Amnesty Hearings

 

 

MR VISSER: Visser on record. Allow me Mr Chairman, to apologise for the fact that the witness who gave evidence on Friday, Petrus Miningwa is not present this morning. I knew that one of my witnesses was writing examinations, the mistake I made was not realising that it was Mr Miningwa. He will be back here today by 12 o'clock Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you may have made the mistake but someone else on your part did not, and came and spoke to me on Friday afternoon and explained to me that he was writing an examination this morning and requested whether you could continue with someone else and he could come back after the exam and I agreed to that.

MR VISSER: I was told Mr Chairman, and I just wanted to place it record, thank you Mr Chairman. May I call the witness Mmelesi, spelled: M - m - e - l - e - s - i.

There is no affidavit of that witness before you Mr Chairman.

MR MMELESI: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mmelesi.

MR MMELESI: Ja.

MR VISSER: Sorry Mr Chairman.

Mr Mmelesi, what work do you do?

MR MMELESI: I'm working at the security branch, Sir.

MR VISSER: What is your rank?

MR MMELESI: I'm a sergeant.

MR VISSER: When did you join the South African Police?

MR MMELESI: 1981, on the 22nd of January.

MR VISSER: And when did you join the security branch?

MR MMELESI: I joined the security branch in 1985.

MR VISSER: And was that here in Bloemfontein?

MR MMELESI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What section did you work in the security branch?

MR MMELESI: Investigation section, Sir. Under Mr Du Plooy.

MR VISSER: Who were the other members in that section of the security branch?

MR MMELESI: Mr Du Plooy, Lieutenant Terreblanche, Warrant Office Paul van den Berg, Sergeant Du Plesis, myself, Constable Kopi, Constable Mafisa.

MR VISSER: Do you know Mr Ngo?

MR MMELESI: The time I arrived here, I saw him at the security branch offices.

MR VISSER: And as far as your knowledge goes goes what was his position, his status, at that time in 1985?

MR MMELESI: I thought he was a member of the security branch but I learnt from others that he was a recruit.

MR VISSER: Did you ever work together with Mr Ngo?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I haven't worked with him.

MR VISSER: You also know Mr Motsamai?

MR MMELESI: I know him very well.

MR VISSER: He was in fact a member of the security branch, was he not?

MR MMELESI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And did you work with him?

MR MMELESI: No Sir. We were working all of us working at the security branch but we were working at various sections, I was not working with him in one section.

MR VISSER: In 1985 to 1986, can you give us a guesstimate of how many members worked in the security branch here in Bloemfontein?

MR MMELESI: It was investigation section and ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: I just want, I'm sorry, to interrupt you. I just want you to tell us about how many members in total worked in the security branch in Bloemfontein in 1985/86. If you can't remember, just say so.

MR MMELESI: We were many, I don't remember, I don't remember.

MR VISSER: Now, it has been alleged here by Mr Ngo that you participated in the incident which we have referred to in this case as the group of 19 people who were interrogated and detained here in Bloemfontein in 1986.

Now if it were to be suggested that you did anything wrong, that you performed any illegal or unlawful act, what would you say about that?

MR MMELESI: I did not take part. The way I had if there was something wrong which I did in that time, I did not assault any person.

MR VISSER: Did you see anybody being assaulted in your presence?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not see a person being assaulted in my presence.

MR VISSER: Did you interrogate some of the comrades?

MR MMELESI: That is correct. There were those I interrogated, I acted as an interpreter.

MR VISSER: Can you remember any of the persons today, that you interrogated at that time or that you interpreted while they were being interrogated at that time?

MR MMELESI: There were many, I don't remember their names. When I say there were many, some of them I started to see them now. I am not able to locate them to the interrogation during that incident.

MR VISSER: On how many days - can you remember on how many days you took part in the interrogation as an interpreter?

MR MMELESI: I'd say I took part in four incidents were I took part in the interrogation as an interpreter, I don't remember well.

MR VISSER: You say four incidents. Do you mean four occasions?

MR MMELESI: It is like this, Sir. When I say it's four occasions, at some days we'd do our normal work but at times when I was in the office I would help during the interrogation.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr MMelesi, did you have any contact with Mr Ngo after he was transferred to Pretoria?

MR MMELESI: No Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: No contact whatsoever.

Thank you, no further questions Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR MMELESI: We haven't met Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: By that you mean you didn't meet Ngo?

MR MMELESI: I haven't met Mr Ngo. I learnt that he was arrested and that he is in Grootvlei Prison.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mmelesi, what was the procedure that you followed during these interrogations of the group of 19 persons who were interrogated at the office of the security police?

MR MMELESI: The method we used in the interrogation we were asking them were they were going then they told us that they were skipping the country to Lesotho. Then we asked them about their contacts or contact, or who was their leader to skip the country.

MR STANDER: Were they prepared to give their co-operation throughout?

MR MMELESI: The way they answered the questions, some of them were prepared to co-operate. Even if some of them were not giving us the direct information we'll take one to give us the clear answers to the questions we asked.

MR STANDER: And if he or she did not want to give their co-operation what happened then?

MR MMELESI: We leave him or her. We take another one.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would just leave then, you wouldn't try to press them to give information, you'd just accept that they didn't want to tell you. Are you asking us to accept that?

MR MMELESI: No, we were not forcing a person to - the person should just tell us that when he or she was asked those questions we'd leave him and we'd take another one and maybe later we'd go back to that person. There's no way we forced those people.

MR STANDER: Now if you returned to the same person later and this person did not want to give his co-operation yet, what then?

MR MMELESI: I would not say is there after a long time. The way that person has been asked those questions, if you are not satisfied with those questions you'd leave that person to think well that he'd able to understand those questions, Not that he should be forced.

MR STANDER: If you've - once you've given him a good chance to think about it and you come back to that man, or to the women, and they still do not want to co-operate, what would happen then?

MR MMELESI: We'd continue with others.

MR STANDER: ...[inaudible]

MR MMELESI: No, we don't just leave that person like that. I explained that if he or she does not want to give us direct answers we'd take another one so that we'd give that person a chance think the time about the whole incident.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened if after they had time to think they still didn't want to give you answers?

MR MMELESI: We'd go back to him or her again, we would take her to the interrogation room, then we'd continue with the questioning, then he would he would answer well the way the investigator or the interrogator wants.

MR STANDER: I do not understand this. Why would a person let's say that in two occasions this person does not want to co-operate, but for arguments sake at the third stage when he's asked again he co-operates. Can you explain this to us? Or is there something else that you did in order to force him to give you those answers?

MR MMELESI: We did not force a person to explain to us what happened. For the second time when we interrogate he would he would answer those questions well, not that we forced him or her.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm afraid I don't understand why somebody who has indicated that they do not want to answer questions, would suddenly decide to answer the questions well.

MR MMELESI: It will depend on how he is being interrogated. Let me explain this way. We'd ask you questions and then you don't answer the questions, later, if you don't understand, we'd call you for a second time, then we'd take another person.

Then again you'd be asked questions and be told that the answers that we were waiting for for these questions were like this, not that we'd forced that person.

MR STANDER: I still do not understand and I do not think the Committee understands. What happened in the meantime to change that persons mind about answering the questions. Because why in the first place, would he not want to answer? And then on a later occasion when he is called in again then he answers to all your questions.

MR MMELESI: There's nothing we did to that person. I explained that if a person does not want to answer the questions, we did not force him or her or assault him, we'd leave her or him and take another person, then later would call him or her back without been assaulted, then he would answer those questions.

MR STANDER: The Chairman has also asked you and I've asked you for the third time. What led to the fact that this person now replied to your questions or can you not reply to that?

MR MMELESI: I explained Sir, that we did not force a person or maybe we did not assault that person so that he should answer those questions, it did not work like that. That person would explained us well with how its being assaulted.

MR STANDER: What is the reason for that, do you know or don't you?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not know, but there was no person who would be able to explain, those people explained what happened.

MR STANDER: Do you think there's a possibility that such a person saw what had happened to the others and as a result of the fact that he saw what had happened to the others who did not co-operate who did not co-operate, that he then decided to give some answers? Is that not possibly what could have happened?

MR MMELESI: I want you to explain to me, to say, when you say maybe he saw what happened to other people in which way can you explain to me?

MR STANDER: What I am trying to say is that he saw how the others were assaulted because they did not want to co-operate and that is why at the end of the day, he then gave his or her answers.

MR STANDER: I explained Sir, that no person was assaulted in my presence or the one I saw being assaulted. Those people answered to those questions well without being forced.

MR STANDER: And did you see the rest of the group there that day as well?

MR MMELESI: You mean you mean in the office? Yes, I did.

MR STANDER: Was there anyone who gave you an indication as that they had been assaulted?

MR MMELESI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: Have you see - did you see the full group there on another occasion?

MR MMELESI: Yes, I did the time when they were just about to be taken to where they were going to be detained.

MR STANDER: Do you regard frog jumps as part of abuse of the witnesses or don't you?

MR MMELESI: I did not see people doing frog jumps the way you - the ones you telling me about.

MR STANDER: Did you have any shock apparatus?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, we didn't have those things.

MR STANDER: And a black bag which was sometimes used to cover peoples eyes or their heads?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I didn't see something like that.

MR STANDER: And the tyre?

MR MMELESI: I said that I did not see those kinds of assortments, I did not see them.

MR STANDER: Do you know a Oupa Makubalo?

MR MMELESI: Yes, I know him.

MR STANDER: Was he also part of the group that was there that had to be interrogated?

MR MMELESI: Oupa was present in that group. But where I took part, I did not take part in Oupa's interrogation.

MR STANDER: Were you involved when he had to be taken to a doctor?

MR MMELESI: If I remember, no. I dispute that.

MR STANDER: It doesn't sound as if you're being sure of the ...[indistinct]

MR MMELESI: I said I was not present then.

MR STANDER: Was he ever taken to a doctor?

MR MMELESI: I said I was not present and again I don't remember.

MR STANDER: ...[inaudible]

MR MMELESI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: What was his condition the condition on the second or the third day after you'd arrested these people?

MR MMELESI: We did not detain this group. The time when I arrived with Sergeant Du Plessis in the office after lunch, I learnt there were people who were brought here who tried to skip the country and they were arrested in Ladybrand and they were brought to our offices.

MR STANDER: The question that I asked was: did you see Oupa Makubalo on the second or the third day after he was arrested, did you see him, again?

MR MMELESI: I explained that some days I was helping with the investigation and others days we were living out for our normal duty. Myself and Mr Du Plessis would leave the whole day and if I'm present I'd help there if it is necessary. But ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Could you tell us whether you helped on the second day and whether you helped with the interrogation on the third day after they'd been arrested.

MR MMELESI: That is why I said I don't remember later as whethere I did. At times, some days we'd leave but if I'm around I'd be able to help with the the interrogation. At times I'd be there, at times I'd not be there. As whether it was the second day or the third day, I do not remember.

MR STANDER: Did you see him again, Oupa Makubalo, after the first day?

MR MMELESI: I explained that I do not remember as to whether it is the second or the third day because usually would leave together with Mr Du Plessis. I'm not sure as to whether I was in the office or not.

MR STANDER: Did you not see him at all? That is the simple question.

MR MMELESI: I say I don't know as to whether the second day I was in the office or I was not in the office.

MR STANDER: I would like to put it to you Sir, that indeed after the second or third day you took Mr Oupa Makubalo to the doctor because of the fact that he had been assaulted to such an extent that his life was actually in danger at that stage. Do you deny that or not?

MR MMESELI: I dispute that. As I explained that on the first day I saw Oupa Makubalo in the office. On second day as whether I was in office or not and again on the third day I do not know as whether I'm in the office or not but I I saw him in the office. But its either on the second day or the third day I was in the office, I'm not sure. That's the way I have explained.

CHAIRPERSON: Have these records been made available?

MR STANDER: Mr Chair, I am doing my best to get hold of them but I have not been able to do so. I will see if I could do so soon and place this before the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: If he was taken from the Fountain Street offices, one would expect documentary evidence to that effect to be available.

It seems a little suprising that the, as far as one can gather, because it hasn't been available to us, that no records were kept at Fountain Street and who was taken there for interrogation, when they were sent away and matters of that nature. Police are usually fairly careful about these things,

I raised this question last week about whether there was documentary evidence available and none appears to be forthcoming. Does this mean that the dockets and other documents no longer exists, if they have been done away with?

MR STANDER: Mr Chair I cannot answer to this. I will do my best by means of the hospital where he had been treated, to see whether any documentation is available.

I would like to stat to you Mr Mmelesi, that you not only acted as a so called interpreter but that you actively participated in this interrogation of the persons and also the assault of on these persons.

MR MMELESI: I have answered.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry Mr Chairman, may I come in here? Would my learned friend please assist all of us by telling us who it is alleged that this witness assaulted because he hasn't put that.

MR STANDER: Just a moment Mr Chair.

Mr Oliphant do you know him, the person who is known as Chine?

MR MMELESI: Yes, I know him.

MR STANDER: He also alleges that you assaulted him.

MR MMELESI: He's lying Sir, I did not assault him and I did not assault any person.

MR STANDER: Did you also participate in the interrogation of any of the women present there?

MR MMELESI: Yes, I took part in the interrogation, there may be two or three. As I explained that the base which I was in office, I took part.

MR STANDER: Am I correct if I also say that there were no female interrogators when the females or women where interrogated? Is that correct?

MR MMELESI: That is correct, Sir. Let me explain, Sir, the interrogation room was the person who the interrogator it might be a male and then myself and the person who has been interrogated.

MR STANDER: Was there a special interrogation room then?

MR MMELESI: No, there was the - there were no people in those offices who would use - in their offices as interrogation rooms as interrogation rooms, then that person would sit there, then I would sit on the other side, then the interrogator would sit on the other side.

MR STANDER: Please tell me, where you present when Oupa Makubalo at a later stage, was arrested and shots were fired in his direction?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I was not present.

MR STANDER: Where you on duty on that day?

MR MMELESI: I was always on duty all the time but I did not take part in that incident.

MR STANDER: Did you know that he was arrested on the day and that they returned him to Fountain Street?

MR MMELESI: I did not know.

MR STANDER: Is it possible that you could have been with them and that you just can't remember this?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I said I was not there.

MR STANDER: Sir, I would like to put it to you that you indeed were in the vehicle which went to arrest him when the shots were fired in his direction.

MR MMELESI: Sir, I said I was not present there. Understand well, I was not there.

MR STANDER: Do know who were all the people who were present?

MR MMELESI: I know nothing, I was not present.

MR STANDER: Did you see when he was brought in?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not see him.

MR STANDER: Can you tell me where your office is in the security branch?

MR MMELESI: When you enter the 5th floor, it was first one on the left side.

MR STANDER: Did you office look out on the so called Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: The this thing of Violent Street suprises me because that is a passage which goes at the back like when Mr Erasmus - the direction of his - from the door you got the toilet and the toilets for females who are on the left and for male are on the right. Our offices are facing the direction which I'm looking and the passage go across.

MR STANDER: Why was it called this so called Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, it was a sticker which was put on the wall which was written Violent Street.

MR STANDER: So the passage wasn't known as Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: Maybe there are people who call it that but I say the the poster was put there written Violent Street. The passage was long and it was on those offices in 5th floor.

MR STANDER: Because one after the other witness had referred to that passage on the 5th floor as so called Violent Street and some of the police officers who have testified here admitted that. Now I don't understand why you ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just wait a minute. I understood the evidence we have heard, we have heard - I can't remember what policeman now, of a passage that his office is in and which then joins another passage which was the one he said was called Violent Street. Is that not the position? There's more than one passage on that floor?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I gained the impression that there was only one passage but perhaps we could ascertain that I may be wrong.

Could you explain to us the layout of the passages on the 5th floor?

MR MMELESI: You must listen very carefully Sir. This is a passage, it goes back and here where I'm pointing its a door, then it turns to the left to those two doors, then that is the toilet, then you turn on the left there's a kitchen.

MR STANDER: Which of these two passages which you told us about now was known as the so-called Violent Street?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know perhaps your the best one to tell us Mr Stander, I gather the security police no longer occupy this. The building is there, who are occupies is now?

MR STANDER: Mr Chair I can't tell you, I don't know the answer to that question. As far as I know there are still members of the police force in there but I don't whom exactly but its not far away from here, its approximately a block away.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it be possible, rather than have this confusion and have witnesses trying to persuade, - trying to tell us, for us to adjourn at some stage and walk that block and see what the floor looks like?

MR STANDER: Yes Sir.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may come in here, Visser on record. This very thought has occurred to us already last week and we have asked Colonel Erasmus to attempt to make arrangements so that we - we wanted to know first of all whether we'd have access to the building before we approached you with it.

At, at this stage there is a problem with the 5th floor, apparently there's legislation declaring an off limits area to to the public. I'm not sure in what or some such, its got something to do with National Intelligence, Mr Chairman.

We are attempting, I think Mr Chairman, I am speaking under correction, but we are attempting to obtain permission to enter the 5th floor, that's the one thing, but in any event, what we are attempting to do is to obtain floor plans of each and every floor and to give that at least to you.

But we are working on getting us into the building there's just a problem with the 5th floor as I understand the position to be at the moment but we're working on that very issue Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The 5th floor is really the only one we want to see, we don't want to get into the building as such but if we could do that perhaps cross-examination as to the details of the geography of the floor could stand over until we know whether we can see it ourselves or get a proper floor plan.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chair. Before I step down from this aspect, let us then call this passage with the board Violent Street and ask the question whether your office actually faced on this passage.

MR MMELESI:: The door of the office we were occupying faced the passage and this passage proceeded ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: What did you call that passage? Did it have a name, for instance: Peace Street or whatever?

MR MMELESI: This passage did not have a name, Sir. The only thing that was there was a sticker put on the wall and I do not know who put that sticker there. I call it a passage, it did not have a name. The sticker was called Violent Street but that was not the name of that passage.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the sticker in your passage or did it point towards the other passage?

MR MMELESI: That is correct, Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: It can't be correct because I've asked you was the sticker in your passage or did it point towards the other passage?

MR MMELESI: Sir, I explained that there were two passages, there's a door, there's a passage going to the right and the other one going to the left.

ADV DE JAGER: The sticker, was it pointing to the passage going to the right?

MR MMELESI: The passage to the left when you were going to the kitchen.

MR STANDER: Did you ever enquire about this sticker on the door on the wall?

MR MMELESI: No Sir. I tried to ask what was happening with that sticker but no-one gave me a clear indication of why the sticker was put on the wall. All the members could see that, I do not know whether the sticker is still there or not.

MR STANDER: You didn't go to any trouble to remove it because according to your testimony it had no meaning whatsoever. Do I understand you correctly?

MR MMELESI: I do not know, Sir, but I just saw it as a sticker that was put on the wall.

MR STANDER: Could you have removed it yourself, had you so wished?

MR MMELESI: The problem was I did not know who was the person who put it there. And I did not take that into consideration.

MR STANDER: You also didn't go to any trouble to enquire about it?

MR MMELESI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: I would like to state it to you Sir, that that sticker had been placed on that wall because people were continuously assaulted and tortured in that passage and that is why it was known as Violent Street. Could you reply to that?

MR MMELESI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: Do you deny it or don't you?

MR MMELESI: I dispute that, I never seen anyone assaulted in that passage.

MR STANDER: No further questions to the witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

MR MEMANI: Mr Mmelesi, as of 6th of April 1986, was your floor on the 5th floor or was it on the 4th floor?

MR MMELESI: We were on the 5th floor, Sir.

MR MEMANI: I meant you office.

MR MMELESI: We were in the 5th floor.

MR MEMANI: And on that day you worked with Terreblanche

and Du Plooy, didn't you?

MR MMELESI: When I arrived at the security branch I worked with those people you just mentioned.

MR MEMANI: But on the 6th of April 1996 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you could tell him what the 6th of April was. I can't remember what the 6th of April 1986 was.

MR MEMANI: This is the day when the 19 people were ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well tell him.

MR MEMANI: I thought its common cause Mr Chair.

And this is the day on which the 19 people were detained. Do you remember that now?

MR MMELESI: Sir, I do not remember when it comes to dates but I remember that there were people brought to the offices.

MR MEMANI: Now, on that day, when these people were detained, did you assist the officers on the 4th floor?

MR MMELESI: I helped in the investigation department to ask those people questions.

MR MEMANI: Where did you help the investigation department?

MR MMESELI: On the 4th floor, that is where the investigation was done, we were in the 5th floor.

MR MEMANI: And who - which white officer were you working with?

MR MMESELI: Its a long time Sir, I do not remember but the person I was working with very well was Sergeant Du Plessis but he was not involved in the interrogation section.

