MR MOHAPE: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, yesterday we had just reached the point where I was asking you some questions about you leaving Bayswater Police Station, do you remember that?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

(Technical problem with microphones)

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, yesterday we were talking about the time when you left Bayswater Police Station. You told us yesterday, if I remember correctly, that that was the time you were arrested and you first thought that it was in terms of Section 27?

MR MOHAPE: 29.

MR VISSER: Oh, sorry 29 and then it appeared to be a Section 50 arrest if I understood you correctly?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR VISSER: I want to ask you first of all, just going back a step. Did that have anything to do with the attack on Mr Nelson Ngo? Was that unrelated, that arrest, was it unrelated to that particular attack? If you can't remember well then just say so.

MR MOHAPE: No, no, I remember it. Correct. It is very clear at that time we had already uncovered Ngo and the police, the security branch, beyond that, they continued to detain me. I was detained and detained to - what is this prison? Grootvlei prison. It was a continuous harassment from the security branch.

MR VISSER: The question is simply this. Did it have anything to do with the attack on Mr Ngo?

MR MOHAPE: I think that you should ask the security branch.

MR VISSER: Alright, okay, that's good enough. Now you went out of the police station that evening, late at night, eleven o'clock thereabouts?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR VISSER: And you told us that area was sufficiently lit by electric lights for you to realise that the two people that arrived there were people who were unknown to you, or am I wrong?

MR MOHAPE: I think you're wrong. I told you that there are lights, yes, in the road, but in the minute where people came to me and a person introduced himself as a security branch, I took to their introduction of theirs that they are coming to take me home and I agreed and got into the bakkie.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, with your permission can I just ask this witness this question? Mr Mohape, these two people who came to fetch you were in the bakkie. Had they been people that were well known to you, would you have - no, no listen to the question, had they been people that were well known to you would you have identified them?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: I am really indebted to you Mr Chairman, you have put it more crisply than I was building up to do. And we know from your evidence yesterday that had balaclavas on their heads but it hadn't been pulled over their faces and you could see that they were two black persons?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And the point where we reached yesterday was where I put to you that you had consistently refused to co-operate with, as you put it, Erasmus and Shaw and another person, Horn I think you mentioned?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: To co-operate with the security branch but nevertheless when you drove off on the bakkie after they had identified you, you had no problem talking to them about COSAS and the UDF and the ANC?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, I think you must not mistaken. A mere discussion with a person who is just talking to you and a person who's asking questions that he wants to use those questions against you and with those guys in the bakkie, as they just talking generally about COSAS, I was free because I've been free in the past to answer the very same questions to security branch members about COSAS and I will go to as far as telling them: "Yes I'm involved in COSAS.

Yes, COSAS has it's old objectives and it has problems to achieve" and that information to me, it was not information that will incriminate me or anybody else in COSAS. Anybody knew about that because every problem of COSAS or anything have been appearing in statements in the newspapers, on T.V's and everywhere, so that was nothing new that I could hide to anybody else.

MR VISSER: Is it at all possible for you today to just give us general description of the body build of these two people or one of them? Were they slightly built, heavily built, tall, whatever? Can you remember?

MR MOHAPE: Ja, I remember the one came out of the bakkie and introduced himself as a security branch member. He was short, he was not tall, he was I think of my size now and with body, I think he was the same body or bigger than mine.

MR VISSER: And how would you describe that? Medium?

MR MOHAPE: Probably.

MR VISSER: Right, and the driver?

MR MOHAPE: The driver, I did not get his tallness because he was sitting in the car so I could not determine if this one is short or tall.

MR VISSER: Right, but the fact is that - let me ask you rather, did you fit in quite comfortably on the front seat between these two people in an Isuzu bakkie or was it a cramped situation?

MR MOHAPE: No, it was not cramped.

MR VISSER: Not cramped. When you gave your evidence and you mentioned the money which you received back from the police at Bayswater, our notes state that you weren't sure of the exact amount?

MR MOHAPE: No, I told you it was one hundred and sixty.

MR VISSER: So you are quite sure it was one hundred and sixty?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I'm quite sure.

MR VISSER: Alright. The two people that came to fetch you that evening, have you ever seen them again after that day?

MR MOHAPE: No, since that day I did not see them. And one thing is that because I said I could not picture, put their face into my memory, therefore it is difficult for me to recall exactly, even if this person can come now here, I may not even be able to recognise him.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, is it correct that during the course of last year when evidence was lead before this committee, you did attend the hearings?

MR MOHAPE: Yes I've been attending hearings.

MR VISSER: Did you attend all the hearings or only some of them?

MR MOHAPE: I cannot recall correct but I attended hearings.

MR VISSER: Okay. Did you listen, did you hear, the evidence of Mr Ngo when he gave evidence regarding the incident concerning you?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: Were you satisfied that what he was saying was the truth?

MR MOHAPE: Let me explain this thing. You see when a policeman or security branch comes before the Truth Commission and explains situations that I been trying to get answers to, I will listen to that statement because I want the truth and if a person comes and tell about the very same thing that I wanted to know who are the people, I will listen to that.

I would want to correlate exactly with what happened to me because I want answers to exactly what happened to me. Who are those people who kidnapped me? I want that answer and if somebody comes and give information to that he is welcomed and the better if his handlers can do the very same thing.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, did what Mr Ngo said about your assault that he gave evidence about, accord with the facts as you knew them?

MR MOHAPE: You see, the information of Ngo in his evidence yes, correlates with what happened to me and there is one thing that I know he also said, he was not aware, he didn't hear the shots because he had already moved here that time. I don't know if he did move here that time or not but 99% of what he said, 100? what he said is correct.

MR VISSER: Hundred percent?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: As far as the detail as well?

MR MOHAPE: I don't know if details can detail if you are beaten by left or right or whatever but the whole scenario and the exact attack to me, it was exactly what happened to him.

MR VISSER: Yes. Just the last point, two points, on you leaving Bayswater Police Station. I'm informed that there is no general rule that when a prisoner is released, or a detainee is released, that he is automatically taken home.

MR MOHAPE: Who's telling you that?

MR VISSER: I'm instructed Mr Mohape, just answer the question.

MR MOHAPE: I cannot answer that, that is what they're saying but to my knowledge I know many a times I have been detained from home on the day of my release, they will pick me, wherever I've been detained at Hilton Police Station, I've been detained at Grootvlei, same Bayswater, there are so many including Park Road, so many police stations, that when upon my release they will come and fetch me.

MR VISSER: Yes, but I'm suggesting to you now that it wouldn't be a right that you have that if it happened it would have been a favour more than a right?

MR MOHAPE: I don't know.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOHAPE: It was up to them.

MR VISSER: Right

MR MOHAPE: You walk out of the Bayswater Police Station, now what do you do, do you expect somebody to be there to pick you up?

MR MOHAPE: I think I answered you yesterday.

MR VISSER: Well just answer me again then.

MR MOHAPE: I said to you, when they came, because at that time when they told me I must go home, there was nobody who was saying "I'm taking you home", there was a police van in the police station that was going out and they never even bothered to say we must give you a lift or whatever. But I had to take it upon myself that I'm walking and when I walked the bakkie stopped and they said then they are coming to fetch me.

MR VISSER: Alright, well that is the answer to the question. In other words you walked out of the police station and you started walking in the direction of your home?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Would that have been in Milner Street toward the city centre or the other direction?

MR MOHAPE: I don't know which Milner Street is.

MR VISSER: Milner Street is the road which leads from past Bayswater from Bloemfontein North into Bloemfontein. That's Milner Road - M-i-l-n-e-r.

MR MOHAPE: Probably that's it.

MR VISSER: Yes, now which direction did you walk?

MR MOHAPE: I was walking from the police station going down towards the city.

MR VISSER: Towards the city?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: How far had you moved before the bakkie?

MR MOHAPE: It was just in the vicinity outside the police station.

MR VISSER: Yes. You would walk out and you would turn left into - I don't know what the road is, and then you would turn left again in Milner Road and you'd go down towards the city centre, isn't that right?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Were you hitchhiking?

MR MOHAPE: No.

MR VISSER: No? Alright. Now let's come to this scene of the assault. Was there a moon?

MR MOHAPE: Hey, man. Don't ask me that.

MR VISSER: Was it sufficiently light? So that you can ...[intervention]

MR MOHAPE: No. In the situation where you are beaten, people are all over you, you cannot see if there is a moon, it's light or it's dark or whatever because I'm confused at that time. I'm beaten by people that I never expected they could do that at that time.

Why should I then stand and check if the weather is raining or it's not raining, or it's moon or it's sun when it's in actual fact dark at that time. It is clear that I, even perhaps there could have been a moon at one point or another, I may not ascertain that.

MR VISSER: Were there any electric lighting in that area?

MR MOHAPE: Mr Visser, if you want to make an inspection in loco, I think you should do that because I think that will answer some of your questions because the road that I'm talking about - the people who knows this dark road towards Grootvlei. they know there are no street lights in that side.

MR VISSER: Thank you, so that's the answer. But you were able to see that it was two further people who joined the original two who picked you up and who participated in your assault?

MR MOHAPE: You know why? Because they came to beat me up also, because they joined those ones to beat me up and it is clear when you're beaten by people who are surrounding you, you see these four figures standing before you, kicking you left and right. You can ascertain that these are four people who are doing that.

MR VISSER: So it was light enough to ascertain that it was four people, for example, not five?

MR MOHAPE: No man, I think I understand what I'm talking about.

MR VISSER: Now what is the answer to my question?

MR MOHAPE: It is clear, there were four people. In any situation where you can see figures of people, you cannot say when you are seeing there are four and then you come and see there are five because I never said I think there were five. I told you that there were four.

MR VISSER: And you said so and you were that certain because there was sufficient light, from whatever source, for you to see that?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Visser, I'm going to go back to the question of ninety 99%, 100% certain of the details. Mr Mohape, it could - I won't be able to recall details of Ngo's evidence around that, it could be that like you said, he said that you assaulted with hammers, it could be that he said, like you said too, that you were transported in a bakkie, that you were kidnapped and the like but did you hear him tell us as to who assaulted you?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I heard he told names of people who assaulted me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Which names do you recall he mentioned?

MR MOHAPE: He mentioned Tsoametsi, he mentioned himself, I can't remember the third person that he mentioned. At one point I think he mentioned Motsamai and then I understand later that was corrected to say he thought Motsamai was there because everybody was in balaclavas, something of that sort, but he could not ascertain if it was really Motsamai.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The people that you have mentioned, the people that Mr Ngo mentioned, were they known to you at that stage?

MR MOHAPE: No they were not known to me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Except Ngo himself?

MR MOHAPE: Except Ngo himself.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Are you able to tell us whether they were there or not?. Let's leave Ngo aside for awhile.

MR MOHAPE: You know it is exactly what I've said.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You can't say whether they?

MR MOHAPE: Because they had balaclavas you know? Because I cannot recall, you know, put the picture back into my memory.

JUDGE NGOEPE: For whatever reason, you are not able to say whether in fact they were there or not?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What about Ngo, he was known to you at that time? Do you agree with him that he was there, if he says he was there? I personally don't remember. I'm not very sure what his evidence was but let's assume that in his evidence he said that he was there will you agree with him that he was there?

MR MOHAPE: You see, this is exactly what I am saying, Judge, you know when a person comes to desks, you know sitting and give information that he did something and is able to correlate that in terms of exactly what happened and I look at that and I see it is exactly the very same things that happened to me, I am bound to say but this person could have been there, he knows everything about what happened because I don't think he can just come with a story of something that never happened, that he never saw.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But that is something else, it could be that he got his story from other people you know but I mean if you know a person, you know a person. You should be in a position to either say he was there or he was not there? I'm not sure that's what he said he was there.

MR MOHAPE: No, I ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: I'm told that in fact Mr Ngo said he was there he took part. Now considering that you knew him, surely you be able or shouldn't you be able to tell us whether what he saying is true or not true?

MR MOHAPE: It's exactly what I'm saying that you know what he's saying according to how he led evidence, it really tells me that he was there because he is able to explain details of their own operation.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You are saying he was there, not because you saw him, but because he's able to give the details?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, because I mean the way balaclavas and that time when I'm beaten, I cannot see in the face that this one is maybe Ngo and that because they had balaclavas on their faces.

MR VISSER: Perhaps I should follow on that Mr Chairman and then come back to my line of cross-examination. The four people who were beating you, were they all four black persons?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: There's no question of a doubt in your mind about that?

MR MOHAPE: Ja, because I'm saying you know, there is a difference between a black and white. And even if that person can put a balaclava but when he's in the process of beating you up you can see this one is black this one is white.

MR VISSER: And again, there was sufficient light for you to see that?

MR MOHAPE: When you talk about sufficient light.

MR VISSER: You see Mr Mohape, what is your problem with answering a simple question? I want to establish how much light there was to see what you saw because I want to be fair to you.

MR MOHAPE: Now I'm having a problem with that because you know, where I was as I explained yesterday you know, they parked the car next to a row of trees where I was supposed to even jump over the fence and there was general darkness but not darkness that I cannot, you know, see people, you know.

MR VISSER: Thank you, that's the answer thank you. And while you mention that, there was one motor car according to your recollection?

MR MOHAPE: No I only recollect the one that put me there I don't know if there was another one at the back.

MR VISSER: You didn't see any other vehicles around?

MR MOHAPE: No I did not see it.

MR VISSER: And you've just told Justice Ngoepe that you didn't know Mamome, Tsoametsi, at that time.

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: How does that accord with the evidence yesterday according to our notes, where you referred to the numerous arrests of yourself and you added "Mamome was always present"?

MR MOHAPE: No, I think you must get this thing into context. I said yesterday and various occasions, "Mamome has part of those people who have been detaining me" ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: No, I'm sorry Mr Mohape just answer the question.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the witness is still answering the question.

MR STANDER: It's not Mr Memani's witness. Mr Chairman, certainly I want to object, the witness is answering the questions. We have already seen that the witness, that his answers are not precise because they want to give us the complete picture.

Therefore my learned friend with great respect,t should give him the opportunity to do so because it will help the commission to great extent to make some sort of ruling on what he says and judge what he's saying.

MR VISSER: Please continue with your reply Mr Mohape.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But before he continues, Mr Visser - I think Mr Mohape, I think in the interest of progress and clarity, you should endeavour to be more precise in your answers. I think sometimes you, we appreciate that these things are emotive issues and you were subjected to certain experiences, we appreciate that, but please try to be precise in giving your answers. We'll avoid a lot of problems and a lot of delays.

MR MOHAPE: Ja, my answer was that I said yesterday. In many occasions and you must understand when you talk about many occasions, I've talked about being detained since I've been an activist, a member of COSAS, and even beyond the time I knew Mamome and the rest, I was still being detained and I never implied yesterday that my first detention, Mamome was there.

I never implied, but he has been there until I was kidnapped, I never said that, but I said yesterday, on many occasions, when I was detained Mamome was there.

MR VISSER: Is that your reply?

CHAIRPERSON: In fairness to the witness, I would like to read my note which was that he had said: he refused to meet Ngo secretly because Ngo was an police informer and that he was arrested thereafter 10 to 15 fifteen times and: "After Ngo was working for Erasmus, he was one of those who came to my house. Mamome also always there when I was questioned by Erasmus and Shaw." So it would appear to indicate that he was talking of a period after Ngo started working for Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, I don't want to split hairs about it but I thought that was the period of time that we were talking about now because the issue which is now being addressed is the question as to whether this witness knew Mamome at the time and ought to have recognised him if he was one of the attackers, Mr Chairman, and I want to confine myself strictly to that area, no wider than that, if you will allow me. Do you know Mr Tsoametsi, presently?

MR MOHAPE: Yes I know him.

MR VISSER: Would it be fair to describe him as fairly stout, thickset person?

MR MOHAPE: I don't understand your question.

MR VISSER: Well, how would you describe his build? Would Mr Tsoametsi just rise please. Is he here? Just step out please.

And if you'll allow me to save time, Mr Chairman, a fair description of the gentleman would be, I only think in the old language, about five foot seven, five foot eight and stoutishly built. I don't know whether you will want to improve on that description? Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is his build today, what period are we talking about?

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, that is the subject of our argument because we're going to indicate to the witness just now that he has placed this incident within the year of 1984.

MR MOHAPE: No, No.

MR VISSER: While Mr Ngo has indicated that it was either 1985 or 1986. We will refer you to the relevant passages, Mr Chairman. You'll come to the question, you'll have the opportunity to give you answers, don't worry Mr Mohape.

MR MOHAPE: No, I want to correct something quickly, before you try to make something out of that. I remember yesterday I talked about dates and later when I was requested by the Judges that I should put dates correctly because yes I said, I could not remember correct those dates and I think my dates as I know them, you know, is not 1984 it was during 1984 It was the time when we were busy investigating Ngo and all that incidents that happened never happened in 1984.

So I thought then today, I would be able to come and put the dates correct as I was asked. That's why I said yesterday I will do that so that I don't have to invite unnecessary perceived contradictions by anybody else and that's exactly what I wanted to do today.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I in fact requested the witness yesterday to do so and perhaps it would expedite matters if Mr Mohape had the opportunity and if you're ready, could you kindly give us dates about incidents where you were involved?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, the incidents of my kidnapping took place during 1986. That's when I was kidnapped, the year I was kidnapped. In 1984, December, it is when we were in conference of COSAS where we started to suspect Ngo.

In 1985, conference of COSAS again, it's where Ngo came to the conference uninvited and it was when January 1986, we got the information, the list that I talked about that confirmed Ngo as an informer.

ADV DE JAGER: When did they arrest you for the first time?

MR MOHAPE: I would say my first time was arrested in 1980.

ADV DE JAGER: '80?

MR MOHAPE: Yes. The first ever detention I experienced was 1980.

ADV DE JAGER: And can you still remember the second time?

MR MOHAPE: I think beyond 1980 there were several, not detention as such, but a situation where you'll be picked up by the security branch to their offices and they put you there for hours and hours and then they ask you questions and they take you home.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, now between 1980 and 1986 when you were assaulted, this hammer assault, how, can you roughly say, how many time you've been arrested? Was it many times, six times?

MR MOHAPE: It has been many times.

ADV DE JAGER: Many times?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And who interrogated, who asked you questions during those arrests and detentions?

MR MOHAPE: At that time?

ADV DE JAGER: Before the assault.

MR MOHAPE: At that time still there was the three Prinsloos and I don't know later when Erasmus join them but what year perhaps he did join them but amongst all those you know, taking home and asking questions, he later appeared and Shaw also appeared.

CHAIRPERSON: Who?

MR MOHAPE: Shaw.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that also before 1986?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mamome, when did he appear?

MR MOHAPE: I knew Mamome, I think after 1986. I started to know Mamome when he was joining them like - I don't know where he has been, either he has been in those offices or whatever, but they was going against him, going to me and I will see him being part of them, that's how I knew Mamome. And I think that happened mainly generally after, you know, that the experience of the kidnapping.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Motsamai?

MR MOHAPE: I cannot correctly recall when did I first know Motsamai but I remember during 1986 he has also come in the picture but I don't when did I exactly knew him, from which year I've known him.

MR DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR VISSER: I've got three loose ends Mr Chairman, I'll try to remember to come back to all of them but I believe that I've now got to follow up on this. Just in regard to your reply that you got to know Mr Mamome only after your kidnapping and assault in 1986, I want to put it to you that that's an highly unlikely reply, bearing in mind that he joined the security branch already in 1980 here in Bloemfontein?

MR MOHAPE: No, I don't think that you must ask me. I think it's as clear as the time I knew him as Mamome, I knew him in 1986. To me that he joined the security branch in 1980 that is not my, it's not me to answer to that.

MR VISSER: Well I'm putting it to you that you're not telling us the truth because you're a person who had been consistently arrested, according to you evidence, since 1980.

You told us yesterday that you considered the security branch to be your enemies and you would have made quite certain to know them. Certainly Mr Mohape, do you really want to tell us that you didn't know who the members of the security branch were?

MR MOHAPE: Don't mix the issues. It doesn't mean each and every member of the security branch I will know, not all of them. And being my business to know them, I will know them. I will not make an investigation to go and spy on them and know their names and stand in the corners and check who they are.

Normally I will know them when they are harassing me when they take me to their offices, I will know who's this one. I will try to maybe get their name if I don't know the name at that time but it will not mean I had a duty to really, you know, take a book, stand in the corners and try to find out who is in the security branch offices, who are they? No, no, don't mistake that.

MR VISSER: But you took the trouble yesterday of singling out Mr Mamome as being, as the Chairman has put it today: "normally" I think you said, Mr Chairman. According to our note "who was always present" during you arrests but I may be wrong, I know it may be wrong and I suggested to you on the basis then, that, mostly he was present during all your arrests, your 20, 15 arrests?

MR MOHAPE: Correct yourself.

MR STANDER: I must object, Mr Chairman, the witness agreed clearly, after 1986 not before 1986. After 1986 Mamome was then on a continuous basis present.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I make a suggestion to progress with this matter, it's already clear that there is no way in which we will finish by next Friday, we'll ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: If we continue like this Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: No, it's obvious Mr Chairman, that we're not going to finish. We'll have to obtain a record anyway. I'm going to step off these points and leave it for argument on the record after we've obtained it, Mr Chairman, because it's quite, my submission to you - and I don't want to enter into an argument now, he never made that qualification which is now relied upon by my learned friend Mr Stander but I want to go forward.

CHAIRPERSON: I read the thing that he said apparently it was after Ngo that he started seeing Mamome there. That is the qualification, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Is that a - today is the qualification, certainly, but not yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Yesterday - I read it in my notes, that he said: "after Ngo was working for Erasmus".

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, well that's why I say rather leave it for the record because I can't remember.

At all events, I'm suggesting to you that you would have know pretty well who the members of the security branch, were given the activities in which you were involved ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser can't you please qualify your answer, that he would have known the members of the security branch engaged in investigating COSAS. There were members of the security branch doing all sorts of other things and you have continually been suggesting to him that he would have known all the members of the security branch.

MR VISSER: I take your point and I stand corrected Mr Chairman. Let me put it more crisply to you. I would suggest to you, given the activities in which you were involved, you would have known Mr Mamome long before 1986, isn't that so Mr Mohape?

MR MOHAPE: Well that's your assumption.

MR VISSER: You disagree with that?

MR MOHAPE: I disagree with that.

MR VISSER: Alright. How did you now establish since yesterday until this morning, the dates that you have just given us?

MR MOHAPE: I think I was clear to say I need to sit down and recollect the events and the dates and the years and I've done that, I've consulted with my lawyer and I've done that.

MR VISSER: Didn't you consult with Mr Ngo?

MR MOHAPE: No man, I'm not going to answer that.

MR VISSER: You're free not to answer it. Were you talking to Mr Ngo here this morning?

MR MOHAPE: I have been talking to him, greeting him every day like everybody else.

