidence
the
Muller
that
Miss
for,
to
evidence
another
evidence
takes
with
1 1 , there
Unfortunately
in
that
your
corrroborating
matter,
given
can
position
sir,
thought
seen
Now
he
page
the
his
dealing
corroborating
Brigadier
suggest
we
the
to
affidavit
Jacobson
in
give
statement
that
give
corroborating
he
that
- he
Hogan.
Jacobson's
to
affidavit
can
Miss
Dr
bring
has
I am
with
affidavit
to
Sir
of
or
whilst
sir
believes
making
a supplementary
put
an
relation
sir,
to
he
Nanabhai,
Hogan
Dr
that
say
submit
Mr
with
to
I proceed
to
with
to
we
he
from
submit
relation
to
her
oath
I want
that
He
he
people's
for
I may
is
in
other
attitude
that
but
closed,
earlier.
affidavits,
not
is
in
a statement
Your
and
case
sir,
we
Act
to
the
affidavit
is
admissibility
the
following
sub-/
(30
submissions
your
davit
deals
at
of
Aggett
Dr
can
to
be
no
the
4-25
be
length
during
doubt
enquiry
of
the
Worship.
The
with
his
detention
that
the
relating
affidavit,
first
association
at
John
information
to
is
Dr
of
portion
vital
with
Vorster
which
Aggett
as
of
and
affi­
observation
Square.
he
set
his
has
out
to
in
significance
There
impart
paragraphs
and
should
admitted.
It
dence
your
is
in
fact
contained
Worship
Momoniat,
As
in
for
and
-
this
although
police
in
took
Cronwright
involving
It
wright
of
took
place
who
all
interrogation,
ted
at
John
Vorster
interrogation
both
in
van
in
for
the
charge
and
part
removed
could
Square.
they
not
the
same
persons
who
(10
26,
p o i n t l .5
Security
most
his
command
the
ill-
of
his
interro­
of
Major
investigations
Aggett.
known
Benoni
just
The
as
for
well
persons
were,
and
in
on
other
themselves
to
Major
the
been
the
Cron-
conduc­
in
the
evidence,
affidavits
team,
(20
purposes
involved
all
investigational
had
by
and
own
to
the
and
and
of
best
to
ill-treatment
of
Dr
reasons
this
Square,
directions
H e e r d e n 1s a f f i d a v i t
evidence,
were
and
1 .,
was
for
but
point
Heerden
Vorster
allowed
his
of
witnesses
was
to
fact
evi­
Smithers.
offices
overall
that
of
relating
26
the
Njikilana
the
John
in
Heerden
evidence
page
of
already
at
under
the
appears
van
at
was
from
place
van
detained
the
any
Ngwenya,
information
appears
that
affidavits
Lerumo,
possibly
the
Benoni,
detention
gation
example
regards
which
significant
previous
even
treatment,
more
even
interrogated
in
though
Dr
Aggett.
Reference
admissibility
which
he
of
speaks
should
van
of
also
be
Heerden's
the
made
in
considering
affidavit,
discussion
on
paragraph
Christmas
eve
the
25,
in
between
Major/
(30
Major
Cronwright
Aggett's
in
to
to
which
paragraph
and
which
largely
was
examination,
your
but
and
Worship
will
that
floor
62
or
the
evidence
Worship
portion
sir
assess
of
to
own
afternoon
Friday
Swanepoel
was
the
Dr
free
under
denied,
vital
believed
- whether
his
the
that
able
cross-examined,
between
sir
if
aspect
discussion
Captain
is
by
to
submit
evidence
the
be
correct
sir,
Swanepoel
apparent
regard,
of
police
that
Reference
Mr
on
Heerden
Aggett
hours
the
was
an
Dr
on
which
portion
that,
will
and
was
at
his
a
sir
of
on
is
is
then
credibility
Aggett
cross-
the
the
(10
10th
request
not.