MR MEMANI: Now, I'm talking about this particular day. Who did you work with on that particular day?

MR MMELESI: Sir, I said I do not remember well because this happened long time ago.

MR MEMANI: How many people did you interrogate on that day?

MR MMELESI: On that day, i think two, if not four.

MR MEMANI: And who were the persons?

MR MMELESI: I do not remember them, Sir.

MR MEMANI: Did you get any information from these people?

MR MMELESI: The way the interrogator proceeded he was satisfied with the answers.

MR MEMANI: Was he satisfied with all of them as and when he started interrogating each of them?

MR MMELESI: On that day where I participated, he asked them questions and they explained to him well what happened, why they decided to leave, he was satisfied. I was an interpreter.

MR MEMANI: In short, all of them co-operated? None of them at any stage did not co-operate?

MR MMELESI: Where I took part, I said they satisfied him. No-one was stubborn, they all answered questions without being forced.

MR MEMANI: And they co-operated from the onset is what I'm putting you, why can't you say yes or no?

MR MMELESI: I said yes I've explained that if a person did not want to co-operate then but I said the time when I was there nobody was not co-operating, they answered those questions well.

MR MEMANI: You see, earlier on your evidence was that people were asked questions and those who did not co-operate was taken upstairs and then they would be called for the second time.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry, I have to object Mr Chairman, the questions which he answered, and I attempted to listen very carefully, were put to him on the hypothesis that if somebody refused to answer questions, what would you then do? And he said the answer which my learned friend has now given, he has not been asked by anybody until right now, whether the people did in fact co-operate. There's a difference, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection is he said he was asked what sort of [End of tape 1, side A - no follow on sound] I aske him who their leaders and contacts were, some were prepared to co-operate, others were not, we would just leave them. We would just leave them.

Let me later go back to these people ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: That, with respect, is my note Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I do think it's fair to say though, that his answers were all speculative always if, if, if. I don't think that he in that portion of evidence said that they did in fact do this, this is what they would have done.

MR MEMANI: My...

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is I think, what I tried to convey.

MR MEMANI: My understanding Mr Chair, was that the context in which the words if and would were used were not used in a speculative sense but they were used to explain what what would occur as what occurred in fact on that day.

It was not only hypothesis. It was what did you do what would you do if people did not co-operate on that day? They were specific to what would happen on that day.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, I don't want to waste time. Let him put the question to the witness and let the witness field for himself.

MR MEMANI: In any event it has emerged that you told us that some people did not co-operate on that day and that is contrary to what you just put that none of them did not co-operate.

MR MMELESI: I did not say they were not co-operating. You asked me, saying: "If people did not answer questions what did they do"?, I answered and said: "Those who did not want to ask questions would just leave them and ask others. And later would bring them back and interrogate them and they would answer those questions well".

MR MEMANI: Now mister, - I'll leave the rest of the things for argument. The next that I wanted to ask you is where - in which office where you on that day?

MR MMELESI: We were on the 4th floor the time when we were interrogating these people. This thing happened a long time ago, I don't know whose office - I don't remember whose office was that.

MR MEMANI: And who was present with you? You say you don't recall that as well.

MR MMELESI: I did not - I don't remember as to whether whom I was assisting in the interrogation.

MR MEMANI: You don't recall who was with you, you don't recall in which office you were and you don't recall who you interrogated on that day?

MR MMELESI: I explained that it happened a long time ago, I don't remember. I would not say it's this person or that person because there were many.

MR MEMANI: You don't recall whether people co-operated immediately or not?

MR MMELESI: You asked me a question as to - the first person asked me as to whether those people were co-operating or not. I'd say were I was they were co-operating, where a took part as an interpreter, those people were co-operative.

MR MEMANI: I find it strange, in the light of the fact that you have forgotten so many things that you can recall that you arrived in the office at 1 o'clock.

MR MMELESI: That is so because on that day I was together with Mr Du Plessis. We were going to investigate then after lunch we came back to the office. And when we arrived there Mr Du Plessis told us that the ...[inaudible]

MR MEMANI: And what time did you leave work on that day?

MR MMELESI: We'd knock off at 4 o'clock.

MR MEMANI: Did you actually knock off at 4 o'clock on that day?

MR MMELESI: I say we knock off at 4 o'clock. On that day we took them to where they were supposed to be detained.

MR MEMANI: And the evidence was that the detainees were taken to the various police stations after 5.

MR MMELESI: I explained that on that day, usually we knock off at 4 o'clock but on that day we did not knock off at 4 o'clock. We were supposed to take those people where they were supposed to be detained.

MR MEMANI: But why didn't you say that a moment ago when I asked you whether - what time did you knock off, you said - why did you not then just say we knock off at 4 o'clock?

MR MMELESI: That is like that. I say usually we knock off at 4 o'clock but on that day we were supposed to - we did not go home, we were supposed to take those people to where they were supposed to be locked.

CHAIRPERSON: Counsel asked you specifically how do you remember you remember you arrived there at 1 o'clock, and you told us you'd been working with DuPlessis and when you arrived back after lunch you were told about this. Counsel then said what time did you knock off that day and you said 4 o'clock.

MR MMELESI: Let me clear it off. We usually knock off at 4 o'clock, but at on that day we did not knock off at 4 o'clock, we were supposed to take those people were they were detained.

MR MEMANI: Now, where did you take them?

MR MMELESI: We took them to Glen, if I remember well.

MR MEMANI: With whom did you go to Glen?

MR MMELESI: I don't remember because we were many, we took them with cars and Kombis. I don't know which Kombis because some of them were not more in use.

MR MEMANI: And you don't recall the other person who was present when you took the persons except yourself.

MR MMELESI: We went with Kopi, Mafisa and Lieutenant Terreblanche, Warrant Officer Swanapoel. I explained that with whom I was working during that time.

MR MEMANI: But the question Mr ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: The question is: "On that day, can you remember with whom did you - did you go with a Kombi yourself? Who was driving the Kombi? Where you guarding the detainees? What was your function in that Kombi or motor car or whatever you've been in? You yourself.

MR MMELESI: I said I did not - I don't remember as to who was driving and where was I sitting but what I know is that we took these people to where they were detained.

MR MEMANI: With whom were you?

MR MMELESI: I don't remember with whom I was within that group.

MR MEMANI: Thank you Mr Chair.

Do you remember if Mr Motsamai was there?

MR MMELESI: Sir, I said we were many I do not remember as whether other people from various sections helped or not.

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that the only people you took prisoners were yourself, Kopi and Motsamai. ...[inaudible] can you because you can't remember?

MR MMELESI: I said its like that but I do not remember. The we were those people were many.

MR MEMANI: The detainees were many?

MR MMELESI: There were 19 all in all. I do not remember who was there on that day and who was not there on that day.

MR MEMANI: There were only three policemen, yourself, Kopi and Motsamai.

MR MMELESI: I said I do not remember whether other members from various sections helped to take these people to where they were supposed to be detained. I don't remember well.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Memanie, were they all travelling together in one vehicle, all 19 detainees and the three policemen?

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that it was not all 19 that were travelling in the same vehicle that Motsamai, Mmelesi and Kopi were.

Now, Mr Mmelesi, for how long did you see Mr Ngo at security branch?

MR MMELESI: I don't remember, but I'd say it may be a month or two, I don't remember.

MR MEMANI: ...[inaudible] period, a lengthy period, longer than two months.

MR MMELESI: No it might not be more that two months.

MR MEMANI: And at that stage you believed that he was a member of the security branch?

MR MMELESI: The time when I arrived in the office he was there, I just took it that he was a member of the security branch but when I enquired they told be that he is a recruit.

MR MEMANI: And he worked there regularly.

MR MMELESI: Yes, he was working as if he's a permanent staff member, that is why I regarded him as a member.

MR MEMANI: And I want us to go back to the passage. I I got the impression that the 5th floor forms an L. Is that correct?

MR MMELESI: That is correct. As I've explained that this passage would go this way, and here is a door and then it would go towards the main entrance.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So you mean capital letter?

MR MEMANI: And Kopi described the area beyond the door as Violent Street. Did you hear him say that?

MR MMELESI: I heard but I said myself it is a sticker which has been put on the wall. It's a sticker, it's not the name of the passage which is Violent Street.

MR MEMANI: But it is suprising that detainees would be there occasionally knew that the police called that passage Violent Street and you who was working on that passage did not know that your colleagues referred to that passage as Violent Street.

MR MMELESI: I dispute that. I say when you enter the door you see the sticker first, then you'd just regard that that is a Violent Street but not that the name of that passage is Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible] by one of your colleagues that there was a sticker there and on one occasion, a detainee when he was brought onto the 5th floor, because of that sticker referred to it as Violent Street and from that time onwards the passage was known as Violent Street - actually it was Mr Kopi.

MR MMELESI: I would not dispute what he said but I said I knew only that as a passage then I saw that sticker, then I was not present him that from today that passage would be known as Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is you evidence that a you have never at all yourself came to know that that passage was commonly referred to as Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: I explained that there was a sticker which has been put there written Violent Street. Nobody told me that you should know as from today that this passage is now known as Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, sorry, I'm not asking you whether somebody did tell you that this is Violent Street. I'm only asking you, did you not come to know, just as other people came to know, that that passage was commonly known as Violent Street? You never knew that?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I dispute that. That what was only there was a sticker written Violent Street.

MR MEMANI: Are you hearing today for the first time, that that passage for whatever reason was commonly known as Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: No. I don't dispute what you're saying, I - everybody would call that Violent Street because of the sticker which has been put there.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Oh, you do know that everybody called that passage Violent Street because of the sticker? You know that?

MR MMELESI: Not that I know but that I don't dispute. the reason is that when you open the door, the sticker has been put on the hall which has been written Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You know you keep on repeating to every question I'm putting to you. You keep repeatedly coming back to stating that the sticker was put on the door. We know that, there's no problem about that.

What I want to know from you is, you mister Mmelesi, at the time when you were working on the 5th floor, did you ever know that that passage, for whatever reason, was commonly referred to as Violent Street, or did you not know? Either you knew or you didn't know.

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not know.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Are you hearing, for the first time during this proceedings that that passage was commonly known as Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, that is not so. I'm saying the people who entered there saw the sticker on the wall, you'd even see it there yourself. Nobody told me that you must know that this passage is called Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You're going to realise that I'm going to expect you to answer my question, the way you want. I'm asking you, are you hearing for the first time during these proceedings that that passage was known as Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: No, I explained that it is not the first time. Everybody who entered there would see that that sticker and would call that passage Violent Street but nobody specifically said this is Violent Street, this is not my first time.

CHAIRPERSON: But why, have you said repeatedly to my brother: "I did not know it was commonly called Violent Street"?

MR MMELESI: Sir, I said nobody told me that it was Violent Street, it was a sticker that was put there. If you entered there you'd even tell yourself, oh well this is Violent Street by just seeing the sticker.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I'm going to put this question for the last time and if you don't answer it, I'm going to leave it. You knew that that passage, whether as a result of the sticker being put there or not, you knew, even at a time when you were still a member of the security branch, that that passage was commonly referred to as Violent Street. Did you know that?

MR MMELESI: Sir, people who entered that passage called it Violent Street. I'm saying I just saw that sticker there, It doesn't mean I knew it was Violent Street. Whether I called it Violent Street or not, the people called it Violent Street, I did not know it was Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I told you it was for the last time I'm going to ask you that question I'm going to leave it there.

MR MEMANI: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Mmelesi, the people that were taken to to Glen we've been told had injuries. Did you see that people had been injured, that you conveyed to Glen?

MR MMELESI: I said that there was no person who has been assaulted in my prescience.

MR MEMANI: I'm not saying to you that the persons were assaulted in your presence. I'm saying that when you conveyed them, the people had been injured already.

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I don't agree.

MR MEMANI: And, subject to correction, Oupa Makubalo had had lost his tooth as a result of being assaulted on that day.

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not hear that that somebody lost a tooth.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Just one question, Mr Chairman. Did you ever see blood stains on the wall, one of the walls, or both walls of Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not see blood stains.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER:: Just one question, Mr Chairman.

Mr MMelesi, you were asked about what would happen if you asked a witness questions which he refused to answer. And you said that you would leave him and perhaps come back to him later. What was the purpose of the interrogation as far as you were concerned on that day? What did you want to do with the questions that the white person was asking them, what was the purpose?

MR MMELESI: They wanted to know as to where were those people going and their names and who were their contacts in Lesotho and that who was their leader. If I answer your question well.

MR VISSER: And if you got all that information, for example from a particular person, what would then have happened?

MR MMELESI: Then later WE would take that report to Mr Du Plooy.

MR VISSER: Chairman before - I have no further questions. But what has come to hand are the floor plans of the 4th and the 5th floor which I beg leave to hand up to you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER:: These are the only two that I've got, the only two floors that I've got Mr Chairman. I've got a few copies here.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think the other floors have been mentioned at all. Have they?

MR VISSER:: There are three copies Mr Chairman, and some for our learned friends as well.

CHAIRPERSON: We're obliged to you, Mr Visser, and to those instructing you.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speakers mike is not activated.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you help us and tell us which passage was known as Violent Street?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the evidence was that it's the passage that leads to the kitchen and if you look at the top of the page: 510 appears to have been the kitchen so that would mean - I haven't discussed this with my witnesses, I just got this to hand, that would mean that that would probably be the passage which is Violent Street. If one takes the top of the page as North for purposes of argument, it would be the South North/North South passage then.

ADV DE JAGER: Are you all at idem? Your witnesses, are they saying the same about this?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I've just said I haven't discussed the plans with ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: But kindly find out Mr Visser, he's sitting next to you, so that we don't need to come back to this again.

MR VISSER: Colonel Erasmus explains to me Mr Chairman, that looking at the floor plan, the passage running from South to North, if North is the top of the page, was Violent Street. That is the one running in the direction of the kitchen marked 510 and apparently there's a staircase or whatever and their are toilets on the right hand top side which does not appear on your - only a part of which appears on the page.

If you look down at the bottom, if I may say the Southern end of the passage on the left hand side, you see there's a circle and a cross, whatever that is supposed to indicate I don't know but it was in that vicinity that the sticker was attached to the wall.

In other words on the left hand side as you walked into the passage, next to room 511, on the left hand wall that is where the sticker, according to Colonel Erasmus's recollection, was put on the wall.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears from the other plan that next to the circle and cross are the letters BR or BK, I think that it's BR. What that means, I don't know.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we don't know at the moment, but we will try to establish whether there's any - whether we can find out what the letters are and what they stand for.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, on the plans, on the 5th floor you've got a partition in the foyer and on the 4th floor its an open space leading to the two passages, I don't know whether that was the position at the time or not.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, my instructions from Lieutenant Shaw and Colonel Erasmus is that, looking at the floor plan of the 5th floor, the marks made there represent a trellace, 'n traaliwerk, with a door, a security door and it was exactly at the time in 1986 there was a similar trellace on the 4th floor.

So both the floors had at the same security entrance as it were, from the lift well. Shall we, perhaps, give this an exhibit number, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it necessary for just the floor plan, it's the only floor plan?

MR VISSER: Yes, we can just call it, just refer to it as the floor plan. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: While we've got this witness here, could we perhaps ask him to look at the plan and whether he understands the plan of the 5th floor.

Do you understand this plan?

MR MMELESI: I'm still looking at the plan Sir. Yes, I see the plan, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you indicate on that plan, which is the office that you worked in?

MR MMELESI: If I'm not mistaken, they don't have numbers here, Sir. They are not numbered.

If I'm not mistaken, it's office 409.

CHAIRPERSON: The 5th floor we are supposed to be looking at.

MR MMELESI: Pardon me?

I think it's 5029, this is the number.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that office is not marked with a number unfortunately it was marked: "stoor" beforehand and apparently later on certain walls were put up, he's referring ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just office on the corner.

MR VISSER: Not the one on the corner, he's referring to 5029 as I understand it. If he could just perhaps with a pencil mark, mark it Mr Chairman, it might be the easiest.

MR MMELESI: Sir, I remember the first one, it was a store room, this is the office number. I think it was 22.49 if I'm not mistaken. It's 508. Sir, it's 508.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the office number written in the doorway?

MR MMELESI: Yes, the number is written on the door, it's 509.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Mmelesi.

WITNESS EXCUSED

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The next witness.

The next witness is Mr Tsoametsi, which is spelt t - s - o - a - m - e - t - s - i.

Mr Chairman, there is an affidavit by Mr Tsoametsi. I'm sorry, I've just lost the page, I'll give you the page reference.

MR BRINK: Bundle B, 29 to 31.

MR VISSER: My learned friend says bundle B, page forty one to forty three Mr Chairman and he's correct. My thanks to my learned friend.

MR TSOAMETSI: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: Mr Tsoametsi, is it correct that you are a retired warrant officer.

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And is it correct that you were a member of the security branch in Bloemfontein in 1986?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: When did you join the police?

MR TSOAMETSI: On the 1st of December 1965.

MR VISSER: And when did you join the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR TSOAMETSI: In 1973, in May.

MR VISSER: And which section did you work in the security branch?

MR TSOAMETSI: I was in the white section.

MR VISSER: And who was your commanding officer in that section?

MR TSOAMETSI: It was Rudie Crouse.

MR VISSER: Were there other members in that section apart from you and Rudie Crouse?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR VISSER: Will you just mention the names of the other people.

MR TSOAMETSI: Warrant Officer Piet Naude, Warrant Officer Leon Kalitz and Sergeant Joseph Lichaba, L - i - c - h - a - b - a.

MR VISSER: Did you know Mr Ngo?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you tell the Committee when you remember today, since when you became aware of Mr Ngo and what did you think was he doing?

MR TSOAMETSI: If I remember very well, I say Ngo at our offices on the 5th floor. It was somewhere around 1983, but I could not speak to him because the rule was to look at the person and pass. But I remember one day it happened that I asked him who's son he was, where was he born, and he said to me he was Ngo from Pietersberg and I said: "Oh well, I know the place. I was once a student there, I went to school with Kaffir Ngo.

And he said: "That was that is my uncle" and that was it.

MR VISSER: Are you aware that in 1986, Mr Ngo became a recruit constable, a student constable?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR VISSER: In the period from March 1986 until July 1986, did you work with Mr Ngo while you were executing your duties in the white section?

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly repeat the period Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it is from March 1986 to July 1986.

MR TSOAMETSI: I was not working with him.

MR VISSER: Were you working with Mr Motsamai?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Can you remember today, in 1986 more or less, how many members were there in the security branch, in 1985/1986 here in Bloemfontein?

MR TSOAMETSI: It is difficult to remember, Sir.

MR VISSER: Right. Mr Tsoametsi, you filed an affidavit, I'm sorry, signed an affidavit is that correct?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that an affidavit in which you went to Pretoria to see Mr Wagner about?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR VISSER: On that occasion, did Mr Motsamai accompany the group who went to Pretoria?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did anybody force you to go to Pretoria to see Mr Wagner?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Did anybody at any stage prescribe to you, told you what to say or what to write in the affidavit?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the truthfulness and correctness of the contents of your affidavit?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR VISSER: In your affidavit you deny that you made yourself a party to any illegal or unlawful act, is that correct?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now Mr Ngo, has alleged that you took part in the kidnapping and assault of Mr White Mohapi during 1986. First of all did you take part of Mr White Mohape?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Did you assault him at any stage?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: It is alleged that orders were given by Lieutenant Shaw and Lieutenant Erasmus that you and Mamome had to go to the Bayswater police station to pick up White Mohape. Well, actually it's not the Bayswater Police Station, it is alleged that you had to the Hilton Police Station so that you could follow White Mohape after his release. Did that happen?

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, that did not happen. Let me shortly explain. It was not possible for Shaw and Erasmus to give me instructions without first going to Rudi Crouse.

MR VISSER: And are you saying - did Mr Crouse give you any such instructions to follow White Mohapi and to kidnap him?

MR TSOAMETSI: No. We were working in the white section.

MR VISSER: And Mr Ngo went on to say - page 25 of the application, Mr Chairman, went on to say that you and Mamome kidnapped Mr White Mohape and that you radioed the information to Ngo, Motsamai and Mthyala, spelt M-t-y-h-a-l-e. Did that happen?

MR MEMANI:: Mr Chairman, I do not want to unnecessarily delay these proceedings. My recollection is that Mr Ngo was in the company of the white policeman. I think it was Cronje, the evidence was.

MR VISSER: Well then, my learned friend can put it to the witness Mr Chairman. I'm putting to the witness as I read the application.