MR VISSER: Thank you. You see at page 222 of the record - Mr Chairman, at the bottom of the page, there are some questions put by Mr Stander to Mr Ngo. He says, now according to Mr Mohape, that's you, he was and then he breaks off and then he says:

as you've testified here.

which is the same evidence as you've given here today. Ngo's then asked by Mr Stander

Ngo say at page 223:

Then he goes down the page, at page 223, approximately in the middle Mr Chairman:

and then he goes on. Then the third line from the bottom:

"Yes we all assaulted him"

etc. Now, in the record when Mr Ngo himself gives evidence - I though that page 222 Mr Chairman, may I just check on that, it is in the bundle of evidence which you refer to as A2.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you want to put a question to the witness in this regard? Well I think then you should break it up because it's no use reading the whole bundle of evidence and then start questioning him.

MR VISSER: But Mr Chairman, I can put the question. Mr Ngo says that there were five blacks and one white present the evening when you were assaulted - Mr Ngo, did I say Motsamai? Let me tell you who says they were - Mamome, Tsoametsi, Motsamai, Ngo, Mtyhala and he later in his evidence added Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: Do have any comment on that Mr Mohape.

MR MOHAPE: No I think my comment is going to be simple, if you can read to the statement of Ngo, there was a question mark about Motsamai and if you want to to ...[intervention] ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you have any comment on that Mr Mohape?

MR MOHAPE: I think my comment is going to be simple. If you can read to the statement of Ngo, there was a questions mark about Motsamai and if you want to ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Please Mr Mohape, the statement is there was five blacks and one white, do you agree with that or don't you agree?

MR MOHAPE: No, I don't agree with that.

ADV DE JAGER: Thanks.

MR VISSER: What has now appeared from your reply, however, is that you studies the application from Mr Ngo.

MR MOHAPE: Ag man you know, statements are here with my lawyer and I read what I can read in any statement and there's nothing wrong with that.

MR VISSER: I'm not suggesting to you there is something wrong with that, just placing the matter, the fact, on record Mr Mohape.

Page 30, Mr Chairman, it's the middle of the page. Page 30 of the bundle which is marked A2 according to the Honourable Chairman:

asks my learned friend Mr Memani. Mr Ngo say

which was later corrected to mean, intend to mean Tsoametsi.

A moment Mr Chairman. - And he qualifies the attackers at page 34, in fairness to this witness, page 34 of that same bundle, where he simply says this:

That left five, five black persons on the assault. What do you say about that evidence? Do you disagree with that because you say there were four.

MR MOHAPE: I say people who attacked me were four. To say there were five I cannot say, I could have not checked if how many there were is one was in the car or whatever but the people who attacked me at that time were four.

MR VISSER: While they were attacking you, were they talking, were they shouting, saying anything?

MR MOHAPE: So many things were said, they were swearing at me.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Ngo here at page 30, that you've just referred us to, saying there were four people who attacked you?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I can give you all the evidence, it's quite clear ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm asking you about page 30 Mr Visser, the passage you've just referred to is there, saying there were four people who attacked him.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON:

Then he takes Cronje out, so he was reducing them to four at that stage.

MR VISSER: Yes, except, Mr Chairman, and I will refer you to that evidence in due course, that it is quite clear that what he said was that Motsamai was there as well. And you will remember the evidence of Mr Motsamai, he said Mr Ngo was mistaken and in fact that also appears from his application as well.

CHAIRPERSON: So he says he wasn't there, Motsamai?

MR VISSER: Motsamai says he wasn't there, Ngo says he was there, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you asking us to accept Ngo's version?

MR VISSER: I'm just putting it to the witness for his comment.

CHAIRPERSON: His comment? Can we now get on with something else, you say you're just asking for comment.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman. If you want a reference, that's C, page 12, bundle C page 12 where that incident is referred to by Mr Ngo.

Now you are now assaulted, and you told us yesterday, with crowbars and hammers. Am I correct?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: The issue with the crowbars, was that something which you picked up from Mr Ngo or was that something that you knew at the time?

MR MOHAPE: No, it was what happened to me.

MR VISSER: Okay. Your estimation of the duration of that attack, you said yesterday twenty to thirty minutes. Is that fairly accurate or that is just an guestimate?

MR MOHAPE: It is an estimate of what I believe they took, the time, it may be lesser than that or more than that but that is the estimate.

MR VISSER: But as it felt to you, thinking back today, would it have been at least fifteen minutes? Would that be a fair assessment of the duration or what?

MR MOHAPE: Probably.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, your second name - I'm just waiting for - here I've got it, is your name also Mosoeunyane?

MR MOHAPE: Mosoeunyane?

MR VISSER: Yes. M-o-s-o-e-u-n-y-a-n-e.

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you speak to any of the investigators of the investigation unit of the TRC in regards to this kidnapping and assault on you?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I remember I met Pula Zwane and I explained to him and he was asking me questions about my kidnapping, yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, yesterday - in regard to Mr Motsamai, you referred me to the fact that his part of the investigation report, that bundle was E1. I'm not certain whether the part concerning Mr Ngo is also E1 or whether it has a different identification.

CHAIRPERSON: Bundle E1 is Ngo, Bundle E2 is Motsamai.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will then refer you Mr Chairman, to the bundle E1 concerning Mr Nelson Ngo - and unfortunately these papers are not paginated but the page I wish to refer you to, the previous page to that, is marked 1.1 and it appears to be a telefax transmission and the telefax numbering at the top of the page is page 03 and it is dated 18 August 1997.

It is a document, Mr Chairman, which says: "Document Details", the heading, and it has columns on the page. I don't know whether you can see this far, Mr Chairman, I can hold it up for you to try and identify. Let me explain, Mr Chairman, there's and introduction, a typed introduction, it runs up to page 19. Now if you just look after page 19, the very first document after that.

CHAIRPERSON: Is 1.1, which is a whole lot of document details.

it says:

Now do you recall that you spoke to an investigator of the TRC about this incident?

MR MOHAPE: I think I've explained even yesterday, that yes, Motsamai has been involved in other instances where I frog-jumped at Fountain, and to me that was severe assault to me.

MR VISSER: Well I don't know why we have to make it so involved. Did you discuss the incident where you kidnapped and severely assaulted with an investigator from the TRC?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I have.

MR VISSER: Thank you. And did you tell him that the details were that you were beaten by a hammer and fists and by guns?

MR MOHAPE: I think I've explained that. Everything was used on me including what I said was a tyre lever, that you can call it a crowbar whatever, but a weapon was used and if perhaps the investigating officer could have not by that time picked on that, maybe it is something else but yes, everything was used on me.

MR VISSER: Alright, I have certain submissions which I'll make about that reply, we'll go on. The outcome, says this document details, is that you sustained injuries:

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: After being assaulted with crowbars and hammers and guns for at least fifteen minutes by four people, is that likely?

MR MOHAPE: You know if you could get the medical examination of Dr Magoni about the back sore, my body, then you'll understand what I said was feasible, the scars that I had when I was forced to jump the fence but in that, my body was sore and in Dr Magoni's medical record he can point out what I'm talking about.

MR VISSER: I'm suggesting to you Mr Mohape that in normal human experience, if a person is continuously assaulted all over his body with a hammer and a crowbar for more than 15 minutes, you would at least have been incapacitated if not dead.

MR MOHAPE: You see Mr Visser, you're unfortunate not to really understand the situation as it was and of course I expect that of you to try to sway the information as much as possible to your side. But the fact of the reality chief, is that I was beaten, I got injuries and those scars I will never forget, say whatever you may say.

But I'm saying to run naked at night with your pants, you don't think that is a nice thing to do Mr Visser, you cannot expect me to say I was not hurt, I had no pain that day, you cannot expect that from me. I will land up saying you are representing people who are not interested in telling the truth.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, are you going to intervene in this. There is a personal attack on an officer of the TRC, I'm here to act as an officer, to assist the TRC Mr Chairman, I'm subjected continuously to personal abuse and personal attacks by the witnesses, Mr Chairman. With great respect, I ask your protection.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think you need protection from these people Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: In any event Mr Mohape, I'm putting to you what the TRC investigator is telling us you told him, It's nothing that I'm saying, I'm not saying a word about it.

MR MOHAPE: Mr Visser yes, those are the things that I said, but they were not enough. If I am allowed time to explain in details how I was beaten, perhaps you'll understand me better.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think we need to be a little bit more careful with the facts here Mr Visser, actually you are not putting to him what the TRC said. What you are saying is, you put it to him, which is not contained in the papers, you are saying to him: "If a person would have been assaulted with a hammer, with hammer ...[indistinct] it's ...[indistinct] of that time, you would have been incapacitated or died".

Now that is not contained in those papers and at any rate what you're putting to the witness, if this needs to be stated is factually incorrect. It would depend on the intensity of the assault, the intention of the people. If they did not want to kill him but just to torture him, they would know where to hit him with the hammer, maybe three four times with intervals.

You make a very sweeping statement that he would have been killed. It's not necessarily correct, it depends on so many factors but anyway the witness has answered.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, let's leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: The witnesses version is quite clearly that this was intended to be a prolonged torture, not to do him injury. You will probably know that if you go on patting the person on one place, with fairly gentle blows, it causes great pain and you put, as my brother put to you, you specifically put something different which has not arisen from the TRC report.

MR VISSER: Yes. Mr Chairman, indeed I was putting an inference that I'm going to ask you to draw because if you want to torture a person for a prolonged period of time, you don't use a crowbar. When you use a crowbar and a hammer ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He explained yesterday in his evidence when he used the word crowbar that this was a tyre lever, didn't he, a nice flat piece of metal.

MR VISSER: With whatever, Mr Chairman, but this is a question for argument, with due respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's get on and don't go on putting things like that to him if it's a question of argument.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, you were asked by Mr Stander whether you sustained injuries which left any marks on your body. Do you remember that?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And please tell me if I'm wrong, was my impression correct that what you have retained is a small mark on your left leg. Is that what you said?

MR MOHAPE: I had a scratch in my left leg. I had a wound and in the course of time, that scratch disappeared but there is a spot where I can point that wound and I'm saying if you can take, if you can understand, that a scratch at one point or another disappears. And probably I'll also want to correct one thing because I think I sustained on two sides of the feet and I wanted to check this scratch that I talked about, it's on my right hand leg were also with the wound on the left hand side, I need to ascertain that because it's something that happened over a period of time and I said I had those scratches and some of them disappeared and I think possibly one is visible if it is still....

MR VISSER: And the scratch mark, you told us yesterday, was caused by you jumping over the fence.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, as I understand the situation, if Mr Mohape sustained injuries and those injuries were severe, it is bad for my application and on the other hand whether or not Mr Mohape suffered injuries, it does not matter to Mr Visser because they're saying that his clients were not involved in this thing and it does not seem to me what the relevance of this line of questions is in the light of the nature of his appearance and his clients' position in these proceedings.

MR VISSER: May I reply very briefly, Mr Chairman? There are two aspects. One is of course the evidence of the applicants but it's also our duty to point out to you, if we can, probabilities or improbabilities which point to the fact that the witnesses are not telling the truth and is simply on that basis of credibility, Mr Chairman. May I continue Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Continue with what you consider to be relevant, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The question was, the scratch that told you yesterday that left a mark was caused by you jumping the fence, is that correct?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you. It is recorded here in this document I'm reading from, apparently from information obtained from you, that the date and the place was 1984 at De Wet’s Dorp. Now I know you said yesterday that it was near the De Wet’s Dorp Road. Is that what you told them in brief?

MR MOHAPE: You see that's why I'm saying, you know when you look at dates, this thing happened some time ago. But a time where I - if I remember that I will say this was the date and probably the year may not have been the same or the same you know year, as I'm saying. The road is De Wet's Dorp Road, not De Wet's Dorp because De Wet's Dorp is about 110 kilometres from Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: But you were never assaulted with a hammer at De Wet's Dorp that we know?

MR MOHAPE: No, not at De Wet's Dorp.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you and to make it absolutely clear, have you been assaulted by, as you allege, members of the security branch with a hammer on only this occasion or on other occasions as well?

MR MOHAPE: No, on this occasion of the kidnapping.

MR VISSER: Alright. ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: The fact that it happened at De Wet's Dorp, it's wrongly stated?

MR MOHAPE: No, it's wrongly stated.

ADV DE JAGER: And there's a date stated, 1984, is that a correct date or is it a wrong date?

MR MOHAPE: No, I think it is the wrong date.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. Now there's a column on this page and it deals with perpetrators. Now did you tell the investigator who spoke to you that the perpetrator's were the following people: Bester: S.A.P.?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, let me correct you in that. Bester is one, the one - in actual fact yesterday I was saying Erasmus knows best, the one involved in the beating after or when I was arrested for stabbing Ngo. It's where Bester, Major Ben and Van Dyk were involved. So I will tell you when I explained to the investigating officer I was telling him that those people had been involved in my beating at Bloomspruit Police Station where I was stripped naked by them and beaten with a hosepipe.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, let there be no doubt about the incident that I'm talking about. It's the incident, the one occasion and the one and only occasion when you were assaulted with a hammer.

MR MOHAPE: Bester was not involved there.

MR VISSER: Did you tell the investigator ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the paper you have read to him, you started off reading Perpetrator Motsamai at the top of the page and then you said it referred to the incident below. You are now coming to a lot more perpetrators and there is an incident on the next page about his incarceration in contravention Sections 29 and 50. Are those perpetrators not relating to that incident? Isn't that the way - how this form is filled in?

MR VISSER: May I just consider that because you may very well be right, Mr Chairman. Now starting from the previous page, Mr Chairman, if one can try to understand how the, what the procedure is here, it starts off with the victim and his particulars and then it seems to start with victim again and the perpetrator so first it's victim and then perpetrator. So there's one on the first page then it goes to the second one also marked 27.

They're all marked the same numbers, White Mohape and then 84 Bloemfontein Vulamasango School and then perpetrator Motsamai. So it would seem almost in connection with the previous one and then it would seem that it starts with the third one as victim White Mohape, beaten with hammer and fists and that the perpetrators are then the ones that follow until we come to the next page, Mr Chairman. So then my question would be fair if that interpretation is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: If it is I don't think it is.

MR VISSER: I have no idea Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So I don't think you can put it to him if you have no idea, you can't put to him something that you don't know to be correct. If you will look at the bottom of the page after those perpetrators there are witnesses set out.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Chairman, I have kept quiet thus far as a result of the line of cross-examination that's being followed. I mean that one thing is very clear here. This document from which my learned friend is doing his cross-examination was not compiled by him, I'm now referring to the witness.

We are not even sure if all the information included in that has been conveyed by this witness to that person. There is a misunderstanding about which people are being implicated where and I mean, that it is totally unfair for this witness to have to reply to that if we do not even know whether this is the information that has been given by him.

ADV DE JAGER: I think Mr Visser, let us put it clearly, you are doing your cross-examination out of a document from the Commission, a TRC document and I think you're entitled to do that, it's been provided to you, it's not a document that you compiled yourself but I think that in all fairness, if one looks at the document it seems as if it's a summary of all the events regarding this witness and not only the hammer event or incident. So if the evidence of this witness regarding the incident in which he was involved where he was assaulted by four persons and he doesn't know who those four are, that is all evidence that he is giving us. It is true that evidence, the applicants' evidence that there are some differences in their evidence.

Is it not a question of further argument what deductions the Committee must make out of it or not and can we not on that basis, if we look at the evidence before you, can the proceedings not be shortened on that basis? Can we go any further by doing cross-examination which is not already on record or can be argued?

MR VISSER: Commissioner de Jager you are correct, but I would just like to say in my own defence it's not that I continued with something after this argument was raised but at the moment when the Chairman mentioned it to me, I conceded that there could be a possible problem with the interpretation.

What I do want to propose is that I leave this document. I might just add that we went to look for documents because the Chairman reminded us yesterday that there was a document which involved Mr White Mohape and he couldn't remember what it was.

And last night when we were working on this case, we thought that these were the documents and that is why we are placing it in front of you today.

CHAIRPERSON: What I think it makes the cross-examination even more unfair Mr Visser is, you will recollect the witness said that he spoke to a member of, a TRC investigator, Pula Zwane, it's the only one he spoke to. This document that you are relying on appears, I can say no more than appears, to be signed by P Maharaj. His name appears at the bottom of each page. I don't think ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I make - in order to attempt to step off this matter, may I make the suggestion that we establish through Mr Brink or otherwise precisely how the investigation unit make their notes, what is meant with this document and if necessary Mr Chairman, we can come back to you and we might then lead the witness or ask Mr Brink to present that witness to you who did the interview with Mr Mohape and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any point in wasting more time on this, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We are here to decide on the applications of Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai, that is the purpose of this hearing.

MR VISSER: And this witness Mr Chairman, let us make no mistake about that, has been tendered to you to support the evidence of Mr Ngo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and you have put to him that he is being untruthful you have put to him that your witnesses will contradict what he said, right.

MR VISSER: Yes. But Mr Chairman, may I just reply to your question, Mr Chairman? I have to just reply and that is just to say this. On the way in which we read the document, which may be wrong, if it turns out at the end of the day that he gave entirely different perpetrators, it is a relevant point for you to know Mr Chairman and I take it no further than that and that is what I've been trying to bring to your attention. You've now corrected me and said that I may be wrong ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It is surely something that must be put to Mr Ngo if that is the position?

MR VISSER: Alright Mr Chairman, let's step off this thing.

Mr Mohape, I spoke to Colonel Erasmus about your allegations and I'm going to put to you what he says and you can respond it you wish. He says that he was never involved in the fabrication of any evidence, in any court case including the one of Mr Ngo, as far your allegation in that regard is concerned.

MR MOHAPE: I don't expect him to accept that.

MR VISSER: Okay. He was in fact Mr Ngo's handler, together with Lieutenant Shaw.

MR MOHAPE: Yes, because every time I will see them in his office, yes that one is true.

MR VISSER: And the same denial is made by Lieutenant Shaw and you say you expected that?

MR MOHAPE: Saying that they were not handlers of Ngo?

MR VISSER: No, no, that he denies that he ever tampers with evidence before a Court of Law.

MR MOHAPE: It is the same I will expect.

MR VISSER: He also denies - I'm sorry I'm talking about Mr Erasmus, he also denies that he attempted to obtain your services as an informer.

MR MOHAPE: I expect that.

MR VISSER: Yes, I have not been able to verify that as far as the other person, I think it was Mr Horn that you spoke about, I haven't got the note in front of me, I can't put any evidence in that regard to you.

Mr Erasmus tells me that he has no recollection at all about this typed note in Afrikaans or the discussion which you testify to around this note. If you could give us a little closer information, it might be that one could juggle his memory but you'll have to tell us what was in the note. Surely you can read Afrikaans?

MR MOHAPE: No.

MR VISSER: You can't?

MR MOHAPE: I can read Afrikaans, but I cannot understand what I'm reading.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you remember he asked for a black constable to interpret it?

MR VISSER: No, no Mr Chairman.

But you were at school?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you receive tuition in Afrikaans?

MR MOHAPE: Oh, Mr Visser, you know let me tell you, I had ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mohape, let's not have a discussion about it, yes or no.

MR MOHAPE: Okay. What was I saying to you ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Let's keep it short.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry what are you saying?

MR MOHAPE: What are you saying, what is your question?

MR VISSER: I'm just asked if you received tuition in a subject Afrikaans when you were at school?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: Tsoametsi will tell the Commission ...[intervention]

MR MOHAPE: Can we please Mr Visser finish with Erasmus?

MR VISSER: Alright.

MR MOHAPE: Because I was going to say, if Erasmus says he cannot recollect that, let him also say he cannot recollect a letter that was written in his office by one of his typists that was supposed to have come from Sakau and that letter, his receptionist brought it in whilst I was in his office and when the receptionist told him that he has finished - she was not aware he's with somebody else, he tried to tell that person to go away because I've already seen the letter of Sakau where a letter was typed and that woman said to him he has finished the typing that letter. If he cannot recollect that, then it means, honestly, he will never recollect all the things that he has done to all of us.

MR VISSER: We'll deal on merit with your reply later, Mr Mohape. I'm not going to take you up on your challenge. I want to ask you this. The incident where, which you spoke about, where you were assaulted in the office where Erasmus was present and he told you to look out of the window and a black hood was drawn over you head and you were assaulted with broomsticks. Remember that, that incident?

MR MOHAPE: And kicks.

MR VISSER: Right, and kicks and you got hold of a broomstick and they all ran away? That's the incident that I'm referring to. My first question to you is this, was that the only time that you were assaulted with broomsticks and after a hood of some kind had been drawn over your head, a sack or a hood or whatever you want to call it, was that the one occasion or were there other occasions as well that the same thing happened in Erasmus' room?

MR MOHAPE: No, I said that is what happened in that office.

CHAIRPERSON: Erasmus'room?

MR MOHAPE: I don't know if that - that one was not Erasmus' room.

MR VISSER: Alright. Can I then rephrase the question just to identify this particular incident where Erasmus was present in a room with others?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. Do you have a defective eye?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Which is the defective eye?

MR MOHAPE: The left one.

MR VISSER: The left one. You see Mr Mohape, Mr Motsamai gave evidence about that issue at page 708 of the record. And I think in fairness to you, I'm going to read the evidence it's just about a page. It starts in the middle of the page at page 708. It starts with the heading "White Mohapi" and I'm going to suggest that it refers to you.

That's Motsamai speaking.

Then Lieutenant Shaw:

Sorry, Mr Chairman, am I going too quickly, have you found the passage? Middle of the page 708:

May I ask the interpreters, am I going too quickly?

and obviously you. Listen very carefully to what I'm reading to you now.

it says here - it clearly means head, Mr Chairman, we will submit

The last paragraph says:

referring to Calitz and probably Mamome as well because he does also refer to "they were"

it continues to say that you were screaming and he didn't want people to hear your screaming so that they could not find out what was going on. Now, which incident is this?

MR MOHAPE: It's this incident.

MR VISSER: The very same one?

MR MOHAPE: Same one.

MR VISSER: However, your evidence, your recollection, is that the people who were present were Horn, correct?

MR MOHAPE: No, you are lying.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you say?

MR MOHAPE: I said yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: No I am asking Mr Visser, what ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Horn - H-o-r-n Mr Chairman. It's the note under the sentence which starts:

That was the evidence. And then he said who was present. It would be helpful if you could find your note Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] got present Erasmus, Prinsloo, Shaw and others.

MR VISSER: He was very specific Mr Chairman, he mentioned Horn, he mentioned Mamome and he mentioned Motsamai.

MR MOHAPE: Mr Visser, let me help you. I said to you yesterday when I was in that office they were coming in and out and at the second when something was put over my head, it was after Erasmus said I must look over the window and in that second when I looked through the window, somebody put that hood on me, you understand?

