Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: ... explain to you gentlemen we have had a message that Mr Du Plessis has been delayed. I understand that his delay was due to the aircraft being delayed in Johannesburg, at the airport, and he will be arriving later this morning, but it should not affect us at the moment.

I think we could just continue from where we were yesterday and hope that he arrives some time this morning.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman, yes, we are ready to proceed. Just to remind the members of the Committee, Mr Chairman, yesterday we were busy with item number 13 in Bundle A, page 148, that is the assault and torture of detained or arrested political activists at the offices of the police station at Fountains Street, Bloemfontein for which Mr Motsamai had applied for amnesty.

Now, you in your evidence, Mr Motsamai, gave a list of names whom you say were people as I understand it to be, who were tortured but not necessarily whom you tortured. Am I right?

MR MOTSAMAI: Repeat your question, my headset was not working.

MR BRINK: Is it working now, Mr Motsamai, can you hear me?

MR MOTSAMAI: I can hear you.

MR VISSER: Do you want me to repeat the question?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes please.

MR VISSER: I will repeat the question. Mr Motsamai, you gave a list of people to the Committee when you gave your evidence in chief, starting with Brian Nakedi, going on to Mokgamisi, etc, and you gave a list of I believe 26 different items, not necessarily names, items of people who were assaulted at Bloemfontein at the police station, is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And that is the list which you read from page 140 to 141 of Bundle A, under D - Torture. That is correct, isn't it? 140?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: All right, now in regard to that list are you able to look at that list and to tell the Committee which of those persons or items, as it were, coincided with the application of Mr Ngo in regard to the 20 to 25 people whom he says were arrested?

Can I help you, let's start with Brian Nakedi. He is clearly not one of those persons, would you agree with me?

MR MOTSAMAI: Are you referring to people who were tortured at the office, sir?

CHAIRPERSON: No, what Counsel is talking about is you remember Mr Ngo said there was a group of people who I think were arrested near the border, they were going to cross to Lesotho, and they were brought back and eventually came to your office. It is one group of people, do you remember his evidence?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, what Counsel wants to know was which of the people if any that appear in your list, or that you gave evidence about, were part of that group?

MR MOTSAMAI: Oupa Makhubalo, Number 3 on the list.

MR VISSER: I am sorry Mr Motsamai, perhaps you found the easy way to do this. Are you referring to page 140 and 141 now and you are going to tell us which of those people fall within that group that Mr Ngo was talking about, is that what you are going to do?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, sir.

MR VISSER: All right, Oupa Makhubalo is item number 3, yes?

MR MOTSAMAI: John Jwuayi, Baba Khuzela.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you give us the number please.

MR MOTSAMAI: It is item 5, John Jwuayi and number 6, Baba Khuzela.

MR VISSER: Perhaps I could help. Look at number 11. Your evidence in this regard was that he was forced to do frog jumps and you started your evidence about JeJe to say that he was the same as Oupa, Oupa Makhubalo. That is why I am drawing your attention to it.

ADV DE JAGER: Possibly the same one as Papie? JeJe?

MR VISSER: My note reads, he started off with Oupa Makhubalo and then in three or four instances, Mr Chairman, he said this is the same as Oupa.

And we took that to mean that it was the same group, he came in in the same group, but perhaps we were wrong to assume that because - well, perhaps you can just go on. I think you just go on on your own and tell us.

MR MOTSAMAI: I now remember his surname, his surname is Lichaba. When he was among the group which was performing frog jumps. But he was not amongst the group that was moved from the border.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, do it on your own then. You have mentioned number 6 - just read them and go through these items on your own.

MR MOTSAMAI: I have checked my own list. I only get the three I have mentioned.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Motsamai, we seem to be in agreement with that, but thank you for clearing that up for us.

CHAIRPERSON: May I ask something. Monapori Ntama, number 4, when you gave evidence about him, you said he also wanted to cross the border. Was he one of this group or did he want to cross the border separately or on another occasion?

MR MOTSAMAI: It is not in the incident of the 25 people.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we gave attention to that very person and we noted that the evidence of Mr Motsamai was he started off by saying, we took him from his home.

But for the rest, there were certainly indications that he might have been a member of that group.

CHAIRPERSON: He has cleared it up now and said he wasn't.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, in the list of people at page 140/141, after you gave the whole list, you said at the end of your evidence, you received instructions from Lieutenant Shaw, do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct, My Lord.

MR VISSER: Would you please explain precisely with regard to these people that you say were assaulted, what were the instructions of Lieutenant Shaw? When were they given and what did you have to do?

MR MOTSAMAI: In the morning just before the parade, we would go to Lieutenant Shaw's office, he was sharing it with Mr Coetzee.

When giving commands, he used to say to all of us - he would tell the whole Unit there are comrades and if there is any information we need regarding the incidents and their organisations, we should also look for movements of certain people of the African National Congress and to further find out whether in their organisation, or in their different organisations, who are the members of the Executive.

We should make it possible that they should be so scared of taking forth their organisations.

MR VISSER: Are you finished?

MR MOTSAMAI: And for that matter, we should assault them so that we can retrieve information from them.

MR VISSER: Yes. I just want to make it absolutely clear, find out from you how you understood the situation. Was the instruction that you had to obtain information and if you couldn't do so freely and voluntarily, you had to assault them? Is that what you say?

MR MOTSAMAI: Even if they were giving information voluntarily, we were also supposed to assault them so that they get scared to take forward their movement. In other words, they should not organise any more.

MR VISSER: That is why I am asking you this question, you see, because this is the impression I got from your evidence. And I want to ask you this, if you took a man into an office and you said to him I want some information from you, why did you go to the border, who helped you and he says, well, I will tell you, this is why I went there, I wanted to join MK and Mr X helped me and I was going to meet Mr Y on the other side, why would you have to assault him?

Wouldn't you inhibit him rather if you assaulted him while he is giving you information?

MR MOTSAMAI: My Lord, if you are given instructions, we were told every day to harass them, that is the reason why we used force. Even if the person was telling the truth, we were supposed to harass him according to the orders so that this person can leave his organisation.

He shouldn't take forward the aspirations of his organisation.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, you as a Security Policeman knew full well, that during the years 1986 and following, there was a whole range of legislation by which people like the ones that you referred to could be dealt with and some of them were. Sebotsa for example was taken to court and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment, not so?

People were charged and sent to prison.

MR MOTSAMAI: I am not against what you are saying. They went to prison after heavy assault.

MR VISSER: But you see I am just trying to establish what could have gone in Mr Shaw's mind to tell you to arrest, to assault these people, even though they were cooperating, because you could simply take them to court, have them convicted and have them removed from the society.

MR MOTSAMAI: I know that My Lord. You did not know anything about the Security Branch. The Security Branch since long ago, not now, I found them harassing people, assaulting people, this has been a long standing tradition.

Many incidents took place. You just told me that everything that Shaw was doing, what he was saying, but I want you to know because I worked there and I worked with him, I know all the instructions that we were given, I know the incidents that were taking place.

Maybe one day I am just going to be called, Motsamai come, the TRC wants you. My Lord, we were harassing people, we were assaulting people. They know themselves that we were harassing people.

MR VISSER: And was this really just a pure act of aggression, nothing to do with anything else, but just aggression against these people, is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: Can you please elaborate, when you talk of aggression do you mean were we aggressive or were they aggressive?

MR VISSER: Well, let's talk about Lieutenant Shaw. He tells you to assault these people, to harass them, whether they cooperate or not, whether they were men or whether they were women, it doesn't matter, you've just got to assault them.

Is this just an act of aggression for no reason whatsoever, it seems, I am putting it to you.

MR MOTSAMAI: I am repeating myself now My Lord. The commands that we were given, we were not just harassing these people for fun or for the fact that they were aggressive or we were aggressive, they were assaulted because they were not in line with the government of those days.

MR VISSER: I see.

MR MOTSAMAI: And the instructions I still maintain, were given from that office. The other important thing many things were kept secret in the Police Service or anywhere because an instruction was that anything that happens within the office, should end up in the office.

Nothing should go outside, that is why every time we were involved in these incidents, we were told and they told us this is going to be the result, so that it is not realised, do this.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, yes, let's try to keep it a little bit shorter if you will. If you can explain a little bit more brief. The question here is this, was this a standing instruction that you worked under in the years that you worked in the Security Branch or was this a one off instruction that you received from Shaw?

MR MOTSAMAI: This was a day to day instruction when we went to fetch people, it was an instruction. Fire should be put out and that instruction would be given - go out, fetch these people.

MR VISSER: Why, why on earth would anyone have to repeat the instructions to you every single morning? Was it so difficult to understand?

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't understand your question, Mr Visser. I mean, it is not what the witness is saying or is capable of not conveying what the witness is saying.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the man has given evidence to what we, I understand to mean, this is what the Security Branch did throughout the years. I asked that specifically.

Throughout the years that he worked there. He said we were told to go out, to harass people and to assault them and I am asking him why is it necessary, and I asked him was this a one off thing in this particular case for which you are applying for amnesty.

JUDGE NGOEPE: He says in each instance, before he assaulted, each instance, he would get instructions to assault.

MR VISSER: That is how I understood it Mr Chairman, and the question now is ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It was aimed, he has just told us, he would get instructions to go out and fetch these people. As I understand what he is saying, it is when they were told to go and fetch people, they were told to assault, not just each morning resiting it whether they were going to do something or not.

MR VISSER: I understand Mr Chairman, what the both of you are saying, with respect, but your evidence is that every time you were told to go and fetch somebody, you were told to assault. Every single time. Is that your evidence?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct, My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, was this only from Lieutenant Shaw or was this the normal practise in the Security Police, if other officers told you to do things, did they say the same thing or was this Lieutenant Shaw only?

MR MOTSAMAI: There were other officers who were giving us instructions, it was not only Mr Shaw.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they give you instructions to assault people in the same way?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, they were also giving us such instructions.

MR VISSER: The evidence which you have just given, in reply to the Honourable Chairman's question, did you tell your Counsel, Mr Memani about this, that there were other people as well that gave you these instructions?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I think this question has got a tendency to violate the Attorney/client privilege.

CHAIRPERSON: It is a fairly normal question and the next comment is, in that case why didn't he put it.

MR VISSER: Would you just answer that question then please, Mr Motsamai, did you tell your Counsel about what you've just told this Committee?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, I did not tell him.

MR VISSER: All right. Do you also agree that this is the first time that you mentioned it in your evidence before this Committee?

MR MOTSAMAI: I agree. Because I said many things happened and some of the incidents, we have committed many where we were given instructions by other officers. Even if I did not tell my representative all this, I think as I give my evidence, they come back to my mind and I will add them.

MR VISSER: Did Commissioner Ngoepe wish to - I am sorry, I thought you wanted to intervene. You still want to do so?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Perhaps Mr Visser and Counsel, I think I should explain to you what I was discussing with the Chairman, because I couldn't understand Mr Visser's question as to why the witness did not mention other people, because I thought we have been mentioning a lot of names since we started the hearing.

I thought the witness had been mentioning quite a lot of, implicating quite a lot of people, so I just thought perhaps I missed something.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with respect, then I suppose you did because these questions concerns only this incident and only this particular one and at the end of his evidence in regard to his item 13, he was asked by my learned friend, did anybody give you instructions and he said, yes, Shaw did.

And I think that is how the Chairman understood it and that is what his question was based on.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure that the applicant understood that he was only being asked in connection with instructions about matters that appear under paragraph 13.

MR VISSER: May I respond Mr Chairman? I thought it was made perfectly clear both by myself and yourself, that we were talking about, he was talking about we were told to go and fetch somebody, we were told to assault him and brought him. I thought that there was no question about it.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, then item 13 - if it relates to the persons being brought from Ladybrand, then I think there may be confusion, because they were told to go and fetch a person - would it be from the police cells or would they go and fetch him from his home? I would think there could be confusions and perhaps he could clear that up please.

MR VISSER: I will gladly do so, Mr Chairman. Just those persons, Mr Motsamai, whom you mentioned who were arrested by the Defence Force and brought from Ladybrand, were you personally instructed to fetch any of them from anywhere or were you not so instructed?

MR MOTSAMAI: I explained in my statement that I found those people at the office.

MR VISSER: Now, you see the problem which we have here Mr Motsamai, is you've now told us that whenever you had to go and fetch somebody, you were told to assault and harass. Have I got that right?

MR MOTSAMAI: The way you put your question, is as if I did not get the command from the people who were there. The people were already at the office, I was not given the command to go and fetch them, they were fetched by another group that is still affiliated to the Security Branch.

Let me explain further, I do not believe that were they were found, the Defence Force was given information by our Branch, that the people at Ladybrand, they should be fetched.

MR VISSER: Thank you for the explanation Mr Motsamai.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, for my own peace of mind and understanding, I think I am going to ask the applicant a few questions. You took part in the assault of this group of people who were being arrested at the border by the South African Defence Force?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And you took part in their assault in Bloemfontein at your offices?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Who gave you, if there be any person, who gave you the instructions to assault those people?

MR MOTSAMAI: I said we were given an instruction by Lieutenant Shaw and Colonel Coetzee. That was because we wanted to find out from them who was assisting them to cross to Lesotho.

And who were they going to meet in Lesotho.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were they assaulted on just the one day or were they assaulted on subsequent days?

MR MOTSAMAI: It was not one day. They were assaulted subsequently. They were in the hands of the Unit I have referred to.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you personally, take part in the assault on subsequent days, other than the first day?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, I did not take any part, but we were helping to transport them to the prisons.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now, I am going to ask you a question in relation to what you said a few minutes ago which I think confused me a bit.