If
we
be
Dr
one
by
I submit
van
to
regarding
activity,
Whitehead
Pitout,
confirmed
and
Mr
witnesses
for
relating
only
Whitehead,
underground
Lieutenant
portion,
admitted,
in
Lieutenant
16
Swanepoel
vital
Lieutenant
involvement
regard
and
and
that
because
that
is
be
Deputy
van
28
Heerden
is
will
not
is
quite
it
be
had
Mr
found
the
by
your
inconsistent
to
the
early
Attorney-General,
of
correct,
and
vital.
made
Heerden
paragraph
van
officers
should
the
Mr
material
van
affidavit
from
which
by
it
is
information
in
this
H e e r d e n 's a f f i d a v i t
is
rele­
(20
vant.
As
regards
Cohen,
Ruther
mitted
in
1982
and
Becker
order
allegations
the
of
that
to
affidavits
of
(Baker
these
demonstrate
assault
he
?),
is
had
still
Denis
that
already
van
have
Auret
been
suffering
from
Heerden,
merely
van
made
been
sub­
H e e r d e n 1s
during
the
Ivan
effects
January
of
his
ill-treatment.
Now
is
this
between
sir,
sir,
what
that
himself
Mr
and
I would
van
Major
like
Heerden
to
add
deposes
Cronwright
in
to
after
relation
to
this,
a conversation
Dr
Aggett's
If/
death.
(30
If
those
allegations
are
is
admissible
because
of
a party
a dispute
is
relevant
truth
and
admitted
this
is
knows
or
as
your
where
the
an
officer,
important
to
whether
The
he
found
by
of
Dr
be
taken
ill-treatment
having
been
Jacobson
to
forms
of
mis-treatment
and
methods
correspond
paragraph
were
with
13
affidavit
speaks
about
Aggett
and
This
been
part
was
at
of
Vorster
of
this
those
the
an
having
been
of
to
which
same
by
your
and
or
-
that
Worship
other
assessor
inconsistent
his
sir,
she
cause,
her
that
as
and
hands
sir,
and
of
also
described
complains
and
interrogated
other
team,
by
her,
witnesses.
stage,
she
to
various
investigational
other
suffered,
reported
She
the
affidavit
herself
etcetera
injuries
at
course
consideration
not
together
the
that
same
a part,
due
In
prepared
to
give
in
paragraph
12
she
in
regard
Dr
to
Floyd.
relating
the
often
of
was
interrogation,
indicates
is
in
she
earlier
evidence
Square.
described
why
the
Hogan
ill-treatment
explains
Elizabeth
led
Comrades",
she
part
in
not.
assaulted
have
litigation
believes
are
into
Anne
John
who
Aggett
justice
at
persons
were
the
Muller
other
has
in
Barbara
the
during
Phipson
which
of
with
and
or
conduct
because
things
affidavit
was
an
to
it
evidence
the
representative
believed
complains
the
legal
belief
this
argue
Wigmore,
does
or
evidence,
be
she
of
will
that
knows,
a party
and
to
only
Colonel
or
factor
is
not
relevant
in
then
- before
cause,
- we
agent
fide
or
sir,
Worship
during
his
quoted
an
bona
is
deals
of
Worship
cases
your
whether
particularly
a police
with
to
justice
the
places
to
as
correct
and
the
overall
the
with
document
the
B.3
detention
entitled
and
investigation
affidavit
of
Mr
evidence
which
"Close
interrogation
in
Eric
which
Dr
Mkolise
Ntonga/
Ntonga,
this
affidavit
communication
were
to
both
with
Dr
Aggett
detained
at
John
observe
the
him
over
deterioration
Aggett
relates
had
his
reported.to
Vorster
of
his
the
contact
period
and
and
that
Square.
time,
physical
him
to
during
a period
of
only
He
they
was
testifies
condition
and
relating
to
the
paragraph
we
submit
as
what
conduct
able
to
Dr
of
the
in
the
police.