At any event that Mr White Mhopi was taken to an open field between Bloemfontein - Bloemspruit rather, Bloemspruit and Shannon, where he was beaten up. Do you know anything about that?

MR TSOAMETSI: I did not know that, Sir.

MR VISSER: You are ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that Ngo was with Cronje, Mtyhala and Mamome in a vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MEMANI: No, earlier on I said my recollection was that Mr Ngo was with Cronje and I'm saying that Mr Ngo has corrected me and he says that he was with Cronje, Mtyhala and Mamome as well.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, I would like to see where it is at page 24 or 25 because a don't read the word Cronje there.

I'm not saying that he didn't say that he didn't say so in his evidence, that's not at all what I'm saying.

MR MEMANI: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I put it wrongly again. It's Mtyhala, Cronje and the applicant and Mamome was not there.

ADV DE JAGER: Not the applicant, the witness.

MR MEMAME: The applicant, Mr Ngo, Mr Chair.

ADV DE JAGER: Repeat the names, who was in this car?

MR MEMANI: In the vehicle it was Mtyhala, Cronje, Ngo, in one vehicle.

MR VISSER: So my learned friend is making it absolutely clear that he’s instructions now are that Mr Motsomi wasn’t present. Is that what I must understand from what he’s putting, Mr Chairman?

MR MEMANI: I don’t think you want to be taken seriously, we are talking about what you’ve just put. About the names that you have just used now. I’m telling you that in the vehicle in which Ngo was there were Cronje and Mtyhala and that’s different from what you put. That’s what I’m ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But what he is putting is what appears in the application, he is reading from the application. He is not varying it he is reading the application which was made.

MR MEMANI: I’m not sure now, Mr Chairman, whether the application says that in the vehicle that Ngo was travelling there was anybody else except Mtyhala and Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you should read the application and so see that Mr Visser is correctly reading it.

MR MEMANI: He hasn’t referred us, where is he referring to, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: The application, pages 24 and 25.

MR VISSER: It’s right at the foot of the page.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Chairman, you will recall that there was evidence. The evidence that was lead specifically about the car, was that Cronje was Cronje was the person who was there.

CHAIRPERSON: He is not talking about the evidence that was lead Mr Memane, he is talking about the application and that is what he is putting to the witness.

MR MEMANI: But, Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He is not alleged, not made any reference evidence that was led.

MR MEMANI: But then also then, if you go by what you say, there’s no specific reference to a vehicle in this passage.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t understand what you are talking about, Mr Memane. Mr Visser is asking this witness - is putting to this witness what appears in the amnesty application lodged by Mr Ngo and asking him to comment on it.

MR MEMANI: But when he does so Mr Chairman he must put the entire version correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: He has put, as far as I know. What has he not put?

MR MEMANI: Maybe I made a mistake. What is it that being put, exactly, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: What has he not put? What are you objecting to that you say he has not what appears in the application?

MR MEMANI: You see my understanding Mr Chairman, is that this kidnapping was was conducted by people, different people who were in different vehicles and at different times joined together - but were later jointed together at a later stage.

And what I’m saying is that at material times Ngo would say that he was with Mtyhala and Cronje in a vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Visser has not asked this witness about being in a vehicle with them? He hasn’t mentioned that has he?

MR MEMANI: Presumably, Mr Chairman, he’s saying - My understanding is that he’s saying that the ...[inaudible] with the witness, prior to them arriving at the veld where Mr Mohape was being beaten up.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, am I wrong? Have you not just been reading what appears in the application?

MR VISSER: Nothing more and nothing less, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The precise words. What is your objection Mr Memane?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, if he’s just reading the application for the sake of reading then that’s fine.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Carry on.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Well, I’m not quite sure what the last question was, but let me try to pick it up like this Mr Tsoametsi.

The allegation is that yourself and Mr Mamome took Mr White Mohape to a veld between Bloemspruit and Shannon and that there they were joined by Motsamai, Mtyhala and Ngo, where all five of you beat up Mr White Mohape. Hammers and crowbars, now what do you say of that evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, not ...[intervention]

MR TSOAMETSI: That is not true, it is a lie what Ngo is saying. I know nothing about hammers and crowbars and the kidnapping of Mohape.

MR VISSER: Mr Tsoametsi, last week you were requested, while you here in the Commission hall, to stand up so that the commission could look at you and I think you were described as stoutish person. How would you describe yourself, your body build?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is true, I am stout.

MR VISSER: And, since when did it happen that you became stout? Sorry, for how long has your body build been the same as it is today?

MR TSOAMETSI: Since long time ago I’ve been stout, Sir, I’ve never been thin.

MR VISSER: Mr Tsoametsi, we can then go on to - page 27 Mr Chairman, of bundle A.

It is suggested, alleged that at the time when the 19 comrades were brought to Bloemfontein, we know it was the 6th of April 1986, it is alleged that you and Warrant Officer Ramosoeu, - page 29, Mr Chairman, told Mtyhala and Ngo that they should drink two and a half litres of water to force the comrades to drink, two bottles each.

Now, first of all, is that true?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is not true, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything to do with the 19 comrades who were transferred from Ladybrand to Bloemfontein in 1986, Mr Tsoametsi?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, no contact at all.

MR VISSER: If anybody said that you had anything to do with their torture and assault, what would you say about that?

MR TSOAMETSI: That person would be lying, Sir.

MR VISSER: Reference to page 31, Mr Chairman.

It is furthermore alleged that there was a group of people, a large group of 40 or more comrades who were students who were arrested at Botshabelo and the security branch members from Bloemfontein were involved in that. And at page 34 of Mr Ngo’s application, he alleges that members of the security branch Bloemfontein who participated personally and physically in the beating and torturing of all these comrades are - and your name is number four on that list. He says you personally and physically beat and tortured those comrades. What do you say about that?

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, that is not true because I explained that I was working in the white section, now, I’ve never worked once in Botshabelo.

MR VISSER: Lastly, if it’s alleged that you had anything to do with the assault on the home of Citi Mzuzwana, what would you say about that?

MR TSOAMETSI: I would say it’s a lie.

MR VISSER: In short Mr Tsoametsi, if it is alleged by any of the applicants that you committed any illegal or unlawful act, what do you say about that.

MR TSOAMETSI: I would say he is lying.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I’m just going to refer you to D, The Offence, D at page 25 and particularly at page 26, ja page 26.

CHAIRPERSON: Of what?

MR VISSER: Of bundle A. And I’m not going to lead any evidence Mr Chairman, because frankly I don’t quite understand whether this witness is being implicated. I will leave him now for cross-examination.

Perhaps just one last question. Do you know that Mr Ngo left to Hamanskraal Police college in July of 1986?

MR TSOAMETSI: I not remember the month but I know he disappeared.

MR VISSER: After he left Bloemfontein, did you ever have anything else to do with him?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the house of Max Makuba?

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, you will recall that when Mr Ngo gave evidence, he said that he went with Motsamai to attack the house. Thought it was the house of Max Makubalo but he now realises that it was the house of Citi Mzuzwana's parents or Citi. We’ll make some submissions about that, we’re not entirely certain whether he refers to the parental home or of Citi himself. That is why I asked on both legs, whether this witness knew about the bombing of the house of Citi Mzuzwana Mr Chairman, it's based on that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just referring to your affidavits.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Well at the time, of course, the evidence hadn’t been lead, so and in the application, Ngo made mention only of Max Makubalo and that is why that is in the affidavit as it is Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: I’ll find it for you immediately, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, if you - bundle A, and I’m just finding a page for you quickly, a typewritten page. Sorry, yes, it is at page, bundle C page 12, my attorney just pointed out. And this is what what we had at the time or what Mr Wagner and the witness had at the time when the affidavit was signed. And it is the item marked (b) little (b), just below the middle of the page

"On instructions of Colonel Coetzee, who at that time held the rank of major, Warrant Officer Tsoametsi, Sergeant Mamome, Constable Mtyhala and I, petrol bombed the house of Max Makubalo in Rocklands"

Now that was changed, Mr Chairman. If you need the reference to the record I can find that and give it to you but I won’t be able to do that immediately.

If you give me two seconds, I’m probably going to find it straight away, Mr Chairman. I have a note here of around page 300 of the record but it may be the wrong reference, I think it may.

Sorry, Mr Chairman it’s around 300, but I’ll find it and give it to you. Is it a convenient time now perhaps to take the tea adjournment, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR TSOAMETSI: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: ...[inaudible] this witness. Warrant Officer Tsoametsi, having worked in the so called white section of security branch, does that mean that you investigated or monitored white persons whom you regarded, I repeat, as activists?

Just switch on your microphone before you speak.

MR TSOAMETSI: Repeat your question, Sir.

MR VISSER: I’m sorry, I didn’t have my earphones on.

MR TSOAMETSI: Can you kindly repeat your question Sir.

MR VISSER: Yes. You told us that you worked the white section, Mr Tsoametsi.

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that the section which investigated or monitored white people who were regarded as activists?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: To your knowledge or recollection, did you ever investigate a person by the name of P.A. Venter?

P.D. Venter I think it was Mr Chairman.

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: The gentleman I’m referring to, just to perhaps jog your memory, was the person in regard to which Mr Ngo has made an application for amnesty for the murder and robbery of that person. Do you know whom I’m speaking about?

CHAIRPERSON: His dealt with this in his affidavit hasn’t he, so I presume he knows who you’re talking about.

MR VISSER: Thank you for pointing that out, Mr Chairman.

As far as you know, did you have a file on that person in the white section, that you investigated?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Do you know whether he was an informant of the security branch?

MR TSOAMETSI: I do not know.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on, there’s a matter which I need to raise and I’m afraid I overlooked it earlier. And that is to try and get an estimate of how long we will be able to continue today so arrangements can be made.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, we will obviously as we’ve done in the past fall in with any arrangements which you make, bearing in mind that there are consultations which I have to do in the evenings of course. So frankly, we would prefer not to sit too late but we’re absolutely in your hands, speaking for my team Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: There are other matters which I would like to discuss with counsel after we’ve adjourned but I think 5 o’clock, having started at nine would be as late as we could expect people to work here.

MR VISSER: That would be emanently suitable Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I’ve had agreement from the people behind me who do work all the time. Very well, carry on.

MR VISSER: Yes, I’ve completed the evidence in chief, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Tsoametsi, do I understand it correctly that you’ve already

retired?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: When did you retire?

MR TSOAMETSI: 1993 in March.

MR DU PLESSIS: And up to that date did you work as a member of the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You testified that you became aware of the fact that Mr Ngo not was working at Bloemfontein security branch at one stage, is that correct?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you after that date have any contact with him again?

MR TSOAMETSI: I saw him at the court before the Judges, it was in respect of this murder of Venter.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you have any other form of contact with him before that court case?

MR TSOAMETSI: I saw him when he was assaulted by the students.

MR DU PLESSIS: Am I correct if I say that this was while he was still working in Bloemfontein?

MR TSOAMETSI: He was still a student at that time, he was not yet in the police and that was when he was attacked by the school kids.

MR DU PLESSIS: I just want to put my question clearly. From the time that he left Bloemfontein, from that date until the date you saw him at court, did you see him or speak to him in the interim?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM MR DU PLESSIS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Tsoametsi, where you also part of the group of security policemen who interrogated the 19 people who were arrested at Ladybrand.

MR TSOAMETSI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: Where you at that stage part of the security police here in Bloemfontein? That is the sixth of March 1986?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Can you tell us why you say that you did not participate in the interrogation or were you not on duty that day or what is the position?

MR TSOAMETSI: I was on duty. As I’ve explained earlier on, I was in the black section, I was in the white section. Now there was nothing binding me and Crouse to go to the black section.

I did not ask them whether they needed my help even though I would have been in a position to help them.

MR STANDER: Please tell me, was a person by the name of Terreblanche busy with the interrogation of these people on that day?

MR TSOAMETSI: I would not give evidence to that effect, I do not know.

MR STANDER: Do you know Mr Terreblanche?

MR TSOAMETSI: I know him.

MR STANDER: Is it true that he was a security policeman who was employed there?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: A group of 19 people who have to be interrogated, do you agree if I say that it’s a large group of people and that many people had to be involved in the interrogation?

MR TSOAMETSI: I would not give evidence again Sir, to that effect.

MR STANDER: I do not understand you, what are you telling us? Is it not true that it was a large group of people who had to be interrogated at the same time?

MR TSOAMETSI: You see you don’t interrogate people simultaneously, you’d ask questions one by one.

MR STANDER: And you say that you had no part in this interrogation of this group of 19?

MR TSOAMETSI: Not at all, I did not take part at all.

MR STANDER: Later that day when the people were taken to the different police stations, did you participate in that at all?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR STANDER: Did you see any of this group of people there that day?

MR TSOAMETSI: I do not remember you see, because they were still young at that time. They might have shifted from their appearances when they were still young.

MR STANDER: I’m afraid I do not understand you. Can not you even remember that this group of 19 people were interrogated there that day?

MR TSOAMETSI: I’m saying Mr Chairman, even if they were interrogated I would not give evidence to that effect, I was not part.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speakers mike is not activated.

ADV DE JAGER: I don’t know but isn’t he trying to convey: "They were young at the time and I didn’t recognise their faces now, they have changed", something to that effect. I don’t know whether that’s what he’s trying to convey.

MR STANDER: I hear what you are saying and I am grateful, possibly I can ask him if that’s true.

Can you remember, of the group of 19 who were interrogated on the sixth of March 1986 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure of that date?

MR STANDER: I am sorry, it’s the sixth of April, thank you very much.

MR TSOAMETSI: What is your question, Sir?

MR STANDER: Can you remember that a group of 19 people were interrogated on the sixth of April 1986?

MR TSOAMETSI: I saw them, they were at the office.

MR STANDER: How many times did you see them there on that day?

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, it is difficult because I was in and out of the building until late when we knock off.

MR STANDER: What time did you go off duty on that day?

MR TSOAMETSI: The usual knock off time was 4 o’clock.

MR STANDER: I hear what you are saying, but what time did you knock off?

MR TSOAMETSI: I do not remember. I only know that we used to knock off at four o’clock with the white person Crouse whom I was working with.

MR STANDER: Did you also sometimes interpret for the white security police officers?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Did you also interpret for Mr Terreblanche at times?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, only Crouse and Naudè.

MR STANDER: Never for Terreblanche?

MR TSOAMETSI: Not at all.

MR STANDER: Is it possible that you can recall each and every person for whom you interpreted after a period of approximately 13 years?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, Sir, those white people had their own black workers, I would not leave my white person and go to them.

MR STANDER: Why I’m putting this question to you is that I have been instructed that on that specific day you acted as interpreter for Mr Terreblanche when Mr Oupa Makubalo was assaulted among others with a cricket bat ...[intervention]

MR TSOAMETSI: That is not true, no.

MR STANDER: Which procedure did you follow in the interrogation? Let us take the situation of a person who is brought in for interrogation and this person does not co-operate, what did you do then?

MR TSOAMETSI: Would detain him.

MR STANDER: If it was important information that you knew him to have and he still did not want to give it to you?

MR TSOAMETSI: We would put such a person in the cells.

MR STANDER: Was the information that you had to obtain not more important? Let us accept that it was information that was urgent for action that you had to take in future, then surely it would be of no use to put such a person in the cells.

MR TSOAMETSI: If the person refuses to speak we take such a person to the cells.

MR STANDER: If it is possible that this information was absolutely imperative, then surely it would be no use to put such a person in the cells. Which method would you follow then?

MR TSOAMETSI: There would be no way Sir, if he is not co-operative we would tell the officer that we still having a problem with this person, we’re taking him to the cells then we take such a person to the cells.

MR STANDER: Any other method that was used, apart from putting him in the cells? Is there any other method that you employed?

MR TSOAMETSI: When a person refuses to speak, we’ll take him to the cells so that the next day when we fetch him he would come sober minded and he would co-operate. There was no other way. There was no way of hurting this person or assaulting him or torturing him, we just took them to cells.

MR STANDER: Let us take it further, let us say for one moment that the person’s taken to the cells and he comes back and he still does not co-operate, what would you do then?

MR TSOAMETSI: We explain to this person: "Look here, you will stay here in this house until you co-operate we’re not going to release you".

MR STANDER: Are these the only methods that you used?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR STANDER: And the security police, did they in no other way than in this method the person was locked up until he co-operated?

MR TSOAMETSI: We locked him up, Sir.

MR STANDER: At any stage, was physical violence used?

MR TSOAMETSI: Not in my presence.

MR STANDER: But by other members of the security police?

MR TSOAMETSI: I told you Sir, I said not in my presence.

MR STANDER: Yes, but I’m asking you, did you know that other security police officers made use of violence to interrogate their people?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, not here in Bloemfontein. I was reading in the newspapers about such cases relating to security members what they did to people, killed people and we we only read these now lately because of the TRC, we did not know these things before.

MR STANDER: And at no stage ever that you know of, did any person or member of the security police in Bloemfontein, lift his hand to a person he was interrogating?

MR TSOAMETSI: No Sir, not between the time I started working here until I left. It might have been before my arrival or after my departure.

MR STANDER: I put it to you that it will be argued before this Commission that it is highly unlikely because it is obvious that when one needs or requires from a person information that is vital, then one will surely employ other methods in order to obtain this information.

MR TSOAMETSI: Understand Sir, if you assault a person trying to get information from him, you'd be saying to the person: "Keep quiet, keep quiet" because this person will be feeling pains. He will be thinking of his families, he’s children his future, he won’t be saying anything.

MR STANDER: Are there members of this group that you know were taken to doctors? I’m now referring to this group of 19.

MR TSOAMETSI: I do not know.

MR STANDER: Where was your office situated, was it on the 4th or the 5th floor?

MR TSOAMETSI: On the 5th floor.

MR STANDER: Did it also have an entrance which led onto Violent Street?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Can you tell us what your version is, how did Violent Street get its name?

MR TSOAMETSI: I remember one morning when we arrived we found the sticker already stuck on the wall, the sticker was written Violent Street.

MR STANDER: Did you enquire as to who stuck it on the wall?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, I did not do enquires.

MR STANDER: Is it so that from that that day onwards, the name of that passage was Violent Street?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: And it was general knowledge amongst all the police officers who were employed there?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Do you think that it was a suitable name for that passage?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR STANDER: Why not?

MR TSOAMETSI: Because that passage did not have any violence.

MR STANDER: Why didn’t you take the trouble ask the officers to remove the sticker because according to you nothing happened to justify that name?

MR TSOAMETSI: My seniors even saw it, they could have removed it.

MR STANDER: Did you enjoy working in a passage which was known as Violent Street while you, according to your own information, had no part in any assaults or ever heard of anybody who had been assaulted?

MR TSOAMETSI: You see I did not really concern myself with that sticker, it did not worry me a single moment.

MR STANDER: You were working in that passage, surely its not nice to work in a passage which is known for its violence, while according to your own version you never followed that procedure in interrogations or even heard of anybody who did so.

MR TSOAMETSI: Mr Chairman, let me help you I was not working in the passage, I had an office but this is the passage I used to walk when I wanted access to my office.

ADV DE JAGER: Maybe like staying "Bloedstraat" for instance?

MR STANDER: I’m sorry I didn’t hear your question.

ADV DE JAGER: I said, it may be like staying in "Bloedstraat" for instance, Blood Street?

MR STANDER: I am grateful for that.

I want to put it to you that Violent Street was named as such as a result of most of the assaults that took place, either occurred in that passage or in the offices leading off that passage.

MR TSOAMETSI: I did not know, I was a warrant officer. As a person I would never allow people to be assaulted in my presence.

MR STANDER: Tell me, is the office that you worked in was it sound proofed at any stage?

MR TSOAMETSI: What do you mean Sir, when you say it had sound absorbers? What does that mean?

MR STANDER: What I mean is that if someone had been in the office, had been assaulted in the office had been screaming, that somebody outside the office could not have heard it. That’s what I mean by sound proof.

MR TSOAMETSI: I would hear Sir, I would be in a position to hear.

MR STANDER: The day when you were working there, did you hear any screams?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: ...[inaudible]

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes, I would see then and I would even hear the sounds.

MR STANDER: You never employed or used that method to compel the detainees to talk, did you?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, we did not force them.

MR STANDER: Do you agree that to make somebody do physical exercises does not necessarily boil down to assault?

MR TSOAMETSI: You’re right.

MR STANDER: And there is no method that it can be linked to the person who gave the instruction?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR STANDER: You say it was a method of interrogation to make people do physical exercises?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR STANDER: Would it help in persuading people to co-operate?

MR TSOAMETSI: No. Only the cell.

MR STANDER: Did you know Mr White Mohape?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes Sir.