When you said you, or rather when you spoke of instructions having come from only Shaw, with what incidents, I mean was it with reference to what incidents? Do you understand, a few minutes ago you said something like it was only Shaw who had given you instructions, or something to that effect. What was it about?

MR MOTSAMAI: The instruction was about the information that we should retrieve from those people. Information such as who helped them and who was going to help them to skip the country.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It is difficult to ask questions on an issue on which you yourself is not clear. Maybe Mr Visser can clear that up. You must have understood better than I did.

MR VISSER: Thank you for the compliment Mr Chairman, but I am afraid I've got to disappoint you, I don't understand it either.

Perhaps, just one or two questions Mr Motsamai. In your evidence you simply said at the end of the evidence, in regard to assaults on comrades, that you received the instructions from Lieutenant Shaw, is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is true.

MR VISSER: In reply to a question by the Chairman, you told the Committee just now that there were many incidents, and you received instructions from many people, is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Were you then referring to other incidents than the assaults which we are talking about now? The incident of Winnie Mandela's house and Bholosha and all the other incidents. Is that what you were referring to when you said there were other people who also gave instructions?

MR MOTSAMAI: I talked about this particular incident. Let me explain it well. When it was the two of them and we are standing on the other side, the other one would give us a certain instruction, then the other one would tell another officer that I see that even this and this you should retrieve from this people.

When this people was giving us instructions and the other one, the other officer who was telling the other officer what to tell us, so it would be a combined instruction from two people.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Motsamai, I want to put it to you in all fairness to you, that that is brand new evidence which you are now giving us in regard to this incident or these incidents of assault.

MR MOTSAMAI: I am talking in regard to this particular incident about this torture.

CHAIRPERSON: Which incident are you talking about, let's not have any confusion. Is this the incident about the people whom the Defence Force brought? Is that the particular incident that you are talking about?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, that is the incident I am talking about.

MR VISSER: All right, and I want to put it to you specifically in regard to all of the assaults which you refer to under your paragraph 13, you never mentioned for one moment, that Coetzee was involved in giving instructions in either your application or in your evidence.

MR MOTSAMAI: May I clarify that?

MR VISSER: Well, did you or did you not, that is really the question Mr Motsamai, we do have to move along. I don't want to stop you from explaining, but the question is a simple one.

MR MOTSAMAI: I explained it is Lieutenant Shaw who gave us instructions but because they were in the same office, they were helping each other.

MR VISSER: Yes. Let me tell you what my instructions are Mr Motsamai. The group that was transferred from Ladybrand to Bloemfontein, came directly under the command of Captain Du Plooy of the Investigating Unit, certainly not under the members of the Security branch. Would you agree with that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Captain Du Plooy from where - Branch?

MR VISSER: Don't you know a Captain Du Plooy, that worked in the building where you were a Security Policeman? Don't you know such a person?

MR MOTSAMAI: I hear you saying - Captain Du Plooy whom you are talking about, was not with the Security Branch, that is why I am asking.

MR VISSER: You do not know of a Captain Du Plooy who was in charge of the Special Investigation Unit of the Security Branch? You don't know such a person?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is the one, that is Captain Du Plooy. But the way you explained it, it seems as if Captain Du Plooy was not working in the Security Branch in Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: Well, I am sorry if I mislead you Mr Motsamai. The point is were these people that were brought from Ladybrand not brought to be dealt with by Captain Du Plooy and his Investigation Unit?

MR MOTSAMAI: Let me explain now. I don't deny that they were taken from Ladybrand by that Special Investigation Unit. I said we found them there in the morning and the instructions we received are the ones which I explained, that is why after that what we did about torture and all that, they were taken up again by the Special Investigative Unit, which was led by Captain Du Plooy.

MR VISSER: And I am told that Captain Du Plooy requested assistance from some of the members of the Security Branch, being the field workers, to assist in completing the administration, the filling out of forms identification of persons etc. Do you know anything about that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is why I said we received instructions from Lieutenant Shaw. You are telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand what Counsel put to you? That Captain Du Plooy asked for assistance for people to do administrative work, to fill in forms, to ask the people what their names were and things of that nature.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is true, but they are hiding some issues. They are hiding from you the torture. It is true when he said he requested assistance from our Branch, we must not say only good things when we helped them to fill the forms and they would run away from the torture aspect of it.

MR VISSER: Now, that at last we've found some common ground, Mr Motsamai, perhaps we should make the most of this. Were you one of the persons who was detailed to go and assist in completing forms in regard to any of these comrades that came from Ladybrand?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And how would you go about that, would you sit at a table as you are doing now with the forms in front of you?

MR MOTSAMAI: These people were assaulted even whilst we were filling the forms, they were assaulted.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, that is not what I asked you. I asked you whether you were sitting at a table and filling out forms, that is the question.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is true.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

MR MOTSAMAI: Whilst we were filling the forms, we continued with the assault.

MR VISSER: Yes. You would write a little bit and you would get up and you would go and assault them and you would come back and you would write a little bit, is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: They were taken to the Special Unit to be assaulted. Those forms we would fill them.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, let's try to finish your cross-examination. I am asking you were you writing a little bit and then assault them and come back to the table and write a little bit further and assault them again or what happened? How could you fill out a form while you were assaulting them?

MR MOTSAMAI: I don't know, maybe I am repeating myself, I am saying whilst we were filling forms, that person would be in front of you whilst you are filling in the form. Then from there, he would leave or the members of the Special Unit would take him and how he was tortured by that Unit, I don't know.

MR VISSER: You see, Mr Motsamai, that is precisely what I wanted to put to you, so thank you for your answer. Because it seems to me that what the situation was and you can stop me if I am wrong, is some of you chaps were asked to assist, you had the forms, you sat at the table, you asked their identity, their address, filled out the form, they were taken away and as you say, they might have been assaulted later, but you don't know by whom.

Am I correct in understanding what you have just told me?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, that is what I have just explained. But even before those forms were filled, what I said before has happened, we were given instructions that we should torture these people.

MR VISSER: Yes, now just on that point, you see Judge Ngoepe asked you about that and you told the Committee that after the first day you never assaulted anyone. Did I understand you correctly?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you assault anyone on the first day?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes. All of them.

MR VISSER: Will you give me the name of every person that you assaulted?

MR MOTSAMAI: Oupa Makhubalo.

MR VISSER: Just while you are there, please just tell us, I am sorry, how precisely did - I am sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: You said you would ask him to spell the names.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Makhubalo, it is - well I see there is another spelling Makhubalo, without the "h", I thought it was spelt with an "h", but this is from the affidavit, so that would probably be the correct spelling.

Oupa Makhubalo, how precisely did you assault if at all, Oupa Makhubalo? What did you do to him, now tell us.

MR MOTSAMAI: He was sitting as I am sitting, I was not alone, we were two.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, he was sitting on a chair?

MR MOTSAMAI: We tied his hands behind the chair or behind his back with handcuffs.

MR VISSER: Who was with you, was that Sergeant Mamome? Who was with you and Oupa?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, that is Sergeant Mamome.

MR VISSER: Right, he was handcuffed, yes?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sergeant Mamome had a tyre tube which was made that it should be able to cover the face and the whole head.

MR VISSER: Did he suffocate Oupa Makhubalo?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes, please continue.

MR MOTSAMAI: So that we were retrieving information according to instructions from Lieutenant Shaw.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, do you remember the question that I asked you?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is in regard to torturing.

MR VISSER: No, no, I asked you what you did to Oupa Makhubalo. Please tell us that.

MR MOTSAMAI: I held his hands, his legs. By that time Sergeant Mamome put a tyre tube on the face and he pressed the handcuffs with his leg and pulling him down.

And while he was struggling, I pressed his legs. I pressed his legs so that he should not remove from the chair.

MR VISSER: So, you assisted in the suffocation of Oupa Makhubalo by holding his legs down?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that all that you did to him?

MR MOTSAMAI: You wanted me to repeat that, I think that is ... (intervention)

MR VISSER: No, no, I don't ask you, I am not asking you to repeat it. I am asking you whether that is all that you did to Oupa Makhubalo. It is a perfectly simple, understandable question.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Who else did you assault on that first day?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on to that, as I understand it, this was done in a separate room, this was not part of the passage treatment? Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: We were in Sergeant Mamome's office.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Is there anybody else that you personally assaulted on that first day?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is the only one, because we wanted to recruit him.

MR VISSER: Is it fair to summarise your evidence in regard to the group of comrades who were arrested by the South African Defence Force and brought to Bloemfontein, that you, Motsamai, only assaulted Oupa Makhubalo and no one else at any time? Is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: Not in the passage. In the passage I took part to all. You said specifically whom did I assault. In the passage I assaulted. Whom we took alone to that room is Oupa Makhubalo only.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us please, if you can remember, please tell us, who did you assault in the passage and what exactly, how exactly did you assault that person?

MR MOTSAMAI: I don't remember the names of some of the people. But the torture we did or the assault we did in the passage it was frog jump and we were assaulting them all.

MR VISSER: What form did your assault take? What did you do to all?

MR MOTSAMAI: I used my hand.

MR VISSER: You are demonstrating your open hand?

MR MOTSAMAI: I was assaulting with my open hand mainly at the back whilst he or she was busy with the frog jump, when he or she got tired, I would hit them with the open hand at the back. At times I would use my legs or my feet, when he is tired, I would kick him or her.

MR VISSER: Anywhere on the body or just - where did you kick them on their bodies?

MR MOTSAMAI: Because we were at the back, we would kick them from behind.

MR VISSER: On his buttocks? On his buttocks?

MR MOTSAMAI: It depends where your foot lands. It might be the buttocks, it might be on top or at the back on the abdomen.

MR VISSER: Yes, I see. On the abdomen from behind, all right. Mr Motsamai, I just want to round this whole issue off.

You did not participate in any further assaults, you told us, after the first day on any one of this group of people, have I got that right?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Were there any further assaults after the first day that you saw yourself that took place in that building or was it only on the first day?

MR MOTSAMAI: It was the first day only. After the first day, the following day, I don't know how they were assaulted.

MR VISSER: No but the question is whether they were assaulted after the first day, according to what you yourself saw when you were present.

CHAIRPERSON: He gave evidence as I recollect it, that he heard an assault through the window, didn't he? I am not sure if it was on this occasion or another occasion, that he heard the people screaming, so I don't think you can really confine it to what you see. If you hear noises, you can be very conscious of an assault Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Yes, absolutely indeed. I should have really said what you took in with your own senses. What you saw ... (intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Ask him whether he knows of any further assaults.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, I am very careful not to ask that question because I can imagine what the answer is going to be.

I want to confine you Mr Motsamai, of what you personally know about, either whether you saw it, whether you heard something, or whatever, and tell us whether you can tell us today that there were assaults that took place on any one of the members of this particular group of people from Ladybrand after the first day.

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, there were assaults after the first day.

MR VISSER: Can you,a re you able to tell the Committee precisely who was assaulted and by whom and how?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, I won't be able to tell, because they were at the Unit downstairs.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, how do you know there were assaults afterwards if they were downstairs?

MR MOTSAMAI: Whilst we were moving on the office, we would hear when people were assaulted. Once the office is closed, you would not know who is the victim or who is the perpetrator.

MR VISSER: I am just going to refer to some other incidents now Mr Motsamai.

You gave evidence that Mr Mamome told you that Yster, I think it is, wanted a licensed firearm, or a firearm which he could licence. Do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you then told us how Mamome gave him the very same firearm with which Mr George Musi was killed. Do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is it not a fact that you also told us that that particular firearm had its serial number scratched off, filed off?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is a fact.

MR VISSER: You see, I don't understand that, you as a policeman could perhaps explain to us, Mr Motsamai, how could one register a firearm like that legally? Can you help us, because that would not make sense to me.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, it was not such as that the firearm was given in order to have it registered.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with respect, it was precisely the evidence, because you will recall that the witness said that he doesn't know what happened in there but Mamome told him that he will assist him to obtain a licence.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That was not the context. The previous statement was that that gentleman was not able to get a firearm legally and the suggestion was that as a result thereof, he was given this firearm which had suggestions that it was not to be a legal possession of a firearm.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I hear what Judge Ngoepe says. I must confess that I had an entirely different impression of the evidence. Entirely different.

I may just say the last thing on this issue Mr Chairman, our notes say that Mamome was going to arrange for a licence on this firearm.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't know, it could be that you are right, but I must as I say, that was not my understanding. I unfortunately got the impression that the very reason why he said that this gentleman was never able to get the licence to possess a firearm, I thought the purpose to tell us about that, was to indicate that the firearm was given to him illegally.

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection of the evidence was that the evidence was that the man Yster, wanted a licensed firearm. But Mamome gave him this gun which was seen by a man called Mabilo, who worked on the premises, on Yster's premises. He didn't know that the gun had been used to kill a man and he, as I understood it, Mabilo took the gun and Sergeant Mamome said to him that he should not disclose where the gun came from and gave him the remaining bullets.

He then said in an answer to a question by Mr De Jager, that Sergeant Mamome said that he would arrange a licence. Now, I don't know if he was referring to this gun or to Yster, who now didn't have a gun because the gun had been given to Mabilo, that he would arrange a licence for Yster.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The question is justified. I think the question may be justified. Sorry that I interrupted you. It is for the witness to clear that up.

MR VISSER: Judge Ngoepe, that may be one of the very few advantages of cross-examination, that it at least stimulates this kind of questioning, so certainly I believe in the end we will reach the truth, if we go on this way, or we hope so.

