A museum director told the Pretoria High Court on Thursday that he was never asked for any documentation, and without any warning of his rights, was arrested and cuffed to his colleague.

SA National Military History Museum director John Keene spent a second day in the witness box in court.

He and two of the museum's curators, Richard Henry and Susanne Blendulf, are suing the ministers of Safety and Security and Defence for almost R1.9 million in damages.

Keene lost the sight of one eye and Blendulf suffered from post traumatic stress disorder after the three were arrested at the museum in Saxonwold, Johannesburg, in January 2005.

All three were locked up in "filthy" police cells overnight, to be released the next day after the director of public prosecutions refused to prosecute them.

Keene, who was still recuperating from an eye operation, had to be rushed to hospital for emergency surgery, but was kept shackled to his hospital bed for most of the day.

The court earlier heard that Arts and Culture Minister Pallo Jordan and top delegates of his department, as well as the CEO of Northern Flagship Institution (under which the three national museums fall) were all present when members of the police and military police descended on the museum.

The ministers on Thursday filed an amended plea, in which they stated that Keene and the others had been in possession of property suspected to be stolen and were reasonably suspected of knowing it to be stolen.

It was also stated that the three had "used the property unlawfully", that the equipment was serviceable and that "no suitable documentation" could be provided for the armoured vehicles and firearms, despite requests.

Keene said only a vintage vehicle was used to drive children around the monument, but none of the military vehicles were ever driven in the street.

He conceded that the museum was part of the Ministry of Arts and Culture and could not be treated as a military unit.

Counsel for the defendants, Brian Spilg SC, put it to Keene that there would be evidence that the police had not gone to the museum to arrest people but to get documentation for four of the armoured vehicles and two motorised guns.

Spilg said there would be evidence that the three were only arrested when they could not produce "source documents", but only library type cards.

He put it to Keene that no documentation was produced "because it would not have reflected an entitlement to possess some of the arms and vehicles".

Keene denied that the weapons and vehicles at the museum "were not supposed to be serviceable".

"Up until about 1975, the Defence Force used to send a team of technicians to the museum every year to make sure the firearms and tanks were still serviceable.

"...It's a military museum that collects arms and armour (in serviceable conditions), as do military museums throughout the world.

"We're registered as an official institution that's entitled to be in possession of arms in terms of the Firearms Control Act and are exempt from licensing for all small arms," he said.

The case continues.