A
further
affidavit,
important
relates
to
Detective-constabel
with
Dr
other
Aggett's
evidence
apparent
is
valueable
submitted
witness
August,
obtained
that
months
8
1982.
affidavit
We
an
affidavit
from
him,the
required
to
go
to
stage,
had
with
coupled
(10
corroborates
appearance,
who
had
not
in
detention,
and
obtain
12th
of
spirit
affidavit
at
an
Although
detention
he
assault
testifies
and
Olivier,
both
Vorster
Square.
affidavit
to
earlier
Ntonga
that
and
which
A
in
and
was
only
from
prior
order
the
to
to
statement
a
to
them
to
that,
family
he
affidavit
to
(20
from
whilst
the
possible
the
18th
obtain
take
signature
not
on
for
accessable
was
a period
acting
was
not
himself
to
the
fact
of
persons
the
further
the
In
evidence.
for
released
him.
London,
in
detention
therefore,
contains
obtain
was
on
this
stage.
the
members
was
not
affidavit
admitted
he
his
it
be
attorneys
been
September,
Ntonga's
should
East
Ntonga
with
Ntonga
conversation,
Aggett's
could
Mr
the
that
that
which
explains
of
were
at
Dr
sir
information
approximately
an
This
appearance
concerning
of
have
Chauke.
which
ill-treatment.
It
This
conversation
sir,
assaulted,
that
he
was
concerned,
investigational
important
presiding
Deetlefs
team
should
his
threatened
paragraph
officer
during
at
in
have
when/
and
John
his
regard,
(30
when
considering
Security
speaks
John
police
of
the
Vorster
The
give
whether
in
any
changes
Square
Aggett
during
during
the
change
which
the
last
corroborates
is
the
to
life.
Dr
evidence
his
of
Dr
he
detention
at
Aggett.
death,
Aggett's
which
his
has
the
which
deponent
observations
It
by
1 2 , in
- this
his
his
in
of
Chikani
to
noticed
ill-treated
paragraph
death
prior
of
was
conditions
Frank
week
other
the
relating
week
he
in
of
evidence
Aggett
manner,
after
affidavit
dir-ect
Dr
and
of
in
deals
with
given
Dr
particular
appearance
been
can
the
and
in
(10
this
re­
gard.
He
furthermore
assaulted
in
the
at
John
presence
Vorster
of
interrogators,
led,
that
tional
team
Paragraph
reason
for
it
these
under
having
Square
is
of
known
command
his
by
himself
Warrant
Seyffert
officers
the
8
of
Deetlefs.
main
both
speaks
from
were
of
affidavit,
submission
submitted
that
this
fact
should
not
admission
in
the
direct
relevance
issues
the
affidavit
interrogated
nally
detained
authority
Kempton
of
Park
and
in
Major
he
his
which
was
investiga­
explains
affidavit,
constitute
was
2 .1.1
2 .1.6
of
the
of
John
Montgomery
Vorster
Cronwright,
policemen,
to
of
assaulted
John
Security
part
his
the
were
in
a
the
and
it
is
bar
to
its
regard
to
(20
the
mentioned.
Then
was
of
Chikani
late
of
Deetlefs
Cronwright.
the
view
of
Seyffert,
evidence
members
Major
physically
Officer
and
other
been
at
Kempton
Square
and
sworn,
whose
are
his
supplementary
Vorster
Square
although
Park,
he
apparently
before
threatened,
names
Narsu,
being
in
affidavit,
investigational
under
taken
insulted,
mentioned
was
by
he
origi­
the
to
various
paragraphs
and
who
team.
Major/
are
(30
Major
that
the
persons
command,
was
of
Cronwright
and
part
furthermore
Barbara
the
same
his
John
family
that
pardon,
enable
your
involved
investigation
his
in
and
Zulu
a man
and
who
of
appears
Des
Aggett's
in
mitted
under
members
and
that
his
It
Ndao's
specifically
major
wright,
of
and
to
and
affidavit
Des,
is
team
necessary
Ndao
that
Warrant
visits
accordingly
I beg
of
to
(10
policemen
including
Dr
nexus
Aggett,
required
under
for
the
established.
of
Mr
Samson
to
who
was
assaulted
his
now
evidence
man
he
of
Worship
late
refers
a huge
part
is
your
the
trials
all
investigation,
accordingly
recall
apply
there
same
Narsu
signed
It
his
Lieutenant
can
from
converse
Durban,
him.