MR VISSER: I don't understand because I just do not understand why Mr Motsamai was applying for amnesty in regard to this incident wouldn't have told this Committee that Mr Erasmus was present. I just don't understand that, if that in fact happened. And that leads me to the statement to you that Mr Erasmus will say that you're telling a lie, that he was never present.

MR MOHAPE: It's up to him.

MR VISSER: When you were assaulted, if at all.

MR MOHAPE: It's up to him.

MR VISSER: Alright. What do you say about the evidence of Mr Motsamai that it was Calitz who assaulted you with Mamome holding you?

MR MOHAPE: No, I don't have a problem with that because I'm saying there were other people, maybe I did not know coloureds by the name but I mentioned yesterday that there were other people in that office. And in that second when Erasmus said I must look over the window, somebody put the hood, this thing back over my head and it is correct if Motsamai comes and say it was coloureds, then he knows them yes, because he worked with them.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, I'm trying to wrap this up for so far as there may be confusion or uncertainty about it, were you part of the group of 19 people who tried to skip the country?

MR MOHAPE: No, no.

MR VISSER: Thank you. The person that you referred to vaguely in your evidence that was protected by you, was that a person by the name of Khoze?

MR MOHAPE: Correct yes.

MR VISSER: How do you spell that?

MR MOHAPE: It's K-h-o-z-e, something of that sort.

MR VISSER: Se or Ze whatever. But that was the person who was suspected of being an informant of Mr Motsamai, have I got this right or not?

MR MOHAPE: It's what was said.

MR VISSER: Yes. And this happened in the hall, the students' hall?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And there were chairs thrown about etc. and I think you said yesterday you were in fact one of the people who tried to protect you from being attacked or didn't you say that?

MR MOHAPE: You see I think it will be correct if I was allowed to correctly put that you know, in sequence, so that you know how it happened. Can I do that?

MR VISSER: You see, I don't want to cut you short in any way, but it's not a terribly relevant point, with great respect, I'm not going to rely on it. The only reason why I'm putting the question to you is just to allow the Committee Members to place matters in perspective with the evidence of Oupa Makubalo who also gave evidence about this and Mr Motsamai who told this Committee that he was listening over the earphones about what was going on in the hall.

That was that incident and the only reasons for the question through you was just to place the Committee to remind them that it is that situation. Nothing else turns on it.

MR MOHAPE: Alright.

MR VISSER: You are, are you a blood relationship of Jannie Mohape?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Jannie Mohape was charged and found guilty and imprisoned?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Who was the investigating officer in that case?

MR MOHAPE: I don't know.

MR VISSER: You don't know?

MR MOHAPE: Because that time I also ran away because they wanted to charge me also in that case.

MR VISSER: You were never told that it was Mr Erasmus, this Mr Erasmus sitting next to me, that was the investigating officer?

MR MOHAPE: No, nobody told me that.

MR VISSER: How did you feel about Mr Ngo? What was your personal feelings about him? Was it one of friendliness, one of less friendliness?

MR MOHAPE: During which period?

MR VISSER: Well, you were at school together, you're both on COSAS, there's some sort of a leadership competition it seems between you and Mr Ngo, am I right?

MR MOHAPE: No, you are wrong, you are saying we were in competition.

MR VISSER: He never stood a chance of being elected to the executive for example?

MR MOHAPE: No, don't screw the facts. When I was at school with Ngo, Ngo was in the executive of COSAS and when you are in that executive you don't compete for positions.

MR VISSER: Even though one of the two people who might be eligible to become the Chairman, the one is more popular with the students than the other? You say that's not a problem?

MR MOHAPE: Those were not politics of students, to compete for positions.

MR VISSER: I see, alright. But you certainly didn't feel so friendly disposed to him?

MR MOHAPE: I don't understand what you're saying.

MR VISSER: I say, I'm putting to you that you certainly couldn't have felt friendly disposed to him when you established as a fact in your own mind that he was an informer?

MR MOHAPE: No, don't confuse issues. When Ngo was at a point when we were gathering information about him, it was very clear to us or to me in particular, that I will not show any antagonism to him because by doing that I will then allow him to suspect that we were suspecting him. But I had to be friendly with him and work with him and not raise any eyebrows with him, him being involved with us in COSAS doing everything because we were investigating him.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood the question, you weren't being asked about what your public behaviour was, you were being asked what your personal feelings were and speaking for myself, I would have been extremely antagonistic towards somebody who was on the executive of one of an organisation that I belonged to but at the same time was acting as a police informer against that organisation.

MR MOHAPE: I won't be and I will tell you why. You can't be antagonistic to a person that you suspect before you are able to gather information that can expose him as an informer. You will work with that person close, monitor that person but deep down know that this person you don't trust.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's the point.

MR VISSER: Yes, point taken. But let's go one step further. You now found out he's a police informer, you've established that in your own mind, he's assaulted and you are charged with murder. How do you feel now about Ngo? - attempted murder I'm sorry.

MR MOHAPE: You know, at that time, yes, when I was charged for that, I was surely angry.

MR VISSER: Thank you. And just on this issue, the last aspect, is it correct that the sister of your brother, Jannie Mohape I think - please stop me if I'm wrong, I don't have the family tree, is a person named Selena and she's married to one of the Mzuzwana's is that right or is it the other way round?

MR MOHAPE: It's the other way round.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry, just put that on, place that on record for us please. Selena is a sister to?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, there was no Selena involved. There is Nontsokolo Mzuzwana who is married to my brother Jannie.

MR VISSER: Jannie Mohape during the mid 1980's, 84, 85, 86, did he have a motor vehicle that he at his disposal that he was driving either as his property or whatever?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, he had.

MR VISSER: What car was that or what vehicle was that?

MR MOHAPE: It was a Ford.

MR VISSER: Cortina?

MR MOHAPE: Cortina, light green.

MR VISSER: And - light green?

MR MOHAPE: Light green if I can remember.

MR VISSER: And would that have been a sedan car or a LDV?

MR MOHAPE: No, it was a sedan.

MR VISSER: And Eliaha Mohape, is he also a brother to you?

MR MOHAPE: He was my uncle.

MR VISSER: Your uncle. And did he have a minibus?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: As far as your own knowledge goes, was there an attack on either of these two vehicles?

MR MOHAPE: There has been an attack.

MR VISSER: On which or on both?

MR MOHAPE: On both cars.

MR VISSER: On both. Let's just quickly take the Cortina, was that vehicle destroyed or was it just burnt and repaired and used again?

MR MOHAPE: I cannot recall beyond that what happened to it.

MR VISSER: Okay and as far as the minibus was concerned I think our information was completely destroyed, was it? No, no I'm sorry, I withdraw that. Do you know what happened to the minibus? Was that completely destroyed or could it be used again after the attack?

MR MOHAPE: I think it was used later for some time.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I do believe that's the end of my questions, may I just make quite certain Mr Chairman, whether the isn't another note? Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you I have no further questions. I did put to you Mr Mohape that all allegations of assault, kidnapping, any unlawful conduct which you have addressed to any of the persons that I appear for will be denied. Do you understand that?

MR MOHAPE: I expected that.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, only one or two questions. Mr Mohape, you were charged with attempted murder is that right?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And together with some of your fellow students at COSAS is that right?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The attempted murder of who was that?

MR MOHAPE: Of Ngo.

MR DU PLESSIS: Of Ngo. And did Ngo testify at that trial.

MR MOHAPE: Yes, he testified.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what was the result of the trial?

MR MOHAPE: I was acquitted.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were acquitted?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now can you remember Mr Mohape, if in the Judgement any finding was made in relation to Mr Ngo's testimony?

MR MOHAPE: I cannot recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember if he was found a credible witness or not?

MR MOHAPE: I cannot recall that. What happened is that I only remember the time when the Judge was giving and we were acquitted to that, to say the evidence led was not sufficient and then we were acquitted on those grounds I think.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, thank you. May I just ask one last question? Is there anybody else here who was involved in that trial who may be able to enlighten on this question if Mr Ngo's credibility, if there was a credibility finding in respect of Mr Ngo?

MR MOHAPE: No, I don't ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Even if there was, could we sort of rely on that?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I will be able to address you in argument if I'm requested to argue later on, that that may be relevant under these circumstances and I will refer you to the relevant Law on that, that's the only reason why I want to establish that. And then one last question. When did you go to the Western Cape?

MR MOHAPE: I went to Western Cape in 1989.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

MR STANDER: I don't have any re-examination Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you could help me with one thing Mr Mohape. You were telling us ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, I'm sorry, I don't know whether you forgot about me?

CHAIRPERSON: I took it you had none when counsel said he had no re-examination, he's sitting next to you. I assumed that you had indicated to him you were not going to question.

MR MEMANI: I am sorry my lord he spoke prematurely. CHAIRPERSON: Very well, carry on.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Thank you my lord. Yesterday you told us about Ngo at the conference saying that the COSAS from the Eastern Cape wanted to bully him.

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that in those circumstances Ngo was deliberately fermenting feelings of ...[indistinct] and originalism?

And that he was doing that with the object of dividing the membership of COSAS?

MR MOHAPE: That was intended to.

MR MEMANI: And that was an indicator that he was working

for the police?

MR MOHAPI: Yes you see, very quickly if I can explain this. You see in our mind it was clear. In many strategies of the security branch to ensure that there is disharmony within a student organisation, they will either ensure that some of their informers cause ethnicity where people are not going to see themselves as you know, comrades in one organisation but where they are going to see themselves as you know, Xhosas, Sothos and all that and that was one of their strategies, yes.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that this morning you told us that at the time when you were abducted and assaulted in the veld you already knew Ngo?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that it was dark?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: And the people that you - were attacking you were wearing balaclavas?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR MEMANI: And even if you had known someone before you would not be able to recognise him at that stage?

MR MOHAPE: Yes because most of the time when people were beating me I was closing my head, I was protecting my face.

MR MEMANI: And it is for that reason that you are unable to identify Ngo at that stage?

MR MOHAPE: Exactly.

ADV DE JAGER: And you couldn't identify his voice either? You don't know whether he was one of those screaming and shouting and swearing?

MR MOHAPE: Ja, because in that commotion honestly, I could not try to get anybody's voice, you know.

MR MEMANI: You didn't suspect that Ngo was present, did you?

MR MOHAPE: Well, with the security branch operators I honestly did not perhaps either suspect or did not suspect that it was him. In my mind I never perhaps thought that he was part of them.

MR MEMANI: Now you believe that the evidence that was led in the case against Ngo was cooked?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Because they brought a toy gun to court?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it also correct that what you were charged with was a purely criminal case of attempted murder?

MR MOHAPE: Exactly.

MR MEMANI: You'd normally not have expected Horn, Erasmus, Major Burn and other members of the security branch to have been present when you were being, when the matter was being investigated?

MR MOHAPE: No, I will also not expect them to be with witnesses, you know, those witnesses who were supposed to give evidence against me. I will not expect them to see them going down with them, down the stairs to the lower part of the court.

MR MEMANI: And that indicated clearly to you that security branch were influencing because of the case?

MR MOHAPE: Exactly.

MR MEMANI: Did I understand your evidence correctly when I made my note, a note which said that they were also present when you were accompanied to make certain pointings out?

MR MOHAPE: Come again?

MR MEMANI: Did I understand your evidence correctly when I made a note that they also accompanied you when you went to point certain things out?

MR MOHAPE: Where, where?

MR MEMANI: May I take instructions, Chairperson.

MR MOHAPE: I think I get what you wanted to ask me, let me answer it. Yes, at the time when I was at Bloemspruit after being arrested, there was Major Burn, Bester, Van Dyk. They took me from Bloomspruit Police Station, took me to Batho Police Station and when they arrived there, there were a lot of security branch members.

All of them they were there, waiting and there was a motorcade that went towards Lereko High School and that car - I don't know what was the purpose to take me to towards Lereko High School, but in my mind I understood, either they wanted to push me to point other students that they were looking for or in actual fact they were trying to say to students: "Here we have arrested him and here perhaps his pointing you out" Because I know that has been one of their strategies and I was surprised when charged under criminal procedure then the security branch come in and be part of those investigations.

MR MEMANI: Is it also correct that you were not given a fair opportunity to identify the policemen who were involved?

MR MOHAPE: No, deliberately so I was not given that, for the fact that I went with my lawyer to ...[indistinct] and I was told that all security branch members they are under examination of some sort or whatever, so another parade will be organised. And since that time, the investigating officer, Kruger, never called me to go into another parade to go and point whoever perhaps I could, I could then could have perhaps identified.

MR MEMANI: And wasn't it an indicator that the police were not intent on prosecuting properly, that Mr Kruger took you to the scene after dark so that you should not be able to point out things properly.

MR MEMANI: That was a deliberate ploy as I could look at it.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you say it was five o'clock in the afternoon?

MR MOHAPE: I'm saying the time I was taken - when I went to his office, I arrived there as early as, I think it was four o'clock when he said I must be there but I waited in his office until past five and I think at that time it was .[indistinct] if I'm not mistaken and when it was late he took his friend, he was giving his friend a lift to his flat and after giving his friend a lift to his flat then we went, proceeded to that place.

I was with my brother, in that instance Jannie and when we arrived to the area where you know, that thing happened it was a bit, you know it was going to be a bit dark, I don't know how can I call it but it was already sunset and it was difficult for me when he said we must look for a cartridge.

I could not see anything, you know it was no longer visible, you could not see anything on the ground if you are looking for anything expect if perhaps you could have been having a torch around you.

ADV DE JAGER: How long after the incident was that?

MR MOHAPE: I think it was, if I'm not mistaken, it was about two weeks, it was after two weeks if I'm not mistaken.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you hear any shooting at - while you were assaulted?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: How many shots?

MR MOHAPE: When they said I must jump a fence and I jumped that fence, somebody shot towards my direction because I was running and then they got into the car.

ADV DE JAGER: How many shots, I've asked you how many shots?

MR MOHAPE: One.

ADV DE JAGER: Thanks.

MR MEMANI: Did Mr Kruger ever suggest that you should get back to the scene during the day when you could see?

MR MOHAPE: No, he never suggested anything.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions, Mr Chairman.

MR BRINK: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You told us about Mr Ngo and his behaviour as a student and said he was driving a Toyota Corolla?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What colour car was that?

MR MOHAPE: It was a beige one.

CHAIRPERSON: Beige Toyota?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's while he was still at school?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: You also gave evidence that once you visited the place where he was staying and you found those documents there.

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: After he had been exposed and everyone knew he was a informer now, January round about 1986 I believe?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: According to your evidence, because that was after the '85 COSAS Congress?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did he stay then, do you know?

MR MOHAPE: Beyond ...[intervention].

ADV DE JAGER: Ja.

MR MOHAPE: No, I did not because ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: After you've burned the documents.

MR MOHAPE: Now let me put it this way, you know we are confusing two things here. At the time when I got the documents it was December 1985 when I went there to his house and found that woman and that woman gave me the document. I'm trying to you know put it that these dates correct because you see, the conference of '84 and '85 it's, similar things happened but they're different and I would say that they are different in this fashion in '84 because I am mistaken by saying it's '85.

In '84 it is when '83 December when we went to the first conference when we were telling him that he cannot, let me get the dates correct, I'm sorry to confuse dates a bit but I want to put them clear. The first conference that we had was December, let me see, let me see, it is December '83/'84, yes it is '83 December when we got the documents whilst he was staying at Pahameng then in '84 December it is when we were going to the conference, the second conference and then in that one it is when he took documentation from other students.

ADV DE JAGER: I just want to point out this difference from your statement this morning because this morning you told me:

MR MOHAPE: I know, that's why I was saying I wanted to put those dates clear it's not that there is a confusion in that. It's just that I'm missing, you know, this years that's why I'm trying to put them into perspective. And I think the correct perspective is that one of 1984 the first conference that we attended, the second conference is the one of 1985 December that those are the correct dates. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, those are the correct dates yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now after you exposed him as being an informer and you exposed him because you found the documents there, in December.

MR MOHAPE: No, we got ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: They got the list.

MR MOHAPE: It was a list, that one. The first documents we got them after the conference of 1984. The one that I burnt, the diary of the Freedom Charter and got some notes that was written and then in 1985, it is when we got the list.

CHAIRPERSON: In 1985?

MR MOHAPE: '85 December, yes. Is when we got the list where he has written names of students because I'm saying '85, I'm saying it in this fashion, that December '85 it was the Conference of COSAS when we went to the conference in Durban and when we were there those documentation that I said was a folder of COSAS with an emblem of COSAS, that was later found at security branch in January '86 by a student who was picked up by the security branch and then '86 that January we were involved in a campaign to recruit new students for COSAS and in that '86 January, it is when then we found the list in his case.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know where he was staying at that time?

MR MOHAPE: No at that time he was no longer staying at Pahameng,I did not know where he was staying.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you see him - but he was still around, you saw him?

MR MOHAPE: He was around, he was, Ja.

ADV DE JAGER: And in December 1985 when he attended the Congress uninvited in Durban was he still at the same school?

MR MOHAPE: Yes he was at school, he was a member of COSAS and it's when we took a deliberate decision to say we are excluding him from the delegation because we suspect he's an informer.

ADV DE JAGER: And after you've taken the gun from him, he never attended the school again?

MR MOHAPE: No, let me answer it, yes on the day after we disarmed him it was a Monday, he never came to school. No, no let me not mistake myself unnecessarily. On Monday when we exposed him to saying you have not attended meetings because you know ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Then he came on a Friday again with the gun. And after you've taken away the gun he never attended the school again?

MR MOHAPE: Ja.

ADV DE JAGER: But he was still around in Bloemfontein?

MR MOHAPE: Well I will not be certain if he was around Bloemfontein because at that time, it is the time when now I was

wanted for these murder charges and then when I was arrested and subsequent to that going to court, he then appeared in court as a witness.

ADV DE JAGER: I see. Can you perhaps remember when you appeared in court? Not the exact date but round about say January or June or whatever?

MR MOHAPE: Honestly, I cannot recall that.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman with your leave may I put something which I forgot to ask from the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Mohape, you've told us that you marginalised Ngo and excluded him from the conference that was going to be held at Durban in 1985?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: But he, however, appeared there?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that at that conference he was brought by Erasmus?

MR MOHAPE: You know what was strange on that day when he arrived, it was at night and it was just after all sessions you know, had finished and when I went out of the hall I found Lulu Johnson - he was the president then, with him outside and when I was approaching there was a car that was just turning away from you know, at a distance, from where they were and there was a white person in that car and of course because I was at a distance, I could not ascertain who's this white person, but it was a white person.

And what Ngo told us when we asked him how did he came to the conference, he said he took a train from Bloemfontein and when he got to the station he hitch hiked to Wentworth. Now there is a problem with that. If you look at the station, the Durban Station and you look where Wentworth is, it is not possible that a person can get a hitch hike from the centre of the town and then go to Wentworth because Wentworth it's a dominantly Indian, Indian dominated area.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Mohape, I think you're engaged in an argument to justify whatever conclusions you came to. I think the question was simply - and I don't know where Mr Memani got that from, that it was Erasmus. The question was simply, Mr Memani said "Is it correct he was brought by Erasmus?" and I think your answer is you don't know who brought him.

MR MOHAPE: Alright.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Stander?

MR STANDER: Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I received

instructions to, on behalf of Mr Molefe at this stage to apply to recall him as witness and as a victim. I'm now going to try to convince the Committee that I'm of the opinion that if one looks at the Act as it has been promulgated that in my opinion, it is correct to allow him to offer his evidence before you.

I want to refer you to the Promotion of National Reconciliation and Unity Act, that's the one that we work with and in particular the provisions of Section 19. With your permission - unfortunately I only have the Afrikaans version in front of me and in Sub Section 19.4 it's pertinently mentioned and with your permission I'm going to read it to you. If they do not deal with the application in accordance to Section 3 then (a) I'm not going to handle it because as far as I'm concerned I should possibly just read it. In a prescribed way the applicant or any victim or person involved and I want to emphasize that, someone who is involved, or has an interest in the application and in Sub-Section B the persons mentioned in paragraph A still have to be told their right to be at the hearing and secondly to give evidence.

It is my argument Mr Chairman, that in the first place, Mr Molefe was involved in the evidence here, the testimony here, I don't think we have any doubt about that. He is also a victim, not just through mention by the applicants but also of his own version and therefore my submission to you is that on strength on of the provisions of Section 24.A and B he has the right to, yesterday as well, to come and give evidence before you and therefore I apply that he comes to give testimony. Mr Chairman you may possibly ask me and I don't want to prejudge this or preempt this, what is the intention of his giving evidence? The fact of the matter is this. If he does not give evidence he cannot be determined or described as a victim and he may not receive the benefits in terms of the Act and therefore my submission to you is that he has the right and secondly it would be right and fair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he a victim in connection with acts committed by the two applicants?

MR STANDER: Yes indeed. As I said to you yesterday as it was pointed out yesterday in the pre-hearing conference where a variety of other people were assaulted, he was named specifically therefore ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand what you're saying. The pre-hearing conference, let's get that document if I can find it. Where is he mentioned?

MR STANDER: My Chairman, I'm sorry I don't have a copy of that. I'm going to ask my colleagues to bring the document to me.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I think that relates to the question which was asked yesterday as to whether he has, Mr Motsamai has made an application and I promised to revert to you this morning on the issue.

Mr Chair, if I may refer you to page 148, I think it's bundle B Mr Chair, 148.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MEMANI: It's bundle A Mr Chair, I beg your pardon. Paragraph 13 says that:

It's meant to be activists Mr Chair.

This document was typed by, from the office of the Attorney and I then issued instructions that a list of people who were detained should be made out, which was then given to me which was typed in my chamber Mr Chair. And the list I think appears at page - I don't have the page reference at this stage Mr Chair, it's at page 140 Mr Chair. It starts at page 140 and this applicant is, this victim is referred to as number 21, Serame Molefe.

CHAIRPERSON: It does not appear in the application filed with us, does it? The fact that it's on some list prepared in your chambers doesn't relate to the application that has been filed, doesn't relate to the incident that he has referred to does it?

MR MEMANI: That list Mr Chair, formed part of the pretrial conference and went into this bundle as part of the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But the pretrial conference cannot create new matters, there's a cut off date isn't there?

MR MEMANI: No, you seem not to understand Mr Chair. What was there was this application and you know, if you go by that Mr Chair, then you would have to say all the victims - he's not applied for amnesty in respect of all the victims because that doesn't give a list of names ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't have to give a list of names he's applied for amnesty in respect of incidents that took place at the 5th floor, Fountain Street Bloemfontein.

MR MEMANI: Yes, and these are the names of the people that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now did this present person, was he assaulted at the fifth floor?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, it is true that the evidence up to that stage and when the objection was raised yesterday, we had not got to Fountain Street. I was on the way there to place the evidence before you when we were stopped and prevented from giving that evidence and if you allow me, I believe that the Act is broadly placed enough - when somebody, the minute he is involved as a victim, he has a right to be hear as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] application being heard by us, is the victim somewhere else he doesn't have the right to go to every application and say: "I want to be heard". Tell us when and where the incident is, don't keep it a secret.

MR STANDER: I understand exactly what you mean Mr Chairman. What I'm trying to say to you is that when we were prevented from presenting that evidence yesterday, I was in the process of allowing the witness to give evidence on events at Fountain Street.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] now, don't talk about yesterday. He said he wanted to stop yesterday, now tell me now, when it was, what incident you are going to lead evidence on.

MR STANDER: The date I unfortunately do not have, Mr Chairman, but what he is going to say to us was that he was assaulted and he will possibly be able to give us an idea, if we can just sort out that date I can do that, but he will be able to tell us when he was taken to Fountain Street, who attacked him there, assaulted him there amongst the people who are applying here.

ADV DE JAGER: The question as to whether he's a victim or not, he still has a right to be declared a victim by giving a statement to the Human Rights Violations Committee, it will be given to them, they will declare him as victim and they will send it through to the Rehabilitation Committee.

If amnesty is not given according to what his deeds were because application was not made for such amnesty, then he doesn't lose any rights, he still has the right to approach the police and summons them for compensation. I don't want to prejudice this person but should an application now come in from somebody who has in fact been assaulted by Ngo in Kroonstad and Ngo has never applied for amnesty for that incident, then it is not relevant to Ngo's application.

And surely that evidence will not be heard hear because amnesty has not been asked for that incident but in your case, should it have relevance to application of Ngo's then of course he has a right to do it but then you must convince us in which category, where in Ngo's or Motsamai's applications, under which heading, under which of the six deeds.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I have difficulty that what has to be strained this much in order to say that Mr Motsamai's application includes an application for Molefe because this pre-hearing conference was called at the behest of the Committee and a member of the Committee chaired this pre-hearing Committee ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't to increase the scope of applications it was to try to cut down.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, because there were difficulties about exactly what the applications were about, it was then decided that there must be this predicatory hearing conference to determine these issues. It was then decided that what would be agreed at the pre-hearing conference would constitute the application. Now, these documents were submitted to the Committee as part of Motsamai's application.

ADV DE JAGER: And you turned up without a document there, was that recorded too?

MR MEMANI: I beg your pardon Mr Chair?

ADV DE JAGER: And you turned up without a document at the pretrial hearing?

MR MEMANI: I did not have documents at the hearing these were the documents that were prepared at the hearing. But this document was prepared by my secretary, the list of victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you look at the pretrial conference paragraph 5. It is agreed that the applicant filed an amnesty application during 1996 case no.4031. This application has been mislaid by the Amnesty Committee, therefore the applicant was invited to complete a duplicate which is now before the Committee signed the 5th June 1997 together with an annexure A comprising of 3 pages. It is agreed by consent that the form 1 application together with annexure A be regarded as the application. I see no reference to there to a list of victims.

MR MEMANI: You can't sit on many chairs. If you say that this list doesn't form part of the application because it's not annexed the original papers that were filed then everybody from Oupa Makubalo did not have Lucas Stander to sit here. That is the difficulty you are greeting. These people have been accepted all along because it was understood that they were included in this list of victims and that this list of victims formed part of the application by Motsamai.

CHAIRPERSON: It is because they are understood to fall under the category of persons who were assaulted at five Fountain Street, the 5th floor at Fountain Street.

MR MEMANI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he doesn't have to list all the names, he didn't list all the names, that is not necessary. We are simply saying this incident must be one of those.

MR MEMANI: That is what Mr Stander has been saying all along, that he's taking you to Fountains.

CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't told us anything about Fountains he was leading evidence about other things yesterday. We are still not told what incident at Fountain or how he was assaulted there.

MR MEMANI: Well Mr Chairman in the first place you first accept that there is an application by Motsamai regarding Molefe. Then your problem with Mr Stander is why is he leading other evidence that is not related to that. That should be the problem that you should be asking him to deal with not that I should be saying to you that there is an application and you're saying there is no application when this was done ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We have heard enough from you Mr Memani at the moment.

Will you please Mr Stander tell us what incident you are talking about.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, unfortunately I do not have a copy of the document in front of me. If one of my colleagues could just please get the document to me, one of the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What document? I'm talking about - what do you want to call this man to give evidence about?

MR STANDER: I want him to come and give evidence about assault on the 5th floor of Fountain Street in Bloemfontein on strength of the fact that clause, I'm looking over my left shoulder here as far as I can, I believe it's on page 148.

CHAIRPERSON: Who by?

MR STANDER: I'm referring you to bundle A.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was the assault by? Who committed the assault, Mr Stander?

MR MEMANI: It was Mr Motsamai who was present Mr Chairman, and there were also other members of the security force present.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] Motsamai participated in an assault on him?

MR STANDER: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore it falls into the category, that incident, but we don't need a long prior history of other assaults which are not relevant to the present applications ...[no sound] appear to be concerned.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, you've got the notes which I mentioned to you yesterday, I'm not going to repeat them. The point as I understood my - as I intended by objection to be based upon, was that there was an incident in Fountains Street in 1993 as we understood the evidence and we simply said that's not part of the papers before you. Now it's been related to 13 and I just want to make this one point Mr Chairman, there was nowhere in the pretrial, on the record or anywhere else in the world where we ever agreed that Clause 13 of Motsamai's application referred to anything else but the group of 19 people who were arrested in the Ladybrand area.

There was never any agreement by us that that should mean so. If you're telling us that on a proper interpretation, you're going to interpret it that way, we will deal with in argument. But because we say can't possibly mean that otherwise Clause 13 would be tantamount to a general application for all assaults

...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What you're saying is we assaulted people there regularly, I can't remember all the names and that's the evidence he's given, isn't it, that time and again assaults took place there and he wants amnesty. I know that your version is we've never assaulted anybody here and we never heard a scream and we never knew what was going on and that, that is as I read paragraph 13. It is that he was involved in these other assaults and tortures.

[End of tape 2A, - no follow on sound].

It’s two different categories he’s talking about.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if the interpretation is that throughout the history when Motsamai was a member of the security branch, for every person that he assaulted, he’s asking for amnesty in paragraph 13, we will address you during argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, right.

MR VISSER: That’s all I’m saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I would like to call Mr Molefe back to the witness stand.

SERAME MOLEFE: (s.u.o.)

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Mr Molefe, you were telling us yesterday, when you were taken home on the night, you were taken from your home at around 2 o’clock in the morning. I would like you to tell us where you were taken after you were arrested there.

MR MOLEFE: I was taken first to Batu police station where they deposited the 16 bullets for safekeeping which they found at my premises according to them yes. Thereafter I was taken to Fountain Street. I think when we arrived at Fountain Street it was round about half past four in the morning of the 26th. The raid was supposed to have taken place on the 25th, the evening of the 5th month, ‘93. But then they arrived at my place around 2, which was on the 26th in the morning and as I’m saying at 4H30 I was taken - I was at Fountain Street.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say what month?

MR MOLEFE: The 5th, the 5th month of ‘93.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken after you went to Parkway police station?

MR MOLEFE: Where was I taken after Parkway? Did you say Parkway?

MR STANDER: Parkweg.

MR MOLEFE: I was taken I’m saying, first to Batu police station, second to Fountain.

MR STANDER: I’m sorry, that’s my mistake. After you were taken to Batu police station, you went then to?

MR MOLEFE: Fountain Street.

MR STANDER: On what Floor at Fountain Street?

MR MOLEFE: I’m not very certain, I don’t want to bind myself, it could have been 4, it could have been 5, I’m not certain.

MR STANDER: Who was present there in Fountain Street when you were taken there, whom you recognised?

MR MOLEFE: Well, Warrant Officer Jantjie. At my place I’d already learned because I asked who was everybody after Shaw had indicated his name and okay, nobody told me about Jantjie’s name but in the process I learnt that he was Jantjie. Okay, he was there and Motsamai too was there and the others I didn’t know, I was seeing them for the first time, the very Shaw himself.

MR STANDER: Were you assaulted in Fountain Street?

MR MOLEFE: Yes.

MR STANDER: Can you describe to us?

MR MOLEFE: Okay, I’ll do so. When I came there they wanted to know, the very person I say identified himself as Shaw, wanted to know more about the 16 bullets, then I said: "Okay, you have arrested me with the bullets and you know my name, you came to Serame and Xhosa I admit, that’s myself and that I am a member of the PAC".

Beyond that really there was nothing I was going to say. "Charge me with the bullets which are in front of you". Okay, then that infuriated them and their aggression against me started, you know, coming. I was clapped, you know, hit with a fist by the very man Motsamai. I regard him as a collaborator in the whole thing. I did not ...[indistinct] of his participation, I wouldn’t have been where I was because of his reports through the years. So even if he did not on that day, physically, psychologically he has played his part. And I told them then that: "Okay, according to International Law, okay, I’ve just told you that and unfortunately do whatever you want to do". Then they were saying to me: "...[no translation] with MK.

MR STANDER: Very well, you were assaulted by Motsamai, were you assaulted by anybody else? I’m speaking of that specific time.

MR STANDER: ...[inaudible] it was not just one person but two people hitted at me, you know, knocking me against - my back against the wall, actually I don’t know their names. From there I was told that I was going to "shit" and I was standing all the time. Okay, in retaliation I said I was prepared to "shit" that high. And thereafter, because they saw I was prepared, I’d made my prayers, they took me away to Bensvlei.

Then after a few hours, I think around 10, I was fetched there and formally issued with a - that is now all the things they were alleging against me, accusing me of. On the, during the process Nicholson was amongst the people. They were changing, that is now, hands on me. This was would come, everyone would come to pose his questions. Nicholson was one of them and he also clapped me because at one point I can say exactly what made him to clap me.

MR STANDER: Just a minute please.

Was Mr Motsamai present in the later assaults upon you?

MR MOLEFE: Yes, he was there to be an interpreter apparently but I was doing the interpretation for myself. He was sitting by and looking at me, you know, all the time. Even when this very Landman, on the 28th, on the morning of the 28th, there was again Landman who came to knock my head repeatedly, three times I think, against the wall. Kopi was there, Morakile was there.

MR STANDER: Did they take part in the assaults? Or let me put it differently, did Motsamai take any part in the assaults that took place in his presence?

MR MOLEFE: I’m saying physically there is nothing, psychologically there is something against me ...[indistinct]

MR STANDER: Let’s leave it at that please.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Earlier on you mentioned ...[indistinct] and I thought you said something to that effect. Did you earlier on also say that physically Motsamai did not assault you except he assaulted you psychologically? Is my note correct?

MR MOLEFE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You regarded him as a collaborator?

MR MOLEFE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] is on the first occasion. He was not one of those who assaulted you but he was physically present and you regarded him as having psychologically assaulted you? Is that the position?

MR MOLEFE: Yes. I think as a policeman, when he sees people doing things that are unaccepted in the police tradition then he should object. If he fails to object then he’s agreeing to everything.

MR STANDER: Mr Molefe, when the Chairman asked you the last question he referred you to the first occasion, the evening when you were arrested and taken to Fountain Street. And the question he asked you was whether at that stage you had been assaulted by Motsamai at Fountain Street or whether it was mere psychological assaults.

MR MOLEFE: ...[inaudible] I’ve said.

MR STANDER: I have no further questions for the witness, thank you.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

I must confess Professor, I don’t understand the relevance of your evidence but I’m putting it to you, as far as you implicate any of the persons that I act for in any illegal or unlawful act, it is denied.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MOLEFE: ...inaudible] feelings Sir.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions Mr Chairperson.

MR STANDER: I have no re-examination.

MR MEMANI: No questions M’Lord.

MR BRINK: No thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I forgot to ask something of the witness.

Mr Molefe, do you know a person called Nichos?

MR MOLEFE: Very much so.

MR MEMANI: Nichos?

MR MOLEFE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Now, who is Nichos?

MR MOLEFE: Nichos is the person who came to my rescue when nobody else could employ me because of the attitude carried by the employers at the time against people of a political background.

MR MEMANI: Now, is it correct that as a result of the fact that Nichos employed you, Erasmus and other policemen used to visit his shop?

MR MOLEFE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: That there used to go there and behave ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Is there any application for assaults on Nichos? ...[inaudible]

MR MEMANI: That is so, M’Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

MR MEMANI: I’m going through page 146 onwards M’Lord, it’s at paragraph 4. It says that:

Is it correct that they used to go there and behave in an intimidatory fashion against him?

MR MOLEFE: Correct.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that they used to question the fact that he was using green and gold in the colours when he was decorating his shop?

MR MOLEFE: Correct.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that they associated that with the African National Congress?

MR MOLEFE: The revolution in general. Let me say something to you Sir, which is not a secret in South Africa. When you match the colours, you don’t have to use alongside green and yellow, you don’t have to put red or you don’t have to put red ...[indistinct], green, black and yellow together. So Nichos had stepped, you know, stepped over. He were using the colours that were not accepted in the country ...[indistinct]

MR MEMANI: And, is it also correct that at his house he used decoration of - he used African art to decorate is house?

MR MOLEFE: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: And the police interpreted that as something pointing out to his revolutionary tendency?

MR MOLEFE: Of course yes, as you see I’m having a bid here that will ...[indistinct] some of the things we show our leanings. So I mean, it’s just like that, if you used some African things you fall within the category of those people who having special aspirations.

MR MEMANI: Did you become aware of the fact that he was courier of the ANC?

MR MOLEFE: No, I only know that later on when Chris Hani came to Bloemfontein, I think for the first time, his car was used to fetch him from somewhere into Bloemfontein. So, I mean, that he was a courier is something you couldn’t - it’s a secretive thing that must be kept or had to be kept like that. But like I’m saying now, later on it came to my attention that he had been of assistance in making to it that Hani bypassed the patrols unhindered.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions M’Lord.

MR VISSER: I’m afraid Mr Chairman, I’m going to have to take instructions on this issue now.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR VISSER: I’m hoping that I can do it quickly but - no, Erasmus is now implicated here ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: That he would go to his shop?

MR VISSER: Yes, and intimidate him. There’s a question of colours and he was regarded as revolutionary etc., etc. Could I have a few minutes just to discuss ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think he was quoting Erasmus as saying that. I don’t understand him to have said anything against

...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Memani was putting this evidence to him and he was agreeing Mr Chairman, as we understand it anyway.

ADV DE JAGER: But, there was a later bombing of the house of Nichos. There’s no evidence given by this witness that Erasmus for instance, was participating in the bombing.

MR VISSER: While that is correct, it is also quite clear that an atmosphere is built up here now.

ADV DE JAGER: But he’s applying for amnesty for the bombing, he’s not applying for amnesty for harassment of Nichos at his shop.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if you view it that way, I’m happy with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: I’m very happy with that. And I would simply submit, may I just ask one question of Mr Erasmus to establish a fact and I’ll put that to him.

Well, it turned out simpler than I thought it might be.

I put it to you that Erasmus has never been in the shop of Mr Nichos in his life.

MR MOLEFE: Well, it’s not a fact a thinking, it’s feeling and I’m not going to stand in your way, you’re to think whatever you want to.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions.

MR STANDER: I have no re-examination.

MR MOLEFE: Thank you.

MR STANDER: At this stage I have no further victims as evidence I can offer. I do not want to say that there might not be any other victims for whom I will apply at a later stage to hear the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] at the moment, as I understand the position, the victims have not been in touch with you for the last four months and I don’t think we should anticipate their sudden arrival. If they do arrive we can deal with that question then.

MR STANDER: As you please.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, before Mr Visser proceeds, I’ve studies the evidence of Mr Motsamai insofar as the application on behalf of Mr Molefe, concerning the torture of Mr Molefe is concerned and I have found there might be a need to supplement that evidence M’Lord. And I’m asking for leave to recall him to supplement that evidence M’Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: I would suggest that if you’re going to apply to recall Mr Ngo to supplement evidence, it would be more advisable to wait until we’ve heard the evidence of Mr Visser’s clients and any other witnesses they call. We’re not going to constantly have these people recalled and there may well be other matters that arise.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree Mr Visser? That if he’s to be recalled every time something develops we’ll be here forever.

MR VISSER: Yes. Clearly your thinking is correct Mr Chairman, barring one problem which does occur to me. If it is now a concession, an agreement that there is no application in regard to Molefe, then perhaps in that particular confined area it may better for him to lead the evidence so that at least we know what to answer. But I’m leaving it...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t understand that it was concession there was none, they want to supplement it and that’s a very different word.

MR VISSER: On whatever basis ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that we can deal with later, that’s what I’m saying.

MR VISSER: If that’s your ruling, I accept it.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, in dealing therewith, we’ve had the evidence now and he said he was psychologically assaulted but not physically. Is that a gross violation of human rights?

MR MEMANI: I’m sorry for interrupting your mike Mr Chairman, but the difficulty when I look at this, at Mr Motsamai’s evidence, is that it is lacking in the sense that it doesn’t disclose what he witnessed and how this person assaulted in his presence. And somehow the witness has ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What page is it?

MR MEMANI: The witness has referred to the issue that, you know, he was present when he was being assaulted and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, you said you’ve Motsamai’s evidence.

MR MEMANI: Yes M’Lord, I’m looking at my notes now to see if I can quickly find the relevant spot.

ADV DE JAGER: Page 714.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I believe it’s 715 at the bottom of the page, there’s nothing on 714.

ADV DE JAGER: On 714 you started to lead evidence ...[inaudible] number 26?

MR VISSER: Yes, in the middle of the page.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani, I wonder why you contemplate doing that. Isn’t this what Mr Visser said right at the beginning, that at the commencement of these proceedings it was never contemplated that Mr Motsamai was or would be making an application in respect of this witness. Doesn’t that explain the reason why now you find that your client did not put in such detail? Did you at the time seriously think that you were in fact leading your client in respect of the assault of this particular witness or this matter just coming in through the back door?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, it’s not coming in through the back door. If one looks, you know when we were leading him on these incidents he tended to be very brief with the people who were occupied in the list and it was due to oversight that sufficient detail was not given with regard to Serami Molefe. We then ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Molefe says he’s not been assaulted by him.

MR MEMANI: Yes, but he says that he was present when assaults took place on - he says that Motsamai was present when Molefe was assaulted and that is a matter that would require application for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? He’s a very junior officer in the presence of senior officer who are committing offences.

MR MEMANI: It is not my understanding of the Law M’Lord, my understanding of the Law is that a policeman has got a duty to stop an unlawful assault on a citizen.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, he never applied to be granted amnesty in respect of him not fulfilling his duty to stop assaults on other people, there’s no such application before us.

MR MEMANI: There is that application Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: It’s only in connection with assaults he himself committed.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the reason why Molefe was included is because of that fact. It has always been my instructions that Mr Motsamai did not physically participate in the assaults and I as lawyer interpreted the circumstances to be such, that he needs to apply for amnesty for assaulting this person because he failed to stop an assault on a person.

CHAIRPERSON: I revert to what I said earlier, I think we should go on with Mr Visser’s witnesses now, there my be other incidents that emerge which you wish to clarify with your client. I do not think there’s a desire to re-call him at this stage. We have the evidence. If Mr Visser wants to investigate it he can do so and you can call your client to clarify the fact that he was present and did nothing, after we’ve heard Mr Visser’s evidence with clients. You can renew your application then, I do not consider this an appropriate time.

MR VISSER: Just very briefly, you can imagine that we have problems of organisation here to keep all these witnesses here. What we’ve decided to do in order to expedite matters, we intend to call the short witnesses first and get rid of the bulk of the bulk of the people and leave the material witnesses, as we would like to refer to them, on all the incidents later and that will only happen next week Mr Chairman. I first of all call Mr Mbanjani. It is spelt M-b-a-n-j-a-n-i. He has filed an affidavit, it is in bundle B at page 26 and 27.

ZANELE PETRUS MBANJANI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Mbanjani, are your full names Zanele: Z-a-n-e-l-e, Petrus, Mbanjani, M-b-a-n-j-a-n-i, is that correct?

MR MBANJANI: Yes.

MR VISSER: At the moment are you no longer associated with the police?

MR MBANJANI: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: Could that perhaps be repeated please?

MR MBANJANI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You are a taxi owner in Bloemfontein, not so?

MR MBANJANI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: When were you associated with the South African Police, between which years?

MR MBANJANI: I started to be a policeman on the 7th October 1960.

MR VISSER: Were you ever associated with the security branch here in Bloemfontein?

MR MBANJANI: From 1966 I started to work with the security branch.

MR VISSER: And until which date did this go?

MR MBANJANI: Up to the 30th December 1982, 1992 sorry.

MR VISSER: Specifically the period between ‘86 and 1992, what were your duties then?

MR MBANJANI: From 1986 and 1992 I was working administrative work.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] confirm his affidavit.

MR VISSER: May I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: And then you can lead him on any other points you wish to.

MR VISSER: Yes. It is not really quite that simple Mr Chairman because part his answers, probable answers in cross-examination is going to rely on these dates. I thought it may be just better to spend a little time, just let him give this evidence but if you - I’m quite willing to do it that way Mr Chairman, as long as he’s not criticised for it later.

The affidavit which you gave, did ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: Not audible.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Brink.

Is that the affidavit which has been placed in front of you?

MR MBANJANI: That is my affidavit Sir.

MR VISSER: Is that your handwriting that appears on it?

MR MBANJANI: That is my handwriting Sir.

MR VISSER: And do you confirm the facts in that affidavit?

MR MBANJANI: I wrote the affidavit, then I agree with all the facts in there.

MR VISSER: Is it correct that as from 1986 to 1992 you were employed in an administrative capacity in Bloemfontein?

MR MBANJANI: That is correct, that is 1986 up to the time I went on pension in 1992.

MR VISSER: Just before ‘86, where were you then?

MR MBANJANI: Before 1986 I was working at T’Banachu, Tweespruit, Excelcior and I worked again in Botshabelo.

MR VISSER: I want to ask you specifically about the period that you spent in Botshabelo. What were your duties there?

MR MBANJANI: My work there was mainly about enquiries which were in Botshabelo.

MR VISSER: I’m going to change to English as it might save time.

Would it be correct, as has been suggested, that there was a sub-unit of the security branch of Bloemfontein placed at Botshabelo Police Station, would that be correct?

MR MBANJANI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Who did it that sub-unit consist of? Who was the commander?

MR MBANJANI: When it started I was under Captain Coetzee. After some time Warrant Officer van den Berg took over, then I was under him.

MR VISSER: Who was the assistant commander?

MR MBANJANI: It was myself, I was helping van den Berg.

MR VISSER: ...[inaudible] members of that sub-unit that you worked with?

MR MBANJANI: We were together with Sergeant Kotze and Sergeant Padi - P-a-d-i.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: Kotze Mr Chairman, K-o-t-z-e.

MR MBANJANI: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Mbanjani, with what rank did you leave the police?

MR MBANJANI: I was warrant officer.

MR VISSER: Insofar as it has been suggested in these applications by any witness or any applicant that you committed acts, illegal or unlawful acts, what do you say about that? While you were a policeman, what do you say about that?

MR MBANJANI: I’m surprised, I’m scared that there were things that I did, I’m even ashamed. Not at all, my spirit is as white as a shirt, as a white shirt.

CHAIRPERSON: By that, do I understand you to say that you did not commit any unlawful acts, that you were as pure as the driven snow?

MR MBANJANI: Not at all, I haven’t done anything to any person.

MR VISSER: You followed the straight and narrow road, is that what you’re saying?

Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MBANJANI: That is correct. I have reasons which I may put forward why I followed - I have a desire that I should put those reasons now.

MR VISSER: Mr Mbanjani, perhaps you can end with them. I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

You know Mr Ngo, is that right?

MR MBANJANI: I didn’t know him a lot, I was working in Bloemfontein offices. Where I working you would not be able to meet these members.

MR DU PLESSIS: All I actually want to know is, did you have any contact with Mr Ngo after he left Bloemfontein to go to Pretoria? Did you ever speak to him after he left Bloemfontein to go to Pretoria?

MR MBANJANI: From Bloemfontein here - I’m not even able to recognise his voice. I was not able to be in contact with him. Where I was working, our offices were closed and I had my ...[indistinct]. I didn’t have time to work with other members except old members whom I used to work with before he arrived.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

MR STANDER: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Mr Mbanjani, before you came here you consulted with your lawyers, isn’t it?

MR MBANJANI: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And they told you what the allegations against you are?

MR MBANJANI: I want to explain this fact. I did not have a subpoena to appear here but because I had people whom I worked with whom I love and I worked with, I saw my name appear on the subpoena’s wrongfully. Then I felt that I should not keep quiet, I should come here and satisfy myself because this thing is hurting me a lot. That is why I went to the lawyers, then I said I should meet with my legal counsel because there are steps which I want to take.

MR MEMANI: Did the lawyers tell you what the allegations against you are?

MR MBANJANI: I read those allegations on the subpoena of my colleagues whom I worked with. Even if I’m not able to read I saw that my name is mentioned there, then I was hurt.

MR MEMANI: ...[inaudible] against you?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I’m going to come in here, with great respect, I expected this. Mr Chairman, in terms of our constitution and in terms of procedure, a well accepted and well founded procedure, an accused person who is being accused of something is entitled to be told what he’s being accused of. My learned friend Mr Memani, appears for two applicants here who have applied for amnesty, various incidents, they’ve been placed in dispute. There’s an enormous amount or evidence Mr Chairman.

It is unfair and unreasonable to expect this witness to say: "Well, I am implicated in exactly this, that and the other", because with great respect Mr Chairman, we are confused ourselves as to what precisely the applications are about. Let Mr Memani put his case to the witness Mr Chairman, it is unfair to ask him what he’s been implicated with.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I would have thought you called clients because they had been implicated, to deal with the implications and I would certainly assume that you consulted with your clients before you called them and said: "This has been said, what have you got to say about it"?

MR VISSER: That is true Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is what Mr Memani is asking him. "What have you been told you have been implicated in"? Isn’t that what you asked him Mr Memani?

MR MEMANI: That is correct M’Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know if you understood the question. The question that counsel was putting to you was simply: "Do you know what allegations, have you been told what allegations have been made involving you in the matters for which amnesty is being asked"?

MR MBANJANI: This allegation says, I don’t remember the year well but when I read I found that these years which were mentioned, I was in Bloemfontein. That is to say he was in Botshabelo. I gave him a van, a 4 X 4, then he went to a particular place where I pointed out to people. In January 1986 I started working in Bloemfontein under the command of warrant officer.

I was working under a white person in Bloemfontein, there were other people working under me. Because this thing has happened after I’d left, then I said to myself I should go - it troubled me, then I said to myself I should go to my legal counsel. This 4 X 4 lorry that has been mentioned, I don’t know where it came from.

All these things which I read, they purported to have happened, I was not there. There was not a day where I returned to Botshabelo, I was permanently working in an office.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us what you’ve read about yourself Mr Mbanjani.

MR MBANJANI: It’s not a long thing. It says: Ngo left here to Botshabelo. When he arrived at Botshabelo that is where cars are parked. I don’t know as whether it’s this car which makes him to be in danger. I took a van and gave it to him, which is spoken about, then he went with this lorry. He’d found two people - he don’t even - those, what kind of location is that but those were the new locations. Then he returned the van to me and he left. Those are the things I do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: So, are you saying the only thing you have been told you were involved in, is that you gave a van to Mr Ngo and that he then returned it?

MR MBANJANI: It’s not a long thing, it appears there. I request that it should be placed on record and be read. It’s a short thing which has been written about me, it’s not a long thing. The major issue is the van which he says I gave to him, which is a lie. And even those people he mentioned, those two people whom I do not know.

MR MEMANI: Is it unlawful to lend a van to a person?

MR MBANJANI: You lent somebody - the state property is not your property.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Really I don’t know whether this witness was here, whether he heard Mr Ngo’s evidence or the allegations Mr Ngo levelled against him or not. Why don’t we just tell this man what the allegations are against him and then he should deal with them. After all, this whole purpose of - in fact the specific purpose of calling implicated people is to enable them to answer these allegations. He wasn’t there when Ngo testified and why can’t we just put these allegations to him and then we deal with them?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] In his affidavit which he signed some time ago, it refers to the fact that Ngo alleges he was concerned in the murder. Now he’s not saying a word about it, he appears to be deliberately avoiding any reference to a murder, he keeps just talking about a truck.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman you see, this is the objection which I made or which I tried to explain just now. This man is accused of being implicated - and I’ll tell you in a while where he’s implicated, he’s implicated by Ngo in an alleged pre-arrangement with Mamome to store the stolen car of Mr Venter at Batu Police Station. My learned friend doesn’t know that. Why must this witness tell you that: "This is where I’m implicated". There are witnesses here - Mamome for example is implicated in virtually every incident here, they haven’t been attending the trial. It is grossly unfair Mr Chair, in my respectful submission, to ask him: "What are you accused of"?

CHAIRPERSON: You called him to clear his name and I do not think it is doing so when he’s not telling us: "I was implicated in this, I had nothing to do with it". Where he just in the most general terms says that: "Like a washed shirt I had nothing to do" ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with great respect, it is certainly not the duty of the witness or either of him or myself, after he has made himself available, to field any questions or allegations against him under oath, to take him through the whole record and to show ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t suggest that for one minute Mr Visser, what I suggested is that he could simply say: "It was suggested I reached an agreement with Mr Ngo to allow him to park the car of the man he murdered, I did not do so".

MR VISSER: It’s obvious that he doesn’t understand the charge that way, it’s for my learned friend to put it to him Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, is he being called as an implicated person, and he’s being called - he’s coming out of his own free will, he need not come, that’s correct. Why is he coming? In order to tell the world that: "I’m being wrongly implicated". And in that sense, isn’t the sort of onus to say - I don’t say onus in the ordinary sense, but isn’t he coming forward - "I want to tell the Commission, this is what they said about me, it’s wrong". Now he’s coming and saying: "I’m folding my arms, I’ve done nothing wrong" and we don’t know in what connection. But if he as a witness comes forward and says: "I want to clear my name about this what is being said about me", isn’t he the one who should tell us on what issue does he want to clear his character?

MR VISSER: Must I reply ...[End of tape 2B - no follow-on sound]

CHAIRPERSON: It will save an enormous amount of time if they can simply say: "Dealing with this, I didn’t do it".

MR VISSER: With great respect, we would have expected Mr Memani to say: "Oh Mr Mbanjani, yes I know exactly which the incidents are and now I’m going to put to you what my clients are saying" but that’s obviously not going to happen.

May I re-open my evidence - leading my evidence in chief Mr Chairman?

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Mbanjani, you’ve already been asked this but let’s just ask a little bit closer about this, you were aware of Mr Nelson Ngo in Bloemfontein in 1985/86 thereabouts?

MR MBANJANI: I would not tell the year because Mr Ngo in our offices every handler, you’d not be able to identify who is the handler of a particular person. When you go to the toilet, in the passage you’d see somebody at night but during the day you don’t see him. He left without knowing who his handler is because I was not able to communicate with him.

MR VISSER: The point is that in your recollection you regard, you remember Mr Ngo as an informer, is that what you’re saying is that what you’re saying, with a handler?

MR MBANJANI: As we were talking in the kitchen you would drop and hear what they’re saying but I was never aware that this person was an informer.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, could I kindly try to assist.

You’ve made an affidavit, have you got your affidavit before you and you’re confirmed this affidavit?

MR MBANJANI: That’s correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now look at paragraph 3 at the top of page 27. I don’t whether you understand Afrikaans, there you say:

Sub-paragraph 3:

Now the crux of the matter:

Is there anything you want to add to that? About the vehicle or the murder of Mr Venter?

MR MBANJANI: I know nothing about this murder. I was an administrative officer and I heard that Ngo killed a person. I even red it in the newspaper, Volksblad, that Ngo killed a white person. That the person who was killed was Mr Venter, I heard it here. I want to tell this Commission the truth, I had never had any contact with Ngo in his life. I know nothing that relates to Ngo.

MR VISSER: There was a suggestion on behalf of Mr Ngo that after Mr Venter had been murdered, Mr Venter’s motor car which was a Toyota Cressida was stolen and it was driven to Batu. Do you know anything about that?

MR MBANJANI: I know nothing about Mr Venter’s murder. I did not know anything about the car you’ve just talked about. I was working in an office, I would not be in the position to go deep and listen to the news.

MR VISSER: I’ve just realised that I’ve mentioned the word Batu twice Mr Chairman, it’s clearly incorrect, it’s Botshabelo of course. The man was in Botshabelo, I’m terribly sorry.

The suggestion by Mr Ngo is that Mr Mamome spoke to you there at Botshabelo police station and that he asked you whether you had made arrangements as requested with regard to this motor car.

MR MBANJANI: I was working as an administrative officer. I had a lot of work to do. I started working at half past seven until 4 o’clock.

MR VISSER: Mr Mbanjani, just listen to the question. Did Mr Mamome make arrangements for you about what to do with the stolen vehicle belonging to Mr Venter?

MR MBANJANI: No arrangements were made with Mr Mamome.

MR VISSER: Do you know anything about this car?

MR MBANJANI: I know nothing about this car.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo furthermore alleges that you then lent them or rather transported them in a Nissan four wheel drive to Section S in Botshabelo, did that ever happen?

MR MBANJANI: No such thing happened.

MR VISSER: And that you introduced to them, that is Mr Mamome, Mr Ngo and Warrant Officer Ramouseau to two people. The one was Ben Ramorakome - R-a-m-o-r-a-k-o-m-e and Zacharia Khetsi - K-h-e-t-s-i.

MR MBANJANI: I know nothing of that incident, even the names that you are mentioning I do not know because I was not present at that place in Botshabelo.

MR VISSER: You then instructed them, I’m sorry, he also says that these two people work in the national hospital as security guards. Do you know two people or one person or anybody who works in the national hospital as a security guard by those names?

Ben Ramorakome and Zacharia Khetsi, do you know any such persons?

MR MBANJANI: I did not know them.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Ngo said that you instructed them to go with the persons that I mentioned before, Mr Mamome, Mr Ramouseau and Mr Ngo, to Bloemfontein to go and help to go and collect the property of Askari members. Do you know anything about that?

MR MBANJANI: I know nothing about that incident.

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman, I don’t need to go further with that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should continue just a little bit: "and that after that he took you and dropped you back at the police station".

MR VISSER: Yes, and then after all of that you - you heard the Chairman, do you know anything about that? Did that ever happen?

MR MBANJANI: I have never met them. This whole incident is new to me.

MR VISSER: You were also implicated in the alleged torturing of comrades at Botshabelo, by Mr Ngo, and he says about you - at page 35 of his application, I’m sorry, 32 of his application:

and your name Warrant Officer Mbanjani is mentioned. Now let me just tell you the background. There was evidence that during 1985/86, we’re not sure when, there were a large group of people that were arrested in the time of unrest, approximately 40 of them, and they were taken to Botshabelo police station and according to Mr Ngo they were there arrested in various ways. Do you know anything about that?

MR MBANJANI: Yes, people were arrested in Botshabelo and the arrangements were done from the head office. Then we were given support, people were arrested. There was a section that was responsible for those people, it was called the Black Section. The next day we went back to our different duties but in all the events where people were arrested, I do not remember Ngo’s presence, I do not remember his presence.

MR VISSER: Did you take part in the administrative issues surrounding these people or in their interrogation, this group of 40 people? Did you have anything to do with them in other words?

MR MBANJANI: I would not remember the people you are talking about because we worked with many people. According to instructions, if your name appears you have to take an instruction but even though it is like that I do not remember assaulting anyone.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we can go a bit further. The suggestion was not just that you assaulted but that you ordered them to strip so they could run round in a ring so that they could be beaten with plastic shambucks and that you then ordered them to do push-ups and frog-jumps. Did anything like that happen?

MR MBANJANI: Nothing of that sort happened in my presence. Some of the things that I’m listening to here shock me really. I’m one of those people who were strict. Now and then we used to sign confirming that there’ll be no assaults. The apartheid didn’t want us to assault people, those who assaulted people did that out of their own will. I do not remember harassing any person. I even walk freely in townships because I know I did not assault a person.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Mr Visser, does that conclude your second ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: My second attempt, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, do you have any questions?

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

Mr Mbanjani, what did your duties entail?

MR MBANJANI: Do you want to know about my duties here in Bloemfontein or where should I start?

MR MEMANI: You told us that you were doing administrative work, was this at Fountains?

MR MBANJANI: Yes, at Fountain. My work at Fountain was to listen to the news and the telephones and to write letters.

MR MEMANI: Letters to whom?

MR MBANJANI: If we suspected that the letter had something, we would open and read through the letter as to see whether there isn’t anything against the government in that letter.

MR MEMANI: So you were intercepting mail?

MR MBANJANI: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: And you were listening to the news over the radio?

MR MBANJANI: ...[no English translation]

MR MEMANI: And you were listening - your particular interest in that news was news with a political content.

MR MBANJANI: Yes, political news.

MR MEMANI: And I assume that you then collate the relevant items and pass them on to the people who would have use for whatever you had gathered?

MR MBANJANI: Yes, we forwarded the news to a different section.

MR MEMANI: You were not responsible for leave forms?

MR MBANJANI: Not at all.

MR MEMANI: You were not responsible for keeping an inventory of furniture in the police station?

MR MBANJANI: Not at all.

MR MEMANI: And you were performing duties that were non-administrative in fact?

MR MBANJANI: Most of the time I was doing administrative work, I worked 8 to 4 o’clock.

MR MEMANI: So then the first ...[indistinct] that emerges is that you were not doing administrative work.

MR MBANJANI: We did administrative work because we had a register book to sign when we start working and sign out at the end of the day.

MR MEMANI: And you worked at Bloemfontein from 1986 until 1992, is that correct?

MR MBANJANI: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And you did not - you say that you did not become aware of Ngo?

MR MBANJANI: I just saw Ngo, I could not even speak to him because we have different departments. You are only concerned with your work. Even at tea time we did not even manage to have tea time, we had tea where we worked. I never talked to him and I never got a chance to know him. When I say: "to know him", I’m not referring to physical knowledge.

MR MEMANI: No, you knew that there was a person in the office who’s Nelson Ngo?

MR MBANJANI: Yes, I knew that such a person existed, he was Nelson Ngo. I explained that there were times in our offices where a person like Ngo came to give information. People would be very protective, they would not want us to talk to him so we never had a chance to talk to him because he would be protected.

MR MEMANI: Now we heard that before 1985, Ngo was a student and he was Erasmus’s informer.

MR MBANJANI: I would not say he was Erasmus’s informer, Erasmus had people who were working with him. I did not know his real handler and I did not bother to know that because I was concentrating on my work.

MR MEMANI: But surely if you told us that people used to be protective about their informers and they did not want other people to speak to him, when you saw him at Fountain, if you saw him as an informer, you would have seen him in the company of Erasmus?

MR MBANJANI: Can you repeat your question?

MR MEMANI: If people didn’t want their informers to mingle with others and you say you saw Ngo at Fountain when he was an informer, then you would have him in the company of Erasmus because he was Erasmus’s informer.

MR MBANJANI: I told you that it was not possible to know exactly who his informer was but I knew that he was informer. If he was in the company of our black men, not Erasmus, I would know that he’s an informer. I really agreed that he was an informer when I saw him mixing with them.

MR MEMANI: You know I don’t want to waste time but I don’t know why I want to follow this. You said to us earlier on that people don’t want informers - their informers, to mingle with others, they’re protective about their informers.

MR MBANJANI: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: At that stage you were explaining the reason why you would not have had any contact with Ngo, isn’t it?

MR MBANJANI: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: Now I’m saying to you then, you’d been told that Ngo was Erasmus’s informer and if people were protective and didn’t want their informers to mingle with others, you would not see him with black policemen, you’d see him with Erasmus.

CHAIRPERSON: But surely, if he comes to the building he catches the lift to the fifth floor and he goes to Erasmus’s office, that doesn’t mean you see him with Erasmus. You just see him getting out of the lift or something, you don’t know where’s he’s going up the passage.

MR MEMANI: The unfortunate ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that Erasmus went and fetched him every time and took him up in the lift with him and led him to his office?

MR MEMANI: The evidence has been that he used to see him in the office but he would not speak to him because people were protective about their informers.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn’t say he saw him in Erasmus’s office, he said he saw him in Fountain, the offices at Fountain Street as I understood his evidence.

Isn’t that what you said, that you saw him in the building? You didn’t know what office he went into.

MR MBANJANI: I did not know the office he was going to.

MR MEMANI: I beg your pardon Mr Chair.

Now Mr Mbanjani, informers were not supposed to be known to all and sundry at the police station isn’t it?

MR MBANJANI: That is not so, it only depended on the handler. I used to walk freely with my informers and you’d never know what was happening, it only depended really on the handler. There are other informers, you meet him in the street or her in the street and then you talk to that informer. It depended on the handler, how to work with the informer.

MR MEMANI: Informers were not full-time employees, isn’t it?

MR MBANJANI: Repeat your question please.

MR MEMANI: Informers are not full-time employees?

MR MBANJANI: You’re asking me a difficult question. The informers were classified. There were full-time informers, there were part-time informers. It’s a very long story but in short, there are classifications of informers but most of them were not full-time informers.

MR MEMANI: But informers did not work permanently in the office. They did not stay permanently in the office, they came only to give reports and left.

MR MBANJANI: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: And Ngo was a permanent feature in the office, he was always in the office?

MR MBANJANI: I would not say he was at all times at the office because when we reported work at half past seven, we would go back to our offices and they are out to go and work in the fields.

MR MEMANI: But informers were not supposed to be known to members of the community, isn’t it?

MR MBANJANI: That is so.

MR MEMANI: And Ngo participated in the arrest of youths in Botshabelo?

MR MBANJANI: I told this Committee that I do not remember Ngo’s presence while we detained people or arrested people. May I was not present on that day.

MR MEMANI: And Ngo was actually registered as a policeman.

MR MBANJANI: I mentioned I did not know Ngo for a long time, that he was a policeman I just heard. I know the people I worked with. I did not know his background.

MR MEMANI: Why is it so that you did not know that Ngo was a policeman when he worked with you at the same police station?

MR MBANJANI: I told you that it was a very big office and I was in the same office but far from them. The field workers were on that side and I was on the other side, we did not mix. What they did was unknown to us.

MR MEMANI: How many policemen were there, security branch?

MR MBANJANI: I would not tell, they were many but I cannot give the number.

MR MEMANI: About 15?

MR MBANJANI: In all we would be between 60 and 70 but I do not know the exact figure.

MR MEMANI: But how many black security branch members were there at that stage who reported at Fountain every morning?

MR MBANJANI: We were not 30 in number, I think we were about 30 if not 30 something.

MR MEMANI: Now, did you not see Ngo at parades in the mornings?

MR MBANJANI: I do not remember seeing Ngo, I do not remember.

MR MEMANI: You see, according to documents furnished to us by our legal representatives, Ngo was registered at least as from March 1986, as a policeman.

MR MBANJANI: The questions that you are asking me do not need my attention, they need their handlers because as black during those days we did not know what was happening up there. Even among ourselves we did not open up for each other. I did not know his history, whether he was registered or not because I was never given such a report.

MR MEMANI: You see, what I’m saying is whether or not black were not treated well, they did not know much, you should have seen him at parade at least. Didn’t you see him at parade?

MR MBANJANI: I do not remember seeing Ngo. You’re asking me something that happened a long time ago, I do not remember seeing Ngo.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether he was transferred to another station at any stage or whether he left Bloemfontein at any stage?

MR MBANJANI: I did not know his movements. We were not told such things. I only concentrated on my duty. The transfers and all those things were done by officers up there where we did not have part.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The Chairperson’s mike is not on.

MR MEMANI: It is a convenient time M’Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the speaker.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we endeavour to start before 2 o’clock or should we take - I’m getting support from behind me. It’s ten past now, shall we endeavour to start at a quarter to two if we can.

MR MBANJANI: (s.u.o)

CHAIRPERSON: Right Mr Memani?

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Mbanjani, for how long did you see Ngo at Fountain?

MR MBANJANI: I do not remember.

MR MEMANI: Now, for how long did you know him as an informer?

MR MBANJANI: ...[no English translation]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Brink?

MR MBANJANI: As I mentioned, I do not have Ngo’s history. As I have mentioned I do not know a lot about Ngo, I only saw him, how did I see him, I do not know.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The period over which you saw which you’re not sure of, is it a question of years or months?

MR MBANJANI: I am unable to answer because he never spent a lot of time where I saw him.

MR MEMANI: Now, informers were paid by Fountain directly isn’t it, and not by head office?

MR MBANJANI: According to my knowledge - can I please get another headset, this is giving me troubles?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Do not cover the little glass because you stop the frequency.

MR MBANJANI: We received money at Fountain for the informers.

MR MEMANI: And that was recorded in a file?

MR MBANJANI: Everyone had his file, that’s correct.

MR MEMANI: And these payments through the administration office?

MR MBANJANI: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: And if you’re working in administration you would have been aware of approximately the time Ngo was being paid as an informer.

MR MBANJANI: No. That kind of work was not done in our division, it had it’s own special unit of informers.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Memani, I wanted to do this before we adjourn. The witness, when he testified, when he was asked what sort of work he was doing, the witness in his own language - my recollection is, that he kept on saying he worked in the office. Now, the interpretation that kept on coming through was that: "I did administrative work". Now I’m not sure whether it’s necessarily administrative work and I’m just saying this because it may very well be unfair to the witness. I’m not saying you are taxing him now, I just wanted to point it out because he just kept on saying: "I worked in the office" and it was interpreted to us as saying: "I did administrative work".