MR STANDER: Did he have a file?

MR TSOAMETSI: I believe so.

MR STANDER: Did you see when he was brought in time and again for questioning or interrogation?

MR TSOAMETSI: When I was present I would see when he was brought in.

MR STANDER: Let me rather leave that question. I want to put it to you Mr Tsoametsi, that on that day you did participate in the assault on the group of 19 persons.

MR TSOAMETSI: That is not so.

MR STANDER: I want to put it to you further that the reason why you are denying it today is because you know that you yourself, that you can possibly incriminate yourself because you have not applied for amnesty in this regard.

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, that is not so. I’m telling you that every black man you was there worked with a white person so we’d not ask one - we’d not interrogate one person, the four of us.

MR STANDER: I thank you, I have no more questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I have been going through the bundle A, the evidence and it appears that it does not contain the evidence in chief of Mr Ngo in this aspect and I intend relying on the record in cross examining this witness.

Now we are also generally not ready on other aspects to cross-examine this witness and we ask that his cross examination stand down until tomorrow. Hopefully by then we’ll have found a copy of Mr Ngo’s evidence in chief.

Are you looking at bundle A, Mr Chairman? You know if you look at the page 126, that is the end of Mr Venter and at page 128 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, 128 is the hearing on the 25th of May.

MR MEMANI: Yes. There I continue saying - as the Chair please Mr Chairman, I’m indebted to the Committee for the indulgence granted to me earlier on. We are now going to proceed with the evidence of Mr Ngo.

"Mr Ngo, we had come to the point where I indicated that we had completed the evidence on Mr Mohapi’s abduction, iss there anything you’d like to add regarding Mr Mohapi to the particulars"?

"The evidence I gave, that’s sufficient".

Now, there is 127 is blank and don’t who whether it constituted the entire evidence in chief of Mr Ngo on Mohapi.

ADV DE JAGER: But at the end of 126 the Committee adjourns till 8 o’clock the next morning.

MR MEMANI: The point I’m making is that before then we are dealing with Mr Venter only and there’s nothing on Mr Mohapi.

MR VISSER: If I may assist, Mr Chairman, bundle - the record A2, which you refer to as A2 at page 29, Mr Chairman. It’s slightly below the middle of the page and it runs on to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, I don’t know how far it runs on, but that’s White Mohape.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s on the 14th of May?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I apparently there are some exhibits we do not have. If you’re looking - If it forms part of - does it form part of bundle A?

CHAIRPERSON: A2.

MR MEMANI: That’s a document which we do not have, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: How could it come about that everybody else apparently has this document and you haven’t?

MR MEMANI: It has happened quite often, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t your attorney supposed to be responsible for obtaining the documents and briefing you with them?

MR MEMANI: I think, Mr Chairman, we can get what gets passed on to us. From time to time we get suprised to find that our learned friends are referring to documents which we have not been favoured ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But this is not a document, this is a copy of the record.

MR MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why doesn’t your attorney obtain it for you?

MR MEMANI: Well, Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn’t he obtain it for you?

MR MEMANI: I don’t think he’s even aware of its existence, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I find that hard to believe. He knows that there was a record been kept of each day's proceedings.

MR MEMANI: What we have in the form of a record of proceedings Mr Chairman, is what is contained in bundle A.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think the reason why there is, is it A2 or whatever, which is supposed to be part of the record contained in bundle A, I think there was something wrong with the record as compiled in Exhibit A, particularly towards its end or from the middle.

And I think that is why that extra package was introduced. It may be that you like some of us, you remained with the imperfect bundle A, which is imperfect somewhere from the middle or towards the end.

They could not coincide, I do recall, I may be wrong, but I do recall that Visser came with a copy which was not entirely in harmony with what we had been furnished, the transcript that we had been furnished, I think that could explain the inconsistency.

But I don’t think that there were enough copies made available of the portion that was brought by Mr Visser.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you want an adjournment until tomorrow morning?

MR MEMANI: A standing down of the witness, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you carry on with someone else Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Mr Miningwa has arrived and his cross-examination can now be completed, with your leave.

Mr Tsoametsi, you’re excused. Mr Tsoametsi, you’re excused until later.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR MEMANI: I’m indebted to the Chair.

 

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Miningwa you’re still under oath.

MR MININGWA: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: ...[inaudible] got a note Mr Chairman, was a reference to the house of the parents of Citi Mzuzwana. It was put to the witness you knew of both Siti and his parents home and the answer was no. And then was the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it was put that there was a sub-file in the file, sub file dealing with the other burning which was put to him - that was put to him that he knew both because there was a sub-file in the file and he said no he didn’t know about it, he didn’t read about it.

Right, Mr Memani?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Now, Mr Minimgwa you worked with churches as well, isn’t it?

MR MININGWA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And that evidence was lead by Mr Motsamai spontaneously without connecting you to any incident, at page 640 of the record.

Now, you accompanied Mr Motsamai when he went to bomb the church in Boshabelo, isn’t it?

MR MININGWA: I know nothing of such an incident, Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it the church or the pastor’s house?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, when I refer to the church, I usually am referring to the parish house.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I think it may create the wrong impression with the public and people hearing that a church has been bombed so perhaps we should stick to the correct description.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, I made a summary here but there’s something wrong with the notes. May I have a moment to try and work out what I was doing here.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR VISSER: Well, let me be of assistance Mr Chairman. There’s no evidence at all before you implicating this witness in that attack.

Perhaps in the mean time, to be of assistance, - - please stop me if I’m talking too much, Mr Chairman. you can refer to the application of Mr Motsamai at page 148, paragraph 12 and you will recall that Mr Ngo did not apply for amnesty with regard to any such incident.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I was referring to the wrong part of my notes, Mr Chairman. The part which I wish to put to Mr Miningwa was that he was present when the clinic of Winnie Mandela was bombed, in fact the house.

CHAIRPERSON: You’re putting that to him on the basis of the evidence of whom?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman this is - there is a problem Mr Chairman because Mr Motsamai seems not to agree with me on this aspect and I’m trying to find the relevant passage on the record, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, please stop me if I’m not being of assistance. It is paragraph - I’ve got a reference here in Exhibit P30 which mentions the name of Mr Miningwa and it’s at page 158 of Bundle A. I’ve got a reference here first to the clinic of Winnie Mandela and that’s the only reference in regard to anything about Mrs Winnie Mandela, referring to Mr Miningwa, so it’s a reference to the clinic.

CHAIRPERSON: Where’s this, do you say?

MR VISSER: My note here in Exhibit P30 says page 158 of bundle A.

CHAIRPERSON: My bundle A finishes at page 148.

MR VISSER: Maybe a typing error, Mr Chairman, may I just check that?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, Mr Miningwa is referred to at page 655 of the evidence.

MR VISSER: Yes, indeed.

MR MEMANI: This relates to the bombing of the clinic, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Kindly repeat the page again, page?

MR MEMANI: 655.

Now Mr Miningwa, Mr Motsamai led evidence that you accompanied him to Brandfort when he went to bomb the clinic of Mrs Mandela.

MR MININGWA: I know nothing of that incident, Sir.

MR MEMANI: He told us that he was with you and Mamome.

MR MININGWA: I know nothing of that incident.

MR MEMANI: And he also told us that you were supposed to keep watch on any people who might approach the scene.

MR MININGWA: I know nothing Sir, about that incident.

MR MEMANI: He also told us that when there was an explosion he saw you nearby and you were scared.

MR MININGWA: I know nothing of this incident.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Miningwa, when you heard that Mr Motsamai was implicating you in this matter, what steps did you take to gather evidence that could escalpate you?

MR MININGWA: It was was not necessary to look for something I’d not know. Where would I look for evidence to rescue myself because I was not there.

What I can tell you about this is that I heard that such an incident took place, a house or a clinic of Winnie was burnt, not that I took part.

I know nothing and it was not necessary therefor to gather evidence to come and convince that I did not do any thing.

MR MEMANI: There are no differences between yourself and Mr Motsamai, isn’t it?

MR MININGWA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And on the other hand, you have not applied for amnesty, isn’t it?

MR MININGWA: No, I don’t remember applying.

MR MEMANI: Mr Miningwa, my experience with people who are falsely implicating others is that they are usually minimise their participation in an incident, and here Mr Motsamai attributes himself an active role and yours is relatively minor and somewhat passive.

MR MININGWA: I am suprised Sir, that my name is included, I was not working with Motsamai. The people he was working with, even the white men he was working with I do not see around here. He mentioned to me and I was far away from him, this is really suprising.

MR MEMANI: Do you, by any chance recall any incident where you were in a Kombi with Morakile and Mtyhala?

MR MININGWA: If I was not using Mr Prinsloo’s car at the time - we had one transport, it was a Kombi and all of us would get into a Kombi and be dropped off at our respective homes. I do not know which occasion you are referring to because if I was not working at night, not using Prinsloo’s car, I would get into a Kombi with my colleagues to drop me off at home.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Miningwa, I may have asked you the question, pardon me if I have, were you present on the occasion when Motsamai and others went to Pretoria to consult with an attorney?

MR MININGWA: I was not there, Sir.

MR MEMANI: And did you give a full statement on the day when you went to consult?

MR MININGWA: About the incident that I saw on that page where it is alleged that I took part, I gave evidence, full evidence. Some of them that might have cropped up there after, I do not know but those who were mentioned, and I saw them on the paper, I gave evidence to that effect.

MR MEMANI: Now, at the time you went to consult, you must have become aware that it was alleged that you were present in 19 pupils were interrogated and assaulted at Bloemfontein Fountains.

MR MININGWA: I remember well. Mzuzwana's home was mentioned, Mrs. Mandela’s clinic was mentioned Other incidents I did not see them where my name is mentioned.

If I remember well, I heard when we were sitting at the Education Center where Oupa Makubalo said I was present but on the paper I did not see them.

He said on that day I was on the 5th, 4th floor and I quoted him. It does not appear on the papers.

MR MEMANI: Did you approach your attorneys?

MR MININGWA: Sir, it was not necessary. I expected that he would ask me when I’m sitting here on the witness box because in my main evidence there are no allegations at all. It only appeared when they were asked about the incidents that took place at Fountain. I really expected you to ask me here.

MR MEMANI: I just want to make sure if Ngo does not refer to you in his list.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 30, person number eleven.

MR MEMANI: Yes. Now your name is referred to on page 30 of bundle A as being one of the people who were present when Oupa Makubalo, Baba Kuzela, Minas and others were tortured at Fountains.

MR MININGWA: It’s my first time to hear of that incident.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Miningwa, you must have seen your attorneys and they must have put it to you that you have been implicated by Ngo as a person was present during the torture which took place on the 6th of April 1986 at Fountains.

MR MININGWA: Unfortunately Sir, I did not know, I only know of two allegations. The others I heard when the applicants were testifying as I am doing now.

MR MEMANI: Did you at any stage tell your legal representatives what your version was going to be in this hearing?

MR MININGWA: No.

Can you repeat that question Sir, I didn’t catch it very well.

MR MEMANI: Did you at any stage tell your legal representatives what your version was going to be at these hearings?

MR MININGWA: I think I gave them the statement, Sir. They told me that Motsamai implicates me on this issue, then I gave them a statements and I said: "That’s Motsomi’s version, I know nothing about that incident. I think they know what I was going to say today but they don’t know exactly what I was going to say as I’m sitting here.

MR MEMANI: That cannot be true. How could it be true, that’s the way attorneys work. A client comes in and says that: "I’m not guilty" and the attorney wants to know why you say you’re not guilty of what you’re being accused of?

MR MININGWA: Sir, I do not know how are you asking me this question because I gave a statement before the attorneys. The first day when I sit here, he led evidence told me that you’ve been implicated on this and this point and now I do not know what are you actually asking me.

MR MEMANI: You see the only reason why your attorneys did not take any statement about what you’re going to say here would be that you did not have any proper instructions to give to them at that stage.

MR VISSER: I’m going to have to object here, Mr Chairman. Frankly, I don’t even follow the line of the cross examination. But with all due respect to this witness that there isn’t an affidavit before you because he didn’t give my attorney instructions, is ridiculous, with respect.

We’ve explained to you at the time that the allegations started proliferating, there were more and more pieces of would be application papers that came to light, Mr Chairman, and we said on record to you that we’ve now reached the point where it doesn’t - make any - where there’s no point at all in filing further affidavits, we will have to call all the witnesses because otherwise we would have to keep amending the affidavits all the time.

With respect, Mr Chairman, my learned friend's questions, his statements which he’s putting to the witness are unfair in the extreme.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, these allegations are contained in the application in its original form before Mr Ngo testified.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, if my learned friend is through, can I try to refresh your memory about what happened with Mr Ngo’s application?

You will recall that on the first occasion, when we arrived here Mr Chairman, there was only one incident that he had applied for amnesty for and that was murder, robbery and the illegal possession of a firearm with regard to the Venter murder.

Thereafter there was - bundle C page eight came to light and we didn’t know - bundle C page eight, Mr Chairman, and nobody knew what the status of this document was you will remember very well. And eventually Mr Chairman this lead to a point, an item placed on the agenda of a pre-trial conference that we had to agree was what the application of Mr Ngo in the end really consisted of.

And at that stage we conceded that you can take it for granted that page 8, 9, 10, 11, up to 14 was also part of the application. The only point I’m making is originally there was no question about anything other than Mr Venter, that’s what we came to Bloemfomntein for in the first place, Mr Chairman.

So my learned friend’s statement is factually incorrect. And thereafter, you will recall, there was another 30 pages or whatever that came to light and we even conceded that those also would form part of the application, on the basis that Mr Ngo said to you in his evidence that he gave all these papers to the TRC. And we said well let’s be fair to the man, consider it all to be part of the application.

But it’s not correct to say that originally when consultations were held with the witnesses we knew exactly what he was going to say, we knew about Venter, that’s all.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the legal representatives of the people who are objecting might have raised the legal argument about whether or not the rest of the incidents formed part of the application but the factual allegations were contained in both documents that were submitted on behalf of Mr Ngo. So these allegations were already known to Mr Visser and Mr Wagner.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn’t there a dispute about two applications, and whether the documents were included in the first application and then we all agreed in the long end that we would take both applications because it might have been mislaid, that he did send it in and it might have been mislaid?

MR MEMANI: What I’m doing here, Mr Chairman, I’m referring you to the bundle, I’m saying look at both applications that are submitted by Mr Motsamai. They contain facts on most of the applications that he’s made and Mr Visser and Mr Wagner chose to raise a dispute about whether the rest of incidents formed part of his application. Now that was a legal argument.

My understanding is that a lawyer whose faced with such a situation prepares all the facts as well, Mr Motsamai was already making the allegations. He did not make the allegations against - as far as Mr Venter only is concerned. Throughout he spoke of the rest of the incidents which are contained again in the second, what we call the second application.

Mr Visser cannot be heard to say that at that stage he didn’t consult on the rest of the allegations because he wanted to raise, would I say a point in limine that they were not properly before this Court, before this forum.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, just to enable myself to follow, the witness has not made an affidavit, is that what it’s all about?

MR VISSER: No, this witness has made an affidavit. I’m not sure what the point is here but I - as much as I can gather Mr Commissioner, is that it’s being put to the witness that in his original affidavit he didn’t deal with all the allegations and with all the incidents which are now before you.

You will see at page 100 of bundle D, you will find the affidavit of Mr Miningwa. And he deals here in paragraph 2.2, were he says:

"Specifically I took note of certain allegations which implicated me".

then he goes to over to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t’ the problem Mr Visser, that the affidavit you are reading there relates to amnesty application of Mr Motsamai, not to Mr Ngo?

MR VISSER: Yes, absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: And the point that Mr Memani is trying to make is that he hasn’t dealt with the allegations in Ngo’s application.

MR VISSER: It’s not in dispute, we never gave you an affidavit for him in regard to Mr Ngo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that’s the point Mr Memani is seeking to make. That is you had told your attorneys about it they would have filed an affidavit.

MR VISSER: Yes, but my learned friend can’t ignore the evidence which is on record Mr Chairman, where we told you that there is a proliferation of incidents now that there’s going to be no point of filing affidavits, we will give the evidence viva voce, that’s exactly what we did.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MEMANI: But that surely Mr Chairman, would have occured after Motsomi, after affidavits relating to Motsomi were filed. When we first came here in May, or in March, the only person before the Committee was Ngo, Motsamai came in later and there was no proliferation at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the point Mr Visser makes is that when they came here first it was first it was to oppose the application in respect of Venter, the murder of Mr Venter.

MR MEMANI: What I’m saying, Mr Chairman, is that cannot be true from a working point of view because there were applications, there were factual allegations already made by Ngo at that stage. And that my understanding is that if you are sitting with a situation we you want to take a point that legally something is not before forum, you do not then not even consult with clients to deal with people who are implicated, to deal those allegations.

What was raised was something amounting to a point in limine. His name was mentioned in the application.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I would like to try to be of assistance so that we can cut this short. Could my learned friend just inform you and me in regard to which incident this cross-examination does now deal - which incident is it which he expected Mr Miningwa to have made an affidavit about in regard to Mr Ngo because we’re not certain what he’s referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you reply to that?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, at the present moment I’m dealing with what you referred to, that was at page 30 - A30

"Members of the security branch who were present who organised, were organised by Kenneth Coetzee and Colonel Stephenson to beat up and torture with number eleven Miningwa"

MR VISSER: Well you see Mr Chairman, that’s the, really, with all due respect, that’s the point. That document, as you know very well, became available only later Mr Chairman, it wasn’t even part of the papers on the first occasion that came out later. On the first occasion Mr Chairman, what you had was an application form, form 1 and then there was a document, the status of which was obscure from pages 8 to 14 of bundle C.

The other pages only came later, with all due respect. And what is more Mr Chairman, is even if pages 8 to 14 should’ve or ought to have been regarded by us as an application as it stood, as an application for amnesty, Mr Miningwa is not implicated there.

And I would challenge my learned friend to tell us where he is implicated.

MR MEMANI: The problem Mr Chairman, Mr Visser can’t run away from it, the problem Mr Chairman is that he’s client says that he was never told about this incident, he only heard about it at the hearings.

And I’m saying that during consultation, he’s legal representatives would have put these passages to him.

CHAIRPERSON: They should perhaps have they may not you could comment and use that as argument. He has said it wasn’t put to him.

MR MEMANI: But at this stage I’m taking it through him and we are going by his evidence that he was not told about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he said that right you’ve got that one, let’s go on.

MR MEMANI: As the chair pleases.

Now, I’m putting it to you that the only reason why your attorneys would not take instructions - would not take your version on this issue, would be that you did not have any proper instructions to give them.

MR MININGWA: I don’t think that is a question which would direct to me. I did not know about that, it’s not my work maybe to know what I did not know. I only learnt it from here, then I set out only reply there as we were. It was spoken before the Commission, I didn’t know about it before.

It didn’t appear on the allegations. I only know about two allegations, and that’s what I’ve put on my statement. I only learnt about other allegations here. I thought that I would reply to those allegations when I appeared before this Commission.

MR MEMANI: And did you become aware that - I’ll leave this matter then.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[indaudible]

INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the speaker.

CHAIRPERSON: One can argue just as much that he should have done so. There are all sorts of technical aspects of that nature which you can mention during argument and I’m sure other people will also mention.

MR MEMANI: I’m sure, Mr Chairman, I’ll be able to distinguish Motsamai from Miningwa in this regard Mr Chairman.

If I may take instructions, Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now, you know Citi Mzuzwana,isn’t it?

MR MIMINGWA: I know him very well, I know him very well.

MR MEMANI: And you’ve already told us that he a trade unionist and you were working with trade unions.

MR MIMINGWA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And his house later got bombed, isn't it?

MR MIMINGWA: I received such a report then I went verify, then I found it to be that the big window was broken and that curtains seemed to be burned.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Motsamai has told us that you participated in that petrol bombing.

MR MIMINGWA: I’m suprised. If he would be reminded that the time when he - when he made his statement, he could have written first that I was there in that incident. It's nowhere where he said I was present he only say I was present at Mzuzwana's parent’s house.

That is why I told this Commission that I know for the first time that Mzuzwana's house was burnt. I only know of Citi Mzuzwana’s house then later I went to find out and verify as whether is it true. I learnt that from my informer.

MR MEMANI: And, by the way when I say Citi’s, when I said Citi’s, I meant Citi’s parental home.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that’s a different building, isn’t it?

MR MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chair, I’m sorry I was not precise.

Now, can we get clarity now, can we get certainty about your answer. Mr Motsamsai told us that you were present when Citi Mzuzwana's parental home was petrol bombed.