Officer
Ndao.
The
Kerr,
the
(20
description
one
of
Dr
interrogators.
were
the
the
affidavit
interrogated
Ndao
him
the
the
received
-
under
were
Narsu
before
evidence,
the
called
to
that
and
whom
fact
team.
in
Square.
interrogation
with
to
and
sufficient
is
I seem
person
Square,
facts
deal
of
the
were
evidence
both
overall
his
supplementary
Venter
Fine,
find
the
of
give
information
Narsu
similar
then
to
and
admissibility
We
In
to
no
to
investigational
Vorster
is
in
interrogated
of
John
Worship
Narsu,
Furthermore
sufficient
the
notion
Alan
there
were
the
same
Vorster
at
who
also
the
and
testified
interrogated
subpoenaed
Hogan
at
submitted
your
of
evidence
investigation.
statement
from
w h o
in
of
the
states
same
investigation
at
page
Ndao
was
1148
that
team
under
of
the
of
the
the
by
who
interrogators
control
record
interrogated
persons
Major
members
of
maltreated
involved
Major
Cron­
Cronwright
of
the
sub­
police
command.
is
accordingly
original
submitted
affidavit
have
that
been
the
deficiencies
remedied,
and
the
reason/
in
original
(30
reason
for
the
exclusions...(inaudible,
his
affidavit
has
any
event,
paragraph
deals
in
with
his
and
his
the
question
prepared
police
in
in
issue
and
to
who
explained
had
then
we
davit,
Kgatshalia
regard
and
should
deal
it
be
excluded
had
established
similar
plied
the
that
and
fact
by
both
should
was
of
not
the
3 of
the
in
his
complained
Cronwright
his
to
that
the
in
be
instance
the
Security
been
Mr
fully
his
with
Phiros
Kgat-
original
affi­
and
(10
observations
his
evidence
The
presiding
ground
that
in
Court
charge
affidavit
sir,
of
in
and
his
that
officer
no
terms
information
supplementary
the
of
has
of
admissible
by
first
now
affidavit.
contact
on
it
also
the
9 of
additional
off
was
in
affidavit
affidavit
The
Aggett
accordingly
acts,
the
paragraph
make
Dr
in
Ndao
relevant
members
unlawful
submitted
to
of
of
nexus
of
the
now
sup­
removes
(20
establishes
interrogation
investigation.
It
was
the
with
Rule.
vagueness
directly
admissible.
his
Kgatshalia
Major
is
held
he
names
In
and
affidavit
observations
evidence
with
Furthermore,
original
is
drops)...
Inquest.
2 and
deals
however,
been
the
the
Worship.
Aggett
and
that
paragraphs
your
Dr
at
fact
his
regard
committed
shalia
of
with
and
disclose
in
And
the
removed.
of
8
this
affidavits
admitted,
been
contact
evidence
His
now
voice
furthermore
maltreated
of
whom
Warrant
Officer
were
members
of
the
corresponds
with
by
from
by
Furthermore
particular
appears
Dr
manner
that
of
the
in
his
affidavit
Prince
same
treatment
described
Aggett
this
by
and
that
Captain
he
Swanepoel
investigational
described
other
affidavit
by
team.
Kgatshalia
witnesses,
and
of
of
the
4th
in
February.
Kgatshalia
(3 g
explains
in
paragraph
2
the
reason
was/
why
he
was
not
prepared
names
of
the
fully
assaulted
acceptable
to
disclose
of
a
the
on
the
upon
in
It
and
sir
to
cited
by
your
been
of
nexus
to
and
particular
number
the
do
in
tem,
to
that
and
and
in
in
treatment
the
to
testify
explanation
failure
should
the
of
are
sir
not
of
not
Relying
not
sufficient
of
(10
admissible
was
further
in
has
method,
affidavits
evidence,
to
there
establish
the
tendered
number
that
the
one
the
of
cir­
to
tend
time,
in
to
method
and
this
in
re-
out
to
complained
and
argued
has
not
been
existence
this
in
the
the
of
Dr
sufficient
a system,
criticism
and
correspondence
existence
in
which
same
or
(20
regard,
meted
manner
other
original
another
given
and
was
all
of
meet
show
threatened,
out
certain
judgment,
time,
already
that
of
of
submitted
his
been
now
Minister
in
as
it
the
evidence.