But perhaps, I should just ask you one more question about this and that is this, when all of this happened, were you personally present?

MR MOTSAMAI: Which day sir?

MR VISSER: During the incident which the Honourable Chairman has just read. I don't know whether you followed that. It is Mamome came and told you Yster was looking for a firearm and then you gave your version of what happened there.

I am not certain whether that version is a version as Mr Mamome told you or whether you were then present on the scene when he handed the gun to Yster and Mabilo was there and something was said between them. Were you actually present?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct. I was present during that incident. That is where I think there is a mistake of what has been said. At that time when Sergeant Mamome was handing over the gun to Yster, Mabilo was present.

MR VISSER: And that Mabilo, is that Jeff Mabilo who is allegedly a victim in this case, because he was the nephew of George Musi?

MR MOTSAMAI: He was present, that is the one.

MR VISSER: Yes, so by a strange twist of fate Mabilo lands up with the very firearm that killed his uncle? Is that what you are telling us?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, Mabilo - I didn't see Mabilo was given the gun, but that time when Sergeant Mamome gave Yster the gun, Mabilo was present. Mabilo didn't know that the gun was used to kill his uncle.

MR VISSER: I see.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't Mabilo take the gun?

MR MOTSAMAI: He was present, but he didn't take the gun when Yster was given the gun. The gun came directly from Sergeant Mamome to Yster.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was Yster who was given the remaining bullets and told not to disclose about the gun?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: I just wish to put to you that Lieutenant Shaw, apart from the general denials which I will again put to you later ... (intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: ... and in the presence of Mabilo, Mamome told Yster not to disclose anything about the gun.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mabilo is an outsider, is that correct? He is not a member of the Force?

MR MOTSAMAI: He was just an ordinary citizen.

ADV DE JAGER: And he is a witness to this handing over of this gun and he also heard that the receiver is being told not to disclose anything about this, may I say, illegal handing over of the gun?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: May I proceed Mr Chairman? I am not certain whether Commissioner De Jager ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He is represented, he appears, it is the same man I take it on the list of persons represented by Mr Stander?

MR VISSER: What is more Mr Chairman, his affidavit appears at numbered page 25 in the Bundle that was given to us, marked number 2, page 25. I don't know whether your Bundles had been marked.

Oh, I am sorry, I am sorry, I understand it is my Attorney's markings. Can I hand up my copy to you so long and you can look at it, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What Bundle is this?

MR VISSER: I am terribly sorry, I didn't realise that it had not been handed to you, Mr Chairman. Mr Stander will apparently hand in that.

MR STANDER: Unfortunately Mr Chairman, that Bundle that will be handed to you now, is not in any way attested by a Commissioner of Oaths. It will be done through the period of this morning.

Do you remember I gave you Bundles yesterday afternoon, but you gave it back to me this morning. This is the same Bundle we are talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the old Bundle or the new Bundle?

MR STANDER: This is number 2, so that is the new Bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Page?

MR VISSER: 25. Do you need another copy Mr Chairman, for the other Commissioners, I can hand up mine. You've now got three copies and we've got none, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he here, Mr Stander?

MR STANDER: Unfortunately not at this stage Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he available, he must be, you consulted with him and he is going to come and swear to the affidavit, I take it?

MR STANDER: We have arranged for him to be here. But I can't give you any assurance whether he will be here today.

MR VISSER: Please allow me to complete the circle by referring you also to Bundle B, page 116.

CHAIRPERSON: We referred to this yesterday, didn't we?

MR VISSER: And all I want to refer to you at the moment Mr Motsamai, if Mr Mabilo would come and give evidence, do you think that he will support the evidence which you just gave this morning about him being present when the gun was handed over?

MR MOTSAMAI: I did not understand you quite well, sir.

MR VISSER: According to you, if Mr Mabilo spoke the truth, he will come and tell us exactly what you told us, this morning, isn't that so?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In other words, you are not aware of any reason why Mr Mabilo would come and lie to the Committee about this issue, if he was present, if it happened?

MR MOTSAMAI: I don't think there is any reason for Mr Mabilo to come and lie if he is requested to come and testify.

MR VISSER: Yes, can I just deal with Violent Street. You made a big thing of that, didn't you Mr Motsamai. A sticker that was on the fifth floor, at the entrance.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he said it was at the entrance, he said it was in the passage.

MR VISSER: Yes, somewhere on the floor. Violent Street. Do you know where that came from, where that object, the sign, came from?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know. I indicated that I found it there. Who put it on the wall, I do not know.

MR VISSER: I see. So you would not be able to deny that this was an advertisement of a film, a film by the name of Violent Street? You wouldn't? Would you deny that? It was a sticker referring to the film Violent Street.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is not so. It is not a sticker, it is a board.

MR VISSER: All right, call it a board. Were there other boards on the other floors that you remember?

MR MOTSAMAI: They were not boards, they were placards.

MR VISSER: All right, were there other placards on the other floors that you remember?

MR MOTSAMAI: In offices, yes.

MR VISSER: Tell us what that placard said, or that placards, what did they say?

MR MOTSAMAI: Most of it, I won't specifically mention which placard said what, but most of the placards were about SACP, African National Congress, PAC, AZAPO and others.

MR VISSER: Yes, was there one that said Anaconda? My Attorney is stopping me here, perhaps I misunderstood something Mr Chairman, may I just take instructions?

I withdraw that question, Mr Chairman. The point is I want to put to you that the fact that this placard, board or sticker, whatever you want to call it that said Violent Street, had nothing sinister to do with it as you attempted to suggest. I am sure you will disagree with what I have just put.

CHAIRPERSON: It is a somewhat unusual sticker to have in a police station, isn't it Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: My people will come and give evidence Mr Chairman, and of course you will ask them that and perhaps they have an explanation.

MR MOTSAMAI: I explained that was Violent Street, that is why that sticker was put on the wall.

MR VISSER: Yes, they advertised the fact that this was the place where the Security Branch personnel assault people, and that was the reason for that sign, that is your evidence, isn't that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is where I said I found the sticker there and when I got there I knew that that whole section was Violent Street. Even when I was newly appointed there, people were already tortured in that section.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, can I just interrupt you there because I don't think it was an accurate interpretation. The witness, as far as I understood him, did not say that I explained, I have explained that it was a Violent Street, he said it was explained to me that that was a particular floor, that is why the Violent Street sticker was there.

MR VISSER: My understanding and recollection of the evidence was that he was asked specifically and he said it was called Violent Street, because that is where he assaulted people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and he has now said as my brother has put it to you, he has just now said it was explained to me, and that accords with the previous evidence that I was told that is where people were assaulted.

MR VISSER: I've got no problem with that, the point that I am just making here ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The point my brother is making is that the interpretation is incorrect, and should be rectified. The interpretation now.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And I was not querying you.

MR VISSER: Oh, I am sorry, I thought you - will you please tell me when the interpretation by someone else has been rectified.

I am just waiting, I can't hear a thing over my earphones, Mr Chairman. I thought we were waiting for an interpretation. Any way, is it your evidence that the fact that people were assaulted there, was really advertised with this sticker or the board or the placard, Violent Street, so that if somebody came there, they would know this is a place where people are assaulted? Is that your impression?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you told the Committee on a question of the Chairman, that other people from the building, from the other floors of the building, had access to that floor, not so?

MR MOTSAMAI: Are you referring to people of other floors than ours? You would only have access to our floor in company of another member of the Security Branch. You cannot just be alone.

And you would be allowed in if you had to answer something, not just. There would be nobody from the first floor to come into our floor for no reason.

MR VISSER: Yes, I can see that you see the problem coming Mr Motsamai. Isn't it true that members of the public had access to that floor only on condition that they had made an appointment or were accompanied by a Security Branch member?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is not the right, that is not how you put it. When they had appointments, I did not know which appointments you are referring to.

You would only come to the offices if you were to be interrogated or asked questions. Even when a black person had a girlfriend, the girlfriend would not visit. The girlfriend would not gain access into the building. The person was supposed to go down to meet the girlfriend.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I don't want to labour this with you but let me just put this last question to you, this last proposition. If I, as a member of Bloemfontein community, had information which I thought was vital to the Security Police, could I under no circumstances gain access to the fifth floor to go and speak to you, Mr Motsamai, if I wanted to speak to you in your office?

MR MOTSAMAI: What would you inform us about sir? I would get you outside.

MR VISSER: Yes, I'm going to leave that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go off, I would like to know something more about the building. How did you get into and out of this building?

MR MOTSAMAI: There were steel doors, you have to ring the bell at the door.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the front door?

MR MOTSAMAI: The doors I am referring to as being steel doors, were in the fifth floor and on the fourth floor.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am talking about the building itself. Was there a main entrance that you came into?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, My Lord. There was a policeman at the door.

CHAIRPERSON: And was there a back entrance that you could park in the building or anything of that nature?

MR MOTSAMAI: There was a parking at the back.

CHAIRPERSON: So if you brought detainees in or out of the building, you would not have to bring them in through the front door?

MR MOTSAMAI: We used the front door.

CHAIRPERSON: You used the front door? Always?

MR MOTSAMAI: The front door was used to go up the stairs.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you were taking people, detainees, in or out of the building, would you have taken them out at the front door?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, they used the front door.

CHAIRPERSON: So, when you were taking people down who were bruised, swollen and bleeding, you would have taken them out at the front door, is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: These people were taken out of the building after four o'clock, when most of the people have gone out. If a person was really injured, he was taken after that hour.

CHAIRPERSON: So your sole security, if one can call it that, against people seeing it, was that you did it after four o'clock?

MR MOTSAMAI: Most of the things were done after four, yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am now proceeding Mr Chairman, to page 148, 14 which is the last incident, Mr Chairman.

MR MOTSAMAI: Which Bundle are you referring to, sir?

MR VISSER: Bundle A, page 148. It is the last incident for which you apply for amnesty, marked paragraph 14. Perhaps, Mr Motsamai, if you will do us all a favour can you just move your microphone a little bit away from the papers, it does affect it.

You say that you, Mamome, Mtyala, Lesale, Miningwa and Ramosoeu - may I assume that the Interpreters do have a copy of this - all right. So it is yourself, Mamome, Mtyala, Lesale, Miningwa and Ramosoeu, six of you, and you told the Committee that you were involved in an attempted murder of Oupa Makhubalo, the Chairperson of COSAS and he had been implicated in the murder of one of our informers, Kosi and then you said, we fired several shots at him, but missed.

That is what is at page 148. Now, your evidence was slightly different, but we will come to that. First let me ask you this. Whose informer was Gosi?

MR MOTSAMAI: He wasn't anybody's informer.

MR VISSER: Yes, you are not going to admit this easily, are you? How is it possible that there could be an informer without a handler? Can you explain that to us?

MR MOTSAMAI: What does that mean sir?

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I put it to you, you were Gosi's handler and Gosi was your personal informant.

MR MOTSAMAI: No, that is not so. He was killed accidentally.

MR VISSER: Oh, yes. Actually it wasn't so accidentally and I will tell you now why. He was your informant and what you did, Mr Motsamai and there will be evidence about this, is you went to his home with a Security Branch motor car, in full day light, to consult with him and he was killed.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is not true. His mother was working with my wife. They were nurses together, they were colleagues from school and I used to go there to visit the family or my wife visiting his mother.

MR VISSER: Did you ever go there with a government vehicle to that house where Gosi lived?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I used to go there with the government car.

MR VISSER: Would you say that members of the community would have known that car and would have known that you were a member of the Security Branch?

MR MOTSAMAI: They knew.

MR VISSER: After, well I don't want you to disclose any identities, I am not asking you that, please understand that, all I am asking you now is this - after the death of Gosi did you, Motsamai, have any informants whom you handled? Just yes or no.

MR MOTSAMAI: It is a no, but the way you put your question, the answer is yes, but the way you are asking it, it is as if Gosi was my informer.

MR VISSER: I have already put that to you and there will be evidence about that. I am now asking you whether apart from whether Gosi was or was not your informer, did you have informers whom you personally handled?

MR MOTSAMAI: Many.

MR VISSER: Yes. This is a bit difficult, Mr Chairman, I don't want to illicit the identity of informants, we know what the law says about that, so I am going to step off this and simply say to you there will be evidence that in fact you didn't, you couldn't obtain another informant because of what had happened to Gosi. That will be the evidence.

MR MOTSAMAI: My Lord, that is what they told you, because the files they are gone, now they have an opportunity to lie to you. Can I explain this Chairperson? I will explain how Gosi died.

MR VISSER: If you must, please do explain it.

MR MOTSAMAI: I want to show you that he was not my informer. MR VISSER: Please go ahead, Mr Motsamai.

MR MOTSAMAI: I am waiting for the Chairperson and the Committee to finish writing.

MR VISSER: The witness wishes to explain something, but he is not getting so far, Mr Chairman, he is waiting for you he says.

MR MOTSAMAI: The students of COSAS at Wulamasango School suspected that Gosi was my informer because I used to visit his home several times with a vehicle.

They called a meeting at Zinzele Hall. Now the students were gathering together from different schools, Lerekum, Mohemeke, Wulamasango, they were all gathered at the place.

It was their plan to get him to clearly get his story of being in my presence. That hall there was a dubbing machine. This was fixed inside the hall, I do not know where was it fixed. Was it at the plugs, but when there was a meeting at the hall, we would hear from our offices using headphones.

The Chairman of that day, according to what we heard through the headphones was Oupa Makhubalo. Gosi, the deceased was called to the front to explain what is it that I want with a vehicle at his home. He went and he explained that I am visiting his home to see his parents because I used to visit them.