MR MIMINGWA: As I said, that I learnt here in this hearing about Citi Mzuzwana's parental home, I didn’t know about that before. When I received those allegations, I knew that Citi’s parent’s home was burned. I only learnt about Citi’s house which I went to verify, then I found that it was true, it was burnt.

MR MEMANI: Subject to correction, on Friday you told us that ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: I think Mr Memani whether you were present when Citi’s parent’s house was bombed.

MR MIMINGWA: Mr Chairperson, I replied and say I did not know, I was not present. That is why I said I found that allegation for the first time when I saw Motsamai's allegations. I said I didn’t know anything about that.

MR MEMANI: Now, if I remember correctly, on Friday you told us that you where sent to go and have a look at Citi Mtswana’s house because you worked with Citi. Isn’t it?

MR MIMINGWA: I didn’t say that, I did not say that.

MR MEMANI: What was the reason why you were sent to go and have a look at the house?

MR MIMINGWA: It may me come clearly, I don’t know as whether you talk about Citi’s parent’s house or Citi’s house. I went to see Citi’s house, not Citi’s parents house.

I went to his house after I learnt about that from my informer, then my immediate superior said when I made a report about about hearing from the informer about that incident, he said I should go and verify as whether the house was burnt. That is Citi’s house, not Citi’s parent’s house.

MR MEMANI: And I was putting it to you that my recollection is that you said your superior sent you to go and have a look because you were working with Citi, Citi was in your profile.

MR MIMINGWA: I was not working with Citi, you speak as if he was my colleague. Because he was an activist in the trade unions, I was working - he was my suspect.

MR MEMANI: I menat to say ...[Sotho - no translation] it's unfortunate that it came in a different way in Sotho to you.

CHAIRPERSON: You said he was working with Citi.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

Now, you said that your superior sent you because you were working about Citi, maybe you should use that word.

MR VISSER: No, he said it was because he was his suspect, Mr Chairman. I don’t understand "working with" either.

MR MEMANI: I don’t think it makes a difference.

MR VISSER: Well, with respect, it does Mr Chairman. He’s placing words in the mouth of the witness which the witness hasn’t testified to and that’s unfair. And I just don’t see the point in it because it’s just wasting time, with all due respect.

He says Citi was his suspect, why can’t we just stick to that, Mr Chairman?

MR MEMANI: And you told us that your superior told you to go and have a look at the house because you were working about Citi, Citi was one of the persons you were working about, you were investigating or whatever.

MR VISSER: I object. This witness did not say so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the indication I got was that he certainty was investigating him.

MR VISSER: That’s the point, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And that’s what he said, that he was investigating him.

MR VISSER: That he was working about him doesn’t ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: And then Mr Memani corrected it and said: "investigating". So let’s not have these objections, objections, objections. Carry on Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: Did you hear the question?

MR MIMINGWA: I have a problem about Mr Memani's question because I don’t know what he is looking for. He was saying I was working about Citi, if he can give me a clearer explanation about that question.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, let's start again, Citi, you have told us was one of the trade unionists and activists in whom the security branch were obviously interested, is that not so?

MR MIMINGWA: Those are my words.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and for that reason your superior told you to go and verify whether this information you had received from an informer was true.

MR MIMINGWA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And you kept a sub-file on Citi’s Mzuzwana's parental home, isn’t it?

MR MIMINGWA: I don’t know about the file concerning his parents, I only know about Citi Mzuzwana’s file.

MR MEMANI: But on Friday when I put it to you that there was a sub-file on Citi Mzuzwana’s parents, you conceded.

CHAIRPERSON: My note is that he said he did not know.

MR MEMANI: Oh, I beg your pardon Mr Chair.

Now, Mr Miningwa, you are denying that you had any knowledge of Citi Mzuzwana’s parental home sub-file because you were present when Mr Motsamai petrol- bombed that house.

MR MIMINGWA: I know nothing about Mzuzwana’s parents sub-file.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you present when their house was petrol-bombed?

MR MIMINGWA: I explained Sir, clearly, that I know nothing about the house of Mzuzwana’s parents when it was petrol-bombed.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, this will be my last question but it seems there’s some instructions.

Now, my instructions are that you never investigated Citi Mzuzwana’s parental house, no, Citi Mzuzwana’s house, because security branch did not do anything about the matter and it was left in the hands of the CID.

MR MIMINGWA: I hear that for the first time, I learn that for the first time. I was given an instruction to verify as to whether is it Citi’s own house which has been burnt as the informer has said.

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that the matter was referred to CID.

CHAIRPERSON: He never said he investigated it, he went to the place and he said he saw the big window was broken and it looked as if the curtain had been burnt.

MR MEMANI: May I proceed Mr Chair?

And that did not go there because you were investigating Mzuzwana as such, because it was known that security branch had done it.

MR MIMINGWA: Maybe he knows that he burnt the house but at that time as I was working with the trade trade unions, we did not know that the security branch bombed Citi’s own house. That is why my senior said I should go there and verify as to whether that house is burnt or not. Maybe he knows that he is the one who is responsible for the burning of that house.

MR MEMANI: Now, tell me, you knew that files were kept of certain people who were involved in political activities, isn’t it?

MR MIMINGWA: They were there, they were not stored, they were there.

MR MEMANI: When these allegations were made, why didn’t you take the trouble of going and looking at the files and see what Motsamai is talking about?

MR MIMINGWA: I want to say, may you please repeat your question because I don’t understand your question as to whether they were kept now more or they were kept them. But I say then they were there, I’m not sure whether they now are kept or stored.

MR MEMANI: You told us that you had a file on Citi Mzuzwana, isn’t it?

MR MIMINGWA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And Mr Motsamai alleges that Citi Mzuzwana’s home was burnt and you know about that one isn’t it?

MR MIMINGWA: Yes, about Citi’s old home.

MR MEMANI: He also mentions the burning of his parental house.

MR MIMINGWA: That is correct. As you say, I learnt that for the first time.

MR MEMANI: And he says he did that during the course of his duties as a member of the security branch.

MR MIMINGWA: I learnt that.

MR MEMANI: And did you not know anything about the bombing of the house of the the parental home of Citi Mzuzwana?

MR MIMINGWA: I know nothing about that.

MR MEMANI: And my question is, why don’t you take steps to verify like going to the office ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Because this is 13 years ago and he says he doesn’t know if the files are there. Do you think files of incidents 13 years ago to still be kept in the office?

And how long ago Mr Memani, was it when you said this is my last question?

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. I did not hear him to say that he did not know ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He said it a few minutes ago that he didn’t know if the files were still there.

Didn’t you say that?

MR MIMINGWA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: I thought at that stage, Mr Chairman, there was some problem with the interpretation, there was keeping and storing and so on and that that is why I stopped using the word: "keep" and I used the word "had".

If Mr Chairman, you could allow me to ask the

question?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think Mr Memani, what do you expect him to find in the file, what must he go and look for in the file?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chairman, I would expect him to go for instance and look the file and say there was no such file for instance, because he says he did not know anything about a file kept by the Mzuzwana's.

If it’s an incident that he knows nothing at all about when in fact he was working with Citi Mzuzwana I would have expected him to have gone and had a look and see if there was anything perhaps in the nature of a sub-file kept about Mzuzwana’s parents or whether they had a political profile of their own that justified Motsamai going to bomb that house in the course of duty.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You may carry on like the chairperson has said. I don’t quite appreciate what you should go and look for.

MR MEMANI: As the chair pleases, I will leave the matter there. I have no further questions Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

MR VISSER: No re-examinations Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Would this be a convenient time to adjourn for the luncheon Mr Chairman?

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR VISSER: I call the next witness, Mr Mtyhala. It is spelt m - t - y - h - a - l - a. There is an affidavit of this gentleman before you in bundle B at page 32.

Mr Mtyhala just switch on the microphone in front of you please.

Are you Reginald Mxolisi, spelt M-x-o-l-i-s-i Mtyhala - M-t-y-h-a-l-a?

REGINALD MXOLISI MTYHALA: (sworn states)

MR MTYHALA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Are you a policeman?

MR MTYHALA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What is your rank?

MR MTYHALA: Sergeant, Sir.

MR VISSER: Did you become aware that certain allegations were made against you?

MR MTYHALA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And did you at one point in time go to Pretoria to see a lawyer?

MR MTYHALA: Yes I did go to Pretoria.

MR VISSER: Was Mr Motsamai a member of the group of persons that went to Pretoria?

MR MTYHALA: That is correct, we went with him.

MR VISSER: Did you sign an affidavit?

MR MTYHALA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that the document before you?

MR MTYHALA: Yes, this is the document Sir.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the truthfulness and the correctness of the contents thereof?

MR MTYHALA: That is correct, Sir.

MR VISSER: Did anybody prescribe to you what should be in your affidavit?

MR MTYHALA: Well I learned when I had been explained about these allegations of what was happening.

MR VISSER: Let me ask you this way, is there anything in this affidavit which is not correct or truthful?

MR MTYHALA: All those things which happened here are those which I saw and then those allegations are not true.

MR VISSER: When did you join the South African Police?

MR MTYHALA: On the 15th of March 1982.

MR VISSER: And when did you become a member of the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR MTYHALA: I came here in 1985 in June.

MR VISSER: June '85. Which section did you work?

MR MTYHALA: I was working under church section.

MR VISSER: And who was your commanding officer?

MR MTYHALA: My commanding officer was Attie Coetzee.

MR VISSER: Who were the other members of the security branch in the church section?

MR MTYHALA: I was together with Coetzee, Shaw, Erasmus, L.D. Koch, P.A.C Koch, Cronje, N. Killian, Mamome, Motsamai and myself.

MR VISSER: I think you went a little bit quickly, can you just perhaps repeat it? It was Coetzee, Shaw, Erasmus, Killian, and then you said Koch twice, were there two Kochs?

MR MTYHALA: Yes there are two, it's L.D. Gogh and P.A.C. Gogh.

MR VISSER: Alright. Killian, Mamome and Motsomai, are those all the members of that section?

MR MTYHALA: That is correct. I forgot about Mr Ramosoeu.

MR VISSER: Ramosoeu?

MR MTYHALA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: R - a - m - o - s - o - e - u, Mr Chairman.

MR MTYHALA: Yes, it is written that way.

MR VISSER: In 1985/86 more or less how many members in total were there attached to the security branch here in Bloemfontein?

MR MTYHALA: Approximately 60 to 70 or above.

MR VISSER: As far as the allegations against you are concerned, that you acted unlawfully or illegally, what do you say about that?

MR MTYHALA: To those things I would say I know nothing and I haven’t done anything.

MR VISSER: Did you take part in the kidnapping and assault of Mr White Mohape?

MR MTYHALA: No Sir, it’s not true.

MR VISSER: Did you take part in a petrol bomb attack on the house of Mr Max Makubalo?

MR MTYHALA: It’s not true, I don’t know even where he stays.

MR VISSER: Did you attack ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Before going to the other one, isn’t it common cause now that this is Citi’s house?

MR VISSER: I believe so, Mr Chairman, but I understood last time that there was some confusion. I filed a reference on the record, it's page 375, but I’m immediately going to put him if he admits that Mr Chairman.

Did you have anything to do with the attack on the parental home of Mr Citi Mzuzwana?

MR MTYHALA: No Sir, it’s not true.

MR VISSER: Or his own home?

MR MTYHALA: Not at all Sir.

MR VISSER: Do you know anything and did you take part in the attack on the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela?

MR MTYHALA: No Sir. I didn’t play any role in the attack of Mrs Winnie Mandela’s house or clinic.

MR VISSER: Did you participate in an attack on the vehicle of Mr Jannie Mohape?

MR MTYHALA: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: Or the burning of the minibus of Mr Elijah Mohape?

MR MTYHALA: No Sir, I don’t even know that mini bus.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo gave evidence regarding a UDF activist called JJ or Papie, whom he says was murdered in 1986. Do you know anything about that?

MR MTYHALA: No Sir. I learnt that a certain UDF member has been murdered. I didn’t play any role in that, I didn’t even know that person.

MR VISSER: Now, were you present - am I going too fast, Mr Chairman?

Were you present when Oupa Makubalo was arrested?

MR MTYHALA: No Sir, I was not present. I went to Smithfield, then I learnt later that he has been arrested.

MR VISSER: You heard the evidence here that a vehicle arrived and people shot at him and he was arrested in King street I think it was, that’s the incident I’m referring to. Do you know anything about that?

MR MTYHALA: What I know is that he has been arrested in relation to Motsamai’s informer's murder. I don’t know, I just heard.

MR VISSER: And that person, the informer, was Mr Khoze, is that correct?

MR MTYHALA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In 1986 there was a group of 19 persons who were transferred from Ladybrand to Bloemfontein and who were interrogated here in Bloemfontein. Did you have anything to do with those 19 detainees?

MR MTYHALA: I only saw those people in the offices. When I enquired, I learned that they were arrested because they tried to skip the country. I did have a role because I was not in that section, I was in the church section.

MR VISSER: It is also correct that at one stage or another you took some of those people to Glen Police Station?

MR MTYHALA: Yes, I helped because they did not have enough people to help the drivers to take them to the police station so I did take part in the transfer of those people to Glen Police Station.

MR VISSER: Can you remember on what ground they were detained at Glen Police Station?

MR MTYHALA: If I remember, I remember that they were arrested because they tried to skip the country and that was illegal.

MR VISSER: But when you entered them in the occurrence book - let me ask you, were these people that you took to Glen, were their names entered into whatever the relevant book is in Glen Police Station?

MR MTYHALA: Yes, that is correct. Like any other person who has been arrested, their names were entered in the relevant books.

MR VISSER: And what I’m asking you is, on what grounds were they held there, can you remember?

MR MTYHALA: It is because they were trying to skip the country when they were arrested by the soldiers.

MR VISSER: Alright. It was suggested that you were told by Tsoametsi, T-s-o-a-m-e-t-s-i and Ramosoeu, R-a-m-a-s-o-e-u, that you and Ngo should bring water and that you should force the comrades to drink two bottles of water each. Is there any truth in that?

MR MTYHALA: That is not true, there was no such command to such kind of a thing.

MR VISSER: And that you participated in forcing those arrested persons to do frog jumps, push-ups and high jump exercises?

MR MTYHALA: No Sir, I didn’t even ask them anything.

MR VISSER: Well, let’s cut this short. Did you participate at all in any assault on any of these people and did you and/or did you see anybody assault them in your presence?

MR MTYHALA: I did not take part and again I did not see any person assaulting those people in my presence.

MR VISSER: Lastly, it has been suggested that you also took part in the beating up and torturing of a large group of comrades which was arrested and taken to Botshabelo Police Station. What do you say of that?

MR MTYHALA: That is not true, I did not even go to Botshabelo. I was not even working in Botshabelo.

MR VISSER: I said lastly and I was incorrect., I should have turned the page Mr Chairman, I’m sorry.

You were also implicated by Mr Motsamai in an attack or a petrol bomb attack on a house belonging to Nicos. Is that true?

MR MTYHALA: That is a lie. I did not take part in that attack.

MR VISSER: And Mr Motsamai - I’m sorry, I should perhaps give you the references Mr Chairman, instead of keeping it to myself, it’s page 146 of bundle A, paragraph four and that is Mr Motsamai.

And at page 147 of the same bundle, paragraph 10, it is alleged that you participated in the petrol bomb attack on the house of a teacher called Bolosha - B-o-l-s-h-a.

MR MTYHALA: I don’t know that person, I don’t even know his house. I did not take part in that incident.

MR VISSER: Just in case, there are two further incidents, the one we have already spoken about, the arrest of Oupa Makubalo, but then there was also a petrol bomb attack - that’s item twelve, Mr Chairman at page 148.

A petrol bomb attack on the parish house in Botshabelo, did you have anything to do with that if that happened?

MR MTYHALA: No, I did not take part in that incident.

MR VISSER: I’m sorry, Mr Chairman, I just cannot recall whther its this witness or the previous witness that I’ve asked about Oupa Makubalo. My attorney seems to think I did ask this witness about him but I really cannot recall, I’m sorry. Well, let me just ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON

"...[inaudible] was not present when Oupa was arrested, I went to Smithfield I later heard he was arrested in relation to Motsamai informer’s murder"

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I’m indebted to you. Those are my questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

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

Did Mr Ngo at a certain stage leave Bloemfontein? According to your knowledge, was he transferred or did he move out of Bloemfontein?

MR MTYHALA: I knew only after he has left that he went to Hammanskraal Police Training College, then I learnt that he was somewhere in Mamelodi.

MR DU PLESSIS: Okay, after he had moved out of Bloemfontein, did you see him again?

MR MTYHALA: Yes, I saw him when he was in Supreme Court about the murder of Mr Venter.

MR DU PLESSIS: Okay, from the time of leaving Bloemfontein and when you saw him in court again did you ever see him in that period?

MR MTYHALA: No, Sir, there was nowhere where I saw him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you speak to him over the phone or otherwise?

MR MTYHALA: No Sir, there's nowhere where I talked with him.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Mtyhala, I’ve been instructed to put it to you that you have indeed participated in the torturing of the group of 19 here in Bloemfontein. That was on sixth of April 1986. What is your reaction to this?

MR MTYHALA: No, that is just an allegation, I did not do that.

MR STANDER: A role which you specifically played consisted of you having the women in particular drink water. thus to intimidate them in order to gain their co-operation. What is your reaction to this?

MR MTYHALA: There’s nothing like that.

MR STANDER: I also wish to state to you that the reason why you deny this is because of the fact that you have not applied for amnesty and that is why today you are forced to deny this.

MR MTYHALA: I’m not deny this thing. I did not do that. I haven’t done anything, if I did anything I could have applied for amnesty.

MR STANDER: No further questions, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Mr Mtyhala, my instructions are that you and Ngo were very close whilst you where stationed here in Bloemfontein, that you used to drink together at times.

MR MTYHALA: There is no way I drank with him, he came only twice. After leaving that - my sister’s child, he was together with my sister’s child at school.

MR MEMANI: And were you otherwise close with him at work?

MR MTYHALA: We saw each other only at work when we report and when we knocked off but I haven’t worked with him outside.

MR MEMANI: And did he on occasion sleep at your place?

MR MTYHALA: No, he never slept at my place.

MR MEMANI: Haven’t you perhaps forgotten, because he tells me that he used to sleep at your place at times?

MR MTYHALA: No, I did not forget, that is a lie.

MR MEMANI: Now, and you worked - do you agree with him that you worked with him at black section under Shaw and Coetzee?

MR MTYHALA: I already said that we reported to Coetzee and the second in charge was Coetzee in that section. My work was the churches section. The black section was separate from the church section.

MR MEMANI: You are not motivated by any ill feelings to come and testify here against his application, isn’t it?

MR MTYHALA: No Sir, there is nothing.

MR MEMANI: And there were no feelings between yourself and Mr Ngo?

MR MTYHALA: From the start, even up to now, I regarded him as my younger brother and my colleague. I don’t even have ill feelings.

MR MEMANI: Now, you do not have any ill feelings against Mr Motsamai, do you?

MR MTYHALA: I have no problem with Mr Motsamai because I regarded him as my friend and my brother.

MR MEMANI: And he also regarded you as a friend and a brother?

MR MTYHALA: I don’t know as to whether he pretends to be a friend and a brother because I will not able to analyse his feelings but we do not have a problem.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR VISSER: No, Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Chairman, perhaps I should record that if my learned friend, Mr Melani does not put this witness the evidence of his applicants, I’m going to argue that he’s conceded them. With respect, I don’t want to tell him how to do his job Mr Chairman, but there is a problem now.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I can’t see the problem. Yyou’re both counsel and you know how to handle your cases and you could argue your case and he could argue his case.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The next witness is Mr Litseho, L-i-t-s-e-o. I’m sorry, that’s the incorrect spelling, L-i-t-s-e-h-o, I'm sorry Mr Chairman.

Mr chairman there is an affidavit of this gentleman before you. Sorry that we’re not ready Mr Chairman, this came a bit sudden.

MR LITSEHO: [sworn states]

MR VISSER: Bundle B, page 96 Mr Chairman.

Mr Litseho, are you a member of the South African Police?

MR LITSEHO: I was a member of the SAP, I’m now on pension.

MR VISSER: With what rank did you go on pension?

MR LITSEHO: I was a sergeant.

MR VISSER: Do you see the document now placed before you, is that an affidavit which you signed?

MR LITSEHO: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the truthfulness and the correctness of what is stated in that affidavit?

MR LITSEHO: Yes.

MR VISSER: When did you join the South African Police?