proximity,
circumstance,
meted
evidence
allegedly
terms
and
of
for
occasions
fact
there
relation
police
to
of
treatment
probability
interrogated
the
the
the
both
the
unlaw­
admission
appearing
of
tendered
affidavits
method
this
his
the
had
the
admission.
evidence
witnesses
fact
who
instance,
Worship
that
respect
other
for
further
time,
was
of
disclose
that
that
against
similar
their
Insofar
Counsel
first
proximity,
now
in
lation
by
made
submitted
Aggett.
called
not
c i r c u m s t a n c e , both
in
and
a number
portions
justify
the
on
is
supplementary
and
police
submitted
the
it
respect
establish
is
Counsel
has
been
that
has
is
in
that
or
had
cases
cumstance,
it
militating
others,
who
submission
nexus
names
evidence
basis
the
and
Security
to
evidence.
and
witnesses
the
affidavit
understandable,
factor
submit
Police
that
and
original
of
him,
these
Kgatshalia's
We
his
members
is
constitute
in
of
of
a
sys­
Dr
Aggett
similar
detainees.
There/
(30
There
affidavits
example
is
we
Lerumo,
And,
affidavit
to
to
police
to
fact
the
may
the
right
see
him,
to
and
evidence
Smithers,
Dr
of
deny
Dr
these
sir,
Coleman
for
and
Jacobson's
a number
heard
and
your
sir
Worship
conclusion
Worship
the
that
we
two
already
important
I don't
evidence,
where
of
your
detainees
had
heard
opposite.
are
busy
a number
Your
with
an
(10
deprived,
has
been,
witnesses,
unlawfully
Dr
of
Aggett
The
fact
evidence
that
think
to
that
the
members
in
can
your
direct
important,
him
that
is
and
and
Mr
legal
he
one
Worship
will
sir
who
of
of
to
least
and
else
(20
Mr
has
and
was
where
not
witnesses
their
witnesses
I am
evidence,
because
at
himself
negative
and
fact
represen­
with
of
be­
depose
family
Ngwenya
further
can
deprived
his
a number
give,
impor­
nature
treatment,
every
to
and
the
was
of
where
that
are
of
his
unlawful
the
similar
accordance
thusfar
there
who
to
or
to
is
consideration,
because
he
occasions
into
difficulties
a party
is
detention
access
accessable
enquiry
is
had
not
fact
relation
sir
take
was
given
the
to
in
doctor,
that
have
died
own
with
ill-treated.
but
Aggett
Aggett
two
ever
in
for
has
his
where
dealt
police
Dr
he
the
culty
ask
in
Whatever
have
on
-
Njikelana,
precisely
officers
of
complained
about
we
admitted
something
said
present,
where
tatives
fact
saying
your
police
detention
this
Worship
that
for
the
tions,
say
happened.
evidence
the
to
correctly
factor
what
already
Ngwenya,
sir,
distinguishing
enquiry.
The
cause
those
ill-treatment,
has
for
filed.
officers
important
basis
from
course
Your
deposing
tant
of
like
Worship.
no
Nanabhai,
be
I'would
Worship
fact
submit,
Floyd.
of
in
only
have
in
talking
any
can
mindful
asser­
give
as
of/
we
diffi­
similar(3Q
are
of
the
expense,
investigating
and
have
sir
led
to
become
filed
a
them
wisdom
in
missible.