Because the students did not understand what he was saying, they stood up and we could hear it from our earphones, they took chairs, throwing them at where he was standing. Oupa Makhubalo tried to stop them as we were listening through the earphones.

They were unstoppable. Mohapi stood up too, he tried to intervene, to talk to them.

MR VISSER: Which Mohapi was this?

MR MOTSAMAI: White Mohapi, My Lord. They were really unstoppable until he was in their hands. They assaulted him. He was a bodybuilder, he tried by all means to escape until he went outside and there was silence in the hall, but you could hear that something was happening outside.

The noise was outside. That is how this child died. It is not that he was an informer. The office kept quiet about this matter.

MR VISSER: Yes, I am certain Mr Motsamai. The point is you say he was not killed because he was an informer, but on your own evidence he was killed because at least he was suspected to be an informer and in fact it was the impression which the COSAS students had, that he was your informer, isn't that so?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is not the way you put it. They were thinking that he was my informer. You were instructed and you come to the TRC with a direct information that he was my informer. I am telling you he was not my informer. The students suspected. Don't really press that he was my informer, I am still maintaining he was not my informer. The students suspected that he was.

MR VISSER: Right, why did you go to Oupa Makhubalo's house on the occasion that he was shot at?

MR MOTSAMAI: I said Sergeant Mamome came running when we were in the office. It was at Monase's place and he said to us Lieutenant Shaw said the person we are looking for, is present at Monase's home and we should make it a point to shoot him.

MR VISSER: Were you not told to go and arrest him?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct. That was after they were informed that he killed Gosi.

MR VISSER: You just told us that you were told to make a point of shooting him, Mr Motsamai. That is not what you told this Committee. You told the Committee earlier that you were sent to arrest him and if he should try to escape, then to shoot him.

MR MOTSAMAI: Trying to escape and shooting is the same as what I have explained.

MR VISSER: Perhaps to you it is. You see ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What Counsel is asking you is not about trying to escape and shooting, what he is saying is the first version you gave was that your instructions were to go and arrest him and only if he tried to escape, to shoot. Whereas now you have just said the instructions you were given from Lieutenant Shaw was to go to the house and shoot him. Do you see the difference?

MR MOTSAMAI: That was the first instruction we got. Maybe I did not complete what I wanted to say.

MR VISSER: All right, will you tell us how many instructions did you get. First Mamome came in and he said we've got to go somewhere, and what did he say?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sergeant Mamome came in to inform us.

MR VISSER: What did he come to inform you, please Mr Motsamai can we move along please?

MR MOTSAMAI: To go and arrest this person.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Did Lieutenant Shaw give you any instructions?

MR MOTSAMAI: Lieutenant Shaw did not give us instructions. When we came back My Lord, to ensure that he had given instructions, when we arrived, he came to us and we have used our bullets. Some of us even used seven bullets. We were given bullets to fill the gap that we have used.

MR VISSER: I am not asking you about bullets Mr Motsamai. Please concentrate if you will. I am asking you whether Lieutenant Shaw gave you instructions and I have now understood you to say he didn't give instructions because you brought Makhubalo back with you and then you reported to him. But he didn't give instructions before you left, is that what you are telling us?

MR MOTSAMAI: The first instruction which came through Mr Mamome made us not to go to his office, we went out of the office running to the place where Makhubalo was. I am not against what you are saying.

MR VISSER: Yes. I just want to be fair to you and make certain that I understand your evidence. And I must therefore repeat this question. Is it your evidence that Lieutenant Shaw did not give you any instructions before you went out to go and arrest Oupa Makhubalo on that day?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know whether I will be repeating myself, but I am saying the instructions that we were given came through Sergeant Mamome.

MR VISSER: You see Mamome indeed confirms that you accompanied him to go and arrest Oupa Makhubalo. He will tell the Committee that what happened here was the moment you saw Oupa Makhubalo, you jumped out of the car, pulled out your firearm and started shooting at him. You Mr Motsamai.

MR MOTSAMAI: It is not like that. When a car stopped, he was driving and I was in the passenger seat. When the car stopped, Oupa will be the witness too. The gun went off quickly. He first took out his gun and he is the first to shoot.

MR VISSER: Which gun went off quickly Mr Motsamai, whatever that means?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, there might be some misunderstanding. The witness said something like he took out the firearm first, and it was interpreted as Makhubalo took out the firearm first.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right.

MR MEMANI: May that be cleared up.

ADV DE JAGER: I don't know the interpreters shake their heads as though that is not the true version that you are putting to us, I don't know.

MR MEMANI: Well, the word that he used was (indistinct) which would be he took out the firearm first and it is not clear there to me whether he is referring to Makhubalo or he is referring to the policemen, Mamome.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said Mamome.

INTERPRETER: The interpretation was that he, which means Mamome, took out the gun first.

MR VISSER: At all events, I will undertake not to hold that against Mr Motsamai, that version Mr Chairman. I am asking you this, which gun went off quickly, because those were the words you used.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is Sergeant Mamome's gun because he was sitting on the driver's side. He shot while he was still in the car and when he missed him, he opened the door and I also opened the door and I went to the other side. I did not take the direction Oupa Makhubalo took. Because I realised that he was going to jump over the fence.

MR VISSER: So it is Mamome's gun that went off quickly, is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you fire any shots?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I fired.

MR VISSER: Well, please tell me if I am wrong. I am putting it to you that you never told this Committee that you fired shots at Oupa Makhubalo.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, that is incorrect.

MR VISSER: I am referring to the evidence, the (indistinct) evidence Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: That is what I am referring to.

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I am listening but I am shocked. I was stopped several times that I should not be in a hurry, I should take my time.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no note of him having said that he fired shots, but then I have not got a complete note of the evidence.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, my Attorney's notes as well as my own notes and recollection show that he never mentioned that he fired. Everybody else fired, except him.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you could tell us where he said it?

MR MEMANI: No, Mr Chairman, (indistinct) my note also doesn't say that he shot.

CHAIRPERSON: But you told us a moment ago that what Mr Visser put to him, was not correct. That he did say he fired shots, now you say your note shows that he didn't. You mustn't take objection when you don't know what the point is Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: It was an error My Lord.

MR VISSER: Yes. You see Mr Motsamai, you will recall that when I commenced my cross-examination of you, I asked you whether you considered seriously the allegations which you were going to make when you filled out your application form. Do you remember that, and you told us that you did.

And now we hear from you in your evidence that everybody else shot at Mr Oupa Makhubalo, but you never shot at him, why is that? Such an important issue, how could you have forgotten that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Maybe I forgot it because I was interrupted several times, that I was told that I am too fast, I should be a bit slower. Maybe that is the reason that made me not to include that but towards the end, you will hear, you must have heard when I told you that we were all given bullets. It must have been in my mind that I mentioned it. I won't end up by saying I was given bullets, not having used my gun.

MR VISSER: Who interrupted you? You just made an allegation that somebody interrupted you as a result of which - can you just tell us what you are referring to? Who interrupted you?

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think he said maybe.

MR VISSER: Oh, maybe?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Any way you see this all fits together Mr Motsamai, doesn't it? Gosi is murdered, Oupa Makhubalo is suspected of being the murderer and he was in fact charged later, wasn't he for the murder of Gosi?

MR MOTSAMAI: He was charged with the murder and he was discharged.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes, I know, but the fact is he was charged. You thought in your own mind that Oupa Makhubalo is the man who killed my informer, Gosi. I am putting it to you.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is not how you put it My Lord. It is the way I put it. He was killed by a group of students. We were listening with the earphones. We were listening at two halls, Zinzele Hall and Paksnoba Hall, they had this listening equipment.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, please, I am going to interrupt you because it is not an answer to my question, really. I don't want to hear the whole history again, with all due respect.

Can I just put it to you you are the only one that fired on Oupa Makhubalo on that day. That will be the evidence. You are the only one that shot at him and you missed him every time.

MR MOTSAMAI: He will come and testify because when he was turning, he could see who was shooting. I was not the only one shooting, all of us shot.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right.

MR MOTSAMAI: You musn't just commit me to what I did not do.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it has taken longer than I thought I would. I have two further incidents which I've got to cover. White Mohapi and Jeje and then I will be through.

CHAIRPERSON: You can do those after the short adjournment.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

MR BRITZ: Mr Chairman, there was a slight misunderstanding about our reporting back. We couldn't get hold of him, the cellphone is off. What we will endeavour to do is keep you secretary informed as things progress and hopefully we will be able to be here this afternoon.

In the meantime, may I beg leave to hand up the affidavit that is in our possession. The top one is the original and then I will hand up the others as copies.

Mr Chairman, you will see this is an affidavit of Captain Koja. Now, I don't think it is necessary for me to read the whole affidavit into the record. I can shortly take you through the affidavit. You will see in paragraph 2, he says (NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION - FREE TRANSLATION)

"I was for the period 1983 up to approximately 1993 the caretaker of the singles quarters of the Police at Mamelodi. The single quarters was to house all black policemen stationed in the Pretoria surroundings".

And then paragraph 3, he says -

"Nelson Ngo was known to me personally as he approximately from 1987 up to the date of his arrest in approximately 1989, worked under my direct supervision at the Mamelodi police singles quarters".

Then he says that he will try and obtain as much documentation as possible, and that is what we are waiting for.

Paragraph 4 -

"Mr Ngo was never a member of the Security Branch in the Transvaal and while he worked under my supervision at the singles quarters, he was a member of Unit 19, the Reaction Unit, stationed Rosslyn, Pretoria.

Mr Ngo together with Sergeant Ramala, both from Unit 19, was transferred to Mamelodi barracks under service arrangements by the mentioned Unit Commander, whose name I cannot remember, because Unit 19 had quite an amount of members who stayed at the Mamelodi singles quarters and Mr Ngo had to see to their needs.

And then he says -

"Mr Ngo's duties included the daily inspection of the singles quarters and the bedding, and he had daily to take post to the Mamelodi police station to be posted. He had to report on duty to me on a daily basis during this time".

INTERPRETER: The speaker is going much too quickly. The interpreters can't keep up.

MR STANDER: "I was an AO during this period".

Mr Chairman, Captain Koja will be available to testify and hopefully we will have as much documentation as possible with him and we will get back to you as soon as possible when they arrive.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, so you an stand down till they have arrived.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Mr Chairman, if I may proceed in my attempt to complete the cross-examination. I am going to refer you to Bundle A, page 23.

ADV DE JAGER: There is something I would like to clear up before you proceed with the next one. Mr Motsamai, you said when you jumped out of the car, you didn't go the same direction that Mr Makhubalo ran because you realised he is going to jump over a fence. Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: So you didn't follow him actually?

MR MOTSAMAI: I proceeded through a different street.

ADV DE JAGER: So, you weren't running after him, you didn't pursue him? Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, I have got a difficulty understanding if you are not pursuing him and you are running a different direction, how did you shoot at him then?

MR MOTSAMAI: I shot him when he was at King Street. That is the direction which he was running to. Morakile came with a different direction. When he jumped the fence, that is when I started shooting.

ADV DE JAGER: So, you ran, perhaps you could tell us, did you run in the direction of King Street, as you say?

MR MOTSAMAI: From Calla Street to King Street.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, and then you continued running down King Street and did he then enter King Street after jumping the fence?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you only start shooting then after he entered King Street or did you also when getting out of the car, did you fire shots at that time?

MR MOTSAMAI: I didn't start shooting when I alighted from the car.

ADV DE JAGER: And at the time when you were in King Street, were you the only policeman in King Street or were the other members following you too?

MR MOTSAMAI: They were spread around and the time when I moved from Calla Street to King Street, I could hear gunshots on the other side. But when I entered King Street, Morakile was behind him.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, who is Morakile?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is Constable David Morakile.

ADV DE JAGER: But in paragraph 14 I don't see the name of Morakile?

MR MOTSAMAI: Where in paragraph 14, sir?

ADV DE JAGER: Well, I, Mamome, Mtyala, Lesale, Miningwa and Warrant Officer Ramosoeu were involved in this incident. You didn't mention Morakile there.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is why I said there are names which I didn't mention. But he was present.

ADV DE JAGER: It is the first time that you are mentioning him now.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he mentioned him earlier.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, then I have made a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: At the end of his evidence in chief.

ADV DE JAGER: I am sorry Mr Chairman, my note and Mr Visser specifically asked him were only the six of you involved and the names mentioned were Mamome, Mtyala, Lesale, Miningwa and Ramosoeu and myself.

CHAIRPERSON: At the end of his evidence in chief, he said I entered King Street just in front of him, that is Constable Morakile who was shooting in that direction.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: It was shortly before the adjournment.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I referred to another note, yes.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, yesterday it was put to Mr Motsamai that it would appear that the person who shot at Matthew Mzuzwana is one Ramolife and that was common cause. You will recall that Mr Motsamai testified that the Mzuzwana was shot by one Mogashani. It has now been brought to our attention that in fact Mogashani is the first name and Ramolife is the surname.

So there is no contradiction and I think the legal representatives of the other policemen accept that there is no contradiction in that regard.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, yes, nothing turns on the point any way, we know that he was shot. That really is, and we know that he was shot by a Riot policeman, so that really is, whatever he was called.

Perhaps this is the one question that I should ask you. When Mamome comes running into the office and he says to you we are going to arrest Oupa Makhubalo, I take it you knew or did he tell you, that it was for the murder of Gosi?

MR MOTSAMAI: He said that we knew that.