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, my recollection is that in chief it was properly interpreted as: "administrative work" and then later in cross-examination when he got problems with the fact that his work was not really administrative he then said of his work but I will try and clear that up with the stenographers and I’ll get back to you on the correct interpretation. Thanks Mr Chairman.

Now Mr Mbanjani, do you recall the day when you arrested Ngo at O.K. in Bloemfontein?

MR MBANJANI: I have never arrested Ngo.

MR MEMANI: Do you recall the day when you took him to Fountain and there called Erasmus and showed him Ngo?

MR MBANJANI: I do not remember.

MR MEMANI: Don’t you recall that you are the person who introduced Ngo to Erasmus?

MR MBANJANI: That is not so at all.

MR MEMANI: Now there was another youngster who used to be with Ngo who was Oliphant whom you were looking for as well, do you remember that?

MR MBANJANI: I do not remember.

MR MEMANI: My instruction are that you were looking for Oliphant and Ngo and you picked Ngo up at O.K. and on that day he was beaten up by yourself and Erasmus and he was then recruited as an informer.

MR MBANJANI: That is not so, I’ve never worked under Erasmus.

MR MEMANI: It is not the proposition that you worked under Erasmus, what is being put to you is that you introduced Ngo to Erasmus.

MR MBANJANI: That is not so Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Don’t you recall that thereafter Erasmus suggested that before he can use him as an informer you and Erasmus must speak to Captain Horn?

MR MBANJANI: That is not so, I’ve never spoken to Erasmus about Ngo.

MR MEMANI: And Horn approved the appointment of Ngo as an informer in the office.

MR MBANJANI: That is not so, I do not know Ngo’s issue. I do not know his - I do not even know his recruitment.

MR MEMANI: And besides collating evidence and passing it on to the various people who would have use for it, you made visits to houses of people who had skipped the country to join MK and APLA.

MR MBANJANI: No, when I started working at the office in 1986 that job stopped.

MR MEMANI: What I was putting to you is that you did in fact do visits to homes of people who’d left the country to join MK and APLA.

MR MBANJANI: Yes, we did make visits up to 1985 and in 1986 when I started working in the office I stopped those visits.

MR MEMANI: Now, did you stop later, very late in 1986?

MR MBANJANI: I stopped when I started working in the office, I was now working in the office and I stopped visiting them. There was a division visiting them.

MR MEMANI: I am told that you used to go to these houses with Ngo, Ngo would be pointing these houses out to you.

MR MBANJANI: That is not so at all. I’ve never spoken to him and I did not work with him, it’s a lie.

MR MEMANI: I beg your pardon Mr Chair.

Now I am told again that your house was bombed by MK with a hand grenade.

MR MBANJANI: That is correct, it was in 1980 but I would not say it was done by the MK.

MR MEMANI: And the reason was that you were following them up.

MR MBANJANI: M’Lord, you are telling me that is was the MK, I’m glad to hear that those are the people responsible for the bombing of my house.

MR MEMANI: Now, your office opened to Violent Street.

MR MBANJANI: Which door are you referring to Sir because there are many doors, I do not know which door you’re referring to.

MR MEMANI: Your office door.

MR MBANJANI: When I opened the door I was going down and then turned to Violent Street.

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that your door was in fact opening onto Violent Street.

MR MBANJANI: That is not true. You would walk a distance up to that camera man, then there was a main door, then you would turn and then that was Violent Street.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you estimate that distance?

MR MEMANI: About 8 metres M’Lord.

MR MBANJANI: From where I’m sitting to that camera man M’Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: More than 8, 10.

MR VISSER: I would agree with 10 Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now, you told us that you were later transferred to Botshabelo.

MR MBANJANI: I said I was transferred from Botshabelo to Bloemfontein, it was a transfer from Botshabelo to Bloemfontein.

MR MEMANI: When was that?

MR MBANJANI: I started at the beginning of 1986 and the transfer was done the end of 1985. The beginning of ‘86 I was here.

MR MEMANI: When were you second in command, was it Botshabelo or Batu police station?

MR MBANJANI: Botshabelo.

MR MEMANI: In which year were you second in command there?

MR MBANJANI: I worked in Botshabelo until the end of 1985 and a few years back.

MR MEMANI: I’m told that during the raid you are the person who was pointing out the houses of the people that ought to be arrested.

MR MBANJANI: That is not so Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: The reason therefore was that you are the person who was based in Botshabelo and they were here in town.

MR MBANJANI: Sir, we were supposed to know our different duties and it was my duty to identify those houses.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t quite understand, you say it was your duty to identify the houses, so did you carry out your duty and do so?

MR MBANJANI: I say to do a compete job was included, even identifying the person and the house. The decisions to raid the houses were taken by my seniors.

MR MEMANI: And during that raid you complied to with your duty to identify people who were sought to be arrested?

MR MBANJANI: When a raid was conducted the people are already identified, we just go in a group and we will be divided, this group will go to a certain section and this group will go to that other section.

MR MEMANI: Do you have any difficulty with conceding that you are the person who actually identified the house and the people involved because you were the person who was stationed locally?

MR MBANJANI: I did not point them out, I identified them. We go out as a group and we do not go the whole group to one place. I did - I identified in the group where I was working.

MR MEMANI: And I’m also told that besides identifying the houses and the persons, when the houses were entered, who ought to be arrested, when you arrived at the police station you are also the person who would pick up people for particular types of interrogation.

MR MBANJANI: It depended who the case was handed over to. I told you we were four people working there but it was part of my duty. If you were needed for interrogation I had to go and fetch you.

MR MEMANI: And Ngo was present during that raid?

MR MBANJANI: I have never worked in Ngo’s presence, I do not remember or recall or seeing Ngo there.

MR MEMANI: If I may have a moment M’Lord. Now, my instructions again are that informers never went to the office.

MR MBANJANI: I did not know there is a person who can answer that question, you used an informer the way you liked. Some of the informers came to the office but not often.

MR MEMANI: I’m told that to bring informers to the office would risk their lives because people might see them entering the offices.

MR MBANJANI: If you take an informer to the office it won’t be at daylight because the live of that person would be in my hands. We took them to the offices at night.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, could you assist me? He left Botshabelo at the end of 1985 so this raid - am I correct in saying, was before the end of 1985?

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that it was before.

ADV DE JAGER: And we heard evidence that in 1985 Ngo in December attended a conference in Durban so he was still at school, that was before his exposure.

MR MEMANI: That is so M’Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: And I think that it should be cleared up some time because this is causing confusion.

MR MEMANI: I think at the ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: He was still at school and not yet exposed as an informer.

MR MEMANI: The probability is that Mr Mohapi’s dates were not correct because you’ll recall that after he was uncovered he went to complete matric, I think in Ladybrand and thereafter he went to join the police force so he could not have been standard 10 or a student here in Botshabelo in 1985.

ADV DE JAGER: When did your client do matric?

MR MEMANI: I don’t recall if I have any particular instruction on that aspect.

MR VISSER: Can I try to assist Mr Chairman, just for the sake of assisting and not for the sake of attempting to interrupt but because you’re asking the question.

Mr Chairman, Ngo, according to the evidence became a police informer in 1983. He was stabbed in 1984. His trial was completed by 1985. In 1985 he was in Ladybrand. He completed his matric at the end of 1985. He joined the police on the 11th of March 1986 and he left for the police college on the 4th of July 1986. Those are the relevant dates.

CHAIRPERSON: Start again please.

MR VISSER: It’s on the record. I haven’t got the page reference but I’ll give it to you again. He became a police informer in 1983, is my information. He was exposed and stabbed in 1984. The trial as I understand it, was completed against White Mohapi and others in 1995 at which he had been transferred to Ladybrand to complete his school career. He completed his matric - am I going too fast?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no.

MR VISSER: He completed his matric at the end of 1985. He joined the police, he was attested as they put it, on the 11th of March 1986 and he entered the Police College at Hammanskraal on the 4th of July 1986. He passed out at the end of 1986, if we have to go on Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: So he entered the police college on the 4th of July.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, he entered on the 4th of July, he passed out at the end of December and he was then placed in Unit 90 from the beginning of 1987. He left or absconded or whatever on the 18th of July 1988. He was involved in a motorcar collision on the 20th of July 1988, with Venter’s car. He was officially ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He was?

MR VISSER: He was involved in a motorcar collision on the 20th of July 1988. He was officially suspended from the police on the 23rd of January 1989. Mr Venter’s murder took place on the 3rd of February 1989. He was arrested - I’m not quite sure, I’m speaking from recollection, the 8th, 9th or 10th of February 1989 and he’s been in prison ever since. I must apologise if there’s anything that I’ve told you now that may prove to be wrong. I’m speaking from recollection but I’m reasonably certain Mr Chairman, that those are the accurate dates.

CHAIRPERSON: There’s a dispute about some of them isn’t there?

MR VISSER: Yes, that’s on the evidence of course.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: But those are the ones that we have presented evidence to you that we could fairly accurately determine, I can take it no higher than that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Mbanjani we were dealing with the raid in Botshabelo and I had put it to you that Ngo was present during the raid.

MR MBANJANI: I did not see him there.

MR MEMANI: And my instruction are that this raid would either - it would have taken place either in ‘85 or ‘86.

MR MBANJANI: I do not remember.

MR MEMANI: And at the time when it took place you were the person who was in charge of Botshabelo.

MR MBANJANI: I told that the person in charge was Warrant Officer van den Berg, I was working under him. When he was not there, it was then that I would take charge. I have to explain, it was not allowed that a black person be in charge of police stations. I was second-in-charge so that I could rescue when he was not present.

MR MEMANI: Yes, the statement as I put it was not entirely correct. You were the person however, who was dominant and could identify people and their houses.

MR MBANJANI: I’m saying we were the people who were working there, we identified people. When we talked of Jack we had to know his house number, his identity number, his address and I would send to the seniors and we would do that kind of work.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn’t that mean that that raid must have taken place in 1985 when you were still the - it was still your function to do this in Botshabelo?

MR MBANJANI: There were raids, I do not remember very well, but there were raids.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you’ve told us - I understood your evidence that from the beginning of 1986 you were doing office work in Bloemfontein.

MR MBANJANI: That is correct M’Lord but I’ve said I would not say it was 1985 because it happened a long time ago in 1985. It was during that time of unrests in schools.

MR MEMANI: So it could have happened in 1986?

MR MBANJANI: In 1986 I was not there, I was in Bloemfontein. If it happened in that year I was not there.

MR MEMANI: If I may just go through my notes M’Lord to see and cut out some of the questions I’ve already asked?

Now, Mr Mbanjani, how could it have happened that the general public came to know that Ngo was working with the police when you who was supposed to his college, never even knew him or knew what he was doing at the police station?

MR MBANJANI: I was not Ngo’s handler and I would not be in a position to know how it came about that the community knew because there were people who were dealing with him. I never met him, I was working in the office.

MR MEMANI: Now, whist you worked at Fountain people were tortured by the police at the police station.

MR MBANJANI: I mentioned that we were working at the office and even the policemen who were working there did not enter into our office. We didn’t know what was happening the other side, they did not know what was happening this side.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can help me here and tell me what was Fountain, was it a police station that the public had access to or was it the offices of the security police?

MR MBANJANI: It was the head office of the security branch.

CHAIRPERSON: And how many floors of the building did they take? Did they have the whole building?

MR MBANJANI: There are five floors in that building but the security branch was occupying the 4th and the 5th floor.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry, one more question. How did you get in? Could the members of the public just walk up the stairs or catch a lift to the 4th and 5th floor and walk into offices?

MR MBANJANI: You would be in a position to catch a lift to go to the 4th floor but you would not be in a position to get into the offices because there was a door and you had to ring the bell.

CHAIRPERSON: And was a record kept of people who came and went, as happens in most police stations?

MR MBANJANI: The people who came to the building were the people who came for interrogations or when the people came they came to look for one of the people working around, we did not have records.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: So if I wanted to see one of the security police, would I take the lift to the fourth floor and then if there was a closed door and somebody should admit me, allow me entrance?

MR MBANJANI: That is correct. After you get out of the lift you ring the bell, then you tell us the person you want to meet and then we call him for you.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you in charge? You say: "Then you tell us who you want to see and we call him", were you in charge of the door, the bell and the entrance of people?

MR MBANJANI: Anyone who happens to hear the bell ringing would open.

CHAIRPERSON: Who occupied the other floors?

MR MBANJANI: It was the offices of the District Surgeon - excuse me, the District Commandant and his staff.

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that members of the public were not entitled, were not allowed to enter the offices, including relatives of personnel.

MR MBANJANI: That is not so. I had to know that I’m going to Mr so and so, then he would take me to his office and do whatever he likes, people had access.

MR MEMANI: Now, Ngo would not have known that during the raid at Botshabelo you are the person who identified people and houses if he did not work with you during the raid.

MR MBANJANI: I want to emphasise this, this is lies, I did not identify houses. When we worked at night we grouped ourselves. You do not point at the house, we had addresses. I would agree with him when he said we were identifying the people. We knew the houses we were supposed to go to because there were numbers, these people would be given lists. I was not pointing out houses.

MR MEMANI: But he would have known that you were identifying people if he was not working with you.

MR MBANJANI: I have never worked with Ngo. I have told many a times that I have never worked with Ngo.

MR MEMANI: Ngo would also not have known that at the police station it was again you who identified people for interrogation.

MR MBANJANI: It is easy to know because he was among the other security members, the members who knew what was happening, they might have talked and the news fell into his ears.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Mbanjani, Ngo has told us that during the incident involving Mr Venter, you were involved.

MR MBANJANI: I have given an answer to that, I said from 1986 I was working in the offices in Bloemfontein. Where Ngo stayed I do not know, where Mr Venter stayed I do not know, I know nothing about Mr Venter.

MR MEMANI: We are told that Mr Venter was an informer for the security branch.

MR MBANJANI: I do not know. My seniors know that, I do not know.

MR MEMANI: Now, Ngo was at school at Lerego during 1984, do you know that?

MR MBANJANI: I know nothing about Ngo because in 1984 I used to wake up early, go to Botshabelo where I was working. What took place in Bloemfontein I do not know.

MR MEMANI: Did you not come to hear about him being injured?

MR MBANJANI: I heard that there was an informer who was stabbed but I did not know him. I knew nothing of him and I did not want to get more details because I had more problems at my work.

MR MEMANI: Didn’t you hear that he was taken to Mr Venter’s house?

MR MBANJANI: I never heard anything about it, not Mr Venter’s name. I only heard that there is a person who was stabbed by the students.

MR MEMANI: Now, didn’t you drive him to Mr Venter’s house?

MR MBANJANI: I repeat, not at all, I don’t have any association with Ngo and I do not know where Mr Venter stayed.

MR MEMANI: Now, don’t you know that Tswametsi too came to Venter’s house?

MR MBANJANI: I want to explain this. I told you that we worked in departments, I did not know what the other department was doing. I did not know this Venter and I did not know anything about Tswametsi department.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, a moment ago you put it to him that he drove Ngo to Venter’s house, now you’re putting it to him: "Don’t you know that Tswametsi took him to Venter’s house". Was it on the same occasion or who in fact took him, was it Tswametsi, the witness or was it different occasions you’re talking about?

MR MEMANI: I will clarify that now Mr Commissioner. Now if I could ask a few questions it will become clear, I’ll make it clearer.

Do you know that Tswametsi took him to Mr Venter’s house?

MR MBANJANI: I do not know.

MR MEMANI: Do you know that Mamome took him to Mr Venter’s house?

MR MBANJANI: I do not know.

MR MEMANI: Now, did you hear at all that members of the security branch had taken the informer to live with some white person somewhere?

MR MBANJANI: I never heard that.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Ngo testified that it was yourself, Tswametsi and Mamome who took Ngo to Venter’s house.

MR MBANJANI: That’s pure lie.

MR MEMANI: Now, ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: Are you talking about the day of the murder, the day when at first he went there, when did they take him?

MR MEMANI: I thought it is clear Mr Chairman, that I’m dealing with the incident when he was injured, I’m sorry if it is not clear enough.

CHAIRPERSON: What’s the reference please?

MR MEMANI: M’Lord I must look and find it first. Mr Chair ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Mbanjani, as and when you heard - apparently from your colleagues, that this informer had been stabbed and so on, was it not also mentioned that appropriate steps were taken to accommodate him at a safer place?

MR MBANJANI: Not at all. We were told that the informer was stabbed but it was never told further what happened thereafter.

ADV DE JAGER: At the stage when you heard he was stabbed, where were you stationed?

MR MBANJANI: ...[no English translation]

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, I think I can put it to you because I think it’s common cause that he was stabbed either in 1985 or in 1984.

MR MBANJANI: At that time I was still working in Botshabelo. Chairperson, can I ask something? Chairperson, can I please ask something?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MBANJANI: I realised that I’m being asked questions about things I was not informed that I did. I’m now being questioned deeply, I’m asking myself what’s happening because the person who wrote this could have written down everything.

CHAIRPERSON: You’ve been questioned now by the Advocate who’s appearing by the two applicants and they wish to get as much information as they can, which they consider might help their clients case.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, do you require the notes now or can we look for the passage overnight?

CHAIRPERSON: I would like to see it when you’re putting it to this witness, you’ve put something specific to him.

MR MEMANI: Okay Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we don’t have the reference but of course the evidence - what is totally incorrect according to the evidence. The evidence was, of Ngo, he left on instructions of Shaw, Erasmus and Coetzee. He was transported by Mamome and Ramouseau to this house. He later went to the Hamilton shooting range with Ramouseau where he met Shaw and he was taken, at the time of the murder that evening ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: No, but he’s not ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We’re talking about when he was stabbed Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: I’m terribly sorry Mr Chairman. In defence of myself Mr Chairman, I have a technical problem because I couldn’t hear.

CHAIRPERSON: If you can’t find it, perhaps you better get on with something else.

MR MEMANI: Perhaps I should not put that aspect now until I get the relevant passage M’Lord.

Mr Mbanjani, Mr Ngo has testified that when Mr Venter was killed they borrowed a Mazda 4 X 4 from you.

MR MBANJANI: That is not so. Can you please complete the question, where was I at that time?

MR MEMANI: I think the evidence was that - we took it, that same made car a 4 X 4, drove to S Section in Botshabelo to a certain house.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you own a 4 X 4, a Mazda 4 X4?

MR MBANJANI: I have never had a 4 X 4 car while I was in the services of the SAP. I was working in Bloemfontein, I was not in Botshabelo on the date he is referring to.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Mbanjani, I did not hear your answer to the question that was put now about whether you owned a 4 X 4 before.

MR MBANJANI: I said I have never had a 4 X 4.

MR MEMANI: And were you in any way - have you ever driven a 4 X 4 that belonged to the State?

MR MBANJANI: I’ve never driven a 4 X 4.

MR MEMANI: But you worked at a police station isn’t it?

MR MBANJANI: Which year are you referring to Sir, because I said in 1986 I was in Bloemfontein and when I was in Bloemfontein I did not have a car because I was working administration and I do not know a 4 X 4.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Mbanjani, do you know the 4 X 4 that was usually driven by Sergeant Coetzee?

MR MBANJANI: The car that we had was not a 4 X 4, it was an Izuzu lorry and it belonged to Adjudant Botha. It is the lorry I remember, I don not remember a 4 X4.

MR MEMANI: Mr Mbanjani, I asked the question: "Do you know a 4 X 4 that was driven usually by Sergeant Coetzee, now why do you go and tell me about Botha’s Izuzu?

MR MBANJANI: I do not know a 4 X 4 that was driven by Coetzee.

MR MEMANI: Now my instructions are that this 4 X 4 was usually driven by Sergeant Coetzee.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was he stationed?

MR MEMANI: I’ll get those instructions M’Lord.

Now, do you know Sergeant Coetzee who was stationed at Botshabelo?

MR MBANJANI: I do not know him.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, there’s a misunderstanding here, the pronunciation is a problem and I refer you to his evidence in chief. It’s not a Coetzee pronunciation, it’s the other one, the Kotze pronunciation.

CHAIRPERSON: Kotze?

MR VISSER: That’s why I think the witness is misunderstanding my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know a Sergeant Kotze?

MR MBANJANI: I knew Kotze, I was working with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Where?

MR MBANJANI: In Botshabelo.

CHAIRPERSON: And did he stay there after you came to Bloemfontein?

MR MBANJANI: Yes, he stayed behind.

MR MEMANI: Do you remember the 4 X 4 that he used to drive?

MR MBANJANI: Seeing that I do not know cars, I - but I still remember he was driving an Izuzu but I do not remember well but the car that I remember is an Izuzu.

MR MEMANI: I must say Mr Mbanjani, that you are being evasive.

MR VISSER: I object to that Mr Chairman, there’s absolutely no ground nor any basis for that statement made by my learned friend.

MR MEMANI: I put it to you that you are being evasive.

MR MBANJANI: I will tell you what I know, and these things took place a long time ago. It is difficult to recall them all. I am trying my best to certify.

MR MEMANI: And you are being deliberately untruthful.

MR MBANJANI: I am telling you what I know.

MR MEMANI: I’ll tell you why. Initially when I put it to you that there was a Mazda 4 X 4, you were definite and you said: "No, there was no Mazda 4 X4, there was an Izuzu". Now when I get closer to Kotze and I tell you that the vehicle belonged to Kotze in fact, suddenly you do not know cars.

ADV DE JAGER: According to the evidence on page 59, Ngo’s evidence, he said:

So there was no - I can’t find an Izuzu or a Nissan or whatever other make, I only see this Datsun car in his evidence.

MR MEMANI: I’m indebted to you Mr Chair.

Now, do you remember the Datsun 4 X 4 that was driven by Sergeant Kotze?

MR MBANJANI: I do not remember it.

MR MEMANI: Now, do you want us seriously to believe you when you say that you do not know cars?

MR MBANJANI: As I’ve mentioned, I left that place at the end of 1985, there were many cars but the bakkie that I remember is an Izuzu, I remember it well. And that division did not have many bakkies, most of them were vehicles.

MR MEMANI: Did you ever have any difference with Ngo?

MR MBANJANI: I think before we went for break I told that I did not know Ngo, he was a distance from me.

MR MEMANI: Should I accept it that there was not ill-blood, no bad blood between yourself and Mr Ngo? There were no ill feelings, you had no differences at all?

MR MBANJANI: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And you see, you ...[End of Tape 3, side B - no follow-on sound]

Ngo must be telling the truth then when he says that they lent a truck, a 4 X 4 to them.

MR MBANJANI: That is lies Sir.

MR MEMANI: He had no reason to falsely implicate you in this.

MR MBANJANI: I am shocked really, and this really has shocked me to be included in an issue that is far from me.

MR MEMANI: You see this is detail which is unlikely to be fabricated if you take into account that Ngo said that he received his instructions from Shaw at Fountain.

MR MBANJANI: I do not know those things. If you are given instructions, there would not be many people called, you’d be called all by yourself. I do not know anything really.

MR MEMANI: And on your version you were not working with him so you wouldn’t come naturally in the scheme of things if you wanted to falsely implicate people.

INTERPRETER: Can you repeat your question Sir, the interpreter did not get the last part.

MR MEMANI: You would not fall naturally into the scheme of things if Ngo wanted falsely to implicate people.

MR MBANJANI: I would not know if he falsely blamed people.

MR MEMANI: Secondly, if Ngo were malicious he would have implicated you in a more serious fashion than just ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, isn’t this really a matter for argument?

CHAIRPERSON: You see you are talking it that we accept all Ngo’s evidence but Ngo says this all happened at Botshabelo at a time when this witness said he was stationed in Bloemfontein.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Chair, I will get instructions to clarify the issue.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s what he said, he’s given evidence about this. He said:

- it’s the Botshabelo office. That’s the evidence he gave in chief.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Chair, what is the Chair’s remark then?

CHAIRPERSON: This witness has told us that he was on duty in Bloemfontein from the beginning of 1986 and you haven’t challenged that at all have you?

MR MEMANI: No, we haven’t Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And if he was in Bloemfontein, he couldn’t be giving them a car in Botshabelo could he?

MR MEMANI: Isn’t that a matter which we should be dealing with at a later stage Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: We should deal with it at some stage before you go on putting this that: "Ngo says this and Ngo says that. Ngo wouldn’t falsely implicate you"

MR MEMANI: I am entitled to put that Mr Chair, it’s my client’s version.

CHAIRPERSON: You can argue it, as my brother said. The witness has said he didn’t have anything to do with this incident.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Now, Mr Chair, may I take instructions?

Mr Mbanjani, I’ve just been instructed that although you may have been stationed at Bloemfontein you would have been working at Botshabelo in fact at that stage.

MR MBANJANI: In 1986 just after I had the transferring I came back to Bloemfontein and I became permanent in Bloemfontein. I will quote some of my commanding officers words when he transferred me to Bloemfontein. He said: "You have worked for a long time outside, you have been T’Banachu and Botshabelo. I want you to come and work here at the offices so that you can rest", I did not go out.

MR MEMANI: I’ve been told that you could have been given a specific instruction to be at Botshabelo at the relevant time as well, even if you were stationed at Bloemfontein.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was given instructions to go to Botshabelo so they could borrow a car that somebody else was driving? Is that what you’re putting to him now?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, if - it seems to me - my instructions are that if a particular operation had to be carried out and it would have been necessary for him to be at Botshabelo, he would have been told to go to Botshabelo.

CHAIRPERSON: But was it necessary, they just wanted to get the car that you’ve told us Sergeant Kotze drove? He had nothing to do with that car, it was the car usually driven by Sergeant Kotze that they wanted to borrow. Isn’t that the whole thing you’re asking about?

MR MEMANI: Yes, I’m asking him about that car. An arrangement could have been made that he must be there so that he can hand it over to them if it were deemed necessary for the purposes of the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MEMANI: Now, what is your comment? If I may remind you, what I put to you was, I am told that you could have been told to go to Botshabelo if it had been deemed necessary that you should be at Botshabelo on that day.

MR MBANJANI: That is not true.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you in fact told, in the beginning of February 1989, to go to Botshabelo to arrange for a 4 X 4 Datsun vehicle to be given to Mr Ngo?

MR MBANJANI: Not at all, I’ve never received such instructions.

MR MEMANI: If I may just have a moment M’Lord. Those are my questions M’Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR VISSER: No re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mbanjani, during the course of your evidence you were asked about the door at the entrance to your office which led onto a passage which again led to a passage known as Violent Street, do you remember that?

MR MBANJANI: I remember that evidence.

MR BRINK: When you arrived at Botshabelo you were placed in one office, is that correct? I beg your pardon, when you arrived at Bloemfontein, at Fountain.

MR MBANJANI: That’s correct.

MR BRINK: And when you arrived at Fountain, was there a sign on the wall of this passage known as Violent Street showing that it was called Violent Street, a sign similar to that above the main chair on the ...[indistinct] to your right, on a printed wooden board or something of that sort?

MR MBANJANI: I can see that printing. Yes, there was a sign there.

MR BRINK: Similar to that one which I have pointed out to you in this hall?

MR MBANJANI: It was this size and this big.

MR BRINK: There wasn’t a piece of paper stuck to the wall?

MR MBANJANI: It was something like a sticker, it was stuck to the wall.

MR BRINK: And was it made of wood?

MR MBANJANI: No, just like ordinary stickers, plastic stickers.

MR BRINK: And you say it was there when you arrived at Fountain?

MR MBANJANI: It was there when I arrived.

MR BRINK: Was it there when you left?

MR MBANJANI: When I left for?

MR BRINK: Well, when you left the force in 1992?

MR MBANJANI: We had changed office, we left Fountain and went to St Andrew’s street.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you leave Fountain?

MR MBANJANI: I do not well, but it’s around the beginning of 1991 but it was somewhere in those years.

MR BRINK: Do you know why this passage was called Violent Street?

MR MBANJANI: I would not know because I only saw that thing put there, written Violent Street, now we did not spend a lot of time there.

MR BRINK: You understand what violent means, the English word violent? You know what that means, don’t you?

MR MBANJANI: I understand.

MR BRINK: Were you not curious to find out why this passage was called Violent Street in security branch headquarters?

MR MBANJANI: When we have to tell the truth I did not follow that up because I had a lot of work to do. I saw it just pasted there and I thought it was one of the stickers, they might have found it somewhere. There were ANC stickers, COSAS. They used to put stickers on.

MR BRINK: Thank you.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, there’s one aspect which I forgot to put, I just got instructed.

CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Yes. Now, you told us that your office was about 10 metres from Violent Street.

MR MBANJANI: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: Now, did you - are you aware that people were tortured along Violent Street?

MR MBANJANI: I never saw a person being tortured in Violent Street. I want to clarify this. If there was anything there, we were against torturing. If ever tortures were conducted it was in our absence because we signed that nobody will be assaulted.

MR MEMANI: Did you ever see members of the security branch instructing people to do frog jumps along Violent Street?

MR MBANJANI: Not next to me, I’ve never seen them frog jumping.

MR MEMANI: There was in April 1986 a big catch when about 25 people who were attempting to skip the country were arrested, about 20 people were arrested trying to skip the border. Did you hear about that?

MR MBANJANI: I do not have knowledge of that issue. I do not have knowledge because there were people who were working on those cases.

MR MEMANI: Didn’t you hear of such big news as the catching of so many youngsters attempting to skip the country at the same time?

MR MBANJANI: I never heard that, I told you. It was important to concentrate on my work as much as it was important for them to work outside. You’d never see us outside, most of the time we were confined.

MR MEMANI: People were screaming there we are told by witness after witness.

MR MBANJANI: I’ve never seen people screaming, not at all. We don’t know after hours but where I was sitting we would never even hear people crying because we used headphones.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair please, those are my questions.

MR STANDER: Could I please ask a few questions, there are a few aspects which I feel could be important.

Mr Mbanjani, what was your objective when you got a person in to interrogate this person while you were stationed at Fountain Street?

MR MBANJANI: When a person came in, it was for the reason of

being interrogated, of being asked questions.

MR STANDER: What method did you follow by which to interrogate these people?

MR MBANJANI: You are asking a difficult question, I will give you my method. I would give a person a chair and then I would talk with him. When I drink tea, the person would drink tea, that’s my kind of work.

MR STANDER: When you brought in a political activist, are you now telling us that you would give such a person a chair and tea to drink? Is that what you are telling us?

MR MBANJANI: The person who taught me the work taught me that way. I can quote you many people who know that around Bloemfontein.

MR STANDER: Let’s take it that the person who’s being interrogated in such a manner does not want to reply to the questions that you ask him, what would you do then?

MR MBANJANI: If he doesn’t want to give answers, he doesn’t want to give answers. We had many laws to detain them, we had many laws until you give us an answer.

MR STANDER: If you had information that this person could give the reply to such a question and he did not want to give it to you, what would you do then?

MR MBANJANI: I detain that kind of a person. I signed that I will not assault a person.

MR STANDER: And tell me, if he was detained, would he then answer your question at a later stage?

MR MBANJANI: When this person is detained and does not provide answers, we do not make decisions, we have officers above us and they would take the decisions, we were not supposed to even assault this person.

MR STANDER: Were the persons handcuffed at all, the persons that you were interrogating on any occasion?

MR MBANJANI: Let me tell you the work that I did. I did not arrest people, I did enquiries. It was once or twice when we’d go and get a person and we’d hand him over to the investigation unit, we did not do interrogations. When we had an opportunity we would go and get a person.

MR STANDER: Did you at any stage handcuff a person in your office while he was being interrogated?

MR MBANJANI: I do not remember but there was once a person whom we cuffed. I think it was late in the 1970’s, I do not know but thereafter people changed.

MR STANDER: Did you at any stage enter an office where a person was being - interrogating someone else in the security branch while you were working there?

MR MBANJANI: Many a times.

MR STANDER: Did you at any stage see somebody who was handcuffed, sitting on a chair while he was being interrogated?

MR MBANJANI: It happened or that can happen.

MR STANDER: Was it necessary for persons to be handcuffed while they were being interrogated in an office?

MR MBANJANI: People are not the same, there’s this kind of a person who would escape through the window. People are not just the same. A person would the kind of treatment according to his personality.

MR STANDER: Do you really want this Committee to believe that a person would jump out of the window from the 5th or 4th floor and that is the reason for him being handcuffed? Is that what you are telling us?

CHAIRPERSON: How many incidents of that have been reported?

MR MBANJANI: These things happened Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Including some recently?

MR MBANJANI: Those things happened to people who escaped through windows.

MR STANDER: People who jumped out of the 4th of the 5th floor here in Bloemfontein?

MR MBANJANI: That is what the Chairman asked you.

CHAIRPERSON: I was asking you Mr Stander, how many. You were saying: "You expect us to believe that". Have you not read in the past of such instances? Have the police not been criticised for not taking steps to avoid them?

MR STANDER: I’m afraid that I’ve never read of anything like that in Bloemfontein, it might have happened in other centres but I do not know of it happening in Bloemfontein.

ADV DE JAGER: In Bloemfontein they prevented it by handcuffing them.

MR STANDER: Can I just try to find that out from the witness?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, please.

MR MBANJANI: Can I please answer this Sir? M’Lord, I want to

answer.

CHAIRPERSON: You had said you were not going to cross-examine this witness hadn’t you? And I understood you were now putting a few questions arising out of what had been said. It appears you have now embarked on a complete cross-examination.

MR STANDER: I am of the opinion that this is due to my oversight. Can I continue along this way?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t this all argument that you’re putting?

MR STANDER: It deals with the credibility, not only of this witness but also of those to come.

CHAIRPERSON: He has said he never saw anyone being assaulted, he never heard anything.

MR STANDER: I heard that but the problem that I have is that one after the other they have testified as to how they were assaulted there and surely there should have someone who saw or heard, and it is along this way that I want to follow.

CHAIRPERSON: But you have the evidence of several witnesses on a point, this witness says something different.

MR STANDER: I can I put this one more question to this witness please?

Did you ever see any blood against the walls of Violent Street?

MR MBANJANI: I never saw blood.

MR STANDER: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: What is this - is this building still there?

MR MBANJANI: Yes, it’s not far from here M’Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: You’ve told us where your office was. If you wanted to go to the lift, did you have to go down Violent Street or not?

MR MBANJANI: It’s at the corner of Aliwal and Fountain, you get

into the lift and then you go up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but to get to your office on the 5th floor, do you go along Violent Street or would go along some other passage?

MR MBANJANI: You take a lift up to the 5th floor, you ring the bell, then you see Violent, you see it down there.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you go along Violent Street and then turn into another passage to get to your office?

MR MBANJANI: No, it was a corner and when you get in there’s a door, you don’t get into Violent Street, you just go straight and you go to my office.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn’t necessarily go to Violent Street every day, some days you’d go straight to your office?

MR MBANJANI: I went straight to my office.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: No re-examination Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was there a kitchen on the 5th floor?

MR MBANJANI: Yes, there was a kitchen where we would drink tea.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How far was your office from the kitchen?

MR MBANJANI: I would walk up to that camera man and turn, go down until where this building ends up, it is a distance.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The Keiwha High School - I hope I’m reading it correctly, did you know this school? Keiwha High School, did you know it?

MR MBANJANI: It’s in Botshabelo, I think it is Kowhelo, This school is in Botshabelo. I since left Botshabelo in 1985, I do not remember very well but I think it’s a school in Botshabelo.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you recall that on an occasion a number of students belonging to that school were detained during a combined operation with yourselves in Botshabelo, assisted by members of the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR MBANJANI: We arrested many students in different schools, maybe Kowhelo is one of them.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Try to remember whether you also arrested students form Kowhelo High School.

MR MBANJANI: Which year are you referring to Sir?

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don’t know, whatever year. Don’t worry about the year, just try to think.

MR MBANJANI: I do not remember but I know we arrested many students but I do not remember about Kowhelo.

JUDGE NGOEPE: On this occasion that I’m referring to, we were told about 30 to 35 of them were arrested, about 40 to 45 of them which is quite a big group, don’t you remember that?

MR MBANJANI: Maybe I was not there. Maybe those things happened when I was already here, I do not remember.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, according to the statement I have it was while you were in fact at Botshabelo.

MR MBANJANI: I said I remember we arrested many students. When you arrive there are people special who would work with them, maybe I was not in that group.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You see, according to this statement it was these students from this particular school who were assaulted, largely also as a result of your instructions.

MR MBANJANI: I did not give instructions, I worked under people and there have never been people assaulted in my presence.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I would have thought that if you are involved in an operation in which students of a particular school, a school that you know or you knew, you would remember.

MR MBANJANI: Yes, I would remember because I know we arrested many students in schools but it is difficult to know the number because after arresting them, some would be put there, some there and the investigator of the case would bring them together the following day and it would be difficult to know the number.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sergeant Smith, was there a Sergeant Smith based at Botshabelo with you?

MR MBANJANI: I do not know him. I worked with Kotze, van den Berg and Paddy, we were four. I do not know after I left.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Constable Lesale?

MR MBANJANI: I have never worked with him in Botshabelo.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But you knew him?

MR MBANJANI: A lot.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was he a member of the security branch?

MR MBANJANI: That is correct Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: How many were you in the security branch in Botshabelo when you were there?

MR MBANJANI: We were four. Can you repeat your question Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that’s what you ...[intervention]

MR MBANJANI: Sir, can you repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: I asked you how many you were in the security branch in Botshabelo because I thought you had already said four.

MR MBANJANI: Yes, we were four.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were a very small unit?

MR MBANJANI: It was a newly opened area.

CHAIRPERSON: You wouldn’t carry out large operations, you might give the information to enable other people to do it, is that so?

MR MBANJANI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The evidence was that this gentleman carries on a business now in Bloemfontein wasn’t it? He will be available if required, so is there any objection to him being released at this stage?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman yes, I was going to direct a request to you that the witnesses be excused because as we’ve shown throughout, we can get hold of them it’s at all necessary for them to be recalled but they do have their lives.

I have one witness for example that has got to write exams from tomorrow onwards and he’s been hoping that he might be finished but he will only be available Monday or Tuesday, we do have a few strategic problems here.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, but this one, he’s no longer a policeman, it’s his own time and money that is being ...

MR VISSER: We’re indebted to you Mr Chairman. The next witness Mr Chairman, which we will present is Mr Kopi. This is spelt K-o-p-i and his christian names are Segopolo, which is spelt S-e-g-o-p-l-o Petrus Kopi, Mr Chairman.

I may mention that you might remember that at a certain stage, due to various amendments and further applications coming in and the ...[indistinct] of documents, we informed you that there doesn’t seem any point to file any further affidavits. This is one of the witnesses that hasn’t filed an affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

SEGOPOLO PETRUS KOPI: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: Mr Kopi, were you a policeman and are you still a policeman?

MR KOPI: I’m still a policeman.

MR VISSER: What branch did you work at during the 1980’s?

MR KOPI: I arrived at 1984 at the security branch.

MR VISSER: You arrived you say? Arrived in 1984?

MR KOPI: I was transferred from Park Road police station to the security branch in 1984.

MR VISSER: And until what stage did you work for the security branch? What date?

MR KOPI: Even today I’m still working there in the security branch.

MR VISSER: Well, it’s called something different now. What is your rank?

MR KOPI: Detective Sergeant.

MR VISSER: And what precisely - I’m sorry Mr Chairman. ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Are you still doing the introduction? Carry on.

MR VISSER: What precisely was your job during 1985 and 1986? What were you involved in?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think - what I was going to suggest is, if we’re going to sit a little later than 4 o’clock, we should perhaps take a short adjournment for the convenience of everybody. We’ll take a five minute adjournment now.

SEGOPOLO PETRUS KOPI: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: Mr Kopi, just before the adjournment - my attorney just reminds me that it goes quicker if I perhaps ask my questions in English, it’s one translation less Mr Chairman.

Just before the adjournment you were asked what precisely your function was in the security branch during the years, approximately 1984 to 1986.

MR KOPI: My work was to investigate.

MR VISSER: So you were a detective at all times, is that what you’re saying?

MR KOPI: I started to be a detective in 1987 but before then I was just an ordinary policeman in the security branch.

MR VISSER: Do you know Mr Ngo?

MR KOPI: Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us what you know of him and what your relationship was with him, your working relationship was with him?

MR KOPI: I knew Mr Ngo at the security branch when he was recruited. We used to meet at the passage because I was working on the investigation, he was working on the other section.

MR VISSER: And did you work with him at all?

MR KOPI: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: We know that Mr Ngo became a policeman on the 11th of March 1986. After that date, did you work with him? Did you execute any operations with him?

MR KOPI: No, there was no operation which I worked with him or I worked with him in a particular section.

MR VISSER: And Mr Motsamai, do you know him?

MR KOPI: I know him very well.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us anything about your working relationship in the security branch, with Mr Motsamai?

MR KOPI: When I arrived in 1984, Mr Motsamai was working in the security branch, then I worked in the investigation section, then I learnt that he worked with the youth section under black section.

MR VISSER: Do you remember an incident which took place when a group of 19 comrades were arrested by the South African Defence Force in the Ladybrand area and became transferred to Bloemfontein?

MR KOPI: I found those people in the office, then I learnt later that they were arrested in Ladybrand whilst they were trying to skip the country.

MR VISSER: Mr Kopi, did you have anything to do with these people?

MR KOPI: Yes, they were those whom I talked with them.

MR VISSER: We’ll get to them in a moment. Did you in fact interrogate more than one of that group?

MR KOPI: Yes, there were some I interrogated. I think there were plus one or two.

MR VISSER: And when you interrogate a person, how many members of the security branch do you normally have in the office during the interrogation?

MR KOPI: When we interrogate a person, there will be the arrestee and myself. I would work as an interpreter and then a white officer who would take notes of the things which are said by the arrestee. It may happen that somebody would just come in and sit there without doing anything.

MR VISSER: I saw you frowning Mr Chairman, I think you frowned at the word: "white", "a white officer".

CHAIRPERSON: No, ...[inaudible] arrestee. If the person’s being interrogated ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: The arrestee?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. He might not necessarily have been arrested.

MR VISSER: Oh I see, yes, yes. Well the detained person.

You’re talking about the person that you have to interrogate?

MR KOPI: Yes.

MR VISSER: Can you remember - I know the date was the 6th of April 1986, we’ve no reason to doubt that, can you remember precisely whom you interrogated at that time?

MR KOPI: There was one lady whom I interrogated, then a certain person, then from there I had somewhat to do, then from there I left and continued with my work.

MR VISSER: Can you today, recall any of the names of the people that you interrogated at the time?

MR KOPI: It is difficult to remember.

MR VISSER: When the victims gave evidence, were you able to recall or identify any of those people as a person whom you identified - whom you interrogated?

MR KOPI: Many people came whom I interrogated. Even before this, the victims came.

CHAIRPERSON: You were being asked about the victims who have been giving evidence before us, the people, did you recognise any of them as somebody you had interrogated on this occasion?

MR KOPI: It may be possible that one of them was there but I’ve forgotten those things because they happened a long time ago.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn’t recognise any?

MR KOPI: No, no-one.

MR VISSER: It has been suggested that you were one of the persons involved in the assault or torture of one or more of these people, of this group of people who we refer to, is that correct?

MR KOPI: I didn’t assault any person.

MR VISSER: Did you see anybody being assaulted at the time?

MR KOPI: No, I didn’t see any person being assaulted.

MR VISSER: As far as you’re concerned, did you commit any illegal or unlawful act regarding any of these people?

MR KOPI: I didn’t assault anybody and nobody complained to me that he has been assaulted.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

[End of Tape 4, Side A - no follow-on sound]

MR DU PLESSIS: ...[no sound] and after he had gone to Pretoria, did you ever have any contact with him thereafter?

MR KOPI: No, Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am going to indeed ask this person some questions.

Mr Kopi, at the stage of the 6th of April 1986 when this group of 19 people arrived there, were you present in the office at around 9 o’clock/10 o’clock?

MR KOPI: I found them at the office, I was called through a radio.

MR STANDER: When you arrived there, where did you find them?

MR KOPI: I first went to the head of my section who is Mr du Plooy and he told me that there were people upstairs, we should go and see what we can get.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean by upstairs? What floor were you on?

MR KOPI: I am sorry, I was on the 4th floor where du Plooy was and he said these people are on the 5th floor.

CHAIRPERSON: From that, do I understand your offices were on the 4th floor?

MR KOPI: No, I was called by the officer, he said he wanted to speak to me. And when I arrived there he said: "There are people who have been arrested trying to skip the country, you will find them on the 5th floor".

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] 4th floor, Mr du Plooy?

MR KOPI: Du Plooy was on the 4th floor.

MR STANDER: May I then take it that your office was on the 5th floor?

MR KOPI: Yes, it was on the 5th floor.

MR STANDER: Is that one of the offices that looked out on the so-called Violent Street?

MR KOPI: There was a sticker put there. I do not know who the person is who came with that sticker, it was just a sticker put there, nobody said it was Violent Street.

MR STANDER: Sir, the passage marked with the sticker, was that not known as Violent Street?

MR KOPI: It was known as Violent Street, we also knew it as Violent Street.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] office door, does it open onto Violent Street?

ADV DE JAGER: What’s your office number in Violent Street, number 1 or number 2 or number 6?

MR KOPI: It was office number 1 on the left side when you were going to the kitchen.