Let
the
in
assume
question
decision
have
of
witnesses,
these
any
been
wrongdoing,
witnesses
Our
jected
to
it
is
to
them
the
to
how
allegations
to
their
case
against
unheard.
their
out,
who
I am
a belief,
clients
and
is
friends
that
telling
do
the
cause
your
the
friends
more
im­
which
Worship
may
that
the
Inquest
us
I submit
your
to
Worship
fact
be
Worship
be
is
have
with
in
by
been
posed,
to
ad­
Worship.
affi­
Worship's
credibility
who
had
Worship's
is
your
the
witnesses,
Worship
your
these
would
(10
Un­
your
excludes
going
the
evidence
made
relation
your
could
them
situation.
similar
got
contain
Excluding
leave
have
heard
denied
other
(20
your
so,
your
far
be
be
run,
will
learned
sure
have
evidence
and
should
my
Worship
of
evidence
like
that.
police
admissibility
of
your
them
in
if
the
effect?
right
exclusion
the
same
same
learned
their
having
the
the
the
of
is
a manner
of
then
same
by
learned
some
your
will
the
to
sir;
has
that
taken,
what
in
before
ground
that
finding
our
but
unsatisfactory
sense
be
life.
will
an
by
treated
because
a ruling
A
us
or
to
matters,
relation
the
going
Court,
placed
on
this
made
the
own
earlier,
respect,
has
d avits.,
sir
lengthy,
satisfactory
his
in
is
Aggett
affidavits
little
greatest
by
Dr
take
evidence
excluding
that
important
was
to
the
important
are
is,
him
Now
time
officer,
ourselves,
portant
-
the
it
leave
friends'
Worship
have,
would
welcome
that
truth.
make
The
a
case,
me
to
I submit
serious,
clients
that
Counsel
this
for
but
all
Worship
in
repeatedly
my
in
this
finding.
question
and
suggest
sir
that
relevant
untested,
learned
the
ob­
friends
justice
matter
be
Make
though
is,
your/
a
of
thrashed
finding
will
(3 g
your
Worship
be
mitting
these
must
an
be
going
to
tions
that
in
affidavits,
unequivocal
be
Sir
assisted
medical
have
finding
and
yes.
evidence,
been
made
in
not
administer
numbers,
but
it
may
be
evidence
from
from
seven,
cult
from
the
act
that
Worship
in
we
in
ruling
run
our
it
has
counter
to
so.
We
been
placed
this
for
if
some
by
answer
there
of
the
counting
someone
people.
from
are
is
allega­
not
obtain
It's
more
Much
unmindful
your
a case
heads
to
nine.
before
is
the
affidavits.
justice
five
short
for
the
false
more
sir
which
or
difficult
Worship,
in
practical
manner
deciding
not
a certain
ruling
must
been
especially,
difficult
that
that
ad­
diffi­
of
(10
once
similar
in
considerations,
which
justice
is
is
ad­
country.
to
earlier
we
Or
possible
with
Worship,
are,
submit
by
admissible.
cut
submit
Worship's
there
has
accordance
Your
will,
is
to
ministered
or
decided
evidence
But,
not
more
a dozen
burden
your
even
truth
we
these
do
four,
the
supporting
we
three,
out
try
given,
the
but
be
whatever
solve,
to
decision
admit
extent,
and
and
to
already
affidavits
a negation
practical
once
exclude
these
your
the
of
difficulties
Worship's
evidence
given
your
by
your
(20
would
Worship.
Thankyou.
ADV
5CHAB0RT
ADV
SCHABORT
REPLIES
Your
Worship
obtain
a proper
perspective
issue,
to
to
of
22nd
the
Now
our
to
refer
this
learned
invite
of
the
June,
you
this
sir
to
in
the
pre-history
pre-history
friends
of
it
necessary,
in
order
present
issues,
of
Worship's
your
or
to
present
ruling
year.
has
their
have
is
been
disregarded
argument
a look
at
to
page
completely
you.
15
of
I would
the
record,
where/
by
like(30
where
Kock
the
had
predecessor,
the
"As
following
far
as
the
reluctance
from
and
this
the
was
proceedings
"...
has
what
such
and
the
matter
may
that
ning,
but
In
we
end
to
of
criminal
at
should
duction
of
of
know
howsoever
for
the
there
can
mus:
go
in
of
that
with,
with
accede
to
the
L de
Inquest:
great
requests
commencement
that
of
it
is
that
is
indeed
thepublic,
sir,
and
that
the
this
that
with
matter
in
the
it
be
(
dragged
some
have
your
end,
Worship,
this
despatch
it
only
unduly
are
by
at
is
a begin­
rules
be
root
of
procedure
which
any
the
must
the
Rules
interest , that
out
due
there
lies
alike.