MR VISSER: Yes, didn't you tell him immediately that you were listening on the bugging device that was installed in the hall and you should not go and arrest Oupa Makhubalo because he was together with White Mohapi, the two people who tried to stop the people from assaulting Gosi?

MR MOTSAMAI: We knew that we were harassing him.

MR VISSER: He was the man who tried to protect Gosi according to your evidence.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, why would he have to see that, he didn't see what happened?

MR VISSER: He gave evidence to say that he heard over the earphones what was going on in the hall and he gave explicit evidence to say Oupa Makhubalo tried to keep the people off him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How would he know that his colleagues got some information. It may be from eyewitnesses. Should he possibly question that merely because he was listening to some device?

MR VISSER: All right, Mr Chairman, I have made the point, I leave it there. I want to refer you to Bundle A, page 23 and at the same time Bundle C, page 12.

And I want to ask you a few short questions which I am sure you will have no difficulty in comprehending and answering. Do you know Mr White Mohapi?

MR MOTSAMAI: Please be patient before I answer that question. I was looking at Bundle C, which page did you say I should refer to?

MR VISSER: I am sorry, you can turn to page 24 of Bundle A and page 12 of Bundle C. Bundle A, I am going to refer to page 24 specifically, it starts on page 23 Mr Chairman. It is the issue of White Mohapi, A on page 23 of Bundle A and I am going to ask questions from the bottom line of page 24.

Yes, when I refer to White Mohapi, you know exactly who I am referring to?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was there a time when yourself, Mr Mtyala and Mr Ngo sat in a motorcar where you received a radio message that White Mohapi had been kidnapped, do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: I don't remember it well.

MR VISSER: All right. Is it true that you went to an open field between Bloemspruit and Shannon where White Mohapi was taken out of a motor vehicle and beaten with crowbars and hammers?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I think this is based on what Ngo would have said and if that is the case, it will be recalled that Ngo said he was confusing names and when he was referring to Motsamai in this incident, he meant Mtyala.

MR VISSER: But how does that affect my question, Mr Chairman. I've got in right in front of me, the witness can react to that.

Were you present when White Mohapi was assaulted in a veld between Bloemspruit and Shannon with crowbars and hammers?

MR MOTSAMAI: I was not present. I don't know well. Maybe this man, Ngo, as I learnt or heard when he gave evidence, that there were people who had balaclavas. Maybe he thought that somebody amongst those people was myself who were assaulting that person.

MR VISSER: yes, but the bottom line is you know nothing about this incident? And you were not present, you didn't participate?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would say that. But before he went to the cell, I was present. When he was assaulted there, I was not there. Maybe Ngo made a mistake in identity.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, if I refer to Papie or Jeje, will you understand that I am referring to a person who was found dead and which corpse had a T-shirt of the UDF on? Are you able to identify the incident I am talking about now?

MR MOTSAMAI: I don't know about that incident of death, no because as I listened when Ngo was giving evidence, it seems as if he mixed names. My name and Mtyala's names were used as well.

MR VISSER: I see. So can we accept that to cut a long story short, that you were not party to any attack on the person in a veld, near a stream which I have just described to you? You were not part of such an attack?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Mr Motsamai, that was quite brief. Mr Motsamai, I want to put it to you that Mr Nicos was never a subject of investigation by the Security Branch for political activities and there was no file kept on him in the Security Branch.

MR MOTSAMAI: They have hidden information from - he had a file. That is the person whom they used to monitor. That is true. He had a file.

MR VISSER: In his cross-examination Mr Stander put to you and you agreed, that there were other businessmen who sympathised with the cause of the comrades and who gave them money, do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: I remember that when I said they used to request money for help to continue with the political activity. I remember that.

MR VISSER: Do you know of any such businessmen who were harassed, assaulted, whose houses were burnt, or whose motorcars were burnt?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is true.

MR VISSER: Did you participate in any of those activities?

MR MOTSAMAI: Your question is broad. If you could have asked me as to whether was it the community or ourselves or meaning the Security Branch it will be clear.

MR VISSER: Let me ask you this question. Are you able today to give this Committee the names of people whom you say were businessmen who supported the cause and who gave money to the comrades apart from Mr Nicos?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would explain it this way. There were businessmen inside Bloemfontein whom had many shops or one shop. If comrades heard - or maybe one comrade has died, the would go around the business centres looking for money and again to continue with their political activity.

MR VISSER: Okay, so that is what you are referring to. Just, Mr Motsamai, as a Security policeman did you use a portable tape recorder to tape when you spoke to your informers or to make notes of your investigations, etc?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you have that tape recorder with you when you went to Pretoria to see Mr Wagner?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is, I hear it for the first time, no.

MR VISSER: You didn't, you didn't make a tape recording of what happened there that day? I am just asking you?

MR MOTSAMAI: No.

MR VISSER: Were you at all influenced by any person when you made your application for amnesty, in any way, either to make the application or influenced on what to say in your application, by anybody at all?

MR MOTSAMAI: There was no person who influenced me what to do or not what to do with my application form.

MR VISSER: Let me then ask you this, did you complete the form completely on your own or did you have assistance of people to help you complete the form and your annexure?

MR MOTSAMAI: I filled it myself.

MR VISSER: Second last question, I understand that you left the South African Police Services on Monday, this week. Is that correct, last week?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Would you like to tell us why, you are a young man. What happened?

MR MOTSAMAI: Nothing happened.

MR VISSER: All right, I just want to put to you Mr Motsamai, that the people for whom I appear deny each and every allegation of your evidence which implicates them in any criminal or unlawful act. They will come and tell the Committee that you had been lying to the Committee in so far as you implicated any or all of them in your evidence.

MR MOTSAMAI: No, I am not lying what I said. It is what I remember. If those I forgot I would remember, I would make a new application in time to come.

They know those incidents, they were together with me. They know for themselves inside their hearts, they know very well. Even when they sleep and wake up and pray, they pray but I don't know what they are praying for. I don't know what they are praying for. Even when they go to church, I don't know for what purpose with those kind of issues in their hearts.

MR VISSER: Yes. Mr Chairman, I believe that I am now at the end. May I just please enquire from my Attorney whether he has anything else which I should cover?

Yes, Mr Chairman, my Attorney has just drawn my attention to his notes in regard to the evidence that Mr Motsamai was involved with White Mohapi, but I believe with respect, Mr Chairman, that you've got the evidence before you and I believe that the rest is a question for argument especially if we have the record before us, the official typed record, there may be less possibility for confusion or contradiction, so I am not going to ask any further questions and go back to that issue.

Thank you for the time you allowed me Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER: .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: I won't keep you Mr Motsamai, I just want to go back to this passage on the fifth floor of the building in Fountains Street. You described the sign or sticker or board, could you be more specific in that regard? For example was it similar to that sign at the end of the hall where it says exit, was it similar to that or how do you describe it?

Was it a piece of wood on which the words Violent Street

were written?

MR MOTSAMAI: It is a board. There are these kind of boards which were with crushed wood and there would be a smooth surface.

MR BRINK: And how was that board attached to the wall?

MR MOTSAMAI: It seems it had something which had hooks or glue, then it was attached to the wall.

MR BRINK: And were the words Violent Street printed or were they, when I say printed, similar to the printing that you see on the word exit at the back of the hall, or was it handwritten?

MR MOTSAMAI: They were printed with paint.

MR BRINK: With paint? Now it was put to you by Mr Visser that the evidence would be that these words Violent Street on this board, were to advertise a film.

MR VISSER: I am sorry Mr Chairman, I don't want to interrupt, but there is a slight difference here. We didn't say that they were advertising the film in the building, we were saying that it was an advertisement, it was a promotion things, sticker, I was under the impression it was a sticker, advertising the run of the film Violent Street.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you put it to him that it was a sticker Mr Visser.

MR BRINK: In any event, I accept I wasn't exactly accurate there, I accept that. But in any event was it the habit of the Security Branch to allow people to promote films in Bloemfontein or anywhere else?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, it is not like that.

MR BRINK: Yes, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: You left the police last Monday or whenever, a week ago. Is this sign still there, is it ...

MR MOTSAMAI: I don't think it is still there, because I left there many times. A long time ago, before I left, the Security Branch were in a smaller branch, which was working only in Bloemfontein. In other words it was - that Kompol building in Bloemfontein was the District office.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK: .

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases. Now, Mr Motsamai, in his application Mr Ngo mentions you as having been present when certain people, 40 - 45 were tortured at Botshabelo police station, do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: I remember that, sir.

MR MEMANI: And under cross-examination you were asked whether that is correct or not and your answer was it is incorrect.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR MEMANI: Now, why do you say it is incorrect?

MR MOTSAMAI: I say it is incorrect because on that day there were many people who were present there who were students and

matured people.

I believe he says I was there, many people who were responsible in assaulting or torturing those people, thinking that I was present amongst those people, but I was inside in Botshabelo.

We were working with others who were inside and we were interrogating them and then assaulting them.

MR MEMANI: Now, did you on that day participate in the assault of people with the use of sjamboks who were made to run naked in a circle?

MR MOTSAMAI: To those who were naked, I was not present. I was inside together with those who we were dealing with, interrogating them and assaulting those inside. And those are the ones, if it goes on, I would put my application for amnesty in that regard, so that I should be amnetised.

MR MEMANI: And you also said that you only fetched people from Botshabelo and you did not assault any people, do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: I remember that, sir.

MR MEMANI: If you assaulted, if you were present at Botshabelo and you assaulted people, then what you stated would not be entirely correct, isn't it?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so, because those whom we were talking about are those who were assaulted outside. Those I am talking about are those who were assaulted inside.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand that you have not applied for amnesty in respect of these people whom you assaulted inside Botshabelo?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct, I will put it later.

MR MEMANI: Now was there any occasion when you only picked up people from Botshabelo police station and took them to Bloemfontein?

MR MOTSAMAI: It is in some instances, many instances.

MR MEMANI: Now, you were also asked about earlier and you said that in that respect, Ngo isn't correct or you said he is lying.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Now, why do you say he is lying?

MR MOTSAMAI: There are some issues of torture and assault which I took part in many years. Some of them I don't remember them well. That is why I said he is lying. I was not present there.

It may happen that I was present. I believe that. Anytime I remember about all these acts, some of them would resurface to my mind, I would put my application for amnesty. It may be possible that I was present in that one, maybe I forgot. I will try to remind myself.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI: .

CHAIRPERSON: So rather than say I can't remember if I was there, you have told us I was not there, Ngo is lying. Is that the position?

MR MOTSAMAI: I was involved in many events, meaning I would say in the whole of the Free State. I would include Hertzogville and other places. Some of these acts are resurfacing in my mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Including where did you say in the whole of the Free State, including ...

MR MOTSAMAI: That is Hertzogville, Philippolis, Dewetsdorp, Boshoff and others I would remember as time goes on.

CHAIRPERSON: Are these ones that you have just mentioned Hertzogville, Philippolis, Dewetsdorp, Boshoff, what sort of acts were you involved in there?

MR MOTSAMAI: There were comrades we used to go and fetch, or at times we would find them in the cells, in those places. Then we would torture them, which includes assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Where would you torture them?

MR MOTSAMAI: In many cases in the cells.

CHAIRPERSON: So are you telling us now that there are in many cases where you assaulted and tortured comrades in the veld?

ADV DE JAGER: Cells.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought he said veld. In the cells?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: All over the Free State?

MR MOTSAMAI: Every time I would remember them, I would make an application for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you have mentioned five places here so far and we have no application for amnesty from you in respect of these.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are now saying, are you, that you went to these places and tortured or assaulted comrades, probably in the cells?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you serious in what you are saying that there are many assaults and tortures in different places in the Free State that you have not mentioned up to now and are not in your amnesty applications?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: You have a lawyer acting for you?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you told that you had to make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But you have chosen not to tell us about these other incidents?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, it is not like that. Those are the things which I remembered. It is not that I made a decision that I am not coming to tell you about them.

CHAIRPERSON: But here you have remembered these, you have told us where they happened, you have told us what you did there.

MR MOTSAMAI: Those are the places I am able to mention that we were, at those places which I went. Usually slowly but surely I would ask my Counsel that we should take time and then remind myself and then I would tell him.

CHAIRPERSON: But you've had a great deal of time Mr Motsamai. You've made two different applications.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact I think, and I can't put my hands on the papers at the moment, that very shortly after the meeting in Pretoria that we've been told about, you communicated with the Committee again.

MR MOTSAMAI: You mean after we left where?

CHAIRPERSON: The meeting where you filled in this affidavit with Mr Wagner, a few days later you were getting in touch with the TRC, weren't you?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct. Even Pilato is the person whom I contacted him, he would explain that I told him that there are many acts which I remember, I would keep on telling him.

Whilst he was going with me in the townships, I remembered one incident which happened (indistinct) Mr Stander. He knows about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions arising from what he has just said?

MR VISSER: I think you've listened for long enough to my voice Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, are you going to lead any further evidence in support of these applications?

MR MEMANI: No further evidence, My Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: Are you relieved because no further evidence will be led, or why are you clapping hands?

CHAIRPERSON: Now, there is the question of what we are going to do next? Has anybody got anything that will take the next half an hour or so, Mr Brink, do you wish to lead any evidence?

MR BRINK: No, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand from what Mr Du Plessis told us, that he hopes that by two o'clock he will be in a position to tell us whether his witnesses are here, whether he can lead evidence and it seems to me that we should rather adjourn until then than start any other witness in the present time. Do Counsel have any remarks to make in that regard?

MR VISSER: It doesn't seem as if we can avoid that Mr Chairman.