MR LITSEHO: It was in 1975.

MR VISSER: Do you remember the month?

MR LITSEHO: It was in April, the 14th of April 1975.

MR VISSER: When did you join the security branch here in Bloemfontein?

MR LITSEHO: I joined them in 1987. It was in January, January of 1987.

MR VISSER: Until January of 1987, where were you stationed?

MR LITSEHO: I don’t understand you question before that Sir?

MR VISSER: I sorry. I want to know, before January of 1987, where were you stationed?

MR LITSEHO: I was stationed at the National Intelligence Service and I came to Batu for 6 months in 1986.

MR VISSER: When you came to the security branch, in January 1987, in which section did you work?

MR VISSER: ...[inaudible] who the other members were who worked in that section?

MR LITSEHO: Yes, I can mention them. Our direct commander was Colonel Shaw, there was Lieutenant Cronjè, Superintendent Killian, Warrant Officer Mamome, Warrant Officer Ramosoeu.

MR VISSER: Is that spelt: R-a-m-o-s-o-e-u? Yes?

MR LITSEHO: That’s the right spelling. There was a Mtyhala, he worked for a little while then he left. He went to the church section.

MR MEMANI: The previous witness?

MR LITSEHO: That is correct. And it was myself.

MR VISSER: Was Mr Motsamai a member of that team?

MR LITSEHO: No, he was working under investigation, the investigation of the detainees.

MR VISSER: Alright. Can you remember how many members in total there were at the security branch in 1987?

MR LITSEHO: I do not remember.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai has made application for amnesty in regard to an attack on a house of a certain Bolosha.

Page 147, Mr Chairman, item 10.

And he says that you were one of the people who participated in that attack. What do you say about that?

MR LITSEHO: I do not agree with that Sir, at all.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chair, Mr Litseho, do you know Constable Ngo?

MR LITSEHO: I do not know him at all, I saw him at Bayswater at the Truth Commission.

MR STANDER: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR STANDER: I have no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Mr Litseho, you told us that Mr Mtyhala was removed from black section to churches. My instructions are that he was not removed from black section but just assigned to churches within black section.

MR LITSEHO: That is not so. According to my knowledge, the churches fell under union sections. I think I worked with Mtyhala for about two months and he was transferred.

MR MEMANI: Alright, you haven’t applied for amnesty, isn’t it?

MR LITSEHO: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And if these things are true you’d be in trouble, isn’t it?

MR LITSEHO: I did not apply because I know my hands are clean, clean.

MR MEMANI: Yes. And did you have any differences with Mr Motsamai?

MR LITSEHO: Not at all Sir.

MR MEMANI: Now, those are my questions, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR VISSER: No thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: ....[inaudible]

 

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman it’s going a little quickly for me now, the next witness I believe that is here, is Mr Morakile. Mr Morakile’s name is spelt: M-o-r-a-k-i-l-e.

There is an affidavit of this gentleman in your bundle B at page 102.

MR MORAKILE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Will you bear with us a moment Mr Chairman, we’re just finding an affidavit to place before this witness. Now perhaps I can start.

Mr Morakile, are you still attached to the South African Police Service?

MR MORAKILE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In what section are you working now?

MR MORAKILE: I am working - I am doing special investigation within the corruption section.

MR VISSER: And what is your rank?

MR MORAKILE: I’m a detective sergeant.

MR VISSER: May I ask, through the Chair, Mr Chairman, whether Mr Brink - we haven’t got a loose affidavit of the witness, It’s at page 102, that Mr Brink sitting next to you can just show him the affidavit Mr Chairman?

MR VISSER: Are you being shown a document which professes to be an affidavit signed by yourself?

MR MORAKILE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you in fact sign that document?

MR MORAKILE: That is correct

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the truthfulness and the correctness of the contents of that document?

MR MORAKILE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: When did you join the South African Police?

MR MORAKILE: In 1979.

MR VISSER: And when did you join the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR MORAKILE: June 1986.

MR VISSER: Now are you quite sure of that Mr Morakile, that you joined the security branch in Bloemfontein at June 1986?

MR MORAKILE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Where were you previous to that stationed, before you came to the security branch?

MR MORAKILE: From 1979 until 1982, I was at the border post at van Rooyen’s Gate. From 1982 to 1986 ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Just a moment, just a moment.

...[Chairperson has problems with microphone]

CHAIRPERSON: No, there are bits of his evidence there. Could you tell me again where he was?

MR VISSER: Yes.

Perhaps can you just repeat, where were you prior to June 1986?

MR MORAKILE: I was at the stock theft unit at Wepener.

MR VISSER: Now, what section did you come to work in in the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR MORAKILE: I was doing investigation.

MR VISSER: Who was your commanding officer?

MR MORAKILE: Captain Du Plooy.

MR VISSER: And which other persons, if any, were also in that same section?

MR MORAKILE: I found Kopi, Mafisa and Mmelesi. Those were the black men.

MR VISSER: Did you work with Mr Ngo?

MR MORAKILE: No, not at all.

MR VISSER: Do you know Mr Ngo at all?

MR MORAKILE: I saw Ngo for a short time, I think two, if not three weeks and he left for the college.

MR VISSER: Did you ever see him after that?

MR MORAKILE: No I never saw him thereafter.

MR VISSER: Or have anything to do with him after that?

MR MORAKILE: Not at all.

MR VISSER: Did you work with Mr Motsamai?

MR MORAKILE: Not at all.

MR VISSER: Now, Mr Motsamai has alleged that you took part in an attack and we know it was during 1985 that this happened, on a house belonging to Mrs Winnie Mandela. What do you say about that?

MR MORAKILE: In 1985 I was not present, I was in Wepener. I came to the security branch in 1986.

MR VISSER: And did you did you take part in the attack on the house of Mrs Mandela?

MR MORAKILE: Not at all.

MR VISSER: It is also suggested that you took part in a petrol bomb attack on the house of Nicos. What did you say about that?

MR MORAKILE: I was not present.

MR VISSER: The petrol bomb attack on the house of Bolosha. Did you take part in that?

MR MORAKILE: Not at all.

MR VISSER: Did you take part in a petrol bomb attack on a parish house in Bochabela?

MR MORAKILE: Not at all.

MR VISSER: Were you present during and incident were Oupa Makubalo was arrested?

I’m sorry Mr Chairman, it’s items 2, 4, 10, 12 & 14 and I'm now at item 14 and all of this is Mr Motsamai.

Were you present when Oupa Makubalo was arrested?

MR MORAKILE: Yes, I was present.

MR VISSER: Will you tell the Committee, how it came about and what you remember about that incident.

MR MORAKILE: We were on the 5th floor at Fountain on that day. We were in the kitchen, Motsamai arrived and he requested our assistance, he said he got information that the person who killed his informer is somewhere in Bochabela.

We got into the Kombi and we left for Bochabela, it was in the afternoon. When we arrived at Botshabela, the Kombi stopped. Oupa Makubalo started running away, then we got out of the Kombi to chase him. I think the second house from the corner, he got into that house.

We jumped the fences. I could not catch hem but Sergeant Mamome caught him and then we took him back to the office.

MR MEMANI: Mr chairman, I’m not getting the interpretation, has anyone got the interpretation?

CHAIRPERSON: I’ve got the same problem. Perhaps you could ask him to repeat. I don’t think we need about driving to Bochabela, but what happened when they got to Botshabel. If we could have it repeated a little more slowly please.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Morakile, I would ask you to perhaps speak a little more slowly so the interpreter has time to hear what you say and to interpret it. Do you understand?

MR MORAKILE: I understand Sir.

MR VISSER: Now, you gathered, drove together with other members of the security branch in a Kombi to somewhere, is that correct?

MR MORAKILE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Where, precisely did you go?

MR MORAKILE: We were going to arrest Oupa Makubalo.

MR VISSER: Where, in what area did you go and arrest him, what is the name of the place?

MR MORAKILE: Bochabela, B-o-c-h-a-b-e-l-a.

MR VISSER: It is not the same as Botshabelo, is that right, there’s a difference.

MR MORAKILE: They are not the same, you are right.

MR VISSER: You drove down the street and then what did you see?

MR MORAKILE: When we arrived at Botchabela, there was a group of people there, one of the ran away. That is when we knew that it was Oupa Makubalo. We chased him a way, he jumped over the fences, we jumped the fences too until Sergeant Mamome caught him.

MR VISSER: Mamome, M-a-m-o-m-e. The interpreter said you chased him away, did you chase after him, after Oupa Makubalo.

MR MORAKILE: That is correct, we were chasing after him.

MR VISSER: Did you have your firearm with you?

MR MORAKILE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you draw your firearm?

MR MORAKILE: Not at all, I did not.

MR VISSER: And then consequently did you, discharge your firearm at all on that day?

MR MORAKILE: My firearm was never discharged.

MR VISSER: Did you see anybody else shooting that day, of the security branch people, or anybody else?

MR MORAKILE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Who did you see who fired his firearm?

MR MORAKILE: It’s Motsamai.

MR VISSER: Now when did this happen, Mr Morakile?

MR MORAKILE: When we got out of the Kombi, Boyzi got out of the car ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Just stop for a moment please. Don’t refer to Boyzi, let’s stick to Motsamai.

MR MORAKILE: That’s correct, thank you. Motsamai got out of the Kombi because he knew, he’s the person who knew Oupa Makubalo. When Oupa started running, he shot after Oupa, then he took the other direction and then we got out of the car and chasde after him.

MR VISSER: Can you remember who many times he shot after Oupa, as you put it?

MR MORAKILE: I do not remember, but it was several times, it might be three if not four.

MR VISSER: Were you in the vicinity when Sergeant Mamome arrested Oupa Makubalo?

MR MORAKILE: No, I was at the back, I was not any close to him.

MR VISSER: Did you see anybody assault Mr Makubalo on that day?

MR MORAKILE: I didn’t see anyone Sir.

MR VISSER: That’s the evidence in chief Mr Chairman, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR DU PLESSIS: No questions for the witness, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Mr Morakile, are you sure that in June of 86 was the first time you reported for duty at the security police?

MR MORAKILE: That is true Sir.

MR STANDER: Were you involved at an earlier stage here at the security police in Bloemfontein?

MR MORAKILE: Not at all.

MR STANDER: Why I’m putting this question to you is because I was instructed that you were the person who interrogated Mildred Lekethlani as being one of the group of 19 who was arrested at Ladybrand.

MR MORAKILE: Which date are you referring to?

MR STANDER: 6th of April 86.

MR MORAKILE: I arrived at the security branch on the 21st of June 1986.

MR STANDER: She can also recall it specifically as as a fact that you were the person who hit her with your open hand. What do you have to say in this regard?

MR MORAKILE: I would not have slapped him in my absence.

MR STANDER: I want to put it to you that you are trying to keep yourself away from the scene, while at that stage you were involved with the security police to some or other extent here in Bloemfontein.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you came to Bloemfontein and got involved with the security police you were ...[inaudible]?

MR MORAKILE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you keep a pocket book in those days?

MR MORAKILE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And when it’s full you hand it in?

MR MORAKILE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That should be available should'nt it, from Wepener, Wepener Police Station?

MR STANDER: I believe so Mr Chairman.

MR MORAKILE: I can even help. My record, the SAP record in 1986 will show with whom did I leave Wepener to come to Bloemfontein.

MR STANDER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

In the light of the arres of Oupa Makubalo, did you see whether Sergeant Mamome fired any shots?

MR MORAKILE: I did not see him at all.

MR STANDER: Did he get out of the vehicle, I’m now referring to Mamome?

MR MORAKILE: Yes, he got out of the car.

MR STANDER: Did you watch him the whole time, from the time he got out of the car until he returned with Oupa Makubalo?

CHAIRPERSON: He just told you he didn't see him at all, hasn’t he?

MR VISSER: ...[inaudible] fired the shots.

MR MORAKILE: Can you repeat your question, Sir.

MR STANDER: From the moment he climbed out of the car until he returned with Makubalo, did you see anything? Did you see him at all, I’m now referring to Mamome?

MR MORAKILE: I did not see him when he arrested him, when he caught him. I just saw them coming, approaching.

MR STANDER: Is there a possibility that he could have fired shots which you did not see?

MR MORAKILE: I don’t believe he shot. At that time we went out of the car, chased after him, he did not shoot. But when we were obscured I didn’t see them.

MR STANDER: Did any of your other people fire any shots?

MR MORAKILE: I did not see anyone shooting except Motsamai.

MR STANDER: Do you know what I find very strange, I’m going to give you an opportunity to reply to this. Motsamai came to apply for amnesty and he’s the only one who shot, who fired any shots. The others did not fire any shots while they were on the same course to arrest Makubalo. I do not understand that, please give us some clarity.

MR MORAKILE: Let me explain this to you. This person was deeply hurt because his informer was killed, he might have done that. He was supposed to do that because the person he was working with was killed.

MR STANDER: Did you see Mr Makubalo when he was brought back?

MR MORAKILE: Yes, we came with him in the Kombi.

MR STANDER: Did you notice any blood on his face?

MR MORAKILE: Not at all, I did not see blood at all.

MR STANDER: Because I was instructed to put it to you that his front tooth had either been hit out or kicked out on that occasion.

MR MORAKILE: I did not see that, truly.

MR STANDER: If one’s tooth has been hit out or kicked out the normally it bleeds.

MR MORAKILE: Yes.

MR STANDER: And can you give us a reason, if this is so, why there was no blood?

MR MORAKILE: I did not see.

MR STANDER: Did you look at him at all?

MR MORAKILE: Yes, we left Bochabela with him, we came to Fountain. He was there, I saw him.

MR STANDER: You could see his face very clearly?

MR MORAKILE: I was looking at him just as I am looking at you now.

MR STANDER: And that is why I find it strange that you saw no marks or injuries or blood on his face.

MR MORAKILE: He did not have blood on his face.

MR STANDER: I put it to you that the only reason why you are denying this is because you are trying to protect people whom you know have acted wrongly.

MR MORAKILE: That is not correct.

MR STANDER: I have no further questions thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: As the chair pleases.

Now, Mr Morakile, you are also known as Molefe, isn’t it?

MR MORAKILE: Yes, it appeared like that.

MR MEMANI: People who referred to you as Molefe said they were assaulted on the 6th of April 1986.

MR VISSER: Can that question be repeated please Mr Chairman, I didn’t hear it.

MR MEMANI: The people who referred to you as Molefe said that they were assaulted on the 6th of April 1986.

MR MORAKILE: I already said that I would not assault a person once I was absent. On the 6th of April 1986, I was not in Bloemfontein but in Wepener. I already told you that I came to Bloemfontein on the 21st of June 1986.

MR MEMANI: You see my instructions are that there was a person called Kaya and Mopena at security branch who worked there without been registered as members of the security branch.

MR MORAKILE: I know the two of them, they were working there.

MR MEMANI: And Ngo at some stage worked there without being registered as a member of the security branch.

MR MORAKILE: I only knew that he was a recruit.

MR MEMANI: And there was also a Bester who worked there without being registered as a member of the the security branch. Before you make the note, let me find the correction on the name. Yes, it’s confirmed Bester. Do you know Bester?

MR MORAKILE: Is that a white person? I only know one Bester who was a captain. He left when he was a major.

MR MEMANI: Yes, that is the one. I'm told that for a long time he worked with security branch without being registered as a member of security branch?

MR MORAKILE: I don’t know, surely. I arrived there being a police and with other police. As whether he was registered or not I do not know.

MR MEMANI: And I’m instructed for some time Motsamai used to see you being brought by Mamome without knowing exactly where you worked and you'd worked together with them.

MR MORAKILE: Where?

MR MEMANI: He was with you when you went to bomb the house of Nicos, he was with you when you went to burn - to bomb the house of Winnie.

MR MORAKILE: I haven’t worked with Motsamai, I didn’t go there. I would not even participate in the bombing of that house once I was absent. That house was bombed in 1985 I said I came in 1986 in Bloemfontein.

It would not be possible to go and bomb that house in my absence because at that time in 1985 I did not know anything about the branch because I was not connected with them.

MR MEMANI: Mr Motsamai concedes that it is possible that you may have been working with the stock theft unit because at that stage you never used to be at the office, but Mr Mamome would come with you.

MR MORAKILE: Whilst I was in Wepener, I was not working with the security police. I did not even know Mr Mamome. I started to know these people when I started to work at Bloemfontein security police. I didn’t have any association with them.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Morakile, when you went to arrest Oupa, you told us that you saw Mr Mamome and others come back with Morakile, with Oupa rather.

MR MORAKILE: Mamome’s the one who has caught him.

MR MEMANI: Do you know that when Mr Makubalo is being chased, some of the policemen when on the one side of the house and some went on the other side of the house?

MR MORAKILE: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And it appears to me that you did not catch up with them, you could not keep up with the pace.

MR MORAKILE: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And although you heard gunfire, you couldn’t see actually where it was fired from.

MR MORAKILE: The first one I saw him shooting is Motsamai, is Boyzi, I saw him. After that when they were obscured I heard a gunshot.

MR MEMANI: Mr Motsamai then tells us that at that stage he heard gun - at some stage he heard people firing from one side but he didn’t see who it was that was firing.

MR MORAKILE: I didn’t hear that.

MR MEMANI: Well you’ve just said that you heard gunfire but we’ll proceed. Now, ...[intervention]

MR MORAKILE: I spoke about what, I spoke about gunfire from Motsamai.

MR MEMANI: I’m talking about the gunfire that you could hear from the distance but you didn’t see who was shooting at that stage.

MR MORAKILE: I didn’t hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you did not hear any gunshots other than the gunshots that you saw Mr Motsamai ...[intervention]

INTERPRETER:: The interpreters cannot hear.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying you did not hear any other gunshots other than the shots you heard when you saw Mr Motsamai firing?

MR MORAKILE: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: But just a few moments ago I put it to you that you were left behind and gunfire continued and at that stage you couldn’t see who was shooting. And your answer was yes, the only person - you saw Motsamai only who was the first to shoot.

MR MORAKILE: Let me put it in this way: When Motsamai get off the car, he started shooting then he turned on the house, they were following Oupa and from there I did not hear gunfire again.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The interpretation that came through to us was that you said that after these people were obscured, after they got obscured again and you didn’t see them, you did hear some shots being fired.

MR MORAKILE: Maybe I did not understand the question correctly. I said ended up gunfire after Motsamai was chasing Oupa, maybe I did not understand the question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And from there you did not hear any other gunfire?

MR MORAKILE: Not at all, I didn’t hear any gunfire.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

MR MEMANI: Where was Motsamai when he was shooting?

MR MORAKILE: The Kombi was on the street, when he entered the yard - he started shooting when he entered the yard. From the Kombi he shot at Oupa’s direction, then he stopped shooting, then we entered into the yard, then he went around the house, then we jumped the fence and then we chased Oupa.

MR MEMANI: Now, how many times did he shoot?

MR MORAKILE: It would be three to four times.

MR MEMANI: Was it at the stage when he was in the vicinity of the vehicle when he shot?

MR MORAKILE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MEMANI: You must be mistaken because Mr Makubalo said throughout the time that he was being chased. He pressed there were shots being fired.

MR MORAKILE: It might be those I’ve mentioned because Motsamai shot into his direction, he heard those gunfires.

MR MEMANI: He told us that he ran into one house, jumped over the fence of the opposite house and into the following street and started running down the road and at all this time he was being shot at.

MR MORAKILE: He was in the street that he jumped, again he went to the yard, then he went to another yard, then he jumped, he went to another street, then he went to another yard. At that time when we chasing him, there was no gunfire. Then from there there I was left behind and then Mamome was able to catch him.

MR MEMANI: He ran away and he decided that come what may, he was not going to runaway from the gunfire and that is how he got caught.

MR MORAKILE: It might be like that but maybe he just stood up and they arrested him I didn’t see them.

MR MEMANI: Now, isn’t it correct that you and Motsamai have had no differences?

MR MORAKILE: Not at all, we are friendly to each other, even up to now.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases, those are my questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Mr Chair, I have been instructed to clear out one aspect with the witness. After I’d ended my cross examination, do I have your permission, in the light thereof to ask one or two questions?

Yes, Mr Morakile, I’ve been instructed that the incident in which Mr Oupa Makubalo was arrested in terms of which you just testified to us, took place before 6 April 1986. What do you say to that?

MR MORAKILE: Before the sixth of April?

MR STANDER: Yes.

MR MORAKILE: I believe there after that because I told you that on the 6th of April 1985 or 1986 I was not here, I came to Bloemfontein on the 21st of June 1986.

MR STANDER: Is it not possible, or rather let me state it this way: What is your reaction that it indeed took place before the arrest of the group of 19.