ADV DE JAGER: So, you worked in number 1 Violent Street?

MR KOPI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Was your office in Violent Street?

MR KOPI: Yes.

MR STANDER: Why was this passage called Violent Street Sir?

MR KOPI: I was an investigating officer, then someone would say: "You see, this sticker is put here so we should call this street - this passage, Violent Street.

MR STANDER: Yes, but why?

MR KOPI: Let me put it this way. There was a certain chap who was arrested, then we were from the 4th floor, because we interrogated on the 4th floor, so we went up to the 5th floor and he said: "Why is this sticker here, is this Violent Street"?, then the passage was called Violent Street.

MR STANDER: Can you remember who this person was who gave this street this name?

MR KOPI: I do not remember his name you know.

CHAIRPERSON: But the sticker saying Violent Street was already there.

MR KOPI: Yes, I myself found that sticker there, I do not know who put it there.

MR STANDER: So the version that you’re giving us is that somebody else told us it was Violent Street, one the people being detained, it was just a rumour or was it something that happened while you were there?

MR KOPI: I do not know whether you’re referring to the person who came who was arrested, he saw the sticker and he said it’s Violent Street or are you referring to 19?

MR KOPI: Do you want to tell us that there was a person who put the sticker there and said: "Oh, this is Violent Street then". The question is simple, did you hear it from somebody or was that person in that time at that place?

MR KOPI: Even the 19 who were arrested said that was Violent Street.

MR STANDER: You’re not answering my question. CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] saying is, somebody put up a sticker there which read Violent Street, thereafter they took up a person who’d been interrogated on the 4th floor and when he came into the passage and saw this, that person said: "Is this Violent Street" and thereafter they called it Violent Street.

MR STANDER: But Mr Chairman, on your question he said that when the sticker was there he had already been there. In other words when he got there the sticker was already on the wall.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] he doesn’t know how the sticker got there but he said: "Thereafter a person who was being interrogated, when he came and saw the sticker, said: "Is this Violent Street"? and that after that they called it Violent Street.

MR STANDER: That is true but my questions was: "Was that done by somebody who told you of an incident"? or was it something that he experienced himself, that was the question I asked.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you there when this person came up from the 4th floor and said: "Is this Violent Street"?

MR KOPI: This person was arrested before and I was with him in person. He wanted to go to the toilet on the 5th floor and I took him to the 5th floor.

MR STANDER: So what you’re trying to say to us is that you started with the name Violent Street after this person mentioned it? Did you mention this to the other policemen and that’s why it became known as Violent Street? Am I understanding you correctly?

MR KOPI: I would say so yes, because I was with him and he said: "This is Violent Street, why is the sticker here"?

MR STANDER: Do you know why that so-called sticker was never taken off the wall?

MR KOPI: I do not know.

MR STANDER: Because Sir, fine, what procedure was followed when there was somebody who had to be interrogated?

MR KOPI: When I interrogated you, I would take you to the 4th floor where there are no people. It would be myself and the white person who works with me. Maybe sometimes one would just come in and sit down to listen at the discussions.

MR STANDER: [No English translation]

MR KOPI: No, not in my presence, I do not want violence.

MR STANDER: Tell me, when the person didn’t want to co-operate, what did you do to convince him to co-operate?

MR KOPI: I would leave that person, go get the other one to carry on with the interrogation, I would come back to this one. If the person refuses, he refuses, there’s nothing I can do.

MR STANDER: Did you also offer tea to the person when you questioned him?

MR KOPI: No, we had tea at teatime, I would not be interrogating you while drinking tea.

MR STANDER: Did I understand you correctly, the kitchen is directly next to your office, is that correct?

MR KOPI: My office is on the 5th floor and I interrogate you on the 4th floor, I am far from my office.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] about the kitchen. The kitchen, is that next to your office?

MR KOPI: No, there’s another office.

MR STANDER: So there’s a kitchen, there’s an office and the next office is yours, is that what you’re saying to us?

MR KOPI: That was so.

MR STANDER: On the morning of the 6th of April 1986, is it correct to say that these 19 people in fact were first taken to the kitchen.

MR KOPI: I do not understand your question. Are you asking before I reported for duty or after I reported for duty?

MR STANDER: Perhaps you must start with what time you started with duty.

MR KOPI: I reported at half past 7. I reported to Captain du Plooy, from there he gave me the work I was supposed to do and I left after drinking tea at 8 o’clock. He called me, I do not remember the time well but it was about 11 o’clock, he called me, he said: "Come to the office, I want to see you" and I then went to him.

MR STANDER: Were you already at that stage aware of the fact that these people were being held in the kitchen?

MR KOPI: No, at the time he called me I did not know that there were people in the kitchen.

MR STANDER: To move to the fourth floor, did you have to walk past the kitchen?

MR KOPI: No, you jump out of the lift on the 5th floor.

MR STANDER: But now if you go down to the 4th floor ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] evidence that he was outside the building and he was called back. He didn’t go down from his office, he was called back by radio. Isn’t’ that so?

MR KOPI: That is so.

MR STANDER: My apologies Chairman.

When you came back to the office you went to du Plooy’s office and then you went to your own office?

MR KOPI: I went only to du Plooy to hear what he wanted me for.

MR STANDER: And afterwards?

MR KOPI: After telling me that I went to the 5th floor.

MR STANDER: What was his order to you?

MR KOPI: He said I should go and see, that there are people upstairs, it seems as if they wanted to skip the country. We should find out how it came about that they wanted to skip the country and who sent them and who was the person to receive them the other side.

MR STANDER: In other words, you had to go and interrogate them?

MR KOPI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Was it only you that got the order to interrogate them?

MR KOPI: We were three, it was myself Melesi and Mafisa.

MR STANDER: When did you hear that it was only the three of you who had to go and interrogate these people or was that just what was said to you when you arrived there?

MR KOPI: When we arrived at du Plooy he said: "There are people upstairs, go ask them".

MR STANDER: And when you got there, where did you find them?

MR KOPI: They were in the kitchen.

MR STANDER: What did they do while they were in the kitchen?

MR KOPI: They were sitting down - because there is a bench, some of them were on the bench, some were just on their feet.

MR STANDER: Were there any of them that were upset, in other words crying?

MR KOPI: You see according to my view, I do not remember, I do not recall seeing any person who was upset, they were quiet.

MR STANDER: Is it possible that some of them were upset but that you just cannot remember it today?

MR KOPI: Sir, I’m saying to you, when I got into the kitchen those people were quiet. You would not see whether a person is angry and upset when he is just quiet.

MR STANDER: That is exactly what I’m asking you Sir. Is it just because of the fact that you could possibly have forgotten it, that in fact there were people there who were upset? Would you like to answer?

MR KOPI: I told you that these people were quiet when I entered the room. Yes, maybe they were angry, they were upset or they were just quiet.

MR STANDER: Did you see anyone crying?

MR KOPI: I did not see anyone crying?

MR STANDER: Did you look at each of them carefully?

MR KOPI: No. When you open a door, people are facing at you, you call just one, you leave the room and on your way you’re talking to each other, you take the person into the room where you interrogate him. If he doesn’t want to co-operate, you leave him and you go and get the other one.

MR STANDER: So what you’re saying to us is that as far as you’re concerned not one of them was crying?

MR KOPI: I did not realise. Let me put it that way, I did not realise.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] said: "Not one was crying", he said he didn’t see anyone crying. He said he doesn’t look, you open the door and say: "You come". You’re putting words into his mouth which is unfair Mr Stander.

MR STANDER: As it pleases the Chair.

Tell me, who decided which of the 19 people had to be interrogated and when, or was it just something that just happened and you came in and took the first one and questioned him.

MR KOPI: The interrogator would open the door and the first one you meet you call for interrogation. You do not have to get in and look around: "I want to take that one".

MR STANDER: Did you only question or interrogate, one of the people that day?

MR KOPI: I said I do not remember, it might be two or three and I had to leave because I other things to do.

MR STANDER: Can you remember what you asked this person?

MR KOPI: There are so many questions, I do not remember them all.

MR STANDER: When the person didn’t want to co-operate, what did you do?

MR KOPI: I’d take the person back and bring the other one. If that person does the same I take him back, bring the other one.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible] interrogated maybe one or two and then went away to go to do some work, had you not been called specifically by Mr du Plooy on radio to come and interrogate this particular group?

MR KOPI: Sir, he called me - there was a phone call from an informer so I had to leave these people and go and hear what the informer was bringing.

MR STANDER: In whose presence was this person interrogated? I’m talking now of the female person that you were talking of.

MR KOPI: I do not remember the white person who was with me but it was myself, a lady - I just forget her name, we were interrogating her in the office and there was another person who was sitting. Sometimes he would sit, sometimes he would leave. He would not be there all the time.

MR KOPI: And the second person, when he was questioned? Was it the same white person in the office?

MR KOPI: That is so.

MR STANDER: Did you use any strong language to interrogate this person?

MR KOPI: No.

MR STANDER: What language did you use?

MR KOPI: We were speaking Tswana and Sesotho.

MR STANDER: And was there somebody who acted as interpreter or were you the interpreter?

MR KOPI: I was the interpreter.

MR STANDER: Sir, I would like to put to you that it was highly unlikely that somebody would be interrogated who apparently was on the point of leaving the country because of political activity and that when this person did not give you the answers you expected, that you would just have left that person.

MR KOPI: Let me clear this, you do not understand this. I’m on the 4th floor, I ask the person questions and if he doesn’t want to co-operate I take him back to the 5th floor, I take the next person to the 4th floor to interrogate him. I’m not saying I release the person totally.

MR STANDER: Tell me, did you hear any screaming while the interrogation of yours was taking place, in any of the neighbouring offices or in the passage?

MR KOPI: No, I was on the 4th floor, I didn’t hear anything.

MR STANDER: Had there been screaming, would you have been able to hear it?

MR KOPI: You would hear the scream because my window was slightly open.

MR STANDER: And you said you heard no such screaming.

MR KOPI: Nothing Sir.

MR STANDER: Did you return later on during the day to the office?

MR KOPI: Yes.

MR STANDER: At what time more or less did you return to the office?

MR KOPI: It was at about half past three and I went to discuss the issue of my informer with the captain.

MR STANDER: Were the group of informers still there?

MR KOPI: Yes, when I came back at half past three they were still present.

MR STANDER: Where were they?

MR KOPI: I saw then on the 5th floor, that was when I went to get my things to go downstairs.

MR STANDER: Where were they on the 5th floor?

MR KOPI: I said they were in the kitchen.

MR STANDER: Did you look at them again at that stage?

MR KOPI: I was passing to go to the toilet and I would see them in the kitchen. I did not get straight into my office, I went to the toilet and when I passed I saw them in the kitchen and I came out of the toilet, got into my office, took my stuff and went down.

MR STANDER: Did you look at them when you walked past the kitchen?

MR KOPI: I just looked and passed.

MR STANDER: In the short time that you saw them, were there any of those that were upset?

MR KOPI: I would not say they were upset because I was just passing quickly.

MR STANDER: So you couldn’t see, is that what you were saying to us?

MR KOPI: Yes. I did not see properly, I just saw that these are the people and then I passed because it was full in that kitchen.

MR STANDER: [No English translation]

MR KOPI: No, I left, I came back at half past three and then I reported to my captain and that was all.

MR STANDER: After you came, in other words after you got back to the office, did you have any further participation in the questioning of these people?

MR KOPI: No, I did not interrogate them.

MR STANDER: What time did you go off duty?

MR KOPI: I left at 4 o’clock exactly because I had another appointment at half past four with an informer.

MR STANDER: And that group of people were still there when you went off duty?

MR KOPI: I say, when I left they were still present.

MR STANDER: And that time when you returned from the informant, did you hear any screams from the people there?

MR VISSER: ...[inaudible] return Mr Chairman, because he hasn’t given that evidence yet.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] do you recall that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think he’s being asked about the 3H30 return.

MR VISSER: No, we passed that. The question is now whether he - as I understand that question, he’s gone now for his appointment with the informer at half past ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well, he didn’t come back so he can’t be asked later.

MR VISSER: Well, I don’t know, he might have come back.

CHAIRPERSON: Go on.

MR STANDER: On your return at half past three that afternoon, did you participate in the further interrogation of these persons?

MR KOPI: No, I did not take part because I left the offices at 4 o’clock. I had an appointment with my informer at half past four and it was a distance to walk.

MR STANDER: Between 3H30 and four, before you left, did you hear any screaming?

MR KOPI: I said I did not hear any scream because I was busy with Captain du Plooy discussing what was on the table.

MR STANDER: I have no further questions, thank you.

[No sound]

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: That is correct.

Now, Mr Kopi, we have been told that the people were arrested on the 6th of April 1986 were taken to Violent Street where they made frog jumps.

MR KOPI: I don’t dispute that but when I arrived there those people were in the kitchen. The time when they were doing those frog jumps I was not present.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Kopi, how long did your interrogation with the first person last?

MR KOPI: It depends how far you agree on the discussion. I would say plus minus 15 minutes. If he doesn’t co-operate or she doesn’t co-operate, you leave and take another person.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] to speculate, you’re being asked, on this particular morning, can you remember how long you spent with the first person?

MR KOPI: Approximately 15 minutes.

MR MEMANI: Do you recall what you asked this person about?

MR KOPI: There are questions I remember and there are those I don’t remember.

MR MEMANI: What did you ask him about, ask her about?

MR KOPI: I said where was she going when she was arrested by the soldiers, I remember that well, then she said: "Going to Lesotho". Then I asked her again: "What were you going to do"?, then she kept quiet. Then I said: "Why do you keep quiet when I ask you what you were going to do"?

MR MEMANI: Was this person known to you?

MR KOPI: The mean the person whom I interrogated? I didn’t know them.

MR MEMANI: And was du Plooy present when you were interrogating this persons?

MR KOPI: He was not present. I forgot which white person I was with. Du Plooy is the section head of the interrogation, he was not present there.

MR MEMANI: Now, this person that you interrogated, did you have any file on her?

MR KOPI: It’s a lady person.

MR MEMANI: From what you can recall, did you have a file?

MR KOPI: If the person arrives, you take some pages then you write all his or her particulars, you write them down. As I left to go and see my informer, I left those papers with du Plooy and said: "Put them, then I will come and give a report back when I return, about what I’ve done", so that person would go through those papers.

MR MEMANI: But wouldn’t your interview with this person - your interrogation with this person have lasted longer because you would have wanted to know about her background and so on?

MR KOPI: You write down her particulars, then you say: "Where were you schooling"?, then she would say: "Sigonelo", then you write down. "What standard have you passed"?, you write down. "When did you leave home when you were leaving - as you said you were going to Lesotho, to whom were you going"? If she doesn’t want to reply to that part you leave. If she doesn’t want to co-operate you - as I said, I hand an appointment with the informer and I was forced to leave and go and see that person and that is why I left those papers.

MR MEMANI: What had you been doing in the morning before you were called back by du Plooy?

MR KOPI: May you please repeat your question.

MR MEMANI: What had you been doing in the morning before you were called back by du Plooy?

MR KOPI: You mean the time I left or which time?

MR MEMANI: ...[inaudible] that you left the office at 8 o’clock and at about 11 du Plooy radioed you back and I’m saying: "What had you been doing out there between 8 and 11?

MR KOPI: I was going to do investigations.

MR MEMANI: There were these people who arrived and du Plooy decided that you should be called back?

MR KOPI: Yes, du Plooy called me and said he wants to see me. I did not know why, I only knew when I arrived in his office.

MR MEMANI: And did you then go to see the informer and come back?

MR KOPI: Yes. Do you speak of the first instance or the second instance?

MR MEMANI: I’m speaking of the first instance when you left at about - after interrogating the first person.

MR KOPI: Yes, I went and returned at half past three, then I went upstairs, I went to the toilet and that is when I saw that those people are still there. I took those papers from my office and went to du Plooy to give him a report back.

MR MEMANI: Do I understand your evidence correctly, to be that you interviewed only one person on that day?

CHAIRPERSON: That wasn’t his evidence, he said he couldn’t remember how many, he said: "One, two or even three".

MR MEMANI: Now, how many people - for how long were you in the office?

MR KOPI: I don’t understand the direction of your question.

MR MEMANI: You told us that you were called back at about 11 and then you started interrogating people and then a call from the informer came in. Now, at about what time did the call from the informer come?

MR KOPI: I’m not able to remember the time. You see, when a person says that: "I want to see you", you must go and pick a car, then he would tell you which point you should meet him. Maybe point A is far from point B.

MR MEMANI: No, for how long were you with the informer?

MR KOPI: I would say perhaps I arrived at 12 o’clock. Our discussion would determine how much time. At times it took an hour, at times three hours because at the end you’ve got to brief him what information you require from him.

MR MEMANI: I’m speaking about this particular day. Did you meet this person at about 12 o’clock, the informer?

MR KOPI: It might be passed 12. He would phone you at 11 o’clock and say: "Let us meet at 12 o’clock or between 12 and half past 12". You must be the first person to arrive at that point, that’s how I arranged my appointments with him.

MR MEMANI: Did the informer, on that particular day, phone at about 11 o’clock?

MR KOPI: No, he did not phone at 11 o’clock because we were in the process. I don’t know as whether I interrogated one or two people. As I say 12 o’clock, I’m just making an example of saying, if he say at 12 o’clock. He didn’t phone at 12 o’clock as I said, I don’t remember what time.

MR MEMANI: Now for approximately how long were you in the office, after you arrived at the office at about 11?

MR KOPI: I took about 30 to 35 minutes in the office but I’m not sure, I’m just approximating.

MR MEMANI: Then you left at about 12 to meet an informer and you met the informer after 12, past 12.

MR KOPI: I say I was just making an estimation. For example, he’s say: "Let us meet at 12/half past 12", I did not say he said we should meet at 12 o’clock.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I really do hesitate to interrupt but I am not entirely sure where all this detailed cross-examination on matters which appear to me, with great respect, have nothing to do with the assaults which are alleged to have taken place over that three day period in relation to Mr Ngo or Mr Motsamai, who himself is applying for amnesty in respect of those assaults.

CHAIRPERSON: I have equal difficulty in understanding what this - whether he was 30 or 35 minutes. What is the point of all this Mr Memani?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, can you give me the latitude because if I explain to you, the witness ...[indistinct] me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I will tell you that at the end of it you will have to explain to me, if I do not then see the reason.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

MR BRINK: May I suggest Mr Chairman, the witness be excused and Mr Memani tell you what this - be asked to leave the hall ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MEMANI: Mr Kopi, you left the office on that day at about 12 to meet the informer, that’s what you told us isn’t it?

CHAIRPERSON: He didn’t.

MR MEMANI: He did say so M’Lord, he said it was after 12.

CHAIRPERSON: He said he was in the office for about 30 to 35 minutes after he returned at about 11 o’clock. Do you remember that?

MR MEMANI: But much earlier on M’Lord, he also said that he must have left the office just after 12.

CHAIRPERSON: He was given you an estimate, he’s explained time and again that the informer phones up and says: "Let’s meet at 12 or let’s meet at 12H30" and that this person would have done something like that.

MR MEMANI: Mr Kopi, let’s clarify this. At about what time did you leave the office after the informer called you?

MR KOPI: I don’t remember I left the office or what time he phoned because those things happened a long time ago. That’s why I made an example of saying, if he would see me at 12 o’clock or half past 12, I don’t remember the time correctly. That is why I made an approximation of saying I stayed in the office 30 to 35 minutes, then that’s why I suppose to leave to see the informer.

MR MEMANI: It’s obvious then Mr Kopi, that at least by half past 12 you’d have left the office isn’t it?

MR KOPI: I said I don’t remember the time of saying what time we should meet. That is why I made - I told you an approximation because I’m not sure.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Kopi, if you arrive at the office at about 11, then if you stay at the office for about 30 minutes then you must leave the office at around half past, quarter to 12. Doesn’t that follow?

MR KOPI: Let us take it this way. I said I interrogated either two or three people. At that time I was sitting down and nobody phoned, whilst I was interrogating a phone arrived and somebody told me that I should go and respond to the call. Then I returned and told the person whom I was working with and say: "There is an informer who wants to see me". Then I would take these papers to du Plooy: "I’m leaving to see an informer, I will come and give you a response".

MR MEMANI: You went to see the informer and you know that you came back at 3H30.

MR KOPI: Yes, I remember I came back at half past three because I had an appointment at a quarter past four because I supposed to report back at half past four.

MR MEMANI: At what time did you meet the informer?

MR KOPI: I’m making an estimation, it might approximately half past twelve to one. I’m making an estimation, it’s not an exact time, it’s an estimation.

MR MEMANI: And then you tell us that you came back at half past three.

MR KOPI: Then he would tell me and say: "You would take care of this and that", then I’ll do that. And then again, the distance from that point to that point, to a certain point, I should try to calculate the distance again.

MR MEMANI: What information did this person give you?

MR KOPI: I’m not able to say that.

ADV DE JAGER: Is it really relevant to your client’s application? Have you any idea that it might be relevant? Have you any grounds to think it’s relevant, then you’re entitled to ask the question.

MR MEMANI: I believe so.

ADV DE JAGER: If you’ve got no reason to think that that person gave information that relevant to your client’s application, I really think you’re not entitled to ask those questions. Then we’re wasting time and keep in mind we’re dealing with a period 11 years ago. I can’t even remember whether I left my house on the 24th of October, on what time or whatever it may be, a year ago. Let’s be fair to the witnesses all over.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, this witness knows that he was not at the office until half past three and there is a reason why I’m asking him what information did he get from the informer.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t that information confidential? Are we entitled to get him to publicise it if it’s got nothing to do with this case?

MR MEMANI: He hasn’t said so M’Lord. I’m not forcing him to say so, he hasn’t said so. You mustn’t say so for him.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I’m saying so, with respect. This witness isn’t entitled to divulge that kind of evidence, he’s sworn an other of secrecy in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears to me that unless you have any reason to suggest that it’s relevant to the present application, then that is a valid objection Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, I will leave the matter there but I will proceed on the point I’m making on a different basis.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you’re making any point at all. None of us have managed to see what that point it yet.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think we’re going to take the adjournment now. We will adjourn - I want everybody to take note of this, we are going to propose to adjourn till 08H30 tomorrow morning and we will then adjourn for the day at 13H30. I understand various people have travel arrangements.

I also understand that certain people may want to get away before and if it’s possible for one person to carry on, we understand that too. Does that suit you? Has anybody got any urgent reasons that 13H30 is too late?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we do appreciate that. Of course on the basis that if we find a reasonable reason - a reasonable gap before hand, we will take it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you have all got appointments, travel arrangements made for tomorrow afternoon.

MR VISSER: We would like to get away as early as possible but we’ll stay till 13H30 if that is called for.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. We will now adjourn till 08H30 tomorrow morning.