It is a terrible thing, but we will have to do nothing for a while.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until two o'clock. I will suggest Mr Stander that if Mr Du Plessis is not ready, we may call upon you and we might use some of this time to speak to some of your victims who are here to prepare them for the ordeal.

MR STANDER: I will do it sir, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn until two o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: ... apparently in Pretoria this time, and Mr Du Plessis' potential witness who is bringing these documents, apparently only left there at twelve o'clock, so he will not be available to give evidence here this afternoon, it will be, we hope, at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. We will proceed without him at the moment.

MR STANDER: I am ready to start now. The first witness I want to call is Mr Makhubalo, alias Oupa. Before doing this, I want to submit to you the amended sworn statement. I submitted sworn statements to you last night, but after going through these last night, my friend Mr Wagner showed me some typing errors which I corrected and with your permission I will now put three sworn statements before you, three Bundles.

At this stage some of these statements contained in the Bundles, I want to refer you to page 11, a statement of Mr Abel Shuane, Jeff Mabilo, Mr M.J. Jekila, Mr (indistinct) Samuel Makwena, Mrs Manchu - these statements have not been attested yet due to the fact that they haven't arrived. If we do not continue tomorrow, I hope to present these to you at a later stage.

I am now asking permission to submit these documents. Could I just ask you, I made ten copies but some of these copies had not been attested. I don't have any copies for myself.

Judge Ngoepe's is on the corner of his table, if I may have it please. I thank you.

OUPA MAKHUBALO: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr

Makhubalo, if you look at the Bundle in front of you, there are two of them, one is marked with a 1 and there is one marked with a 2. Have you got these in front of you?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: I would like to explain Mr Chairman. Bundle 1 is the one which I have submitted yesterday with some typing errors which have now been corrected.

I have done this because I discovered these mistakes too late and I take full responsibility for this. My clerk was responsible for these errors.

Mr Makhubalo, please look at Bundle 2, on page 3, that is your sworn statement?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Could you just continue by reading your affidavit into the record?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is so.

MR STANDER: Could you continue with this please?

MR MAKHUBALO: I, undersigned Sizane Joel Makhubalo, alias Oupa, do hereby make a statement and say I am an adult male herein represented by the firm (indistinct), 96 (indistinct), Bloemfontein.

I am a victim in the acts of both applicants namely Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai in their application for amnesty as described in the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 1995, Act number 34 of 1995.

I suffered grievous bodily injuries due to the acts of members of the Security Police in that I was tortured. The torturing was done to confess my activities in Mangawu's Youth Congress which was affiliated to the United Democratic Front.

And members of the Security Police that I can still remember took part in my torturing was Swanepoel, Tereblanche, Mamome, Erasmus, Tsoametsi, Motsamai, Ngo, Kopi and Miningwa.

MR STANDER: Would you turn the page to page 4 thereof please.

MR MAKHUBALO: There was also an attempt to murder me. The police officers that was involved in these incidents, was Constable Motsamai and Sergeant Mamome. Signed by S.J. Makhubalo.

MR STANDER: Mr Makhubalo, if we look at the logical sequence of events in which you were involved, I am talking about as things happened in the course of time, the chronological sequence, is it true that the attempted murder took place first?

MR MAKHUBALO: You are correct, My Lord.

MR STANDER: Can you remember more or less when this attempted murder took place?

MR MAKHUBALO: Even if I don't remember the day and the month, I remember the year very well.

MR STANDER: Can you give it to us, please?

MR MAKHUBALO: Early in 1986.

MR STANDER: What were you doing on that particular day before the shooting took place?

MR MAKHUBALO: I visited my friends who is Monapule Ntamo.

MR STANDER: I understand it was a very hot summer's day, is that right?

MR MAKHUBALO: It was so hot, I was even half naked, I pulled out my shirt on that day.

MR STANDER: Just tell us who sent you to buy something?

MR MAKHUBALO: My friend went to buy colddrink.

MR STANDER: What happened when he did not return?

MR MAKHUBALO: I tried to go and look what was delaying him so much.

MR STANDER: Do you mean that you left the premises, the plot of that particular house?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was at the gate because the tuck shop where he was going to buy, was just opposite the house.

MR STANDER: And when you got to the gate, which vehicles did you see in the road?

MR MAKHUBALO: I saw a Security Branch kombi.

MR STANDER: Did you recognise anyone inside the vehicle?

MR MAKHUBALO: I saw Mamome and Motsamai.

MR VISSER: I am sorry Mr Chairman, I heard him say Ngo, was I wrong?

CHAIRPERSON: I can't hear you.

MR VISSER: I thought I heard him say Ngo as well.

MR STANDER: When you recognised these two people in the vehicle, what did you decide to do then?

MR MAKHUBALO: Because there was no meeting we were supposed to go to, I did not see any reason to run away. I just stood still.

MR STANDER: And when you were standing there, what happened then?

MR MAKHUBALO: Mamome through a window, took out a gun and he started shooting.

MR STANDER: In whose direction did he shoot?

MR MAKHUBALO: He was shooting towards my direction.

MR STANDER: Did you see him pointing a gun in your direction just before a shot went off?

MR MAKHUBALO: I saw him, My Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: How far away were they?

MR MAKHUBALO: It would be a distance from that table across the floor.

CHAIRPERSON: 15 paces?

MR STANDER: As it pleases the Chairman. Were you hit, Mr Makhubalo?

MR MAKHUBALO: He missed me.

MR STANDER: Do you know why it is that he missed you?

MR MAKHUBALO: I do not know how did it come about that he missed me.

MR STANDER: What did you do then after this shot missed you?

MR MAKHUBALO: I ran away My Lord.

MR STANDER: Why?

MR MAKHUBALO: I thought that was the only way to secure my life.

MR STANDER: Where did you run to?

MR MAKHUBALO: I started jumping over the fences from Calla Street up to until King Street.

MR STANDER: Were any other shots fired while you were running away?

MR MAKHUBALO: There were gunshots sir, many.

MR STANDER: Could you see by whom the other shots that you heard, had been fired?

MR MAKHUBALO: At that time I did not have any time to look who was shooting.

MR STANDER: Why do you say this?

MR MAKHUBALO: My life was in danger, I wanted just one thing, to save my life and I was running away.

MR STANDER: Did you manage to escape completely?

MR MAKHUBALO: I survived the shooting, but they managed to get hold of me because I was now tired of running.

MR STANDER: Where were you then found?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was taken to their offices in Fountains Street.

MR STANDER: Before you were taken there, where did your pursuers capture you, was it in the street?

MR MAKHUBALO: Yes, it was at the street just after Mamome tripped me. Even today you can see I have a missing tooth. His boot kicked me on my mouth.

MR STANDER: Mr Makhubalo, am I correct in saying that you put your finger in your mouth to show that there was a tooth missing, one of your incisors from your upper jaw?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Do you say that due to the kick or the blow, you lost that tooth?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Who did you say, kicked you?

MR MAKHUBALO: Mamome.

MR STANDER: Were you still able to run away at that stage?

MR MAKHUBALO: They got hold of me.

MR STANDER: Did the other members of the Security police also appear on the scene where you were?

MR MAKHUBALO: They came to me, not to us.

MR STANDER: Was there another member of the Security Police that you could identify?

MR MAKHUBALO: When I got into their car, yes, there is someone I also identified.

MR STANDER: Can you tell us who it was?

MR MAKHUBALO: It is Motsamai.

CHAIRPERSON: How many of them were there, members of the Security Police?

MR MAKHUBALO: Because I was already hurt, I could not count how many were they when I got into the car.

MR STANDER: You were then taken to the Security Branch offices?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Mr Makhubalo, were you at all involved in the murder of a so-called informer?

MR MAKHUBALO: No, My Lord.

MR STANDER: Did you know this man, I believe he was called Gosi?

MR MAKHUBALO: Yes, I know that name.

MR STANDER: Were you present at all in the hall on the day he was murdered?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was the Chairperson.

MR STANDER: You were Chairman of which organisation?

MR MAKHUBALO: I am saying I was the Chairperson of that day's meeting.

MR STANDER: Could you tell us briefly the background to the purpose of this meeting?

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, please forgive me, I want to reply to this answer in Xhosa. What was happening on that day, it was after the burning of COSAS. Now we were preparing that as students we should have our organisation.

MR STANDER: This Gosi, was he accused of being an informer?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: And what happened during this meeting?

MR MAKHUBALO: We tried as leaders to look for a solution to this.

MR STANDER: And when the body of the meeting did not believe him, what then?

MR MAKHUBALO: We were now thrown with chairs.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should be careful about not leading him too much.

MR STANDER: I will take care not to do this, Mr Chairman. MR MAKHUBALO: We tried to hide and stop.

MR STANDER: Do you mean when you say you tried to stop, did you mean you tried to calm down the meeting?

MR MAKHUBALO: We were trying to stop the chairs that were hitting us.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You did not succeed in stopping the assault on him and he was eventually killed that day?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Is it also true that you were later charged with the attempted murder on this person?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct, I was charged.

MR STANDER: But you were found not guilty and discharged?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: I am going to move over now to the incident when you were arrested, you and a group of some 20 persons by die South African Defence Force on the border between South Africa and Lesotho.

How did it happen that you got arrested on the border?

MR MAKHUBALO: We wanted to skip the country, we wanted to affiliate to Umkhonto We Sizwe.

MR STANDER: Why did you want to leave the country, for any other reason than joining MK?

MR MAKHUBALO: We were tired of the harassment of the boers and the Security Branch police.

MR STANDER: What happened when you got arrested on the border?

MR MAKHUBALO: We spent a night at that place where they arrested us.

MR STANDER: Was this in the veld?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: And after spending the night in the veld, where did you go then?

MR MAKHUBALO: They took us to their camps.

MR STANDER: After you got to the Security Police at Ladybrand, what happened to you then?

MR MAKHUBALO: Some of the policemen were present there and they arrested us. They already knew that I was Oupa Makhubalo and this person was Oliphant, they knew us by names.

MR STANDER: Tell me, did they bring you to Bloemfontein then?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Were there any women present in this group?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: What happened when you got to the Security Branch offices in Bloemfontein?

MR MAKHUBALO: 90 percent of the Security officials were present.

CHAIRPERSON: What time did you get there?

MR MAKHUBALO: I won't be in a position to tell the time, but it was round about ten, if not eleven o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: In the morning or the night?

MR MAKHUBALO: In the morning.

MR STANDER: When you arrived there as a group, you said about 90 percent of the Security policemen were present?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is what I am saying.

JUDGE NGOEPE: When you say 90 percent, you are just, do you want to tell us that there were many of them? Is that what you want to say?

MR MAKHUBALO: I am saying many of the Security officers were there.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Just say many, don't say 90 percent, because you don't know what 100 percent is. You don't know how many of them ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well, have you been there before?

MR MAKHUBALO: A lot.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know how many were stationed there?

MR MAKHUBALO: Because I was arrested for a long time, I used to go there and I knew a lot of them.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Is it true that you didn't know all the Security policemen?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: When you got there, what happened to you then?

MR MAKHUBALO: We were put in their office and the led us to the kitchen.

MR STANDER: When you say they took you to the kitchen, who was taken to the kitchen?

MR MAKHUBALO: All of us, we were taken to the kitchen.

MR STANDER: What happened ... (intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Can you tell us which floor?

MR MAKHUBALO: Because I was not working there, I won't be precise which floor it was.

MR STANDER: What happened to you in the kitchen?

MR MAKHUBALO: Myself and China were taken.

MR STANDER: Do you know why you and China were taken away?

MR MAKHUBALO: I know.

MR STANDER: Just for the record, who is China? What is his real name?

MR MAKHUBALO: It is Teko Shadrack Oliphant.

MR STANDER: Do you know why you two were singled out from this group?

MR MAKHUBALO: Yes, I know.

MR STANDER: Can you tell us the reason?

MR MAKHUBALO: We were the leaders of the 19 people.

MR STANDER: Mr Makhubalo, where did you get taken to?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was taken to Mamome's office. I do not know what happened to China.

MR STANDER: When to you got to the office of Mr Mamome, what happened there?

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, they tied my hands like this. Do you want me to demonstrate. I will come to the fore.

MR STANDER: If I may just explain for the record. Mr Makhubalo demonstrated by sitting on a chair with his hands dangling backwards over the backrest.

CHAIRPERSON: His hands were following the line of the back of the chair, going down to the legs of the chair.

MR STANDER: This true yes, it is as the Chairman explained it. Were your hands handcuffed behind the chair?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Who took part in this action of tying you to the chair with your hands behind the backrest?

MR MAKHUBALO: It is Mamome and Motsamai.

MR STANDER: What did Mr Mamome do?

MR MAKHUBALO: After tying me, he came with a tyre tube.

MR STANDER: Just tell us before we get there, what was Mr Motsamai's contribution to this?

MR MAKHUBALO: He was pressing my legs at the time when this guy was suffocating me.

MR STANDER: With this piece of the tubing, can you show us what he did with this inner tube?

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, this tube was like this and they would put it across my face and he would stand behind me and he would pull it, so that I suffocate.

MR STANDER: The witness is demonstrating by taking a sheet of paper, holding it against his face and showed how his head was pulled back, how the tube was gathered behind his head. Who did this, what you have just demonstrated?

MR MAKHUBALO: It is Mamome who was standing behind me, pulling this rubber.

MR STANDER: Tell me, why did Mamome do this to you?

MR MAKHUBALO: He wanted me to be an informer.

MR STANDER: Were you prepared to become an informer?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was not prepared then and I am not prepared now, I will never, ever be prepared.

