Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION 27 JANUARY 1998

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may be allowed to say something while Mr Mamome is on his way back to the witness stand. We have managed to locate the docket in the matter in which Mr White Mohapi laid a charge of assault and attempted murder and robbery with the South African Police.

We are busy arranging for photocopies to be made of the docket to be handed to both the members of the Committee and also to my learned friends. I’ve gone through this docket last night and I submit Mr Chairman, that there are material aspects which arise from the reading of the docket, and in fairness we believe that Mr Mohapi should have the opportunity to deal with any such differences as there may exist between his evidence and that which emerges from the docket.

We’ve mentioned to Mr Stander that we are busy making the photocopies and we'll hand it to him so that he can have a loot at it beforehand but we've asked him that in case you think it is fit so so, that he should attempt to arrange for Mr Mohape to attend either tomorrow or whenever so that his cross-examination may be re-opened and these questions may be put to him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, I'm getting a bit concerned that the matter seems to be getting out of hand now. Precisely what are the contents of the docket going to show? Are we going to come across certain statements which would have been allegedly been made by Mr Mohpi which he would then say: "I didn't say that, the people who took those statements might have been collaborting with the security branch, I never said that".

And are we then thereafter going to have to call those people who would supposedly have taken statements from him, to come and say: "Well, this is what he said" and so on and so forth. I'm getting worried that this matter is - we'll have to consider it very carefully Mr Visser. We appreciate that you raise that point, you came across the docket.

But I think for a start, you should discuss the matter - and this is my personal opinion, discuss the matter with Mr Stander with regard in particular to some of the issues that I have raised. If we are going to end up opening a totally new front altogether, I would have serious misgivings about that. It seems to us that we must restrict ourselves, certainly within the perimeter of what we are here for.

And I think that, speaking for myself, you will need to discuss with Mr Stander, to make sure that we are not going to open a totally new front and in the end finding ourselves embarking on virtually a trial within a trial.

CHAIRPERSON: I suggest that this is a matter that Mr Stander should have a proper opportunity of considering the document which was not available to him when Mohapi gave evidence and if he feels it is necessary in Mohapi’s interest, he can then make an application.

As I understand it has been available to the Police throughout.

MR VISSER: No Mr Chairman, we - Colonel Erasmus only found this this docket over the weekend and we had a look at it on ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I’m not saying you, I’m saying the Police. They’ve had a year and they only found it this weekend.

MR VISSER: Yes, except that its its not police that are implicated in this matter, it it’s the Police Station at Bayswater Mr Chairman Sir, but they obviously had it, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We have had a list of the hundreds of policemen that your attorney represents and they must have considered, when they decided they were going to appear at hearings, these questions and I think it is a matter as I say for Mr Stander to decide if its in the interests. I don’t think at this stage you can start applying to put in further evidence that should have been available. Proceed.

I don’t want it to be thought that I’m discouraging the Police from finding any other documents that they can such as pocket books, occurrence books and things of that nature that we have requested.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman what do we do with this docket now? Are you not prepared to see it can we not

...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I suggest you give it to Mr Stander and see if he has any views to express because it's his client.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Mr Mamome, is it correct that Mr Motsamai calls you Mzito?

MR MAMOME: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Your mike is off.

MR MAMOME: That is correct Sir.

MR MEMANI: And you used to call him "Crossroads" isn’t it?

MR MAMOME: No, Sir.

MR MEMANI: Are you not aware that he was nicknamed "Crossroads"?

MR. MAMOME:: No, Chairperson

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that you used to call him "Crossroads" because he used he used to go with you petrol bombing houses and you said that he reminded you of Crossroads in in in the Cape Province which was in flames at the time.

MR MAMOME: Its not like that Chairperson

MR. MEMANE: It seems someone is playing his radio on the earphones.

[PROBLEM WITH EARPHONES]

MR MEMANI: I put it to you that you deny knowing the nickname "Crossroads" because it will show that you were aware of the fact that Motsamai was involved in petrol bombings.

MR MAMOME: No, Chairperson

MR MEMANI: Is it also not true that you and Motsamai were in the same karate club?

MR MAMOME: I start to hear to-day Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Do you know a karate club called Fatima?

MR MAMOME: I know that Sir.

MR MEMANI: Were you not in that karate club?

MR MAMOME: No, Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: I put it to you again that you're making this denial only to dissociate yourself from Mr Motsamai.

MR MAMOME: I have no reason to disassociate myself from Mr Motsamai, he was working where I was working.

MR MEMANI: Is it also not correct that you were working with Mr Motsamai when Mr Mzuzwana was shot at?

MR MAMOME: No Sir, its not like that Sir.

MR MEMANI: Do you remember the incident when Colonel Smith flew to Cape Town to intercept AK47’s which were being shipped from the USSR and were destined for Lesotho?

MR MAMOME: I don’t know that Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Colonel Smith?

MR MEMANI: Colonel Smith, yes Chairperson.

Don’t you don’t you remember that before Colonel Smith flew down there you and Motsamai reported to him that you had been with an informer who belonged to the Basotho Congress Party who informed you that there were arms which were being shipped from the USSR to Lesotho?

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, I start to hear these things to-day.

MR MEMANI: Do you remember that at any stage you ever worked with Mr Motsamai, visiting informers locally?

MR MAMOME: No Chairperson, I do not remember.

MR MEMANI: Do you recall that you ever worked with with Mr Motsamai at any stage?

MR MAMOME: Motsamai was working in the same section which I worked, he was not my partner. As I said we worked in two's and that is one black one white.

MR MEMANI: Do you recall that you ever performed any task with Motsamai?

MR MAMOME: If maybe you able to identify that operation or that work maybe I may remember.

MR MEMANI: As you are sitting there, you yourself do not recall any task that you ever performed with Motsamai?

MR MAMOME: No, Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Now again I’m putting it to you that you denying any association with Mr Motsamai because you do not want - you are afraid that it will tend to establish that Mr Motsamai did some of these things with you.

MR MAMOME: Chairperson its not like that.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Motsamai - Mr Mamome, I want us to go to I want to go to the murder of George Musi. You were present when the applicant Mr Motsamai went to bomb Mr Musi or rather to shoot Mr Musi weren’t you?

MR MAMOME: I was not present Chairperson, I was not present Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: I have instructions from Jeff Mabilo that he was present when you gave a certain firearm to "Yster".

MR MAMOME: There’s nothing like that Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Do you know Jeff Mabilo?

MR MAMOME: I know him, I’ve helped his sister when he was raped.

MR. MAMANE:: Helped his sister when she was raped, is that what you said?

MR MAMOME: That is correct

MR MEMANI: And do you know Yster?

MR MAMOME: I know Yster he was my friend.

MR MEMANI: As far as you are aware are there any ill feelings between yourself and Jeff Mabilo

MR MAMOME: No Sir, not at all.

MR MEMANI: Indeed he must be indebted to you if you helped his sister, isn’t it?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Sir.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman I’m just trying to cut out some of the questions.

Isn’t it not so that there are no differences between yourself and Mr Motsamai?

MR MAMOME: I regarded him as my younger brother we, did not a conflict or an ill feeling.

MR MEMANI: Now you told us that you knew Kabusa and Kabusa was your friend, isn’t it?

MR MAMOME: Kabusa was my colleague not a friend.

MR MEMANI: And Nicos was your friend?

MR MAMOME: That is correct, that is correct Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Isn’t it correct that at the time when Nicos’ house was bombed Kabusa was not living there? In fact those are my instructions from Nicos himself.

MR MAMOME: I’m not sure of the days Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: But are you aware that at that stage Kabusa was no longer living at Nikos’ house?

MR MAMOME: It might be possible but I’m not sure.

MR MEMANI: Now yesterday you also told us about the little girl who disappeared and the last person that was seen with the little girl was a little boy, isn’t it?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: And no-one was charged for the death of that girl because the little boy had killed the child isn’t it?

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, when we asked this boy he agreed that he killed that little girl.

CHAIRPERSON: How old was this little boy?

MR MAMOME: 14 years Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: I want us to deal with Oupa Makubalo. My instructions are that you are the person who came into the - just one second, my instructions are that you are the person who came into the kitchen and said that your informer had told you that he had seen Oupa.

MR MAMOME: You saying he saw Oupa?

MR MEMANI: That is correct, Makubalo.

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, it seems to the question is incomplete, I request Mr Memani to put it again.

CHAIRPERSON: What he said was you were the person who came into the kitchen and said that your informer had seen Oupa.

MR MAMOME: There was nothing I’ve said about Makubalo except the time when we arrested him in Botshabelo.

JUDGE NGOEPE: This aspect was not taken up with a number of previous witnesses who kept on saying it was Mr Motsamai who came in and said, and made that kind of report Mr Memani. I’m just mentioning this because it strikes me as though this was not put to the other witnesses unless I missed that aspect.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, that was denied. I do not recall if I specifically put that it was Mamome but if if I did not put put it to the other witnesses it was due to oversight. My recollection would be that even in his evidence Motsamai said Mamome came and made the report.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Alright, we’ll check the record, thank you.

MR MEMANI: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now my instructions are that you are the person who came and made the report that your informer had seen Mr Makubalo.

MR MAMOME: I dispute that Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: And my instructions again are that the informer who was killed by Makubalo was was in fact your informer.

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, we speak about human life, a person who has been murdered. He has been stabbed and poured with petrol and then he was hit with a stone on the head. Today’s the first time, hearing Mr Motsamai through Mr Memani, that that informer was mine.

It is surprising, we speak of human life a human life. Maybe the truth would not come out but the person who has killed and the person who handled that person would surface.

MR MEMANI: Now, when you arrived at the place where Makubalo was, we are told that you shot, you first without speaking to Makubalo.

MR MAMOME: It is not like that Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Now you also told us that you the person who caught Makubalo, isn’t it?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Did you at any stage say that Motsamai must stop shooting?

MR MAMOME: No, Sir.

MR MEMANI: And Makubalo told us that he heard gun fire until the time when he decided that come what may, he was no longer going to run away and you came and tripped him.

MR MAMOME: It’s not like that Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Now, as you were running, were you the one who was at the forefront?

MR MAMOME: I came with a car then I stopped it just in front of him.

MR MEMANI: And you started pursuing Makubalo?

MR MAMOME: No, I caught him Mr Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Didn’t you pursue him?

MR MAMOME: Oupa was standing next to - at a house, then he saw Mr Motsamai, then he ran around then Mr Motsamai started shooting then he jumped a fence to the next street, then I came with another street, then we met somewhere on that street.

MR MEMANI: Did you not pursue him?

MR MAMOME: Yes, I did.

MR MEMANI: Then why did it take you so long to concede that you pursued him?

MR MAMOME: Mr Memani, I’ve explained how it came about that I should caught this person.

CHAIRPERSON: But a moment ago you when you were asked you specifically said: "I did not pursue him, I caught him", now you say you pursued him.

MR MAMOME: Chairperson, I pursued him with a car.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did the others run after him and you drove round to another road in a car?

MR MAMOME: That’s correct Sir, that is like that Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: You see in order for you to catch Mr Makubalo, if you were running on feet, you would have been the one who was at the forefront isn’t it?

MR MAMOME: No Chairperson, it’s not like that.

MR MEMANI: You see, because Mr Makubalo told us that the person who caught him approached him from behind and tripped him.

MR MAMOME: It’s not like that Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Or let me say that the impression that I got is that the person who caught him approached him from behind.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, I’m a bit confused now also because a moment ago you put it to the witness that that Oupa decided that he’ll come out and he stopped running and came forward and was caught by this person.

MR MEMANI: It may not have been correctly interpreted to you. I said that he decided come what may he was not going to run away anymore and the person then came and caught him.

COMMISSIONER:: Was he standing waiting for this person to come up: "Come what may, I’m not going to run away anymor". Was he stationary when he waiting for the person to come forward?

MR MEMANI: I’m sorry to interrupt you Mr Chair, his evidence that is was that he stopped running and just walked.

INTERPRETER: Interpreters are disturbed by a Radio Chairperson.

[RADIO DISTURBANCES]

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I’ve just lost my cushion here.

Now Mr Mamome, we were told that the car was parked at the spot where it stopped when Makubalo was first seen.

MR MAMOME: That is correct Sir, it’s like that Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Well, let me say near the - next to the vehicle.

MR MAMOME: I was the driver of that car, I’m not sure that there was a person who remained in the car.

MR MEMANI: I think it was Mmelesi who said he did not join in the chase, he stood next to the car while the rest of you chased Oupa.