MR MORAKILE: ...[no English translation]

CHAIRPERSON: He says he wasn't here and knows nothing about the arrest of the group of 19.

MR STANDER: Mr Chair, I understand what he is saying but I got the impression that the witness is not very clear and very certain. He indeed says that he only came there in June but I’m not quite certain whether it was an interpreting error. I got the impression that he was ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I got the impression he's completely certain and he asked us to get hold of his South African Police records which should show precisely when he came there.

MR STANDER: Yes possible that would be indicated. In the light of another aspect, may I with your permission, ask another question? I will deal with it in one or two questions I promise.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, before you do that Mr Stander, is your client here?

MR STANDER: Are you referring to Mr Makubalo?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes. Is he able to remember the date on which this instant happened, one would think that he would remember that date.

MR STANDER: Unfortunately Mr Commissioner, I’ve been asking him the exact date, but he cannot remember it, but he although he says to me that he can still remember the incident were he was arrested happened before the incident were 19 people were arrested.

That he told me specifically but unfortunately he cannot remember the exact date.

MR VISSER: My learned friend has just put as a fact to this witness that it was before April 1986, surely that must come from somewhere. Could my learned friend tell me where he gets this information from?

MR STANDER: I told the Committee already, Mr Chairman that the information came from Mr Makubalo.

He says to us, he said to me - he instructed me that this incident where he was arrested happened before the incident where the 19 people whereof he was a part, were arrested. That’s my instructions, I’ve already told the Committee that.

Mr Morakile, please tell me, Mr Motsamai went to arrest a person who had killed somebody else, this informant of his, am I correct in that respect?

MR MORAKILE: That’s correct.

MR STANDER: In other word he went to arrest a suspect on a murder charge?

MR MORAKILE: That’s correct.

MR STANDER: Then he came on the scene, there was a group of you who saw this, there was the person who was the suspect and he was running away.

MR MORAKILE: Yes, he was running and we chased after him.

MR STANDER: You know what I can’t understand about your denial and the denial of everybody else because if shots had been fired, it was totally legal in terms of our law. I don’t understand why you don’t want to admit to this.

ADV DE JAGER: They're admitting that shots were fired, they say the shots were fired by Motsamai. And I don’t think anybody put it to them whether you considered those shots to be justified in the circumstances that prevailed.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Commissioner.

I would like to state to you Mr Morakile, that if somebody else had fired shots in the direction of Oupa Makubalo, there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. And I find it strange that every single person who’d been involved there deny this absolutely.

MR MORAKILE: Motsamai shot, you must understand, he was hurt because his informer was killed and he was desperate to arrest this person.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: One question, perhaps in re-examination. Did you personally know Mr Oupa Makubalo on the day when you were requested to go and assist Mr Motsamai to arrest him, did you know who it was?

MR MORAKILE: I knew him afterwards.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we will attempt to obtain the SAP record for you which will hopefully show when he was transferred from wherever to the security branch in Bloemfontein.

CHAIRPERSON: His pocket book should also show what he was doing on the day in question.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, we will try to find those but they’re notoriously difficult to trace but we’ll try to find those as well.

Mr Chairman, if you’re waiting for me I must inform you at this stage, I’ve run dry of witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: How on earth? We’ve had nine months or something to get this thing going. Surely the police can arrange to have people here. We’re told that we’re not going to finish and you assured me before the adjournment that we wouldn’t finish this week. At this rate we certainty won’t if at quarter past three you have run out of witnesses.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I just place on record: this is the very first time that I have forced any sort of delay before this Committee. My witnesses were here, I could never have anticipated that we’d go this quickly, that matters which form the basis of an application would not be put to the witnesses.

Unfortunately my witnesses have now not - I don’t have a witness here that I can call at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say they were here.

MR VISSER: Well some, there were witnesses here all day long, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What’s happened to them?

MR VISSER: Well they obviously have left, Mr Chairman, thinking that we won’t come to them.

CHAIRPERSON: What right do they have to leave? If you have summonsed them here as witnesses. Did they speak to you or your attorney?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if you could just allow me a very short adjournment, I will establish what the situation is and I will inform you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and I will want a full explanation from them.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, are you also going to look into the possibility whether one or two of them can avail themselves.

MR VISSER: One or two of them can?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Avail themselves for this afternoon. Are you also going to look into whether or not we can have one or two of them this afternoon?

MR VISSER: That’s what I want to look into Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR VISSER: The moment they come - I've consulted with all of them, it's just a question - as I placed on record before, that they do have things to go on with Mr Chairman, and we kept three witnesses, in fact we've had five witnesses today. I didn't anticipate that we'd finish with them as early as this.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll grant you a short adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR MAMOME: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: Mr Mamome, what is your rank in the South African Police Service?

MR MAMOME: Detective Inspector, Sir.

MR VISSER: When did you join the South African Police?

MR MAMOME: 1974 on the 2nd of August.

MR VISSER: And when did you join the security branch in Bloemfotntein?

MR MAMOME: 19th October 1990.

MR VISSER: 19?

MR MAMOME: 1980 Sir, sorry, I beg your pardon.

MR VISSER: Now, you were informed that you were implicated in various incidents by the applicants in this case, is that correct?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you went to see an attorney in Pretoria, Mr Wagner, is that correct?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And during the course of the proceedings of these applications you filed two affidavits, that’s bundle B page 22 and bundle B page 98.

MR MAMOME: That is correct, Sir.

MR VISSER: Are those two affidavits before you now?

MR MAMOME: I have P13, 14 and P36.

MR VISSER: Did you sign those documents?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And do you confirm today that the contents of those documents is true and correct?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What section did you work in the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR MAMOME: Black section, Sir.

MR VISSER: Who was your commander?

MR MAMOME: The first one was Major Coetzee and the second one was Captain Shaw.

MR VISSER: Which other members were there in the black section of the security branch here in Bloemfontein?

MR MAMOME: It was myself, Mr Motsamai, Mr Sesedyane ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: That is spelt S-e-s-e-d-y-a-n-e. Yes?

MR MAMOME: Mr Mtyhala, Mr Miningwa - sorry, no, no, I beg your pardon, Mr Morakile and Mr Erasmus, Mr Killian, Mr Wydaman, he was my partner and others.

MR VISSER: Alright. How many members, can you remember, were there attached to the security branch in 1985/1986 here in Bloemfontein?

MR MAMOME: Mr Chairman, I will not be able to answer that question. But I would say we were more that 50 to 60, I’m just guessing.

MR VISSER: Did you know Mr Ngo?

MR MAMOME: Yes, I knew this informer called Mr Ngo.

MR VISSER: Now, in your affidavit, you said in paragraph 3, in the one at page 22, you said in paragraph 3 II, that you’ve known Mr Ngo since 1989. Is that date correct?

MR MAMOME: I would say that date is wrong.

MR VISSER: When did you first get to know anything about Mr Ngo?

MR MAMOME: The time when I found him lying on the stomach on the stretcher being stabbed.

MR VISSER: After he was stabbed?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR VISSER: When was that? Can you remember the year of that incident?

MR MAMOME: I would say it’s somewhere in 1986, but I’m not sure of that date.

MR VISSER: Now what transpired later in regard to Mr Ngo that you know about, did you see him again?

MR MAMOME: Yes, I saw him in our offices after that incident.

MR VISSER: What was he doing there?

MR MAMOME: I am not able to answer that because he was working with Mr Erasmus.

MR VISSER: It is correct of course, that Mr Ngo became a student constable in March 1986 and that he left for Pretoria for the Police College, Training College in July 1986. Are you prepared to accept that?

MR MAMOME: Sir, I was not monitoring him at the time when he was there. I not able to say it was like that or not but what I know that he went to Ladybrand, then from there he left to Hammanskraal, but I not able to tell which year.

MR VISSER: Did you work with Mr Ngo at all when he was a student constable?

MR MAMOME: No Sir, I was not able to work with him.

MR VISSER: Did you work with Mr Motsamai?

MR MAMOME: There were joint operations were both of us were engaged, that is when I met him but we were working in two's, that is one black, one white.

To answer the question, yes, sometimes we were working together.

MR VISSER: Right, now we’ll come to the incidents. Can I ask you this: in so far as either Motsamai or Mr Ngo alleged that you committed illegal or unlawful acts, what do you say about that?

MR MAMOME: I am a policeman, there was nothing illegal which I’ve committed.

MR VISSER: Alright, Mr Ngo says, page 23 of his application, that you participated in the kidnapping and the assault of Mr White Mohape. Is that true?

MR MAMOME: He is lying.

MR VISSER: And that you participated in the murder of a UDF member called either JJ or Pape, at page 25 of his application. Is that true?

MR MAMOME: He is lying, Sir.

MR VISSER: And that you thereafter, when you were called upon to go to Batu Police Station, that you failed to admit that you knew something about the whereabouts of this person called JJ.

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR VISSER: He says furthermore at page 27 of his application that you took part in the assault and torturing of comrades in 1986 in Bloemfontein. Is there any truth in that?

MR MAMOME: There is no truth in that.

MR VISSER: Furthermore alleges that you similarly took, at page 31, that you similarly took part in the torturing of comrades in Botshabelo in 1986, what do you say tO that?

MR MAMOME: I didn’t go to Botshabelo, Sir.

MR VISSER: He also told the Committee at page 41 that you participated in an attack on the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela and BrandforT, is that true?

MR MAMOME: That is a lie.

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

ADV DE JAGER: Before proceeding to that Mr Visser I’ve got problems with the answer. He alleges that you failed to admit about JJ. and he said that’s correct. What exactly ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Perhaps I should make it clearer.

Mr Ngo alleged that at on a certain day, a group of people including yourself and Motsamai, had to go to Batu Police Station to speak to a warrant officer Modise. Do you remember that?

MR MAMOME: Yes I do.

MR VISSER: And that it was Warrant Officer Tsoametsi that told you to go there and when you arrived there you were asked about - this is page 26 Mr Chairman, you were asked whether you could give information about the body of the person that was found wearing a UDF T-shirt.

MR MAMOME: We found that UDF dressed in - we found that corpse dressed in UDF T-shirt.

MR VISSER: Now I’m talking about a visit to Batu Police Station. Did you go to Batu Police Station together with Mr Motsamai and Warrant Officer Tsoametsi to speak to Warrant Officer Modise, M-o-d-i-s-e, and did you there tell him that you knew nothing about the identity of this person or what had happened to him? - that is the person, the corpse in the UDF T-shirt.

MR MAMOME: What is the question, Sir?

MR VISSER: The question is whether you told Mr Modise at Batu ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well isn’t the question first - you put a very long question there, isn’t the question first: did you go with Warrant Officer Tsaometsi and Constable Mtyhala to Batu Police Station to see Warrant officer Modise?

MR MAMOME: I went there but I don’t remember with whom did I go.

MR VISSER: Where you asked whether you could give information about the corpse that was found wearing a UDF T-shirt?

MR MAMOME: That is correct?

MR VISSER: And did you then tell Warrant Officer Modise that you couldn’t give any information?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR VISSER: I think that is what the witness was talking about Commissioner de Jager.

Mr Ngo also implicated you in the murder, robbery, murder and robbery of Mr Venter. Do you recall that?

MR MAMOME: That is correct. I read about it on the paper of Ngo’s amnesty application.

MR VISSER: And he says that you were one of the persons who took him to Mr Venter’s house for him to murder Mr Venter.

MR MAMOME: I do not know Mr Venter. I Haven’t seen him, I haven’t met Mr Venter.

MR VISSER: Did you take Mr Ngo to a house so that he could murder somebody.

MR MAMOME: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: Bear with me a moment Mr Chairman.

In any event, Mr Ngo also said that you gave instructions for them to go back - well, to bury the body of Mr Venter, is that so?

MR MAMOME: It’s not so.

MR VISSER: And afterwards to back to ransack or to take items out of the house of Mr Venter.

MR MAMOME: That is not correct.

MR VISSER: That you in fact, took his car, you and Mr Ngo, took his car and you went to Botshabelo?

MR MAMOME: I did not go there, I did not go with Mr Ngo, that is his story.

MR VISSER: Did you make any prior arrangements for Mr Venter’s car to be stored amongst stolen vehicles? At the Police Station at Botshabelo with Mr Mbanjani?

MR MAMOME: That is not correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo alleged that you took jewelry, that was taken from Mr Venter’s house for yourself And aou paid certain people money for their assistance in the robbery of Mr Venter. Is that true?

MR MAMOME: It’s not like that Sir.

MR VISSER: In short, you had nothing to do with the murder or robbery of Mr Venter?

MR MAMOME: I don’t even know him.

MR VISSER: Right. Mr Motsamai at page 146 of bundle B, says that you participated in the killing of a person by the name of George Musi in Melk Street, Bothchabela. Is there any truth in that?

MR MAMOME: I don’t know this man called George Musi.

MR VISSER: Did you take part in killing a person in Melk Street with Mr Motsamai?

MR MAMOME: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: He suggested in his paragraph two that you were also involved in burning the house of Mrs Winnie Mandela in Brandfort, it was during the 1980s he says, and you accompanied him. Is that true?

MR MAMOME: It’s not like that, Sir.

MR VISSER: And he goes on to say that a few weeks later, the two of you burnt her clinic as well, Paragraph two page one four six of bundle B.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: Melk Street, Milk Street.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: That’s one 146, paragraph one.

I’m sorry, I don’t know whether you answered. He says that a few weeks later, after burning the house of Mrs Winnie Mandela, you and him burnt the clinic that was next to her house.

Is there any truth in that?

MR MAMOME: He’s lying, this boy is lying.

MR VISSER: In paragraph three at page 146, he says that himself and you petrol-bombed a house of an MK member, Bobby Sebotsa, where he was staying, it was his parent’s home. And that house is situated in Mpinda street, Botchabela, is that true?

MR MAMOME: This boy is lying.

MR VISSER: In paragraph four he says that yourself, him, Constable Mtyhala, Constable Morakile petrol- bombed a house belonging to a businessman, Nicos. Is that true?

MR MAMOME: That’s a lie.

MR VISSER: Do you know Mr Nicos?

MR MAMOME: I know him. I beg your pardon, I know him.

MR VISSER: Can you tell the Committee anything about your relationship with Mr Nicos?

MR MAMOME: I would say he was my friend. We visited him, we used to go out with him. I began to associate myself with him through a certain person I was working with. The name of my friend is Kabuza that is K-h-a- u-z-a, Kabuza.

MR VISSER: Now this Kabuza, we have heard evidence that he lived on the on the same property, he lived on Mr Nicos’ property, is that correct, in a room?

MR MAMOME: Yes, he was renting at Nicos’ place but these outside rooms.

MR VISSER: Now as far as the attack on Mr Nicos’ house was concerned, there was an unfortunate incident that took place. Do you remember that?

MR MAMOME: You mean at Nicos’ place?

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Please tell the Committee about that.

MR MAMOME: This constable Kabuza committed suicide by shooting himself, he was himself at Kabuza’s place, Nicos’ place.

MR VISSER: There was an incident concerning a little girl, do you remember that?

MR MAMOME: It did not happen at Nicos’ place, it happened at Rocklands.

MR VISSER: Alright, well just tell the Committee what happened there as far as you could ascertain.

MR MAMOME: Without mentioning the people’s names, it happened that Captain Kholae informed us that a certain girl disappeared in Rocklands. He was requesting that I should assist him in trying to find this girl.

I went with Captain Kholae to a particular house at the corner.

MR VISSER: Can you just spell that surname Khoale? MR MAMOME: K-h-o-a-l-e.

MR VISSER: Alright. And you went you went somewhere, yes?

MR MAMOME: We went to Rocklands, the street is Mabule, M-a-b-u-l-e Street. It was the corner house and next door to that house there was a garage owned by Nicos.

MR VISSER: Yes, and what did you find at the house?

MR MAMOME: We found a boy, we asked that boy about the where abouts of this girl because they last say them together.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Mamame, I’m sorry to interrupt you. I think you don’t have to tell us what everybody told you. If you could just perhaps tell us what what happened.

Did you find this little girl?

MR MAMOME: Yes, the girl was in the wardrobe, she was strangled. She was ‘round six years old, her corpse was decomposed. The incident is that we learnt about, we learnt that she - so what happened thereafter all the business people, that is the people owning businesses in ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: I heard the witness say: "we learnt that" but I didn’t hear what they learnt.

MR MAMOME: I said we found a body in the wardrobe, this was a six year old girl, this body was already mutilated in that house. Now these people ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, was the body decomposed or mutilated?

MR MAMOME: Decomposed, Mr Chairman. We don’t know where the story came about that it was for muti purposes. Now, the house was searched so that we could find if whether there were many children.

MR VISSER: Now after having found the remains of this unfortunate child, what happened as far as Mr Nicos’ was concerned?

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, I would be committing myself. His house was petrol bomb attacked but I would not say it was attacked by the community because of this discovered body.

MR VISSER: Now Mr Motsamai also said that Mr Nicos was a courier for the ANC in Lesotho. Did you know anything about that, whether it was true or not?

MR MAMOME: I would not know that, Sir.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 5 at page 146 of bundle B, Mr Motsamai says that you and himself burned a motor vehicle belonging to Jannie Mohape. Is that true?

MR MAMOME: That is not true.

MR VISSER: And in paragraph 6 at page 147, he applied for ...[End of tape 4B - no follow-on sound]

Lesale - L-e-s-a-l-e and Constable Miningwa - M-i-n-i-n-g-w-a petrol-bombed the parental home of Citi Mzuzwana. Now, did you know whether that - whether the house of the parents of Citi Mzuzwana, was in fact burnt?

MR MAMOME: I don’t know that, Sir.

MR VISSER: And did you take part in any such illegal act?

MR MAMOME: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: Paragraph 7 at page 147, Mr Motsamai says that himself and you organised that members of the uniform branch should shoot Citi Mzuzwana’s younger brother, Zwelinzima Mzuzwana. Is that true?

MR MAMOME: That is a lie Sir.

MR VISSER: Can you remember about this incident?

MR MAMOME: I know that that person was shot but to ...[indistinct] certain police that that person should be shot, it would not happen. I did not do that. No policeman can be told by another policeman to do that.

MR VISSER: And there was a court case in which Mr Citi Mzuzwana, sorry Zwelinzima Mzuzwana, claimed damages. Do you know about that?

MR MEMANI: Isn’t it supposed to be ZweliNjaNi?

MR VISSER: It’s Matthews, I think if I should, if I may be allowed to refer to Matthews? Do you know of a court case which Mathew made to claim damages?

MR MAMOME: I would answer your question Matthews had a file at security branch. I read at SAP5 that he sued the state for R90 000.

MR VISSER: Alright. If we can go over to the next paragraph, paragraph 8 at page 147. Here Mr Motsamai says that he, together with yourself and Mr Ngo, were involved in the petrol bombing Citi Mzuzwana’s house. He says and that house is situated in the former Xhosa section of Rocklands in Bloemfontein. Is there any truth in that allegation?

MR MAMOME: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 9 at page 147 he says that himself, that is Motsamai and you, burnt and petrol- bombed a motor vehicle belonging to one Thabang, T-h-a-b-a-n-g, who was a teacher at Vulamasango High School in Bloemfontein and who was an orgainser of the United Democratic Front. Is it true that you participated in petrol-bombing a vehicle belonging to that person?

MR MAMOME: I think he’s talking about Mr Thabatha, no Sir.

MR VISSER: Thabatha, T-h-a-b-a-t-h-a?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 10 at page 147, Mr Motsamai alleges that himself, you, Constable Morakile, Constable Mtyhala, Constable Litseho and Constable Lesale, L-e-s-a-l-e, petrol bombed the house of a teacher, Balosha who was a member of the UDF. Is that true?

MR MAMOME: He’s lying.

MR VISSER: Now in paragraph 11 at page 147, he did not specifically implicate you, but - I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m thinking of 13, terribly sorry, Mr chairman. In paragraph 11 Mr Motsamai says that you and he petrol-bombed houses of other political activists and he says, and he mentions the houses belonging to Khuze- K-h-u-z-e and Sekgopi- S-e-k-g-o-p-i Malebo, it looks like - M-a-l-e-b-o. Do you know anything or did you take part in petrol bombing any houses including that of Mr Khuze or Malebo? Sorry just repeat your answer please.

MR MAMOME: It’s not like that, Sir.

MR VISSER: At page 148 paragraph 12, Mr Motsamai alleges that himself, you, Sergeant Sesedinyane and Constable Morakile, petrol-bombed a parish house in Botshabelo. Is that true?