MR STANDER: How many times did he try to suffocate you like this?

MR MAKHUBALO: Two to three times.

MR STANDER: These manacles that were put around your hands, did they leave marks on your hands?

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, I was trying to demonstrate the torture of that day. Even today I still have those marks.

MR STANDER: Could you demonstrate to us please.

CHAIRPERSON: He demonstrated scars on his arms, just above the wrist, on the outer side of his arms.

MR STANDER: Mr Makhubalo, you showed us the scars on both of your arms on the outside. What caused these marks?

MR MAKHUBALO: Can you please explain your question thoroughly?

MR STANDER: The marks on your arms, what caused these marks?

MR MAKHUBALO: I do not know what to say Chairperson, because every time I look at my hands, I just feel like crying.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you have on your arms that caused those marks?

MR MAKHUBALO: The handcuffs.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman. After you were suffocated, you said it was between two and three times, what happened then?

MR MAKHUBALO: They took me to Tereblanche's office.

MR STANDER: What happened there?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was put on a chair and papers were put on the table.

MR STANDER: Tell us was Mr Tereblanche's office on the same floor as that of Mr Mamome?

MR MAKHUBALO: No.

MR STANDER: What documents were placed in front of you?

MR MAKHUBALO: These were the papers so that I could put down my statement about our skipping.

MR STANDER: Were you prepared to make a statement?

MR MAKHUBALO: No.

MR STANDER: What happened when you were not prepared to make a statement?

MR MAKHUBALO: He hit me with a fist.

MR STANDER: Where did he hit you with the fist?

MR MAKHUBALO: He wanted to hit me right in the middle of the face, he ducked, he hit me on the cheek.

MR STANDER: Just for the record the witness indicated by putting his hand on his face, that he had been hit from the front, he turned his head. He showed that he was hit on the left side of the face. What happened ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before that, who hit you?

MR MAKHUBALO: It is Tereblanche.

MR STANDER: After you had been hit in the face, what happened then?

MR MAKHUBALO: I also returned his blow with my blow.

MR STANDER: Had the handcuffs been taken off at that stage?

MR MAKHUBALO: When I got into his office, I was not cuffed.

MR STANDER: When you tried to hit back, what happened then?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with respect, he said he hit back, he didn't try to hit back. He returned the blow with a blow Mr Chairman.

MR STANDER: This is true, I will accept it. What happened then?

MR MAKHUBALO: There was another guy called Tsoametsi in that office where I was.

CHAIRPERSON: Called who?

MR MAKHUBALO: He is called Tsoametsi.

MR STANDER: What did you want to tell us about the presence of Mr Tsoametsi?

MR MAKHUBALO: Because his boss was beaten with a fist, he did not accept this.

MR STANDER: Because what?

MR MAKHUBALO: I am saying because his boss could not be beaten by a kaffir, then turmoil started.

MR STANDER: When you say that a fight broke out, can you tell us in more detail who all took part in this fight?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Stander, I think you rush a little bit too much ahead with the witness. I think he should tell us what happened. He hasn't as yet told us about the further assaults. You lead him a little bit too much.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I am trying to get through this as quickly as possible. Instead of leaving the witness to give his own account, I try to give it as brief as possible. I am aware that it may be leading.

If I am prejudicing anybody, that is not my intention, but I will do what the Chairman tells me to.

When this exchange of blows happened, what happened then?

JUDGE NGOEPE: You have told us that Tsoametsi did not accept the fact that his boss be beaten by a kaffir, and what happened?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Who by?

MR MAKHUBALO: It is Tereblanche and Tsoametsi.

MR STANDER: Were there other persons who joined in later?

MR MAKHUBALO: Yes, a lot of them. Can I please quickly explain what happened there. It is Swanepoel, Mamome, Erasmus and Miningwa.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry Swanepoel? Could you kindly repeat the names a bit slower so that I could write them down.

MR MAKHUBALO: It is Swanepoel, Mamome, Erasmus and Motsamai, Ngo, Kopi and Miningwa.

MR STANDER: Can you tell us today what each of them did to you separately?

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, it is going to be difficult to remember specifically each individual's part. I remember that Tereblanche used a cricket bat to hit me over the side.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did, who used a cricket bat?

MR MAKHUBALO: Tereblanche.

MR STANDER: For the record the witness indicated he had been hit on the right side of the hear, just above the ear. How long did this torture carry on?

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, we went into that room at about ten to eleven. Myself and China left that room at about eleven at night.

CHAIRPERSON: Ten to eleven in the morning or at night?

MR MAKHUBALO: We got into that building in the morning, we went out at eleven at night.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were you when all this fighting and assault took place?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was in Mr Tereblanche's office. Can I please explain something before I forget? At that time when these men attacked me, they stole our R1 500-00.

MR STANDER: Could you tell us what you mean by that?

MR MAKHUBALO: I am saying at the time of the assault, because they were doing everything possible on me, my money to the value of R1 500-00 disappeared.

MR STANDER: Where did this money come from.

MR MAKHUBALO: China gave me that money.

MR STANDER: What was the purpose of this money?

MR MAKHUBALO: Because we were on our journey, 19 in number, we were supposed to have food to eat. Now we were going to use this money for that reason.

MR STANDER: Do you mean for the period you were going to stay at Lesotho?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Okay. When you left, when you were taken out of the building that evening, did you move down the passage?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Did you see anything against the walls?

MR MAKHUBALO: There were blood spills on the wall.

MR STANDER: Can you tell us where that came from?

MR MAKHUBALO: I think these were the blood stains of my comrades because we could hear their screaming.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken that evening after you left the Security Branch offices?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was taken to Heidedal police station to be locked up and China was taken to Parkroad police station.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you say the police station you were taken to again, please.

MR MAKHUBALO: I was taken to Heidedal police station.

MR STANDER: Would you tell us where China was taken to?

MR MAKHUBALO: China was taken to Parkroad police station.

MR STANDER: What was your physical condition when you were taken to the police station?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was bleeding, I was swollen from head, I do not want to mention the ribs. My clothes were wet in blood and they gave me another clothes.

MR STANDER: Did you get any medical treatment?

MR MAKHUBALO: I spent three weeks there in that condition.

MR STANDER: Were you taken back to the Security police offices the next day?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Who took you, can you remember?

MR MAKHUBALO: I do not remember very well, but I know one of them was Motsamai.

MR STANDER: What happened to you the next day when you were taken to the Security police offices?

MR MAKHUBALO: They started interrogating me.

MR STANDER: Were you at all assaulted during that day?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was assaulted heavily.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken that evening?

ADV DE JAGER: By whom was these assaults carried out?

MR MAKHUBALO: Swanepoel and Tereblanche were taking turns every day.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken that evening?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was taken back to Heidedal police station.

ADV DE JAGER: You said Swanepoel and Tereblanche were taking turns every day. Where did this assault take place, in whose office, could you perhaps tell us?

MR MAKHUBALO: These were taking place at their offices.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, at Tereblanche's office or Swanepoel's office or were they together in the office or don't you know. You only know it was the police station, you don't know whose office?

MR MAKHUBALO: I think each one of them had an office, that is Tereblanche and Swanepoel.

MR STANDER: In how many offices were you assaulted and tortured that next day?

MR MAKHUBALO: In one office.

MR STANDER: Did this torture take place for the whole day?

MR MAKHUBALO: When we went out of there, it was very dark.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken next?

MR MAKHUBALO: Heidedal police station.

MR STANDER: What happened on the third day?

MR MAKHUBALO: As usual, we left in the morning to Fountains, the same routine.

MR STANDER: What was your physical condition on the third day?

MR MAKHUBALO: I could not speak, I could not eat.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, it has been brought to my attention that the interpreter said that the police station to which the witness had been taken, he mentioned Three Ways and the interpreter said he had been kept there for three weeks. Maybe we can just clear up that aspect. Unfortunately I did not listen to the interpreter, so I didn't quite hear what they said.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, no, with respect, what my note if you are interested in it is, he was asked whether he received medical attention and he said I spent three weeks there in that condition. That is where the three weeks came in and that was the only place where it came in.

MR STANDER: I leave it there Mr Chairman. What was your condition on the third day, I didn't hear your answer?

CHAIRPERSON: He couldn't eat or speak.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Where were you kept in detention after this?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was taken again back to Heidedal police station.

MR STANDER: Did you receive any medical treatment?

MR MAKHUBALO: I believe on the fourth day at about eleven at night, I was taken to National Hospital and I met a particular Doctor, I want you to underline that.

I do not know, I do not want to remember the name. When I arrived there that Doctor said to me man, this man has nothing. He is just running away from interrogation. He did not even touch me. He gave me Panado's and I went back to the police station.

MR STANDER: Mr Makhubalo, were you later charged?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: What happened about this charge?

MR MAKHUBALO: I won the two charges.

MR STANDER: When you are talking about two charges, which ones were these?

MR MAKHUBALO: I was charged with terrorism and murder.

MR STANDER: Of murder on whom were you charged?

MR MAKHUBALO: Gosi's murder.

MR STANDER: Are you still suffering any consequences from the assaults on you?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Can you tell the Committee about these?

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, my right ear had an operation because of the bat I was hit with. I cannot hear properly with this ear. If it is cold, it is only problems.

MR STANDER: No more questions to this witness, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER: .

CHAIRPERSON: Who is going to cross-examine first?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Chairman, before they cross-examine, can we try to more about you? Were you the Chairman of MYCO? Mangawu Youth Congress or I am not sure what it was called?

MR MAKHUBALO: Yes, I was the President of Mangawu Youth Congress.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Would you say that you were involved in student politics?

MR MAKHUBALO: At the time when I was a student, I was fully participating in COSAS.

JUDGE NGOEPE: We, from the evidence we've heard from other cases, we came to understand COSAS as having been a student body, Congress of South African Students, as having been an organisation which was working or an organisation through which students were waging a political struggle. Am I right?

MR MAKHUBALO: You are right.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Are there any other political activities in which you were involved other than through COSAS and MYCO? For example UDF or ANC directly?

MR MAKHUBALO: MYCO was an affiliate of UDF. Can I carry on sir?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR MAKHUBALO: I was also a Trade Unionist.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you want to add anything? Is that

(indistinct) I am finished, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if we are finding out about you at the moment, let's find something else out. How old are you now?

MR MAKHUBALO: I am 31.

CHAIRPERSON: So the time you are talking about, you would probably have been 20?

MR MAKHUBALO: Let it be so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I assume at that time you were a student? When you were a member of MYCO and also involved with COSAS.

MR MAKHUBALO: We have to put other things into perspective here. I became the President of MYCO after leaving school.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani? Could that other speaker be moved up a bit please, so that Mr Memani could get his -that's enough, that's enough.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases. Mr Makhubalo, did you have any personal problems with Mr Motsamai?

MR MAKHUBALO: No.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that whatever assault that he may have carried out on you, he carried out because of your political activities which were aimed at overthrowing the National Party government?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And if there was any hostility between yourselves, it was as a result of the fact that he was a member of the Security Branch and you were a political activist?

MR MAKHUBALO: Can you please repeat your question. The interpreter is troubling me.

MR MEMANI: I was saying that if there was any hostility between yourself and Mr Motsamai, it was because of the fact that you were a political activist and he was a member of the Security Branch?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that the Security Branch generally attacked activists and harassed them in this area?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Is it so that you did not have any personal problems with Mr Ngo?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And that you also encountered him as a result of your activities as a political activist and him as a member of the Security Branch?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Is it also correct that during the period 1985, around 1985 onwards, Ngo was generally associated with members of the Security Branch in this area?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: He was seen on many occasions together with members of the Security Branch and was known as such?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was he known as? You asked if he was known as such?

MR MEMANI: Known as a member of the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Or was he known as that or was he known as one of their informers?

MR MAKHUBALO: I am saying I knew him as one of the Securities.

MR MEMANI: And, on the occasion when you were arrested after you attempted to skip the border, we have been told by Ngo and Motsamai, that they participated in your assault while you were on the fifth floor.

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And that they did not participate in the assault that took place in the offices they refer to as the Special Investigative Unit?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the office that - Mr Tereblanche's office, was that an office of the Investigative Unit?

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, that is according to Ngo and Motsamai. I do not know anything about that, I have never worked at Fountain.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they in Tereblanche's office?

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, I said Motsamai and Mamome took me to Mamome's office if I remember well, and I said I was with Tsoametsi.

CHAIRPERSON: Sir, as I understood your evidence, you said that after the fight broke out in Tereblanche's office, a lot of other people joined in. And you gave us the names of them. Do you remember that?

MR MAKHUBALO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And was that in Tereblanche's office?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you said Motsamai and Ngo participated.

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, I am saying they took part - Motsamai and Ngo, in assaulting me.

CHAIRPERSON: In Tereblanche's office?

MR MAKHUBALO: Chairperson, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you have just told Mr Memani you agreed it was correct that they didn't take part in the assault in the Investigative Unit's offices? That is what he told you, isn't it Mr Memani?

MR MEMANI: I think he was agreeing to having heard the evidence, My Lord.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, if I understand correctly, I don't really know the offices because I didn't work there. I was in an office and he was assaulted there. That is the impression I gained. He did not say specifically it was in the office of any particular person or Tereblanche.

CHAIRPERSON: He did.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What he may not know is whether those offices were the offices of the Special Task or whatever. He may not know those sort of classifications, but I think he mentioned that ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He said clearly after being suffocated, they took me Tereblanche's office. I was put on a chair and paper was put on the table.