There
public
with
that
quarters
no
principle
both.
be
concluded
was
that.
proceedings
in
obviously
in
should
This
the
aim
individual
unending
intro­
evidence.
in
a U o
our
apply
submission
to
proceedings
whenever
urgent
also
is
and
of
mind
things
in
and
filing
is
in
along
civil
clearly,
Enquiry,
will
go
for
and
proceedings
fresh
this
it
actual
Worship,
fitness
lawsuit
principle
had
your
position
of
Mr
possible."
be
preventing,
Now
as
commenced
and
to
publicity
litigation.
the
the
reason
be
don't
the
an
govern
soon
these
opening
concerned,
going
justice,
Worship
would
It
felt
as
the
sir,
sir,
wide
of
at
predecessor
parties..."
for
basic
received
his
is
I am
date
your
say
date
that
the
interests
Now
to
interested
as
heard
where
or
of
practice
like
in
the
a Commission
its
submissions,
to
Worship,
investigations
important
a limit
your
the
hearing
present.
of
task
may
to
evidence,
be,
and
which
and
Commissions
Your
Enquiry
Memoranda
extent
like
this
is
a
the
Worship
set
date
up,
is
like,
set
and
a Commissioner
in
allowing
questioning/
questioning
Your
of
the
1971
(3)
5ALR
viously
that
na
was
to
disallowed
that
said
at
page
Well
sir.
van
den
to
in
with
gevalle
page
in
is
not
Lordship
toe
hoor
te
neem
maar
as
iedereen
sou
and
in
for
die
in
die
this
was
what
happened
this
Enquiry
Lordship
writing
his
report
so,
and
his
(10
wanted
his
doing
ob­
there
and
advokate
’
n gepeupel
kamer
op
mekaar
maar
of
ul­
Lordship
te
het
lig
to
laat
om
getuies
gewend
word
onder
om
kruisver­
kon
het
word
Daar
in
net
’
n donker
groot
Daar
en
het,
ander
’
n mens
sou
nie.
nie,
gewees
elke
swaardskermers
het.
geduur
’
n
-
onderwerp,
kon
om
proceedings
diskriminasie
moes
gewees
die
0
these
say
losgelaat
ons
uiters
prosedure
to
onbedrewe
op
onderwerp
on
te
voor
2
application
went
lank
te
eenvoudige
toegelaat
waarheid
onmoontlik
aangedring
willekeurige
geen
wat
(
kruisverhoor
sowel
aan
Now
witnesses,
kruisverhoor
lawaai,
Kommissie
by
attended
aan
aan
die
the
over
Now
getuies
his
of
presided
1949.
sterkste
this
NO
Justice
707/8
van
decision
Rensburq
Acting
Verslag
die
"..0 m sommige
sou
at
en
ondervra. .
niks
Mr
Enquiry
who
het
getuie
getuie
of
reasons
vertoon
But
of
van
the
sir:
het
te
vs
to
Durban".
parties
his
Court
Bell
that
Heever
onbeholpe
I hope
in
"die
opportunity,
sommige
om
the
Commission.
the
708
verskyn
reg
made
cross-question
dealt
"In
is
find
Onluste
of
permission
timately
will
important
some
refer
Division
a Commission
Judge
an
I may
p.6 9 3 , a judgment
Worship
Ondersoek
Appellate
was
at
reference
This
if
Provincial
your
report,
witnesses.
Worship,
Cape
Baker,
van
of
ons
het."
Now/
sou
sittings
(30
Historical Papers, Wits University
Collection Number: AK2216 AGGETT, Dr Neil, Inquest, 1982 PUBLISHER:
Publisher:- Historical Papers Research Archive
Location:- Johannesburg
©2013
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 paper documents 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 collection deposited at the Historical Papers Research Archive at The University of the Witwatersrand.
http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/admin/cms_header.php?pid=98[2013/03/12 07:52:17 AM]