MR MAMOME: That is not correct Sir.

MR VISSER: In fact, in his evidence he said that you wrote a letter to the priest, is that true?

MR MAMOME: I hear that for the first time today, maybe he is trying to colour his amnesty statement.

MR VISSER: Now, in paragraph 13, he does not mention you by name, but he refers there to assault and torture of detained and/or arrested political activists at the offices of the internal security unit on the 5th floor in Fountain Street, Bloemfontein. If this refers to the group of 19 people who were arrested in the Ladybrand district and brought to Bloemfontein, my question to you is did you take part in any assault on them or any torturing of them?

MR MAMOME: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: Did you assault or torture any detainee in the building at Fountain Street Mr Mamone?

MR MAMOME: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: Lastly, paragraph 14 at page 148, deals with the arrest of Oupa Makubalo. Can you tell the Committee what you know about that incident.

MR MAMOME: We were in the kitchen, Mr Motsamai came running and he said one of his informer called him, he identified where Oupa Makubalo hid. So he requested our help to go and fetch Makubalo.

He wanted Makubalo because Makubalo killed another informer of his. I was driving that Kombi, we drove to Botchabela ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Just a moment, would you just tell the Committee who were in the Kombi. Was Mr Motsamai in the Kombi?

MR MAMOME: He was present, he was sitting at the door at the back.

MR VISSER: Alright, and you were driving?

MR MAMOME: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: Who else was in the Kombi?

MR MAMOME: Mr Ramosoeu, Mr Morakile - Chairperson, and others, because we came out of the building running, it’s impossible to try and identify others.

MR VISSER: You say you don’t remember the others. Alright. You drove the Kombi and where did you go?

MR MAMOME: We drove to a location called Botchabela. MR VISSER: And, just continue. Did you drive down a certain street?

MR MAMOME: Yes, but I forgot the name of the street but anyway we arrive at that house. Mr Makubalo was standing outside and I opened the window, I called him.

MR VISSER: Was he standing alone?

MR MAMOME: He was with other two boys. I called him to come nearer, he was on his way coming. Mr Motsamai opened the door, he went behind the Kombi and he fired a shot.

MR VISSER: And what happened thereafter?

MR MAMOME: Oupa ran, he ran and we chased him and he asked us why were we shooting at him. I then caught him.

MR VISSER: Did you see or hear or how many times did Mr Motsamai shoot at Oupa Makubalo according to your recollection?

MR MAMOME: I could not count.

MR VISSER: Was it more than once?

MR MAMOME: Yes, he was actually pumping, he was not playing.

MR VISSER: And is it correct that you in fact got hold of Mr Makubalo and you restrained him and arrested him?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you assault Mr Makubalo?

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, I caught him, I did not assault him.

MR VISSER: Where did you then take him?

MR MAMOME: We took him to the police station to the person who was working on Mr Venter’s - on Mr Kosi’s murder. I do not remember well, I don’t want to lie.

MR VISSER: And did you have anything further to do with Mr Oupa Makubalo?

MR MAMOME: Not at all, Sir, I did not have anything to do with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he charged?

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, I would not know because we handed him over to the investigating officer.

CHAIRPERSON: Where?

MR MAMOME: I think it’s at Fuchsware, if not at the office, I do not remember well Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what’s the first place you said?

MR MAMOME: Fuchsware.

MR VISSER: Fuchsware, it's electrical appliance, Fuchsware Building.

CHAIRPERSON: So it should be possible to obtain a date, a fixed date for when this arrest took place?

MR VISSER: We will make esquires Mr Chairman.

Mr Mamome, is the security branch still accommodated in the Fontain Street building?

MR MAMOME: Yes.

MR VISSER: I thought that the security branch moved out of the Fontain Street Building.

MR MAMOME: We are many now, we have the district - we are in Fountain Street and Aliwal Street now, we have two offices.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that’s the evidence in chief.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no questions for the witness.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mamome, did you participate in the interrogation of the group of 19 persons at all?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR STANDER: What was your task with regard to the interrogation?

MR MAMOME: I was filling the forms called the historical report.

MR STANDER: Which section did you work in at that stage at the security police?

MR MAMOME: Black section.

MR STANDER: In other words it was also your task to investigate the youth.

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR STANDER: So the reply or the answers that you received there directly applicable to your field of work.

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Do you think that it was imperative for you at that stage to get answers to a lot of questions that you asked them?

MR MAMOME: Repeat your question Sir.

MR STANDER: Do you think it was very important for you to get answers to a lot of questions that you needed in your work.

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR STANDER: From what I could understand about the group, they were not prepared to give their co-operation?

MR MAMOME: That is not so, they were co-operative.

MR STANDER: How did you succeed in getting their co-operation?

MR MAMOME: It depended on the type of questions and how you asked them.

MR STANDER: If I understand you correctly, you said they gave you their co-operation. Did they reply properly to all the questions you put to them? Were you satisfied?

MR MAMOME: Sir, I am answering you. Chairperson, ...[inaudible]. They gave their names and their addresses and what type of work they do. Such questions they answered, there’s nothing difficult in answering those questions.

MR STANDER: But what was asked to them ...[intervention]

MR MAMOME: That is correct Sir.

MR STANDER: Did they say nothing further, that what they were going to look for overseas or abroad, who their leaders were, and what else?

MR MAMOME: You’re right, that kind of question appeared, where the person was going to, what was he going to do?

MR STANDER: But did they give their co-operation in this regard?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR STANDER: So if they didn’t come to tell or if you say they weren’t prepared to give their co-operation then the others are all lying?

MR MAMOME: Sir, I am giving you an answer. There were 19 people who were arrested, Chairperson, and Mr Stander, I believe you’re not representing 19 of them all. Now those you are representing are not the only ones we interrogated. Now those you are not representing were also interrogated. I am sorry to tell you that I was interrogating the ones you are not representing.

MR STANDER: Will you just reply to my question, namely, that whether they gave their co-operation and replies to all the questions you put to them?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR STANDER: So did not not reply as you would have liked to any of the questions?

MR MAMOME: They answered what I asked them.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Who did they say they were going to meet outside the country?

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, they did not mention who they were going to - they said they wanted to go to Lesotho to attend school.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you not ask them who they were going to meet out side the country?

MR MAMOME: Chair, no Chairperson, that was the duty of another section, it was not my duty.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I thought you said that was one of the questions on the questionnaire, on the form.

MR MAMOME: That is correct and I hand the form over to the other section to look to that matter.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So you did not ask them that?

MR MAMOME: I would ask them what was on the form.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well the question that I’ve asked you, according to your evidence, also appeared on the form, According to your earlier evidence.

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well did you skip that question or did you ask them that question?

MR MAMOME: I do not remember well, I think I asked them that question because I was going paragraph by paragraph.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well that must have been a very important question ANd the answer then if would probably be even more important, of interest to you. Did you ask them that question or did you not ask them that question?

MR MAMOME: I asked them that question and if they did not give answers there was nothing more to do.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did they answer it or not, before we come to that, to what you do if they didn’t answer it. Did they answer it?

MR MAMOME: Some of them, Chairperson, answered the question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And some of them didn’t?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What do you mean by saying some of them didn’t answer the question?

MR MAMOME: I mean when you asked him: "man what were you going to do", the answer would be: "no I’m not in a position to answer that question".

JUDGE NGOEPE: And would you leave it there?

MR MAMOME: That is correct, Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Stander.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry you said if they - you’ve asked certain questions then you handed the form to another section.

MR MAMOME: Yes, It was called the investigation unit.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, to whom did you hand that form?

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, I do not remember specifically to who did I give this form because it was confusion on that day.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was the head of the investigative unit to whom this form should be handed?

MR MAMOME: Captain Du Plooy.

MR STANDER: Mr Mamome, I understood you to say that these people gave their co-operation when you asked them the questions But when Judge Ngoepe asked you what happened when the people did not want to reply, then you just kept quiet.

Then surely it is not due to the fact that they always gave their co-operation, or did I understand you incorrectly?

MR MAMOME: I might have made a mistake, that’s true.

MR STANDER: But why did you make such a mistake? Was there a specific reason for you making such a mistake?

MR MAMOME: No.

MR STANDER: Will you explain?

MR MAMOME: Ask your question Sir.

MR STANDER: You told us that you made a mistake. I would like to know from you whether there was a reason why you made such a mistake? Perhaps you did not hear what was said.

MR MAMOME: Mr Stander, you ask your questions differently from Judge Ngoepe, you are very fast in asking your questions. You've got your way of asking questions, his got his own way of asking questions and his is polite.

Now if a person speaks to me and the person shouts, you make me nervous. Now when you speak to me please cool down.

MR STANDER: I am sorry, I think the Chairman would have interrupted me a long time ago, as well as your legal representatives if they had thought that I was cross-examining you unfairly.

Would you like to tell us now that the reason why you made a mistake was because that I cross-examined you in an improper manner?

MR MAMOME: I did not understand your question as it was put by Judge Ngoepe.

MR STANDER: I’m going to repeat. On a question from Judge Ngoepe - or let me rather start. I asked you when you asked or questioned this group of 19 you told us that you had their co-operation throughout and that they gave the answers which satisfied you.

When Judge Ngoepe asked you, specifically as a result of this, you answered that on some of the questions, among others what they were going to do overseas, that replied that they were not going to even answer to that question. Then I asked you, I said that they didn’t give their co-operation in that case and you told us that you made a mistake.

The question now is, did you not understand the questions or what is the position?

MR MAMOME: That is correct, I did not understand your question.

MR STANDER: Did you not understand my question or that of judge Mwepi?

MR MAMOME: Your question, Mr Stander.

MR STANDER: I’m going to put it to you again. If you told me that the people gave their co-operation throughout and gave their replies to all your questions, or did you not say that?

MR MAMOME: I said that.

MR STANDER: Why did you then when Judge Ngoepe asked you, specifically with regard to the visit overseas, said that the - you said that the people told you that they were not going to reply to that question? Or did you misunderstand Judge Ngoepe?

MR MAMOME: You took 10 I think, I do not know where to answer. Let me take it one one, Sir, I will split it. I am listening as you are talking, it is difficult, start again step by step.

The people that I interrogated it was not as such interrogation, it was a form, a district form, a history form. Some of them were co-operative, they answered all questions, some of them were not answering questions.

Some of the questions would be answered, some of the questions would not be answered, that’s all.

MR STANDER: I’m asking you again, why did you then tell me that you received replies to all the questions you put to them?

MR MAMOME: When you interrogate people or ask questions, you don’t only fill in that form, there are many other issues that you ask people questions about. Now to answer your question: Some of the questions were answered, some of the questions were not answered. Now when I replied to your question I was generalising.

MR STANDER: So you were generalising?

MR MAMOME: I answered your question in that way when you asked me.

MR STANDER: So you did not misunderstand my question, you were just generalising.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] get on with this, you’ve made a point haven’t you, Mr Stander?

MR STANDER: I’m sorry Mr Chairman, I will try to speed things up.

Let’s go on to the question that you asked them as to what they were going to do in Maseru. You say that there were some of them that weren’t prepared to answer that question.

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR STANDER: But was it not important for you to know the answer to that question?

MR MAMOME: Every question on that form is very important.

MR STANDER: When they did not reply to such an important question as in your own testimony, what did you do then?

MR MAMOME: He was going to the cells.

MR STANDER: So when they did not want to answer your questions, you had them locked up.

MR MAMOME: When they are in the cells they are no longer in my hands they are under the people responsible for investigation.

MR STANDER: The question I put you, in all fairness, is that they did not want to reply to the questions as to what they were going to do in Maseru, did you do nothing about it?

MR MAMOME: Nothing.

MR STANDER: You did not even try to put the question differently, in your own version?

MR MAMOME: Nothing Sir.

MR STANDER: Let me put it to you that I find it highly improbable and extremely strange.

MR MAMOME: Carry on Sir, I’m listening.

MR STANDER: You must reply to that, Sir.

CHAIRMAN: It’s not a question, you are making a statement, Mr Stander, you say I find it extremely strange.

MR STANDER: I just gave him a fair chance to reply because if I had not done that then surely I cannot argue about that at the end of the day. I will, however leave it there, I think I’ve made my point.

Tell me, did you work on the 5th floor?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Also in the so called Violent Street?

MR MAMOME: That’s a sticker, There’s never been a place such as that one.

MR STANDER: So was the passage, according to you, not even called Violent Street?

MR MAMOME: No.

MR STANDER: What about the other police officers that said: "Yes it was sometime called Violent Street" do you think that they are telling lies?

MR MAMOME: It’s because there was a sticker written Violent Street.

MR STANDER: Did you as police officers never refer to this specific passage as Violent Street?

MR MAMOME: I did not know it as Violent Street.

MR STANDER: How long did you say have you been working at security branch?

MR MAMOME: I arrived there in 1980, it was about six years that I was there.

MR STANDER: And you said you never knew that this passage was the so-called Violent Street.

MR MAMOME: You’re telling me.

MR STANDER: Are you saying that this is the first time that you’ve heard?

MR MAMOME: That’s correct.

MR STANDER: Well, I find that very strange but let’s leave it at that. I want to put it to you that you did not merely ask the calm questions that you said you did, you played an active role in the interrogation of these persons and the assault of these people? What do you have to say in this regard?

MR MAMOME: I don’t enjoy beating up a detained person and I don’t beat people and I did not beat up anyone.

MR STANDER: So all the witnesses who testified here as to their assaults, they must all have been telling a total lie.

MR MAMOME: They know themselves they were not assaulted.

MR STANDER: Do you agree that they had no reason to come and lie to this Committee?

MR MAMOME: They don’t have any reason to lie before this Committee.

MR STANDER: That it why it is even more improbable ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible) a reason to lie to the Committee Or did you say they had no reason to lie to the Committee.

MR MAMOME: They don’t have a reason, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: What was it?

MR STANDER: He says they don’t have a reason.

On this particular day, Did you see anybody else who was assaulting these people?

MR MAMOME: i did not see anyone Sir.

MR STANDER: Did you see Mr Motsamai where he was assaulting people?

MR MAMOME: I was not working with this boy.

MR STANDER: But he says that he assaulted them, some of them.

MR MAMOME: Mr Stander, we work in different offices. What happens in another man’s office is unknown to you. Whether he assaulted him, it might have taken place in his office, I was not there.

MR STANDER: Did you, at any stage, late that afternoon, see the group together again?

MR MAMOME: Which group, Mr Stander?

MR STANDER: With the group of 19 people.

MR MAMOME: I do not remember, Mr Chairman.

MR STANDER: Were you present or involved in the transferring of the group of 19 to other police stations?

MR MAMOME: Yes, I was present.

MR STANDER: Where there any of these who appeared to have been injured or assaulted?

MR MAMOME: I took a group that was taken to Bloemspruit, among them no one showing any sign of assault.

MR STANDER: Was Oupa Makubalo part of the group that you took to Bloemspruit?

MR MAMOME: I do not remember, Mr Stander.

MR STANDER: Was there not one member in your group who was taken to Bloemspruit who seemed to have been assaulted?

MR MAMOME: No, no one.

MR STANDER: How did you decide which people were to go to which police station or did you decide this beforehand? I just want your assistance here.

MR MAMOME: I was not part of the decision makers as to who should go where. We were only - I only - don’t ask me who told us because I cannot remember but I know that this group was supposed to be taken to Bloemspruit.

MR STANDER: At that stage, was the group together in totality when you decided who was going where and who would take whom or how did it work?

MR MAMOME: They were already grouped.

MR STANDER: And you say the group that you took, that not one of them were assaulted.

MR MAMOME: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: Tell me, what do you say about the fact that Mr Motsamai said that he assaulted some of the people in the group of 19?

MR MAMOME: I really do not know, maybe he assaulted them in my absence.

MR STANDER: If he were to have assaulted these people do you think they would have made loud noises due to the assaults that were made on them?

MR MAMOME: Mr Stander, I believe so.

MR STANDER: Did you hear any such sounds on that day?

MR MAMOME: In our office? Nothing.

MR STANDER: Do you want to tell us that those assaults, even those to have been committed by Motsamai that they did not take place?

MR MAMOME: Mr Stander, I do not know what was done by Mr Motsamai, I do not know it at all.

MR STANDER: But I’m asking you, if a person is assaulted then surely he is going to scream and make a noise.

MR MAMOME: Mr Stander, If a person screams, I would hear, if a person does not scream, how would I hear?

MR STANDER: Because witness after witness has testified that how they screamed but the simple question I am putting to you is, let us accept for the moment that it was only Motsamai that had assaulted them on that day, then surely, someone should have heard the screaming but according to you, you heard no screaming at all.

MR STANDER: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Stander, I think you could take this further in argument.

MR STANDER: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Stander, I think the time has come to remind you that you were told during the adjournment that in the procedure laid down, we have a right to limit cross examination. And it appears to me that you have been repeating and repeating the same points witness after witness were it’s now become a matter of argument, hasn’t it? Is there any point in this constant repetition?

MR STANDER: I am of the opinion that the last question that I put - I do not want to cross swords with you, but these are the improbabilities that I have to prove before this Committee, that I can argue in this regard. And if I do point them out to the witnesses then the argument that I want to hold at the end of the day will sound hollow.

But I have followed your train of thought and I will try to shorten my questions with regard to the other aspects.

Let us go over to the matter of Mr Makubalo. Can you tell us what was the reason that you took your firearm with you the day that you wanted to go and arrest Oupa Makubalo?

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, I do not carry a gun, I do not go around with a gun. As I am sitting here, I don’t have a gun. I have never carried a gun.

MR STANDER: So that day you did not have a firearm with you either?

MR MAMOME: I did not have a gun.

MR STANDER: Was it not dangerous to go into the black townships without a weapon, because I understand that there was unrest in the townships?

MR MAMOME: It is true, but Chairperson at that time there were many people in the Kombi and they all had firearms.

MR STANDER: So you placed your safety in the hands of those who were with you in the vehicle?

MR MAMOME: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR STANDER: Why did you jump out and start running because you did not have a firearm with you? You just told us that you entrusted your safety to the people who were in the vehicle.

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, it was daylight, I could see Oupa Makubalo and he did not have any weapon with him.

MR STANDER: Were you not scared of him or for the group that he was with because you suspected him of murder?

MR MAMOME: Oupa was not in a group.

MR STANDER: You fired the first shots that day, that’s what we we were told. What do you say about that?

MR MAMOME: I did not have a gun Chairperson, it can’t be me.

MR STANDER: Tell me, when you caught up to Oupa Makubalo, did he walk back with you voluntarily?

MR MAMOME: Oupa was walking. He was not a kind of person who would resist the arrest, he would go by the rules.

MR STANDER: Did you see that one of his front teeth was missing?

MR MAMOME: I did not realise that.

MR STANDER: Did you not see it?

MR MAMOME: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: I want to put it to you that you were the person who either hit or kicked out his front tooth.

MR MAMOME: ...[No English translation]

MR STANDER: Could it perhaps have been Motsamai that did it?

MR MAMOME: I do not know, I did not assault this person.

MR STANDER: Did you see Motsamai when he was doing this?

MR MAMOME: When he arrived, Oupa was already sitting in the Kombi, he did not do anything.

MR STANDER: Just before I leave this point, let me just go through my notes, with your permission.

I also want to put it to you that not only did you assault this group of 19 but that you also shocked them with an electric apparatus in order to get answers from them.

MR MAMOME: ...[no sound]

MR STANDER: Tell Mr Mathews Mzuzwana, were you present on the day that he was shot?

MR MAMOME: I was not there.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I am grateful to my learned friend, I understand that Mr Mamome did not reply to the question as to whether electric appliances were used on the group of 19. I understand that he did not reply.

MR MAMOME: Mr Stander, you are telling me that for the first time. Even the victims themselves did not give evidence to the fact that I shocked them, it’s just a story.

MR STANDER: I have no further questions for this witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, how long do you think you will be with this one?

MR MEMANI: Not very long, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: More than five minutes?

MR MEMANI: Definitely.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we’ll take the adjournment now. We’ll take the adjournment ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Just a minute, before the Chair adjourns.

Mr Mamome, did I hear you correctly, and you must tell me if I’m wrong, did you say that after the Kombi stopped you called Oupa and he moved towards the direction of the Kombi and while he was moving in the direction of the Kombi, Mamome fired the shots and only after Mamome fired - I'm sorry, only after Mr Motsamai fired the shots, did Mr Makubalo start running away?

MR MAMOME: That is correct, Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you. But before Mr Motsamai fired the shots, Oupa was actually coming towards the Kombi as you had called him.

MR MAMOME: That is correct, Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

WITNESS EXCUSED