MR STANDER: I am sorry, that is indeed correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And he also agreed that it was not on the same floor as Mamome's.

MR STANDER: It is indeed correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: And you heard Ngo and Motsamai say that they only participated in the assault on the fifth floor, and they were not present when you were assaulted on the fourth floor.

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: They later saw you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, I think that could lead to confusion. You are now asking him whether he heard that Ngo and Motsamai said they were not present and he said it is correct.

But I don't know whether he is agreeing that they in fact were not present, he agrees with that they gave that evidence, but was it in fact - does he agree that they were present?

MR MEMANI: I am getting to the point. Mr Makhubalo, it was not put to these people when they testified, that you are going to say that they participated in your assault on the fourth floor.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I must also mention that in fairness the witness said he did not know which floor it was. That is true that the Special Investigative Unit was on the fourth floor, but the field workers were on the fifth floor, but I understood that the witness said he didn't know exactly which floor it was, he had been taken to various offices.

MR MEMANI: It was not put to these applicants when they testified that you would say that they were present in the office where you were beaten up with a bat.

MR STANDER: No, Mr Chairman, this is not this at all. I asked Mr Ngo during his interrogation, I asked him specifically had he been hit with any objects including a cricket bat. I specifically asked him that.

MR MEMANI: But what was not put was who was present when he was assaulted like that.

MR STANDER: He admitted it. Mr Ngo admitted this when I asked him.

CHAIRPERSON: My note of Mr Ngo's evidence when he was questioned by Mr Stander who said to him that Joe Makhubalo, Oupa, is here and he agreed. And he said they were regarded as senior people, we were instructed to assault them more than the others. They were taken to the Special Investigative Unit where we continued with the assaults. He was then asked did you use a cricket bat and he said we used many things, sjamboks, planks, anything we could use. Hit their heads against the wall, hit their heads, kicked them, chopped them. So it was put to him, and he agreed that he was in that, took part in the assaults in the Special Investigation Unit's offices.

MR MEMANI: I will leave the matter there, but I can say it is not clear whether he was agreeing that he was at the offices of the Special Investigative Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: He said so. I have read to you what he said. He said - oh, you say this witness hasn't? Isn't it clear they were. Mr Ngo said they were taken to the Special Investigative Unit where we continued with the assaults. Where we continued with the assaults.

MR MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases. Now, is so far as Mr Motsamai is concerned, it was not put that he would have been present on an occasion where you were beaten up by Tereblanche.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I didn't put it to Mr Motsamai that he had been present in the office when the witness was assaulted by Mr Tereblanche, but you will remember that Mr Motsamai admitted that Mr Makhubalo had been assaulted several times in his presence. I didn't find it necessary to mention each and every office. The evidence says that he was attacked and assaulted at various occasions, but we are limiting ourselves to two events, so I object to this statement.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Perhaps what was not specifically put, could very well be that he, Motsamai, did in fact personally also take part in the assault of the witness in Tereblanche's office.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, this is true. But what I said to Mr Motsamai was that he had been attacked on various occasions and it wasn't necessary for me to specifically mention each event because there had been several such events.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Don't you think where you were in possession of the evidence that not only was he present but he did in fact take part in the actual assault, don't you think that warranted to be put to the witness if you did have that information? Is it enough just to say I was present?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I think this is an aspect we can leave for argument, I don't want to get involved in an argument. It is unfair to make the statement that I should have put it regarding that event.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Stander, your clients - are they opposing the application for amnesty?

MR STANDER: Not at all, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: I don't know even if you he to put anything to them or you need not even to give any evidence.

MR STANDER: That was my feeling as well, but I felt for the sake of truth that I wanted to put all the facts in front of the Commission and for this reason I did it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Wait a minute, but this could be important, because if your witness tells us that Motsamai also took part in the assault in Tereblanche's office, that could very well mean that Motsamai did not make a full disclosure and that is why Mr Memani is troubled by the fact that it was not put to Motsamai that he did more than what he told us, it wasn't put to him that he actually took part in the assault in Tereblanche's office. He did tell us about the assault which took place in Mamome's office.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, with all respect to Judge Ngoepe, it is not my task to illicit so much evidence, all I am trying to say is the disadvantaged people are not opposing the applicant's applications. I didn't find it necessary to mention each specific incident in which Mr Motsamai was involved in the form of a statement.

I cannot take this aspect any further than this.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I see no problem why Mr Memani shouldn’t put the question that he wanted to put to the witness. He wanted to put to the witness that it was never put to Motsamai that Motsamai assaulted the witness of Tereblanche.

That to me is a valid question, because it was in fact not put to Mr Motsamai, for whatever reason. I don't think you can prevent Mr Memani from asking that question.

MR STANDER: As the Chairman pleases.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, while we had been sidetracked now, may we ask some guidance perhaps. It seems to us Mr Chairman, that we are now running into 17 civil trials here. No more and no less, basically trials for compensation with 17 witnesses that are going to come and give evidence. All of whom will tell you that they are not opposing the application.

Some of who will contradict the applicants in a matter, some of whom will implicate some of my clients, inter alia. I am not certain and that is why I say I would like to ask some guidance Mr Chairman, because we find ourselves sitting on two chairs here, we don't act for the government, we are not here to protect the government against claims which are now being established here.

We don't see how this fits in really in the procedure which is being envisaged in an amnesty application, clearly a victim is entitled to come and tell you his story. There is clear provision for that. I think the point about that would be Mr Chairman, to place you in a better position to make a recommendation as to whether A, B or C should be viewed as a victim for purposes of compensation.

But my question is this, and this is what I would like some guidance on because I would like to give feedback to Pretoria about this Mr Chairman, where we discuss our position in the situation, is it really intended that we should have 17 trials here so to speak? We have a serious

problem, I wouldn't like to get involved in this, unless I have to.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Visser, the Act says that they have to be notified of their right to be present at the hearing and to testify, adduce evidence and submit. And they are adducing evidence. The Act gives them the right to do that. We have to notify them, notify them of where the hearing is going to be so that they can come and to that.

The question that has arisen now is whether they should also if they are not opposing the application, follow the normal procedures and put their cases to the applicant, but I don't see how you can now say they can't adduce evidence, their own evidence.

MR VISSER: No, no, Mr Chairman, I believe with respect, that I have been misunderstood. I specifically referred to the provisions of the Act, and that is Section 30 if I remember correctly, it is quite clear they have a right to be here, they have a right to be informed and they have a right to say what they want to say. I am not arguing about that.

But what is happening here today seems to me to be something different. It is going beyond merely coming to tell you that I am a victim and this is the way in which I became a victim and these are the people who attacked me and that is how I became a victim.

It seems to me Mr Chairman, that we are dealing here literally with a civil claim, so it seems.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, you know, it troubled not only you but some of us, many of us, I can assure you, but you see the only problem is that for example some of your clients it would appear from the questions that you put to Motsamai and Ngo, it appear that some of your clients if not all of them, denied that they assaulted, they took part in the assault.

In other words they are saying the applicants are lying. Now, you have the victims who are sitting in here who would have been present and who want to come and say no, Mr Visser's clients are not telling the truth. They were there.

And what should we do with that, you see it is going to be very difficult for us to say for example to prevent those victims from coming to confirm that let's say Ramosoeu was there and so on, and then in the end, we disbelieve and applicant and say well, Motsamai you were lying when you said Ramosoeu was not there, when in fact there were people here in the audience who could have come forward and confirmed that Ramosoeu was there. That is just the problem.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, if I may give you my personal view. I heard my learned friend say that we are dealing with civil actions, but this is not the purpose of the evidence we are hearing here today. I don't even, we have to refer to the Act.

These assaults have already lapsed. He was aware of the people, he could have brought civil actions at that stage. The Police Act at that stage placed a certain limitation on this. I don't think we are dealing with any civil actions, I don't think that is the case at all.

I think we are dealing with people who want to come and say what happened and it is on that understanding that I put this evidence before you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, I think we understand that you didn't really mean - you have been misunderstood.

MR VISSER: Thank you for at least appreciating that Mr Chairman, I am not here to be obstructive, I am here to be of assistance, and I just want to know how best I can be of assistance Mr Chairman, that is why I asked for the guidance, but I understand what Judge Ngoepe has said and what he has said, makes perfectly good sense to me.

As far as we are concerned, Mr Chairman, we will make our contribution but we will obviously be restricted to only in so far as one of these victims, would implicate one of my people. The moment it goes beyond that or stops before that, I will obviously not be entitled to cross-examine or ask questions from the witness. So it seems to me.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, what is still important and this is what I maybe misunderstood, is that in each event about which the applicants testified, that I had to put the contrary point of view, I have to put this, when I started with my cross-examination of Mr Motsamai I wanted to do it in detail.

The matter was discussed and guidelines were laid down saying that I had to lay down the basic principles in the form of general statements. But now if it is expected of me to have made statements in cases where my applicants, my clients differed from the applicants, then I prejudiced my clients because I had not done so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you haven't prejudiced your clients, because they weren't seeking any relief, are they? They are not opposing the application?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, that is correct, but the problem is that if we have to refer to each of these pieces of evidence, then I personally am being put in a bad light. I agree that we are not here to claim any compensation, but then it shouldn't have been stated to me like that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think you are generalising, we are dealing with a particular point here. Your clients' interest is to tell us, to tell us about the assault on them and by whom.

I think they want to tell us.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, that is exactly what we are doing.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't think you have ever been asked to compromise on those two aspects, as to who assaulted you, were you assaulted you and who assaulted you. What else would they come to testify here about if not to come and tell us they were assaulted and assaulted by such and such a person.

What else would they be telling us about?

MR STANDER: That is correct, Mr Chairman but the problem I have is that statements are being made that whilst such and such a person was testifying, such and such a person had not made this statement. Fingers are being pointed at me indicating that I haven't done my work properly, and this is not the case at all.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think it is a fair, it is the same type of question which was asked in respect of Mr Memani's client this morning and he said well this is going to touch on my client's privilege and the like and we told him this is just a perfectly normal question to be asked.

A client, your client may have an explanation as to that, but the point on which you don't want Mr Memani to ask these questions, is a very important one, Mr Stander.

It is specifically in respect of these very two things. He is not asking him why was it not put to my client that the assault took place on a Wednesday or a Tuesday, why was it not put to my client that it was a rainy day. It is on a very particular and specific and very important point in my view.

It is on the point who assaulted you and Mr Memani is saying to your client that if Mr Motsamai did assault you in Tereblanche's office as well, why was it not put to him that he did so and I don't see what problems you have about that?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I am hearing what you are saying. What I am trying to say at no stage it was denied that my client had been assaulted. I put it in very broad terms.

He had been assaulted there and I think my friend has it wrong when he says why wasn't it ever stated that he was assaulted in Tereblanche's office because it was said that he was said that he was assaulted in the whole building. My friend, the way he puts his question is that it should have been put to him that he had to be in every particular office, where it was not the case.

But the statement was broad enough to include being in Tereblanche's office. If you are telling me that my objection is unjustified, then I will leave it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Makhubalo, when Mr Motsamai testified he told us that he took part in your assault, in assaulting you in the office of Mr Mamome and he demonstrated to us more or less the same way that you did, that you were handcuffed with your hands behind your chair and so on.

But he did not tell us that, he never told us that he also took part in assaulting you in Tereblanche's office. You were here and you never heard him mention that, am I right?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is true.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now what Mr Memani is putting to you is that it was never - Mr Motsamai was never challenged. It was never put to him that look here, not only did you assault Mr Makhubalo in Mamome's office, you also assaulted him in Tereblanche's office. Do you have any comment on that?

MR MAKHUBALO: There is nothing I can say, sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani?

MR MEMANI: I am indebted and may I assure Mr Stander that I am not making a personal attack on him, but that I am dealing with the credibility of a witness.

Now, Mr Makhubalo, this thing happened more than 10 years ago. Is that correct? In fact it is close to 20 years ago?

CHAIRPERSON: 20 years ago?

ADV DE JAGER: It is round about 10 years ago.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should check on your arithmetic Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: Mr Makhubalo, isn't there a possibility that you are mistaken about the presence of Mr Motsamai when you were assaulted for the second time by a group of people in Tereblanche's office?

MR MAKHUBALO: It may happen that you are mistaken, but if you know a person, you know, so I have no doubt that I know Mr Motsamai.

MR MEMANI: Yes, what I am suggesting to you is that you were a political activist and there were many occasions where you would have met Mr Motsamai and due to the length of time, you might err about his actual presence when you were assaulted in Tereblanche's office.

MR MAKHUBALO: That is not so.

MR MEMANI: You see, what I find difficult is that Mr Motsamai would admit to having assaulted you on the fifth floor and not admit having assaulted you on the fourth floor. What would be there for him to hide, he has already admitted he assaulted you?

MR MAKHUBALO: I don't know, truly.

MR MEMANI: Furthermore, he admits having done what I see as being more serious than the assault that took place at the office of Mr Tereblanche, the shooting of you apparently without any lawful reason to do so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You don't know why he would deny it if he was there, do you? You have said you don't know?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: After you were arrested, after the attempt to shoot you, you were taken to Fountain Building. Did any interrogation take place there?

MR MAKHUBALO: No sir.

MR MEMANI: So you were just chased, they attempted shooting you and then detained?

MR MAKHUBALO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I ask my Attorney if he's got something that he would like me to cover? I have no more questions, My Lord.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI: .

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any point in you starting now, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: I am hoping that you would say there isn't, Mr Chairman, because I would like to adjourn now, if we may.

CHAIRPERSON: It is now five to four, I think we will take the adjournment now until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS