Marikana: Riah Phiyega ‘forgets’ crucial events
Athandiwe
Saba@Athi_Saba#Marikana10 September 2014 15:52
National
police commissioner General Riah Phiyega. Picture: Jan Right
National Police
Commissioner Riah Phiyega could not remember many of the conversations she had
on the days leading up to August 16 2012 at the Marikana Commission.
Retired Judge Ian Farlam
today explained to Phiyega that he has numerous questions based on testimony
and evidence led after she completed her testimony last year.
The commissioner asked
Phiyega if she remembered receiving a text message at 4.02pm from her
provincial police commissioner Zukiswa Mbombo on the day 34 miners were killed.
Farlam wanted to know what the SMS contained.
“You are talking about
matters that took place two years ago. I spoke to Mbombo, the minister, I spoke
to many people. The details of those calls I cannot recall,” said Phiyega.
The police commissioner was
also asked about an extraordinary meeting held on August 15 2012, in which she,
Mbombo and other top cops agreed that the plan should be implemented the next
day.
Farlam wanted to know what
was discussed that day and how the top cops had agreed to implement the plan,
which led to the death of 34 miners in Marikana.
“Are you telling the
commission that none of the experienced police officials present at the meeting
raised cautionary notes of the risk of bloodshed? “There was a lot that was
unprecedented about this strike as 10 people were already dead and the
information that you had was that you were dealing with people who did not
hesitate to murder.
“The fact that people there
all agreed to make resources available as required surely means they cannot
evade responsibility. I expected one or two people at that meeting to say ‘hang
on, let us interrogate this proposal’. You can’t remember anybody doing that?”
asked Farlam.
Phiyega repeatedly said
that there was no way she could remember everything that was discussed during
the meeting that Mbombo had said took about an hour.
“The meeting was not meant
to discuss the plan in detail, but it was about getting feedback and what the
plans would be looking at going forward,” she replied.
From Phiyega’s evidence, it
was clear that the police had endorsed the dispersion plan without discussing
it the day before it was to be implemented.
It was also revealed at the
commission today that no mention was made in the meeting about the police’s
presentation, which was handed over to the commission at the beginning of the
proceedings.
This meeting was also not
included in the hard drive the police handed over. This hard drive contained
all documents that were relevant for the work of the commission.
Farlam asked if this
failure to provide the information to the commission could be seen as the
failure of the police to fully cooperate with the commission. Phiyega said it
must have only been an omission and the meeting was never a secret.
Another “omission” Phiyega
was asked about was the review panel, which she was asked about last year.
“On day 76 you were asked
specifically by [Advocate Dumisa] Ntsebeza if you knew about the panel. I take
it you knew about the panel because it was to advise you. You said no. It was
revealed later that the panel did exist. Can you explain why you gave the
response you did?” asked Farlam
“It could have been an
omission,” said Phiyega.
Farlam went a step further
and showed the commission an instruction notice signed on August 21 by Phiyega
requesting the review panel.
Farlam continued to grill
Phiyega about Cees de Rover, an international policing expert hired by the
police. De Rover had testified that he had advised Phiyega that the use of R5
rifles was completely unacceptable by international standards. But the police
force was still using of the firearms.
Phiyega said that she did
not remember a meeting where De Rover gave all this advice.