MR MAMOME: I pursued Oupa with a car, I was not pursuing him on foot. When I arrived next to Oupa I stopped the Kombi then I said to him: "Stop", then I did not run after him but I pursued him with a car.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand from what you’ve just said that the car you pursued him in was the Kombi that you’d come from Fountain Street in. Is that so?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: And Mr Mmelesi did not have any reason to lie about the vehicle isn’t it?

MR MAMOME: I don’t know that, I would not say he lied or he told the truth.

MR MEMANI: Of all the people who testified about this incident, you are the only person who has suggested that the vehicle was used to chase Makubalo.

MR MAMOME: I’ve said I did not run after him, I was driving a Kombi others pursued him on foot.

MR MEMANI: And I also put it to you that you are the only person whom Makubalo could recall clearly as having been present on the day.

MR MAMOME: I was the driver, it’s obvious that he’s sure he saw me in the Kombi and when I stopped, I stopped him in such a way that he will be able to see me.

MR MEMANI: No, there was also another person, I’m sorry, who was sitting in the front seat. Those were the two persons that he could recall clearly as having been present when he was arrested.

MR MAMOME: I’ll not able to remember well those things happened a long time ago.

ADV DE JAGER: But you arrested him, isn’t that so?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: So I think its common cause at least that he was on the scene and that he did the arrest.

MR MAMOME: Its correct Chairperson, but the people I was with in front in the front seat, I’m not able to remember them.

MR MEMANI: And I put it to you that Mr Motsamai recalls - Mr Makubalo recalls you, not just because you arrested but because you played a dominant role, you were the person who fired a shot at him and you’re the person who tripped him and kicked him on his mouth.

MR MAMOME: I said yesterday, I even say to-day that I was not carrying a gun, I arrested Mr Makubalo. It was not necessary to trip him and to kick him, I just arrested him.

MR MEMANI: And I also put it to you that you deny having pursued Mr Makubalo on foot because amongst other things you fired shots at him.

MR MAMOME: It is not like that Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: And that for the same reason you deny that you carried a gun at all.

MR MAMOME: I did not carry a gun.

JUDGE NGOEPE: One of the witnesses said all of you were armed, had guns. Would he be mistaken?

MR MAMOME: I think he is mistaken.

MR MEMANI: Isn’t it so that you had no differences with Mr Ngo?

Mr MAMOME: Yes, Sir.

MR MEMANI: And is it also not correct that you were present on various occasions when he committed certain offences?

MR MAMOME: It’s not like that Chairperson, not like that Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: Is it not correct that you sometimes worked with him?

MR MAMOME: I did not work with Mr Ngo.

MR MEMANI: Is it not correct that you are the person who conveyed him from the hospital to Mr Venter’s home?

MR MAMOME: I don’t even know where Mr Venter stayed.

MR MEMANI: No, let me be precise I was referring to the time when Mr Ngo was injured.

MR MAMOME: I remember that we went to see him in the hospital. I’m I did not know how he left the hospital and then how he went to Mr Venter.

MR MEMANI: It surprises me that Mr Ngo would come and lie about that fact because it does not involve any offence or implicate you in any wrongdoing.

MR MAMOME: I want to reply to Mr Memani's question Chairperson. He is sentenced for twenty five years, he has stayed for seven years and therefore he has created a story which he should bring to the Truth Commission. I do not know Mr Venter Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: I’m sure you’re not suggesting that he is creating a story that he was injured and that after he was injured he was taken to Mr Venter’s house?

MR MAMOME: Chairperson I don’t know that.

MR MEMANI: And my instructions are that you used to come there to see him after he was injured and on occasions Mr Venter was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Venter was visiting him in hospital?

MR MAMOME: No, Mr Mamome was visiting Mr Ngo at at Mr Venter’s house.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh.

MR MAMOME: It is not like that Chairperson.

MR MEMANI: And I put it to you that you deny knowing Mr Venter at all because of the knowledge that you did assist Mr Ngo when he killed Mr Venter.

MR MAMOME: I do not know Mr Venter, I have not seen him with my own eyes. Mr Memani, I don’t know that person.

MR MEMANI: No further questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman I'll be brief.

Mr Memani, on the 6th of April 198 ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: This is Mr Mamome Mr Brink.

MR BRINK: I beg your pardon.

On the 6th of April 1986, when this group of 19 were brought to the fountain security branch headquarters, did you interrogate any of the females?

MR MAMOME: No Sir, I did not interrogate women.

MR BRINK: Well perhaps you can help me, there has been evidence that when the female members of that group of 19 were interrogated no policewomen were present. Do you know of any police regulations which provide for the necessity of policewomen being present when female detainees were being questioned?

MR MAMOME: You’d ask that question to people who interrogated women. I know that they have testified that I have assaulted them, it is not like that Chairperson.

MR BRINK: No, my question is, are you aware of any police regulations which provide that in the event of female detainees being questioned a policewoman must be present, that is my question.

MR MAMOME: I don’t know that Chairperson. What I know, that when she is searched she should be searched by a policewoman.

MR BRINK: Were any of these females searched to your knowledge?

MR MAMOME: Any person who has been taken to the cells should be searched.

MR BRINK: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

RE-EXAMINTION BY MR VISSER: Mr Mamome, let’s clarify what happened the day there when Oupa Makubalo was arrested. You, together with Mr Motsamai and others arrived in a Kombi in this black suburb is that correct?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You then saw Oupa Makubalo standing with some people, it doesn’t matter how many you saw him standing with other people.

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson

MR VISSER: As you were travelling, was he standing on your left or on the right hand side of the road?

MR MAMOME: He was on the right side Si,r of the road.

MR VISSER: You then stopped?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Si.r

MR VISSER: Did you know Oupa Makubalo yourself at that time?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson, I knew him.

MR VISSER: And you stopped because you identified him as Oupa Makubalo?

MR MAMOME: That is correct .

MR VISSER: Now was this near a corner or was it in the middle of a block of of of of houses?

MR MAMOME: It was on the third house before you are - before the corner but it was just near the corner

MR VISSER: Right. At some stage Oupa Makubalo runs away, that you’ve told us.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on that, you’ve told us you called Oupa and he was walking towards you, is that so?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thereafter he was shot at and he then ran away.

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Now in which direction did he run, did he run up or down the street in which you your car was travelling or how did he run away? Where did he go?

MR MAMOME: He jumped a fence to the next street.

MR VISSER: Is that the street running parallel to the one in which you were you were driving the the Kombi?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What did you then do?

MR MAMOME: I went forward, I took the direction where the Kombi was pointing, straight.

MR VISSER: Did you drive the Kombi forward?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you come to the corner?

MR MAMOME: Yes, Chair.

MR VISSER: What What happened then did you carry on did you stop did you ...[End of tape 1A - no follow-on sound]

MR MAMOME: I turned right.

MR VISSER: To the next corner or before that?

MR MAMOME: When I arrived at the next corner then Oupa came and then we met at the corner.

MR VISSER: Did you stop the Kombi?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Sir.

MR VISSER: Did you get out of the Kombi?

MR MAMOME: Yes I went out.

MR VISSER: Did you trip Oupa to be able to arrest him?

MR MAMOME: No Sir, I just went out of the car and then I went to him I grabbed him then I put him in the car.

MR VISSER: Did you see any of the others who were pursuing him at that stage?

MR MAMOME: They came individually to the Kombi.

MR VISSER: Thank you no further questions

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

JUDGE NGOEPE: Taking a quick glance over the evidence and the things which we have put to you in respect of which you are allegedly implicated, particularly by Mr Motsamai. It seems to me that of all the people Mr Motsamai implicates, he implicates you the most in terms of the sheer number of incidents.

I have seen no less than 15, 16 such incidents and I wonder why Mr Motsamai would do this taking into account that you are in good terms.

MR MAMOME: The time when I received the TRC subpoena I did not believe that its Motsamai because there is nowhere where we had a conflict. I regarded him as my younger brother, I trusted him. I am surprised Chairperson even to-day I’m so surprised how he implicates me in this way and with so many incidents.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And also in terms of the incidents of petrol bombing he implicates you the most in terms of the sheer number of incidents, it puzzles you.

MR MAMOME: That is worse Chairperson, it surprises me more.

CHAIRPERSON: My brother has referred you to the many incidents that you have been involved in by Motsamai and you were served with notice of them weren’t you?

MR MAMOME: That is correct Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me that all of these incidents were matters that would have been - were matters that certainly would have come to the notice of the police and probably have been investigated by them.

MR MAMOME: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you make any effort to check the time and date of each of these incidents just to make sure that it was not a time when you were away?

MR MAMOME: That’s what I did. I even went to the police station to look for dockets because all these incidents happened in the townships. I went to the police stations to find out as whether they have opened dockets for these incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: And had they?

MR MAMOME: I went on my own but I did not find them.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn’t find dockets for any of them?

MR MAMOME: I searched for dockets for all these incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Tsoametsi is here Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You still under oath Sir,

MR TSOAMETSI: (sworn states)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Now Mr Tsoametsi, yesterday you were referred to the application of Mr Ngo and there the names of the people he enumerated as having participated in the abduction of or kidnap of Mr Mohapi was read out to you, do you remember that?

MR TSOAMETSI: I remember Sir.

MR MEMANI: Now I want to put to you what he in fact said in his evidence whilst he was testifying in chief. At page 30 A2 Mr Ngo said when asked

"Were you alone when you kidnapped Mr Mohapi"?

"No, it was Tsoametsi, Mamome, Mtyhala and Cronjè".

I suppose you don’t have any comment to ...[intervention]

MR TSOAMETSI: I heard him when he said that .

MR MEMANI: And again it was put to you that Mr Tsoametsi or rather Mr Ngo referred to Hilton Police station. Now I want to read to you what Mr Ngo said in chief at page 32 of A2. He said

"I mean the police were arresting for public violence, that is Coetzee and them. When he was supposed to be released we got that information then they said that we should come after we have knocked off, that we should come and kidnap him. So they phoned the Hilton Police station where he was detained, either Hilton Police station or Bayswater police station".

MR TSOAMETSI: I did not know of that, Ngo is lying

MR MEMANI: And that he was detained at Bayswater police station coincides with where Mr Mohapi said he was detained.

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, let me indicate to you Mohapi’s arrest is unknown to me. I told you that I was working within the white section what was done on the other side I do not know.

MR MEMANI: Now you obviously will deny the rest of his evidence don’t you, insofar as it implicates you?

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, everything that is said by Ngo is a lie, he knows where I was working.

MR MEMANI: Have you ever interrogated a white person?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes, outside.

MR MEMANI: Outside what?

MR TSOAMETSI: The first one was at Koffiefontein where I was working, it was in the South Free State and at Gariepdam. Even if even when the white person was there and I did not understand I would chip in and say: "Repeat yourself, I want to understand".

MR MEMANI: And I’m told that you’ve never interviewed, interrogated any white person at Fountain.

MR TSOAMETSI: Ngo would not know because he was not in that section, as much as I did not know what they did.

MR MEMANI: But it is implicit in your answer when you say: yes, that you did interview people outside, that you did not interview people at Fountains, white people at fountains.

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, if it was necessary, because I work with a white person, if the white person is interrogating and I do not understand something and I really want to understand better I would ask him because the next day we're going to meet with a white person and say he said this and he said that.

MR MEMANI: I don’t understand your last answer, can you repeat it please?

MR TSOAMETSI: When I am sitting with the white person this white person is interrogating another white person, he will carry on with the interrogation and this white person will provide answers. Now if there is something in his answers that I do not understand I will stop and say: "I do not understand that point", then it will be explained until I understand it.

MR MEMANI: Now should I accept it now that you yourself have never taken a lead role in an interrogating a white person?

MR TSOAMETSI: Take it that way Sir.

MR MEMANI: Now to which organisation did the white person interrogated belong?

MR TSOAMETSI: When we were at Koffiefontein this white man was working at the mines and there was violence, he was mishandling black people. Now it seemed as if violence was going to begin.

MR MEMANI: In what fashion did he mishandle black people?

MR TSOAMETSI: He was not talking to them properly he did not listen to their grieviances, work related grievances.

MR MEMANI: Now I asked you, did he belong to any political organisation?

MR TSOAMETSI: I do not remember.

MR MEMANI: Did you - the other white person you told us about two white persons, did he belong to any political organisation?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

ADV DE JAGER:: ...[inaudible] security police at that stage at Koffiefontein and Gariepdam?

MR TSOAMETSI: Those areas were falling under Bloemfontein.

MR MEMANI: What did your job entail exactly in this white section?

MR TSOAMETSI: It was the security duty. When we have gone out I was supposed to be in a position to help where my white colleagues would not understand some of the things that were mentioned by the black people, now I had to explain the situation.

MR MEMANI: Now what did the white section do?

MR TSOAMETSI: The white section was was keeping an eye on areas where violence might erupt where conflicts existed because of race. Those were the things we started to - we wanted to stop before they can start.

MR MEMANI: Isn’t it so Mr, what is your name again? Mr Ramosoeu, - okay, I’m told you are Tsoametsi, isn’t it so that the white section was the section that dealt with white liberals so to speak, people who belonged to the ANC, the Communist Party, the Trade Unions that were aligned to those organisations, people who associated themselves with the black aligned movement and so on?

MR TSOAMETSI: I do not know Sir.

MR MEMANI: Now I put it to you that you only say that you worked in the white section because you wanted to dissociate yourself from Ngo and that becomes clear by your inability to tell us what you actually did in the white section.

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, that is not true, Ngo knows very well. The position he is in now is difficult, everyone would go a long way to rescue himself.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that Mr Ngo didn’t have any differences with you?

MR TSOAMETSI: It is true there has never been a conflict between the two of us.

MR MEMANI: And isn’t it true that there is nothing wrong that you did by taking him from hospital to Mr Venter’s home?

MR TSOAMETSI: I have never taken him to Mr Venter’s house. I took him from the school to the hospital where I last saw him.

MR MEMANI: Is it also not true that thereafter you visited him to see how he was doing?

ADV DE JAGER: In the hospital or at Venter's house?

MR MEMANI: At Venter’s house Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: I just want to point out Mr Chairman, that no such evidence was ever given by Mr Ngo, either in regard to Mr Mamome or in regard to this witness.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Tsoametsi, isn't it true that thereafter you made visits to Mr Venter’s house to see how Mr Ngo was doing?

MR TSOAMETSI: I have never been to Mr Venter’s house. I last saw Ngo at the hospital at Pilenome where I took him myself.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you hear Mr Visser’s query? Was that evidence, was there evidence that that happened?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman the issue was not ventilated but he did say that he was he was taken by Mr Tsoametsi to the hospital and was later conveyed by him to Venter’s house.

CHAIRPERSON: But you put to Mr Mamome that he took Motsamai to Mr Venter’s house. Now you’re putting that this witness took him.

MR MEMANI: They were together Mr Chair.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani, the point I was trying to make was that, if there is no evidence that the witness did thereafter go and visit Mr Ngo at Venter’s house you can’t put it the way you put it. You can’t say: "Is it true that that you did go and and and and visit Mr Ngo at Venter’s house"? And I know that you - that I suspect that question was fed to you by your attorney but I would have expected that he would have assure assured himself as to whether there is that kind of evidence.

What you could have done would have been to put it something like: "Did you go and see him at Venter’s house"?, not: "Is it true that you did go and see him at Venter’s house"? Because once you say: "Is it true that you did go and see him at Venter’s house"?, it implies that and indeed he can only put it that way if there is evidence or there was evidence that the witness did that.

MR MEMANI: I take this as something which arises after a witness has testified which you can put to a witness. I did not at any stage suggest that it was the evidence of Mr Ngo.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Then you should please put it the way I am suggesting then you should ask him: "Did you go and see Mr Ngo at Venter’s house"?

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

Did you go and see Mr Ngo at uh Venter’s house?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, I have never been there.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink have you already questioned this witness?

MR BRINK: No, I don’t think I have but I have no questions in any event.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR VISSER: None thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR VISSER: I call Lieutenant Shaw. I'm not

not quite sure what the problem is here Mr Chairman, I think he’s going to get dressed. He probably didn’t realise I was going to call him. My attorney is also in a flurry here, perhaps I should call somebody else. Mr Ramosoeu please. Alright Mr Shaw is now present and correct Mr Chairman.

I may mention that there are two affidavits of Lieutenant Shaw in Exhibit B or bundle B rather. The first is at page 38 and the second is at page 92.

MR SHAW: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Shaw, were you attached to the South African Police?

MR SHAW: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And are you at present still in the South African Police Service or what is your position?

MR SHAW: I have left the police, I accepted a separation package and I am running my own business to-day.

MR VISSER: And with which rank did you retire from the police?

MR SHAW: Superintendent.

MR VISSER: You became aware of the fact that certain allegations regarding illegal acts were made against you?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: Did you together with others go to Pretoria?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: When you heard for the first time regarding allegations from the side of Ngo?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: At that stage Motsamai also accompanied this group to Pretoria.

MR SHAW: That’s correct. I did not go up with them, I went up with Superintendent Erasmus.

MR VISSER: But you met them there?

MR SHAW: Yes, that’s correct.

MR VISSER: I wish to ask you as far as your knowledge goes, was there any influence exerted by any person to say anything in an affidavit or to sign an affidavit which had previously been prepared by somebody else?

MR SHAW: No, there was no influence exerted on me.

MR VISSER: You yourself made an affidavit dated 18 March 1997?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: Is that sworn affidavit now in front of you?

MR SHAW: Yes, that’s correct.

MR VISSER: Do you affirm the correctness and the truth of the content thereof?

MR SHAW: Yes, that’s correct.

MR VISSER: Is it also true that you later became aware of an application by Motsamai and of the fact that you were also mentioned in that application, that you were implicated there?

MR SHAW: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you have that affidavit in front of you?

MR SHAW: Is that the one dated 13/5/97 E33 or P33, it wasn't quite clear?

MR SHAW: Yes, indeed.

MR VISSER: Well, there are actually two dates but that’s not material, it appears to be the 14th of May. Be that as it may do you affirm the correctness and the truth of that affidavit?

MR SHAW: Yes, that’s correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Shaw, when did you join the South African police?

MR SHAW: 27 February 1971.

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

MR SHAW: Yes, that’s correct, in October 1980.

MR VISSER: What was your exact task, in which section did you work during the period 1985/'86?

MR SHAW: I was under the command of Colonel Coetzee, we worked with black affairs in Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: Now can you please give us a list of the names of the people in the black section during that period?

MR SHAW: The people who worked with me was Sergeant Mamome, Constable Motsamai - its long ago Ramosoeu Hendrik Ramosoeu, Mtyhala. Do you only wish to have the names of the black members or do you you wish to have the white names as well? There were white members, Warrant Office Koch L.J. Koch, Cronjè.

MR VISSER: How many Kochs were there?

MR SHAW: There were two Kochs, Warrant Officer P.A.C. Koch and L.D. Koch.

MR VISSER: You also said Cronjè?

MR SHAW: Yes, Cronje.

MR VISSER: Erasmus?

MR SHAW: Yes, Erasmus.

MR VISSER: And yourself?

MR SHAW: There could be one or two members whose names I have forgotten, I can’t remember now.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us approximately how many members in total were there in the security branch of Bloemfontein in '85/'86?

MR SHAW: Between 60 and 70 members.

MR VISSER: As far as you are implicated by Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai in the Commission of any misdemeanours or any illegal or unlawful deeds, what is your reaction to that?

MR SHAW: Well, I deny those allegations.

MR VISSER: Let us quickly go through the separate cases or instances mentioned. Firstly as far as Mr Ngo is concerned, you are aware of the testimony he gave that he had been brought here from Pretoria and that in a meeting where you were present he was instructed to kill Venter, is that true?

MR SHAW: No, it isn’t true.

MR VISSER: He also told the Committee that you at the Hamilton shooting range instructed him and proposed the plan regarding how to get into Mr Venter’s house.

MR SHAW: That is untrue.

MR VISSER: The suggestion was that he had to use an Old Mutual Insurance form and take that to discuss it with Mr Venter and once he had been admitted into the house he had to shoot him with a firearm which you had provided to him at the Hamilton shooting range.

MR SHAW: I deny the allegations they are untrue.

MR VISSER: Well, that is not necesarily everything that he had said but we know that Venter was murdered, that his house was emptied and all the goods stolen and that there was a later trial. Did you have anything whatsoever to do with this murder of Mr Venter?

MR SHAW: I had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Mr Venter’s death.

MR VISSER: Was Mr Venter an activist?

MR SHAW: I didn’t know Mr Venter, I wasn’t aware of the fact that he could have been an activist.

MR VISSER: On page 23 of his application, Mr Ngo indicated that Erasmus and you had a problem with White Mohapi in that he every time he was taken to court was let off and you then gave Mr Ngo the instruction to monitor this person White Mohapi and to note all and report all his misdemeanours or movements so that you could succeed in putting him in jail permanently.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give me the page reference again?

MR VISSER: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: The page reference, you gave a page reference.

MR VISSER: Page 23. I’m working from my notes, I may be wrong Mr Chairman but let me just check.

CHAIRPERSON: No you’re right it is.

MR VISSER: Yes, 23.

I’ve now asked a long question, let me just shorten it. The evidence of Mr Ngo is that you and Erasmus felt that something had to be done to Mohapi because he’d he got away with it in court.

MR SHAW: That’s untrue.

MR VISSER: And that arrangements were made with the Bayswater police station that he would not be released the morning but in the evening after he had been detained for 14 days in April 1984. I’m sorry, Mr Ngo said '86. We will offer testimony that its clearly a situation that presented itself in '84.

The question I’m putting to you now is, did you have anything to do with the arrangements that Mr Mohapi had to be detained and only released later that evening?

MR SHAW: I had nothing to do with the arrangements nor do I have any knowledge of the incident.

MR VISSER: The testimony is further that you and Erasmus gave instructions that Mr White Mohapi had to be abducted and assaulted, is that true?

MR SHAW: I deny that.

MR VISSER: On page 28 Mr Ngo said that you were present and participated in the assault and torture of members of the group of 19 people who had been transferred from Ladybrand to Bloemfontein in April '86, is that true?

MR SHAW: That is untrue.

MR VISSER: Were you present at any time during the interrogation of those persons?

MR SHAW: I have knowledge of the matter, the persons who were transported from Ladybrand to Bloemfontein and were interrogated by members of the security branch. My instructions came from Colonel du Plooy who was looking for people to assist them with the interrogation of these people and I made people available for this purpose. This now deals with the detention of these people in order to complete the necessary administrative forms.

MR VISSER: To complete the administrative matters, in other words the processing of these people?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: Did you yourself participate in any interrogation?

MR SHAW: No, I was not involved in any interrogation.

MR VISSER: I did not not make any notes, I am not quite sure whether you told me, if you do not know anything about it please say so. Do you know whether there were any informants among those people, that’s the group of 19?

MR SHAW: As far as I know there were informants among them.

MR VISSER: Were they of your informants?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: Can you just tell us, can you remember how many of those 19 people were informants at that stage?

MR SHAW: I wouldn’t know, I cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when you said: "your informers", did you mean you personally or the security branch Bloemfontein?

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, let me - I think the witness witness must rather answer reply to that. Mr Shaw if we refer to the informants and whose they were, if you say: "yes", did you mean that they were your personal informers or were they informers of whom you were aware had been or were informers of the security branch?

MR SHAW: They were of my - one of them was my informer. I don’t know whether there were any others among them.

MR VISSER: But one of them was your own informer?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: With the regards to the allegation made by Mr Ngo of the raid and the arrest of 40 to 50 students, scholars at Botshabello in '86, it is alleged that you personally also participated in the assault or torture of these people. Now the first question I have for you is, did you have anything to do with this incident?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of the incident.

MR VISSER: Were you present during any processing or handling of these persons in Botshabello?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of the matter.

MR VISSER: If we may go over to Mr Motsamai on page 145 of bundle A, he referred to the murder of George Musi. This is a murder which was committed in Milk Street or Melk Street and he said that Coetzee and you gave him instructions and also to Mamome to murder George Musi.

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of that matter, I do not know George Musi at all.

Mr VISSER:: And then he also said, this is now Mr Motsamai page 145 that you gave instructions that the house of Mrs Winnie Mandela should be attacked or that you participated in that, is that correct?

MR SHAW: That’s not correct.

MR VISSER: And furthermore that you also gave instructions or participated in the attack on a clinic belonging to Mrs Winnie Mandela.

MR SHAW: That’s also untrue.

MR VISSER: I think you have already said it but as far there is any allegation of illegality, what is your reaction?

MR SHAW: I was not involved in these illegalities at all.

MR VISSER: Mr Shaw, if we can just chat for a moment about Mr Nelson Ngo. When did you become aware of him for the first time and is there something that you can tell us of what you can remember about his relationship with the police?

MR SHAW: I know that he was an informer of the branch. I did not deal with him myself, he was dealt with by superintendent Erasmus. I knew him, he was an informer of the office. I did not deal with him but superintendent Erasmus did. I know about the incident where he was attacked at the school.

MR VISSER: Can you recall in what year this took place?

MR SHAW: I cannot remember precisely.

MR VISSER: Continue please.

MR SHAW: And that he worked at the security branch as a student for a month or two before he went to the police college.

MR VISSER: And that was in '86?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: Until he left for the police training college in Pretoria?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: After he left Bloemfontein, we know this was in July of '86, did you ever hear from him or see see him again or have anything to do with him?

MR SHAW: I had nothing further to do with him.

MR VISSER: Who dealt with him?

MR SHAW: Superintendent Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I do this with hesitation because it is relevant.

But let me just ask you, do you know a person with the name Molefe, S.S. Molefe?

MR SHAW: No.

MR VISSER: He says that on the 25th of May 1993 you were present while he was assulated. Do you know anthing about this?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of this.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: ... [No English translation]

MR SHAW: ... [No English translation]

MR DU PLESSIS: ...[No English translation] Was this in an official capacity?

MR SHAW: No, I knew that he came to the office and that we saw him there but I had no discussion with him or had anything to do with him.

MR DU PLESSIS:: Did he tell you what he was doing in Pretoria?

MR SHAW: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR STANDER: Mr Shaw, the activities of White Mohapi, were you interested in this in your official capacity?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR STANDER: Is it because you worked very closely with that specific section?

MR SHAW: That’s correct. The work of the section was to gather information regarding matters of unrest and school related problems in Bloemfontein.

MR STANDER: So would you describe it that if he could be eliminated that you would have made an important breakthrough?

MR SHAW: No, I wouldn’t regard it as such.

MR STANDER: Why would you say that?

MR SHAW: Because I did not believe in eliminating people or getting rid of them.

MR STANDER: I do not mean that you wanted him killed or dead but that if he could not be involved in the black townships that it would have been an important breakthrough?

ADV DE JAGER: I think the word: "eliminate" has a certain meaning in certain circles and you must take this into consideration when you use this word what meaning you attach to it.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will try to use another word.

In order to neutralise him.

Thank you to my learned friend.

Would you say that to take him out of the community would have been an important breakthrough?

MR SHAW: Provision was made in the act for the detention of these persons to according to the act to detain them and in this way to remove them from the community.

MR STANDER: Did you on occasion make use of this in regard to Mr White Mohapi?

Mr SHAW: Not personally no.

MR STANDER: Why did you not do this?

MR SHAW: At times we could not get hold of him and at times we were looking for him and we wanted to take action against him in accordance with the Act but he just escaped.

MR STANDER: Is it true that at one stage you were interested in obtaining his services as an informer?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of that.

MR STANDER: Would you regard it as important to obtain a prominent person such as Mr White Mohapi as an informer?

MR SHAW: Could you repeat the question please?

MR STANDER: Would you regard it as important to obtain a prominent person such as Mr White Mohapi as an informer?

MR SHAW: Personally no, I have other reasons for that. White Mohapi is a person one would say - how should I put it, he was very politically orientated and could not easily become an informer and that is my personal position. That’s how I regard this and I did not have any interest in trying to recruit him or make any attempts to recruit him.

MR STANDER: Do you know of any attempts which were made in your department in order to obtain his services as an informer?

MR SHAW: Not that I have any knowledge of.

MR STANDER: Tell me, after or let me put it differently, do you know that in 1984 he was detained at Bayswater police station?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of him being detained in 1984. I, if I’m not incorrect, from the 1st of April '84 until June '84 I was on an officer’s course in Pretoria.

MR STANDER: So you can give us no evidence to the contrary, where he tells us that he was detained in terms of security legislation in that during that period?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, what what period was it when the witness was on a course in Pretoria? Can he just repeat that?

MR SHAW: If I have my dates correct it was from the first of April '84 up to and including or somewhere in June '84.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

MR STANDER: Tell me, Mr Molefe he had just returned from prison at Robben Island, were you interested in his activities?

MR SHAW: I do not know the Molefe you are referring to.

MR STANDER: I understand that he was a prominent member of the P.A.C. at that stage.

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge. There are several Molefe’s, I do not know about this one. If he was a member of the PAC then he was recruited by the ANC/PAC investigative unit but I personally do not know him.

MR STANDER: Mr Shaw, I am now going on to the incident where the group of 19 persons were interrogated. What was your personal involvement in this interrogation?

MR SHAW: I was not involved personally, I was only asked by Colonel du Plooy to make persons available for the processing of the detention forms of these people.

MR STANDER: Can you just describe shortly what procedure you followed when interrogations were done?

MR SHAW: Do you mean when I had to interrogate somebody? One would sit opposite one another and talk to one another and try to gain information .

MR STANDER: I asked this to the others as well but you must ...[indistinct], I have to do it again. What do you do if a person does not want to give his co-operation?

MR SHAW: If the person was in detention then he was returned to the cells and then after a day or two we would fetch him again and have discussions with him again.

MR STANDER: And if he was not being detained?

MR SHAW: If he was not being detained we would just release him and we would see whether wo would get sufficient information regarding this matter from other sources.

MR STANDER: And if it was extremely necessary or essential information that you required, what did you do then?

MR SHAW: I would definitely not go over to violence or torture, we would have tried to convince him by just talking to him.

MR STANDER: And you did nothing else but talk to him?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR STANDER: I’m sure that you have heard that all the other security branches countrywide made use of other methods.

MR VISSER: That’s that’s putting it a bit strong Mr Chairman really. I won’t object if my learned friend says that there are reports or rumours of other people in the security branch who did it I wouldn’t object to that but I mean to all the others that’s a bit too much.

MR STANDER: Perhaps I’ll just rephrase my question. I apologise, I did not want to give the wrong impression. Surely you read reports in the newspapers of many other security branches where violence was used in order to obtain information, am I correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t this isn’t this purely a matter for argument. The witness has said he did not do it. You are going to argue that it was widespread through the security police that we must assume they all did it. Isn’t that the position Mr Stander?

MR STANDER: I hear what you are saying to me. It is true that one can argue this aspect but as I said to you yesterday I would just like to give the witness the opportunity to give his opinion.

CHAIRPERSON: He has said he would never have used violence. We are here, may I remind you Mr Stander, to go into the application of Ngo and Motsamai. We are not here to conduct an investigation of the security branch or matters of that nature and we do not propose to permit prolonged cross-examination on matters that are not applicable to the applications before us.

MR STANDER:: I hear what you are saying to me. With great respect, we are dealing with the application of Mr Motsamai where he alleges that assaults did take place in the group of 19. I am ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You are asking what he read in the newspaper about assaults in other police stations by security branch it has nothing to do with Ngo’s application.

MR STANDER:: I would have reached that aspect I just wanted to give the witness the opportunity to reply to that after which I could put the basis to him ¼ [interjection]

CHAIRPERSON: Will you please put your questions otherwise your cross-examination will be terminated.

MR STANDER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. I want to put it to you Mr Shaw that the procedure which was followed during the interrogation was not as calm as you are pretending, violence was used. That is what I want to put to you.

Mr SHAW:: I have no knowledge of any violence that was used on these people.

MR STANDER: You also didn’t hear that any violence was used?

MR SHAW: No.

MR STANDER: And if Motsamai says that he assaulted some of them, then according to you he is also lying, do I understand you correctly?

MR SHAW: That is his version.

MR STANDER: But do you have any reason to distrust him when he says he did assault some of these people?

MR SHAW: Well, if he says he did then he did but I have no knowledge of any assaults that took place.

MR STANDER: He did not only say that he did he also said the other members of the group who were involved in the interrogation.

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of the assaults.

MR STANDER: So if he is not lying about his own then surely there won’t be a reason for him to lie about the involvement of the other people, do you agree with me?

MR SHAW: I said I have no knowledge .

MR STANDER: I have no further questions, thank you

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Mr Shaw, you’ve been referred to your affidavit isn’t it, at page 38, that is the affidavit relating to Ngo. Have you got that affidavit now?

MR SHAW: Is that the one which is marked P19?

MR MEMANI: That is the one that is the one which deals with Mr Ngo, its dated the 18th of March.

CHAIRPERSON: It is headed Amnesty Application M.N. Ngo.

MR MEMANI: That is correct Mr Chair.

Have you read that affidavit?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: And you are satisfied that the affidavit was drafted according with your instructions in all material respects?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: And I wish to refer you now to page 39, paragraph 3.2 where you say that

"Ngo was recruited to work as an in informant for our branch and from time to time I saw - I dealt with him in that capacity"

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: And so you did in fact deal with Ngo and not only Erasmus?

MR SHAW: Erasmus was the main handler of Mr Ngo and on occasion it was one occasion when I saw him and it was at the request of Mr Erasmus.

MR MEMANI: And you further say that

"I have further knowledge that at one stage he was

attacked by his co-scholars or fellow scholars"

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI

"and that he was taken to the hospital or had to be taken to the hospital by members of our branch"

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: Now do you if thereafter he was taken to Mr. Venter’s house?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of Mr Venter nor do I know where Mr Nelson Ngo found himself after this incident.

MR MEMANI: Do you know at all that Erasmus was involved in making arrangements for Mr Ngo’s safety after the incident?

MR SHAW: I do know that Superintendent Erasmus was concerned about Mr Ngo but I do not know what the arrangements were that he made regarding Mr Ngo.

MR MEMANI: Do you know that he made arrangements for his safety thereafter?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of that.

MR MEMANI

"Thereafter he completed his school career at Ladybrand after which he joined the SAP as a member"

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: Isn’t it so that at the time when he came and worked to the in the office after he completed his studies, you regarded him as a member of the SAP?

MR SHAW: After he had been sworn in as a member of the police I regarded him as a member of the police, that is correct.

MR MEMANI: Mr Shaw did you have any differences with Mr Ngo?

MR SHAW: No, I had no differences with him.

MR MEMANI: And to your knowledge he had nothing against you, isn’t it?

MR SHAW: Not that I’m aware of.

MR MEMANI: If I may have a moment Mr Chair.

You didn’t at any stage give instructions that Mr Ngo was never a member of the security branch did you?

Mr SHAW:: I don’t understand your question properly, please rephrase.

MR MEMANI: It was put at some stage to Mr Ngo that he was never a member of the security branch and my question to you is, you did not at any stage give instructions that Mr Ngo was never a member of the security branch?

CHAIRPERSON: How do you mean he gave instructions that Mr Ngo was never a member of the security branch? I don’t understand it either.

MR MEMANI: I’m not with you either Mr Chairman but what I’m putting to the to the witness is that he did not at any stage give instructions that Mr Ngo was never a member of the security branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand the question?

MR SHAW: No I don’t understand the question.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Shaw, it was put to Mr Ngo that he was never a member of the security branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, is your question simply did you at an6y time say that he was not a member of the security branch?

MR MEMANI: It’s the same thing that I’m asking?

CHAIRPERSON: It tisn’t. The words: "gave instructions that he was not" implied that Mr Shaw took some action to make sure that he wasn’t, that other people would not do things.

If your question is simply, did you ever say that he was a not a member of the security branch ask it, it’s a simple question?

MR MEMANI: Well, let it be put be put the way you prefer Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever tell anybody that he was not a member of the security branch ?

MR SHAW: Mr Ngo, was never a member of the security branch.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Shaw, I understood you to be saying that Mr Ngo worked with you for a few months before he went he went to Hammanskraal, isn’t it ?

MR SHAW: If I could just explain. Mr Ngo was a member of the police, he was at Batu. If I remember correctly he was on their register and he was not transferred but he assisted security branch members with Colonel Erasmus in identifying suspects until such time as he was transferred to the college.

MR MEMANI: To your knowledge, did Mr Ngo report at Batu police station?

MR SHAW: As for as my knowledge is concerned he reported to the security offices where he came and did his job but he worked as a student at security branch.

MR MEMANI: Now I don’t understand. According to your affidavit he was a member of the South African police and at the same time you say he was a student?

MR SHAW: That is correct. If I can just explain, he was sworn in with the South African Police and he became a member of the South African Police but he had no rank, he was he only had the rank of student. Once he completed his college training the rank of constable would be awarded to him but before that he was known as a student constable, that’s before his departure to the college.

MR MEMANI: Did you have any differences with Mr Motsamai?

MR SHAW: No, I had no differences with Mr Motsamai

MR MEMANI: And you knew him to be a member of the security branch for a long time, isn’t it?

MR SHAW: Yes, that is correct.

MR MEMANI: I’m sorry if I may be I’m being repetitive, you did not have any differences with him?

MR SHAW: No, I had no differences with Mr Motsamai.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman it’s a convenient time.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR SHAW: (s.u.o.)

MR MEMANI: Mr Shaw, did you not in conjunction with Erasmus, arrange for the employment of Ngo despite the fact that he had a criminal record?

MR SHAW: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Did you not, after Ngo was attacked, take steps to have him transferred to Ladybrand?

MR SHAW: No, I’m not aware of that, I did not make those arrangements.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] it after he appeared did you?

MR MEMANI: I said did he not make arrangements to have Mr Ngo transferred to Ladybrand?

CHAIRPERSON: After something.

MR MEMANI: After Ngo was attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh.

MR MEMANI: Did you not, together with Erasmus, make arrangements for the safety of Ngo after he was attacked?

MR SHAW: No, I didn’t.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Shaw, I just want to read a letter contained in bundle B, page 83, written by Ngo which says

"Application for salary adjustment from standard eight scale to standard ten scale Since 1986.02.10 I have been a member of theforce. I was appointed with a standard eight certificate. In 1986.01.01 I however passed my matric. I hereby apply for an adjustment in my salary. A copy of my standard ten certificate is hereby attached"

CHAIRPERSON: Is that letter correct Mr Memani?

MR MEMANI: And I will also wish to refer you then to answer the Chairperson's question to page 63 of bundle B. This is a letter which is signed by a lieutenant C. Smith who was I think the divisional commander and it says

"transfer for safety reasons, number S085H Ngo"

INTERPRETER: The interpreter's couldn't get the name.

"from the uniform branch to Batu station as indicated".

Paragraph five:

"This member"

paragraph one:

"This member, on 86.02.10 joined the force and has since been on the staff register of Batu. This office temporarily employed him in consultation with the district commander"

[if the interpreter could hear correctly]

Do you agree with the contents of that letter?

[Transcriber's own translation]

MR SHAW: Is that the one on page 63?

MR MEMANI: Yes.

MR SHAW: I agree with that, it’s the one on page sixty three. Yes, I agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we go back to 83 and you can perhaps answer my question. He says he joined the force on the 10th of February 1986 and was appointed with a standard eight certificate. He then says that on the 1st of January 1986 he passed his matric, is that correct?

MR MEMANI: That is correct Mr Chair, it fits with all the evidence that’s been led so far.

CHAIRPERSON: So he passed matric before he joined the police force when he was appointed on a standard eight certificate?

MR MEMANI: It is so Mr Chair, that he passed - I would say that he passed matric on the 1st of January, the certificate would be issued and be valid as from the 1st of January but it may be that at the time when he was actually employed the certificate was not available. And at that date the certificate was now available and he was being employed on the basis of his standard ten certificate.

CHAIRPERSON: On his standard eight certificate?

MR MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say he had passed matric by the 1st of January 1986?

MR MEMANI: That is correct Mr Chair.

It would follow therefore that Mr Ngo was employed not in March but in February and even the divisional commander accepted him as being employed as from February 1986?

MR VISSER: If I have any guilt in this Mr Chairman, there’s no conflict on the evidence, there’s no issue about the fact that he was attested on the 10th of February.

I think what my learned friend refers to is at one stage when you asked me for certain dates I gave you dates off the top of my head and I may have said at the time that he was attested on the 11th of March, if I said so I’m not sure that I did, but if I did say so I’m wrong but the date is the 10th February when he was attested.

And there’s no issue about the fact that he became a student constable at on that date but what did happen is that he was in Batu for a month and he was transferred to Bloemfontein on the 11th of March 1986. So if I contributed to the confusion I do apologise Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: I think that you are continuing to contribute because this witness has just said that although Ngo was registered with Batu he in fact reported at security offices in Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: No, that’s not what the witness said Mr Chairman, that’s why that’s why I started speaking. The witness said he doesn’t have any problem with this letter. The question is: "What does the letter mean"?

The letter doesn’t say that he was employed from the tenth of February in Bloemfontein it doesn’t say that.

MR MEMANI: This was the evidence of Mr Shaw before the tea adjournment. I specifically put that to him and he said it was correct.

MR VISSER: Mr. Chairman that problem can be solved with reference to page 65 of bundle B. That’s his service register and all the facts will appear from that document Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, what does he want us to look at and see there. He must refer us to what his his referring us there.

ADV DE JAGER: Is it relevant whether he was appointed in February or March? The letter also states that while he was at Batu he was employed in Bloemfontein police station.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] I correct my brother there, it wasn’t Bloemfontein police station, it was the security police in Bloemfontein.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, in Bloemfontein.

MR MEMANI: Are you addressing the question to me Mr Chair?

ADV DE JAGER: Ja.

MR MEMANI: Well, there is a difference here Mr Chair. You would have been made to believe that Mr Ngo was not associated with the security branch until the 11th of March when he was attested as a student constable and I’m saying that from this correspondence he was already a member on the 10th of February 1986. It is contrary to what has been put to all of us before.

ADV DE JAGER: As far as the witness said in his evidence, he said he had been employed as a student constable and then he went to college and after he became a constable, he had no rank before he attended the college.

MR MEMANI: And what I’m saying is that this correspondence dated the 10th of - this correspondence says that as at the 10th of February '86 he was a member. And it is different from what he is saying that he became a member only after the 11th of March.

ADV DE JAGER: I understood him to say he was a student constable and he's been accepted into the police before he went to the college. He may have been a member with a a lower status, that’s all but I think its common cause that he’d been employed and he received a salary before he went to the college.

MR MEMANI: But all along Mr Chair we have been told, including yourself, that Mr Ngo only became a member on the 11th of March 1986 as a student constable and that ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: he became a member a month earlier according to the correspondence.

MR MEMANI: That is that is my point.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] conceded that the letter is correct so ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: I’m sure that the person who gave rise to difficulties was not myself but Mr Visser.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser has said that he gave the wrong date, he’s apologised for that fact.

MR MEMANI: And so why am I being asked all these questions?

CHAIRPERSON: We are being asked what is the relevance, can’t we just go on with it? Does it really matter whether he joined the police force in February or March.

MR MEMANI: I’m sure it was not purpose of Mr de Jager when he asked me the questions Mr Mr Chairman. However Mr. Chairman, it’s relevant in that it tends to show that the members of the security branch are trying to minimise their involvement with Ngo.

So you agree that Mr Ngo became a member on the 10th of February 1986?

MR SHAW: Yes, I agree. That’s according to to the correspondence which states that.

MR MEMANI: And do you also agree that Mr Ngo was employed with you assistance?

MR SHAW: No, I do not agree with that.

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that you actually took him to ...[inaudible] police station where you assisted with the completion of the application form.

MR SHAW: No, I deny that.

MR MEMANI: Do you know a Mr Shedile?

MR SHAW: Is he a member of the police force?

MR MEMANI: That is correct.

MR SHAW: Yes, if I’m correct, if my memory serves me correct, Shedile worked at the recruitment offices of the District Commissioner in Bloemfontein .

MR MEMANI: And my instructions are that you were present when he gave the form to Ngo.

MR SHAW: I deny that I was not present at all.

MR MEMANI: And is it your evidence that you do not know that Mr Erasmus made arrangements for Ngo to be kept at least at a white man’s house after he was attacked by students?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of that fact.

MR MEMANI: Is it your evidence that you have no knowledge at all that security branch was involved in making safety arrangements for him.

MR SHAW: Yes, that is correct, I have no knowledge of any arrangements made by them.

MR MEMANI: Are you not aware of the fact that security branch Bloemfontein took steps to have Ngo removed from Bloemfontein to Ladybrand?

MR SHAW: No, I have no knowledge of that fact.

MR MEMANI: I didn’t intend to refer you to a certain letter in this bundle, but let me find the letter quickly.

ADV DE JAGER: Pages 63 and 64 relate to the period before he went to the college, a few months before he went to the college.

MR MEMANI: Yes, its its actually the letter that I will refer to that deals with this. He says at paragraph 3

"The leader was well known in the black community"

"the member".

I can’t hear you very clearly Sir, sorry.

"the member is well known in the black community and the fact that he is now a member of the force quickly became known"

paragraph 4:

"This office over the past period received information to the effect that the radical elements in the black community were planning to act against the member in the form of a necklace murder"

paragraph 5:

"This office recommends that the member without delay be removed from Bloemfontein or transferred from Bloemfontein to a district where he is not known, but preferably in the Ladybrand district"

Now this letter is signed by lieutenant colonel C. Smith, do you know this person?

MR SHAW: Yes, I know Colonel Smith.

MR MEMANI: Where did he work?

MR SHAW: At the security branch as Divisional Commander, Commissioner. Sorry, he was the Divisional Commander of the security branch.

MR MEMANI: Isn’t it correct that he was in fact the Station Commander at Fountains?

MR SHAW: That is correct, he was the Divisional Commander of the security branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go away from these letters Mr Memani, perhaps you would like to refer to the letter at 63 - the letter at page 63 was written on the 18th of June 1986, the letter at page 64 was written apparently, best I can read my copy, on the 19th of June 1986.

Paragraph 2 says that he must immediately go to Ladybrand and paragraph 3 apparently indicates that it will not be regarded as a transfer and that it mustn’t be reported by SAP172 because it was apparently a secretive transaction.

MR MEMANI: I’m indebted to the Chair.

ADV DE JAGER: And according to paragraph 1 that should be the position up to the 4th of July 1986 when he should report

" he had to report for services as student for training"

MR MEMANI: I’m indebted Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And page 65 can perhaps explain Mr Visser’s so-called error in that although he may have been appointed in February it appears in paragraph 65 that he took the oath on the 11th of March.

MR VISSER: Yes, that’s what I tried to to explain just now Mr Chairman, this this must be the date which brought me on to the wrong track.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct Mr Shaw that you knew Mr Motsamai as well?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: And I think you’ve already said that there were no difficulties between yourself and Mr Motsamai?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that you also know a person who's known as Nicos?

MR SHAW: I know the name but I don’t know the person personally at all, I have heard the name before.

MR MEMANI: Now, my instructions from Nicos are that you used to visit him at his house, rather at his shop.

MR SHAW: I deny that.

MR MEMANI: I believe that Mr Molefe, Serame Molefe testified to the same effect.

MR SHAW: I don’t know them at all. I never never at Nicos’ house I deny that.

MR MEMANI: Nor were you at his shop?

MR SHAW: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And you you did not instruct your lawyers that Nicos’ bussiness was burnt because of some suspected muti murder, did you?

MR SHAW: No, I have no knowledge of my own involvement in the burning down of Nicos’ business or house.

MR MEMANI: And you do not know anything about a child who died in the vicinity of his shop?

MR SHAW: I don’t remember anything like that.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases, those are my questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Brink

MR BRINK: No, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry if I disturbed you.

MR VISSER: None thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER

MR VISSER: May this witness be excused Mr Chairman, if you’ve finished with him? - sorry.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Shaw, you mentioned a few people who worked with you in the then so-called black section. Were all of you directly under Colonel Coetzee?

MR SHAW: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That would include Motsamai, Mamome, Ramosoeu, Mtyhala as well?

MR SHAW: That’s correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: In other words there was nobody between them and Colonel Coetzee? They they were taking orders directly and they were answerable directly to colonel Coetzee?

MR SHAW: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What section was this?

MR SHAW: We referred to it as the black section. That was the section which dealt with all the riots and black matters and black affairs and they investigated those.

CHAIRPERSON: There were no Captains or Majors or anything in that section, who were between Colonel Coetzee and the Constables or the Warrant Officers ?

MR SHAW: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I enquire whether you know what the next exhibit number might be? I know your registrar has drawn a list. I haven’t got a copy of that list I believe it might be P66.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: P's, yes Mr Chairman.

I don’t want to cause you inconvenience, I can find out later. What I wish to do now Mr Chairman, is to hand to you the written proof which you requested in regard to Mr Morakile’s transfer from the stock theft unit at Wepener to Bloemfontein. We’ve made photocopies of the original document which I beg leave to hand in. Perhaps the exhibit number can stand over until I have checked on the papers - thank you Robin.

CHAIRPERSON: The last exhibit I have is P65.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That is Tsomela’s affidavit.

MR VISSER: That is my recollection. I believe it must be P66 Mr Chairman but I will check on that and I will come back to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, shall we put it in for the time being and if we have to change it we will do so.

MR VISSER: As P66 for the time being, as it pleases you Mr Chairman Now Mr Chairman, may I refer your attention to that letter very briefly because there’s something I wish to draw your attention to

"The letter makes provision for a transfer of Detective Constable Morakile, M-o-r-a-k-i-l-e"

The letter is dated the 3rd of June 1986 and if you look over the page Mr Chairman, you will see paragraph numbered 1 there:

"The above mentioned member on 23 June 1986, assumed duties at security branch Bloemfontein "

...[inaudible] it was the 21st. It turned out to be in fact to be the 23rd Mr Chairman, I just wanted to draw your attention to that difference. And it deals of course, if you again revert to the 1st page, with:

"Transfer from the stock theft unit Wepener to the security branch Bloemfontein"

As I rather suspected Mr Chairman, there might be a problem with the pocketbooks. They’re still looking for them, we have given instructions. The moment we have word on that we will revert to you in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: My experience is they get put into boxes and then put away in the most unlikely places.

MR VISSER: The next witness I wish to call is Captain Paul van den Berg.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, before Mr van den Berg is called there’s a reference in the in the letter annexed to to to this letter of 3 June 1986, US169856N/4 dated 30 May '86. What is that document or what is it?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the short answer is that they they are coded reference numbers. A, that reference number will refer to A just above - the "Divisional Commander" and B will refer to the reference number of the "District Commander"

MR MEMANI: I think I was referring US169856N/4

ADV DE JAGER: It is in the heading of the letter Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I see a transfer number so-and-so and then there’s a number US169856N/4 dated 30 May. On the same basis ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] lines above, it would seem that that might be the number of sergeant Morakile

"Transfer"

and the same number appears. ...[inaudible] that mgiht be either the number given to the transaction or to the person. It appears in both places.

MR VISSER: Yes Sir, that is confirmed. Mr Erasmus has just confirmed that you’re absolutely correct. That’s his number as a South African policeman.

MR MEMANI: Doesn’t that then tells us that there’s a letter dated 30th May '86 relating to his transfer which has not been annexed to these documents?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, there’s a whole file on this person. I thought that what was expected is to obtain the transfer document and we’ve done that. We didn’t think of of dragging the whole file to you.

MR MEMANI: Well Mr Chairman, you’ll recall that we’ve said that although it may be that he formally started working on the date given, he was in fact he was actually working at security branch. And it might be that a the letter which has not been annexed might disclose something that might tend to confirm our version because it is clearly a letter relating to this very transfer. That’s all I can say. I’m not saying that it must be produced or anything like that but I’m saying this should be borne in mind that there is something which has not been brought to your attention about his transfer.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, I believe the time has arrived for me just to say something about this. We’ve been hearing criticism of the people for whom I appear, that they have failed to make enquiries as to documentation etcetera etcetera.

Mr Chairman, we have two applicants here they were both policemen, we have the TRC Investigation Unit. Really we don’t know, we didn’t know and we still don’t really know what their cases are. With all due respect, the onus is not on us Mr Chairman. We have we have displayed our assistance and our willingness to assist at all times but my learned friend can’t pass the buck to us.

If he wanted to make a point of this, if this was important to his case he should have contacted - he should have made arrangements for the for documentation to be obtained Mr Chairman, with great respect.

If if you wish that we should do so, we will bring the file of Mr Morakile. If you think its relevant we’ll do so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I agree. If Mr Memani wishes to inspect the documents he can apply to you for permission to see it somewhere. I don’t think it is necessary that it should be produced here.

MR VISSER: I am indebted to you Mr Chairman.

The witness is Captain van der Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: (sworn states)

[MR VISSER EXPLAINS MICROPHONES TO MR VAN DEN BERG]

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr van den Berg, were you a member of the South African Police Service and are you at present a member of the S.A.P.?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What is your rank?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Captain.

MR VISSER: And when did you join the South African Police?

MR VAN DEN BERG: 31 March 1959.

MR VISSER: And where were you then?

MR VAN DEN BERG: In South West Africa Namibia.

MR VISSER: And did you go over to the security branch and if so when?

MR VAN DEN BERG: During 1960 in Windhoek.

MR VISSER: Were you transferred to the RSA?

MR VAN DEN BERG: During December '82 I was transferred to Bloemfontein.

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

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: ...[inaudible] certain Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DEN BERG: December '82.

MR VISSER: In what section did you work here, that is from '82 onwards?

MR VAN DEN BERG: The investigative unit.

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

MR VAN DEN BERG: Colonel Coetzee and later Colonel du Plooy.

MR VISSER: In December '85 you went to Botshabelo where a sub-branch of the security branch was.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct, we worked there on an ad hoc basis in '86 and December/January '86 we established a sub branch there.

MR VISSER: You were the commanding officer?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: And who was your second in command?

MR VAN DEN BERG: When I started there it was only I and Warrant Officer Mbanjani.

MR VISSER: And did any further members join later?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us who they were?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sergeant Kotze, Sergeant du Plessis. Kotze, du Plessis, Sergeant Phadi spelt P-h-a-d-i.

MR VISSER: Anybody else?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Constable Mathanya.

MR VISSER: How do you spell that?

MR VAN DEN BERG: M-a-t-h-a-n-y-a.

MR VISSER: Anyone else?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Constable Lehapela, L-e-h-p-l-a.

MR VISSER: Anyone else?

MR VAN DEN BERG: A day later some more came.

MR VISSER: Constable Lesale, do you know him?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes.

MR VISSER: Was he ever a member of that sub unit?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No, never.

MR VISSER: And then reference was made to a Sergeant Smith.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, there was a Sergeant Smith. I’m not sure when he arrived there, I think he was there for approximately one week.

MR VISSER: And then?

MR VAN DEN BERG: He committed suicide. He killed his wife and then committed suicide.

MR VISSER: But the fact is he was only there for a short while?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: It is alleged Mr van den Berg that on page 31, by person by the name of Nelson Ngo, that in 1986 there was an incident in which a raid was made and a group of 40 to 45 activists were arrested and brought to the Botshabelo police station.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: The page number is 31 Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: 31?

MR VISSER: 31, yes.

I want to ask you, you were there at grassroots level or at at Botshabelo from '85 onwards. What was the frequency of incidents where people were arrested in groups, raids that were executed as from '85 to mid '86, was it something that was exceptional or what was your position?

MR VAN DEN BERG: During '86 several groups of youth were arrested and detained.

MR VISSER: If I merely say to you reference is made to an incident where 40 to 45 people were arrested, would you due to those facts be able to identify an incident in your mind?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No.

MR VISSER: Is that because it occurred quite often?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, he must stop leading the witness. He must not suggest, he’s not cross-examining this witness, he must not suggest the answer to the witness.

MR VISSER: Mr van den Berg, you said that you cannot identify this specific incident, we'll leave it there.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you assist me, wasn’t it scholars from a certain school?

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you for reminding me

ADV DE JAGER: It may be that Mr Memani will follow this up. I think he objects to you mentioning the name of the school.

MR VISSER: Can I just mention it, perhaps he does not object. On page 31 reference is made to students of a K-g-a-u-w-o high school who were arrested, does that ring a bell?

MR VAN DEN BERG: There was unrest, that was amongst others others one of the schools where there was unrest, and it is apparently of those students that were arrested.

MR VISSER: However it may be, can you just tell the Committee members that when such a raid was made while you were at Botshabello how were these people dealt with and processed and where did it take place? Can you just sketch us a picture of how such a typical raid and further processing would have been done.

If you will just keep in mind that what you are saying is being interpreted so if you could just wait a little while and break your sentences so that interpretation can be done.

MR VAN DEN BERG: At that stage the people were detained in terms of Section 50 of the Internal Security Act after the state of emergency was announced they were detained because there was unrest. Such action took place as a result of the information we had where people were identified as culprits or and they were responsible for the unrest.

Lists were made available to people who assisted us in arresting these people, then they were either taken to back of the charge office but in most cases it was done in an open space between the cells and the police station, it was done there.

MR VISSER: If you say an open area or space, what do you mean by that?

MR VAN DEN BERG: A section between the charge office and the cells which is closed on the one side by a wall but on the front of the police station there is a safety or security gate, a trellis gate .

MR VISSER: So members of the public who moved towards the charge office, would they be able to see into this courtyard or whatever you want to call it. Would they be able to see into it?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct, if one looked through the trellis work one could see the whole courtyard.

MR VISSER: Regarding this group once again, when you became aware that you were being implicated in this incident, did you do any thing in order to try to establish exactly which incident is being referred to?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: What did you do?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Somebody at Botshabelo, Sergeant Matina, I phoned him and asked him to look at or to establish at the charge office whether the warrants were still available, were there detention warrants at that stage.

Whether these specific warrants which were filed with the normal warrants, whether they were still available and he informed me that as a result of a routine destruction these things were no longer available.

MR VISSER: On page 35, it is being stated by Mr Ngo that the members of the security police, as he called them, and the unrest unit who took part in the assault of on these persons who we are referring to were among others Captain Tsomela and then mention is made of Warrant Officer van der Berg, Warrant Officer Mbanjani Mbanjani and then Katlake Sergeant Smith, Thulo, Sesedinyane and Lesale.

Now speaking for yourself, did you assault people there at any stage people who were arrested and processed?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No.

MR VISSER: Would you have seen any need in assaulting anybody?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No.

MR VISSER: If I may suggest it to you, did you not want to obtain information from these people whom you detained?

MR VAN DEN BERG: The people were detained preventatively as a result of the unrest situation. We already that they were responsible for the unrest and we did not necessarily require any further information from them.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

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

Captain van der Berg, were you aware that Mr Ngo was transferred to Pretoria for training?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No, I did not know Constable Ngo.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR STANDER: I have no questions thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: You’ve told us that Sergeant Kotze worked at Botshabelo with you isn’t it?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t catch the name?

MR MEMANI: Kotze.

And do you recall that at some stage he used to drive a four by four Datsun vehicle?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct. Sergeant Kotze during the course of 1986 he was transferred to Botshabelo.

MR MEMANI: And you’ve told us that you looked for the warrants of detentions when you tried to recollect the incident in which Mr Ngo implicates you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: Did you make enquiries about the occurrence books?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I asked sergeant Matinya to check all existing documentation and he gave me the assurance that the documentation of that time no longer existed.

MR MEMANI: Did you ask him to look for the cell register?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct, I asked him to look at any documentation which could give us an indication as to who had been detained and when.

MR MEMANI: Did you specifically ask him to go and have a look for the OB of the time?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I asked him to go to the station commander and to look if there was any documentation such as the warrants and the occurrence books to determine who was detained and when and he reported back to me and said that they no longer existed.

MR MEMANI: Now that having failed, did you ask any of the persons who were implicated whether they could recollect the incident which Mr Ngo might be referring to?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I did not ask them.

MR MEMANI: Those those are my questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

JUDGE NGOEPE: You didn’t ask the then station commander of that particular police station who is Deputy Commissioner Tsomela ?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I did not ask Commissioner Tsomela about this.

ADV DE JAGER: Sergeant Kotze, or whatever his rank was, how long was he there in Botshabelo?

MR VAN DEN BERG: From 1986 probably for three or four years, three years, I’m not quite sure.

ADV DE JAGER: You don’t know whether he was still there in 1989 or '90?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I don’t believe that he was still there. 1989? I’m speaking under correction I’m not sure but I don’t think that he is still was still there. I think that he had already been transferred back to Bloemfontein.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: No re-examination thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: You’ve been asked about this incident and you’ve explained there were so many incidents you can’t remember, you can’t remember this particular one. Have you been told the details that are available? That this particular raid was arranged by Colonels Coetzee and Stephenson and that they took members of the security branch from Bloemfontein to Botshabelo who then came to the Botshabelo police station where they joined by local police in carrying out this raid. Do you remember such an incident when a squad of security police men from Bloemfontein came to Botshabelo and carried out a raid?

MR VAN DEN BERG: At that stage Botshabello was a sub branch. They fell under the head office and on occasion there were members who were involved in such operations. I cannot recall or join, associate this specific operation with this specific incident where people arrived there. As a result of the size of the area we made use of usually made use of people from the unrest unit or from the people of Bloemfontein.

CHAIRPERSON: So this was quite a common occurrence of Bloemfontein being there?

MR VAN DEN BERG: In Botshabello? Yes, that’s. correct in Botshabelo

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said they were also assisted by

members of the riot unit was that the unrest unit?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] also happened quite often?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, the unrest unit gave the protection and that is why they were involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: You are excused thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser is there a light at the end of the tunnel?

MR VISSER: I detect a slight note of criticism but I must say ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, no, I’m just looking at the number of the remaining witnesses, the remaining names. The number remaining seems to be encouraging.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I can tell you that we have run through I think 14 witnesses right now. I have now got left Mr Bester, Mr Coetzee, Mr Erasmus, Mr Ramosoeu, whom I’m calling now. And then I’m trying to get hold of Mr Thulo who is not stationed in Bloemfontein but in Ladybrand.

It seems that with Mr Ramosoeu we’re looking at five witnesses to come Mr Chairman so there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, have you possibly discussed matters with your colleagues? Do they wish you to call all the witnesses?

MR VISSER:: Mr Chair, I thought the status quo remained because Mr Memani explicitly stated that he was not prepared to accept the content of their affidavits as being the truth and therefore I offer them to Mr Memani for cross-examination. I don’t have much of a choice in the matter really Mr Chair, unless Mr Memani then says he does not wish to have the witnesses, then it’s the end of the affair and we can finish off now.

 

TITSI HENDRIK RAMOSOEU: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I refer you to Bundle page 35 as well as page 106.

Mr Ramosoeu, are you Titsi Hendrik Ramosoeu?

MR RAMOSOEU: That is correct

MR VISSER: Were you a member of the South African police?

MR RAMOSOEU: That is correct I still am one.

MR VISSER: I’m sorry I’ve got mine on the wrong channel now, I’m terribly sorry. What was what was two? Yes thank you. I’m sorry Mr interpreter the answer to the last question was?

INTERPRETER: Still a member. What is your rank please?

MR RAMOSOEU: I’m an inspector.

MR VISSER: Now, did you join the security branch in Bloemfontein at some stage?

MR RAMOSOEU: That is correct, in 1982.

MR VISSER: And were you placed elsewhere to perform your duties?

MR RAMOSOEU: In 1982 when I arrived here from Wepener after I’ve worked - I worked under Lieutenant Shaw. I was working locally here in Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: Yes, and did you go - did you remain in Bloemfontein at all times?

MR RAMOSOEU: If I remember well, in 1985 - it was the beginning of 1984, I started working at Brandfort.

MR VISSER: How many members of the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Soryy, can we clarify that? How did you get to work at Brandfort?

MR RAMOSOEU: We had an office in Brandfort because of Mrs Winnie Mandela. It was during the time when she was staying in Brandfort.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but did you stay in Brandfort?

MR RAMOSOEU: I was not staying there, I travelled to Brandfort every morning and came back in the afternoon.

MR VISSER: And how many other members of the security branch were there at Brandfort?

MR RAMOSOEU: I was working alone in Brandfort. I left here under the command of Lieutenant Shaw and the instructions for the day and in the afternoon I’d come back home.

MR VISSER: Now do you know Mr Ngo?

MR RAMOSOEU: Yes, I know him.

MR VISSER: Was Mr Ngo ever in Brandfort where he assisted you in your duties?

MR RAMOSOEU: Not at all.

MR VISSER: Did he ever come to Brandfort to participate in any operation together with you?

MR RAMOSOEU: Not at all not with me.

MR VISSER: Now Mr Ngo has implicated you as a person who was present when Mr Venter was murdered here in Bloemfontein in February 1989.

MR RAMOSOEU: I want to shortly explain. I know at some stage that Ngo’s mother was working for Mr Venter and she was staying there or he was staying there at Mr Venter’s house during his schooling. that there was an incident to take part in Mr Venter’s death, I would not give evidence to that effect because I cannot even describe how Mr Venter was.

MR VISSER: Do you know where Mr Venter lived?

MR RAMOSOEU: I have a little light. I think it was somewhere around Universitas suburb.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo says that you and Mamome transported HIM by vehicle to the house of Mr Venter on the day that he was instructed to go and murder Mr Venter, is that true?

MR RAMOSOEU: That is not true because Ngo knew Mr Venter’s house, he was staying there.

MR VISSER: Sorry Mr Chairman, I’m just looking if there’s anything else I should bring out particularly. In short if it is suggested to do with anything illegal concerning Mr Venter, what is your reaction to that?

MR RAMOSOEU: I would dispute that Sir because I do not know Mr Venter. I only heard that Mr Ngo killed a white person in town and it it is the same person with whom he stayed.

MR VISSER: Mr Ramosoeu, at page 27, I’m sorry page 29 of bundle A, Mr Ngo says that you were one of the persons who were organised by Colonel Coetzee and Colonel Stephenson to beat up and torture those 19 comrades, and the comrades I’m referring to are those who were arrested in the Ladybrand area and brought to Bloemfontein in April of 1986. Is it true that you were one of those people who were so organised?

MR RAMOSOEU: The first point, I have never worked with Mr Stephenson locally. I knew him, he was stationed at Bethlehem I’ve never taken part in the interrogation of anybody who was arrested outside.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything at all to do with this group of nineteen arrested persons?

MR RAMOSOEU: If I remember well, if ever it happened that I had any contact with them, the kind of work I used to do was filling in the forms we wanted to know about the person he historical background when he was born such things.

MR VISSER: Yes, but can you remember this particular incident of the group of 19 people where there were people like Oupa Makubalo and Mr Oliphant and the other witnesses who testified here as victims. Do you remember ...[End of tape 2B - no follow-on sound]

MR RAMOSOEU: It is like that Mr Chairperson. After Mrs Winnie Mandela’s house and clinic were burnt, as I have already explained that I had contacts, I tried to investigate as to whether who was responsible for burning of that property.

Not that it was from the security branch, I was trying to help the investigator of the case who was handling the the docket.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How far did you go with or let me put it this way, what did the investigations reveal with regard to possible culprits?

MR RAMOSOEU: According to my knowledge the we were not successful to find the suspects and there were no people who were arrested.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: How far is Brandfort from Bloemfontein.

MR STANDER: If I might answer this question, its about 55 five kilometres.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So it would take you about half an hour to drive?

MR STANDER: That is so Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What time did you go there in the morning? You said after tea, what time would that be?

MR RAMOSOEU: It would happen that the my time of departure would vary at times it would be 9 o'clock quarter past nine, half past nine in the morning.

CHAIRPERSON: And your time of return?

MR RAMOSOEU: Mainly I would arrive in Bloemfontein half past three quarter to four?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have an office in Brandfort?

MR RAMOSOEU: Yes, Chairperson, there was an office inside the police station which which was part of the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say you tapped telephones, Mrs Mandela’s telephones?

MR RAMOSOEU: That is correct Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: That would have been from about 10 o'clock clock in the morning till 3 o'clock in the afternoon what about the rest of the day?

MR RAMOSOEU: My work entailed tapping the phones. There is cap to connect the cassette or I would listen to the cassette and translate it and write down.

CHAIRPERSON: Were the phones recorded when you were not there? Was there a machine it recorded everything that was said?

MR RAMOSOEU: That is correct Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would spend most of your time listening to cassettes?

MR RAMOSOEU: That is correct Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, just arising out of that let’s clear one point up if I may.

You say you monitored Mrs Mandela’s telephone calls and translated them.

MR RAMOSOEU: That is correct Sir, because at times they would speak Xhosa at times. In many instances they would speak English but in many instances they would speak Xhosa.

MR BRINK: ...[inaudible]

MR RAMOSOEU: Yes, Sir.

MR BRINK: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

MR VISSER: Just one question Mr Chairman on this oath. Mr Ramosoeu did you - is your understanding of the oath that you took when you went to the security branch ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I can see that this is going to be leading. I think the question ought not to be leading. I think what Mr What Mr Mr Visser can ask is what was his understanding, not to suggest an understanding to to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us hear the question before we decide whether its leading or not. Was it leading Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I’ll rephrase the question. You told this Committee that your oath concerns a secrecy about documentation is that correct?

MR RAMOSOEU: That is correct Sir.

MR VISSER: Did you understand your oath also to entail that it would prohibit you from giving evidence concerning your work in a Court of Law?

MR RAMOSOEU: If it was an evidence which is related to my work, I will not be able to disclose .

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should take a short adjournment at this stage if we’re going on till 5 o'clock.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

HENDRIK JAKOBUS BESTER: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: Mr Bester, are you a former member of the South African police?

MR BESTER: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: And when you left the police was your rank that of superintendent?

MR BESTER: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: When did you join the police?

MR BESTER: On the 31st of January 1969.

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

MR BESTER: Yes, on the 11th of April.

MR VISSER: Prior to your coming here ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: The witness said the 11th of April 1989.

Mr Bester, before the 11th of April 1989, where were you then?

MR BESTER: Since 1985 until I joined the security police or security branch I was doing duty there but I resorted under the detective branch of Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: Where did you do your duty? Where were you, into which section were you divided?

MR BESTER: I worked at the security branch.

MR VISSER: And your present position is?

MR BESTER: At present I am no longer with the police but at the Technikon.

MR VISSER: So you’re working at the Technikon?

MR BESTER: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: The fact that you were working at the security branch, for all purposes, does that mean that you were part of the security branch ?

MR BESTER: No, the reason was that I was doing investigative work at the security branch, I investigated cases.

MR VISSER: In other words you didn’t do normal security work?

MR BESTER: No.

MR VISSER: You were a detective?

MR BESTER: Yes.

MR VISSER: You became aware of the fact that you are being involved in these matters by the applicants, that’s in certain incidents. The first being that in Brandfort you had something to do with special duties as members of the security branch stationed in Brandfort during e'85/'86?

MR BESTER: All that I did at Brandfort at that stage is if there were criminal cases I had to investigate those cases at Brandfort.

MR VISSER: So you were not stationed there?

MR BESTER: No, I was never stationed there.

MR VISSER: Was a unit stationed at Brandfort which consisted of Warrant Officer Ramosoeu, yourself, Warrant Officer Cronjè, Warrant Officer Swanepoel, Constable Tax and Constable Ngo?

MR BESTER: No, Tax and I worked together. Tax did investigative work with me and for the record he is Masoloane.

MR VISSER: Can you spell that for us please?

MR BESTER: M-a-s-o-l-o-a-n-e, I think that is the correct spelling.

MR VISSER: did you have anything to do with groups known as the: "Eagles Club" or the: "Anti Comrades Club" or the "Three Millions Gang"?

MR BESTER: No, I had nothing to do with them.

MR VISSER: It has been said by Mr Ngo that on a certain day you were present in the evening when Warrant Officer Ramosoeu spoke to two people, a certain Pitso Pelo and a certain Mr Ntsobole Mahlonja. We have already spelt it before.

MR BESTER: No, I never worked ever with him in Brandfort. I never drove in any vehicle with him. The people who are being mentioned sound familiar but I did not know them.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is this?

MR VISSER: Page 42 bundle A Mr Chairman, the last paragraph. It starts with the words during 1986.

If it - you have answered a section of the question but I just want to put it to you that if anybody implies or says that you and Warrant Officer Ramosoeu together with Mr Ngo were between or met people between Bultfontein and Hoopstad in the evening?

MR BESTER: That’s a lie, it cannot be true.

MR VISSER: Do you know anything about a case or an incident where Mr Ramosoeu tried to bribe someone or more people to kill a person called Katoy?

MR BESTER: I know nothing about that.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything to do with the monitoring of Mrs Winnie Mandela in Bloemfontein?

MR BESTER: No, I had nothing to do with that.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything to do ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Did you mean to say in Bloemfontein?

MR VISSER: No Mr Chairman, in Brandfort. If I said Bloemfontein that was a mistake and I appreciate you correcting me.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything to do with an attack on the clinic or the house of Mrs Winnie Mandela at Brandfort?

MR BESTER: No I did not.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything to do with anything other than an attack on the house or clinic of Mrs Mandela?

MR BESTER: When the house was attacked I was the investigative officer. I could however not succeed in tracing any

suspects and the case was later closed as unsolved.

And the clinic, as regards the clinic, the same morning that it burned down I visited it and reported back to Major Coetzee at that stage and the docket was transferred to the Detective Branch at Brandfort and they took the matter further.

MR VISSER: That is the evidence in chief thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, no questions for the witness.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Mr Bester, did you have anything to do with a certain Mr White Mohapi?

MR BESTER: Yes that’s correct, I know Mr White Mohapi.

MR STANDER: Were you present at the stage when an arrest took place after Mr Ngo apparently or was apparently assaulted?

MR BESTER: I don’t believe that I was present with his arrest. If I remember correctly he was arrested by somebody else but I later participated in the interrogation of Mr White Mohapi.

MR STANDER: Were you also involved in that case with the investigation thereof?

MR BESTER: I will - I could possibly have been involved

indirectly. I can really not remember whether I was the investigative officer but I was involved indirectly because I did assist with the interrogation.

MR STANDER: Because you see it is my instruction that you were part of the group, I’m now referring to Mr White Mohapi, that while you were busy with the investigation you assaulted him and at one stage you also went so far as to have him undress completely.

MR BESTER: That’s not completely true, as a matter of fact it’s not true at all.

MR STANDER: Have you any knowledge of such occurrence?

MR BESTER: I have no knowledge of it.

MR STANDER: Apart from this particular occasion, did you ever thereafter have anything to do with Mr White Mohapi again perhaps with regard to the investigative work that you had to do?

MR BESTER: If you just give me a chance to see if I can remember. All that I can remember is that on occasion I saw Mr White Mohapi in the street where we greeted one another and chatted for a few minutes. I cannot think that I had anything to do with him in official capacity?

MR STANDER: Were you the only investigative officer there who did so called posted service?

MR BESTER: I just want to tell you, let me just rectify this. The period we are referring to was in '85 and I was part of an investigative team which had not yet been sub-divided. It was Colonel Ben, Sergeant van Wyk, myself, Constable Strydom. I think that these were the people.

I just want to tell you that when I was posted, sub divided, it was after the 11th of June 1986 the year thereafter.

MR STANDER: And tell me at the stage when you were doing the investigative work, did you do so under the protection of the security branch, in other words your investigative work?

MR BESTER: No, I didn’t do investigative work under the protection of anyone. I do not understand the question.

MR STANDER: What kind of investigative work did you do while you were associated with the security branch?

MR BESTER: The work that I did there was all unrest related, matters which dealt with unrest, stone throwing, intimidation, everything in that group of matters.

MR STANDER: Am I correct if I say that if there were matters regarding Mr White Mohapi, it would have formed part of your daily duties?

MR BESTER: If it was unrest related yes, but otherwise no.

MR STANDER: You see, why I’m asking you this question is because Mr Mohapi testified that time and again he was arrested, charges were brought against him which were often later withdrawn and soforth and that is why I am putting this questions to you and we now know that he was member and Chairman of COSAS here in Bloemfontein.

MR BESTER: I understand the question. As I have told you I cannot remember everything but I cannot remember that I arrested him again or that I was part of the group that did so, I can really not remember that.

MR STANDER: It is also my instructions that, not specifically you but the Investigative Team as a whole, sometimes withheld information or twisted the information so that he had to be charged or that other circumstances had to prevail around him which was not the correct position. What would you say about this?

MR BESTER: I have no personal feud with Mr White Mohapi, I would never have been part of such a thing and I cannot see the use of even trying something like this.

MR STANDER: Would you have said that it would have been in the interest of the security situation at that stage to possibly have him detained?

MR BESTER: I was not part of the security branch or part of the plans that were made at that stage. As I have testified, I only did investigative work, I received a docket and I investigated the matter. I would not fabricate matters or cases against people, I had

too much work to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it it wasn’t in the interests of the security branch that it should be known that time after time they prosecuted people who were found not guilty.

MR BESTER: That’s correct, yes.

MR STANDER: And therefore I assume that certainly you or members of the investigating team would have done everything in your power even exceeding your power in order, in the case of persons of his stature, to have them accused.

MR BESTER: If they had committed crimes, yes.

MR STANDER: Did you hear what I’d asked?

MR BESTER: If you wish to repeat, yes you may do so.

MR STANDER: I don’t think in all reasonableness that you understood me. I meant that you used everything within your power, that you sometimes even put in false statements in order to have people of his stature accused.

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, that is not true.

MR STANDER: I also wish to state to you Sir, lastly, that upon more than one occasion you were either present or involved when Mr White Mohapi was arrested, assaulted and maltreated.

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, I vehemently deny that, it is untrue.

MR STANDER: I have no further questions to the witness thank

you Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Mr Bester, isn’t it correct that you were investigating criminal matters which had a political content?

MR BESTER: Until such time as I started at the security branch I investigated unrest related matters. After 1989, if this refers to the period after 1989, the answer will be yes, if it’s before that period the answer will be no.

MR MEMANI: I don’t understand how you draw the line between political content and unrest.

MR BESTER: Only in April 1989 did I start working at the security branch as a member of the security branch and then I was included in the investigating team of the security branch where we also investigated matters involving political motives. Unrest in my opinion is not always politically motivated. I investigated blundering which was not of a political nature in my opinion.

MR MEMANI: I’m sure that the bombing of the house of Winnie cannot be described as unrest if it happened at night and it was not known who did it.

MR BESTER: Yes, I would agree with you. I was given the instruction to investigate the matter, specifically the house. In the case of the clinic I said it was not of a political nature and it was transferred to the detective branch at Brandfort.

MR MEMANI: How was it determined that it was not of a political nature?

MR BESTER: Are you referring to the clinic?

MR MEMANI: Yes.

MR BESTER: By enquiring on the site of the crime what had happened, I asked whether there had been a collection of people but there was no indication of that nature, I just heard that the place had burnt. I didn’t know what else had happened and I determined that it wasn’t unrest related and I transferred it to the Brandfort branch.

MR MEMANI: And what prompted you to go there in the first place?

MR BESTER: I received an instruction from the senior officer to go there because the house had allegedly been burning. I did the preliminary investigation.

MR MEMANI: Obviously you were sent there because it was Winnie Mandela’s house and it was anticipated that there was a political motive for the bombing of her house..

MR BESTER: Yes, whether politically or otherwise unrest related. I don’t think at that stage when the person sent me out, he knew exactly what had happened. One probably received information that there was a fire at the clinic and that had to be investigated.

MR MEMANI: Did you also investigate in the attempted murder on Ngo?

MR BESTER: No, I did not investigate that.

MR MEMANI: Mr Bester, where were you before you went to security branch? I’m sorry, you might have told us but I missed that.

MR BESTER: I was with the detective branch and I did detached services with the security branch.

MR MEMANI: Mr Bester, we know that security branch’s interest was in matters of a political nature.

MR BESTER: If that was a questions, yes it was so.

MR MEMANI: And I do not understand why you do not seem to be prepared to say yes, you were involved in a political nature only.

MR BESTER: I’m going to give you a very easy reply. There were two investigating teams with the security branch, the unrest investigating team of which I formed part and then the investigation team of which I was not part, which investigated those matters.

MR MEMANI: This unrest that you investigated was related to the political situation in the country isn’t it?

MR BESTER: In broad terms yes, it would probably have been related, the unrest stemmed from the political situation in the country.

MR MEMANI: And you must have come to know about the "Eagles Club"?

MR BESTER: I had nothing to do with them. I later heard of them, long afterwards I heard of the "Eagles".

MR MEMANI: Did you hear about the "Anti-comrades Gang"?

MR BESTER: What I did know was that there were comrades and there were people who were not comrades but I know nothing about anti-comrades but it could have been non-comrades, people who were not comrades.

MR MEMANI: No, a gang that called themselves the "Anti-comrades Gang" or that became known as the "Anti-comrades Gang".

MR BESTER: It is possible, If that’s the way you wish to state them. I didn’t know them as anti-comrades, I knew them as people who were not comrades.

MR MEMANI: A gang is a formation, did you know a gang that called itself "Anti-comrades", Bester?

MR BESTER: No.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mister Bester.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases, I’m sorry Mr Chairman.

Mr Bester.

CHAIRPERSON: You don’t behave like that again Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: I promise I won’t Mr Chair.

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, I was not aware of a group, a gang which called themselves the "Anti-comrades Gang". The way I understood it, there were people who were comrades and there were people who were not comrades but the people who were not that, I don’t know whether they had formed into a gang.

MR MEMANI: And did you come to know about the "Three Million Gang"?

MR BESTER: In 1992 I first had something to do with the Three Million gang and that was the first time I heard anything about their existence, that was in 1992.

MR MEMANI: Did you come to hear about Mr Peshlani?

MR BESTER: I know Mr Morgan Peshlani very well.

MR MEMANI: And did you know about the attack on his shop?

MR BESTER: If you could just guide me as to the date approximately when that attack took place?

MR MEMANI: Well it’s whether you knew of an attack on Mr Peshlani’s shop or you do not know about it, irrespective of the date.

MR BESTER: I heard on an occasion that the shop had been burnt, where the front door had been set alight. If you’re referring to that, yes, I know about it.

MR MEMANI: And did you come to know that his son was involved with a gang that was called the "Anti-comrades Gang"?

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, I’ve stated a number of times that I didn’t know about a gang named the anti-comrades. I had replied that I knew there were comrades and people who were not comrades. If his son was not a comrade then I accept that the question is correct.

MR MEMANI: Mr Bester, you can’t assume that people were not comrades were anti-comrades.

MR BESTER: I agree with you.

MR MEMANI: Yes, and did you come to know that Mr Peshlani’s son was associated with the "Anti-comrades Gang?

CHAIRPERSON: How many times must he tell you that he has never heard of such a gang?

MR MEMANI: As the chair pleases. I was trying to remind him in a way Mr Chairman, it might help him recall to repeat it.

CHAIRPERSON: This is the second time you have repeated it. He’s answered the question once already.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I ask the question for the last time?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

Now Mr Bester, did you come to know about the "Eagles Club"?

MR BESTER: Yes, I came to hear of them and that was in Bloemfontein and even in Botshabelo.

MR MEMANI: Did you come to hear about them in Brandfort?

MR BESTER: I think after I heard of them the first time, cases didn’t occur in Brandfort which I had to investigate but more in Botshabelo and in Bloemfontein because I really didn’t hear about them in Brandfort until such time as this notice had been served on me and I read about it.

MR MEMANI: When was it that you heard about them for the first time?

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, it was probably in the late ‘80’s, I would guess ‘87/’88, I’m not 100% sure, it should have been round about that time.

MR MEMANI: And at that time, did you come to learn that they had previously been operating in Brandfort?

MR BESTER: I first heard that they were active in Brandfort after the notice had been served on me.

MR MEMANI: And we were told in a separate application that certain incidents occurred which involved members of these gangs and comrades.

MR BESTER: Chairman, it’s possible, I don’t know about it.

ADV DE JAGER: That the Eagles were involved or which gang?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I’m not so sure of the particular gang involved in this instance but I’ll quote an example, in one instance a comrade was killed and no investigation followed. If my memory serves me well, it was the "Three Million Gang" that killed him.

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, with all due respect, I cannot answer that questions, I do not have any knowledge of it, I did not investigate it and I honestly don’t know anything about it.

MR MEMANI: Let me be brief and say that we heard evidence that there were many occasions where comrades were involved in conflict with these gangs.

MR BESTER: If that was so, then it is the case but I don’t have any personal knowledge of this. Cases I investigated in Brandfort never let to obtaining other suspects. If I encountered suspects I brought them to court.

MR MEMANI: Mr Bester, I would have expected you as a person who was investigating matters of a political nature in Brandfort, to have become aware of these gangsters during the course of your investigation of these matters.

MR VISSER: With respect Mr Chairman, the witness was a pains to tell you that he did investigate politically orientated matters, unrest related cases.

CHAIRPERSON: He has said repeatedly and explained that he didn’t investigate political matters. Do you remember that Mr Memani?

MR MEMANI: I didn’t know Mr Chairman, that you would be swayed into that line of distinction. I think I did say to him that unrest of a political nature and he did concede that and those therefore were political matters that we’re talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, he drew a very clear distinction between investigation of political matters and unrest matters but he conceded that unrest matters in this country could broadly speaking come form a political situation.

MR MEMANI: That is the point. If he’s made that concession, why can’t I put it to him?

CHAIRPERSON: Because he was investigating unrest matter, political matters might not have been associated with unrest at all. It is clear that some unrest matters may have had political implications but the contrary is not the truth is it? There are many political matters that are not unrest related at all, aren’t there?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, I will proceed with the witness.

Mr Bester, we were told that these incident which involved the gangs would be typically matters that you would call unrest related.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were we told that?

MR MEMANI: Let me rephrase the question Mr Chairman.

Now, we were told that these conflicts between the gangsters and the students took the form of open attacks of the gangsters attacking the students.

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, you have to understand. The cases I investigated were reported cases. If those lot tackled each other at Brandfort and started fighting and cases were not made, I wouldn’t have known about them. I must state to you that I and my team investigated unrest matters in the Southern Free State.

There were 24 towns which all had chaos brought in on a single day. If people fought with each other I wouldn’t have known about them all. I don’t have anything to hide and I can only tell you what I know and what I deny knowing.

MR MEMANI: Now we were told that some of these comrades reported the matters to the police and nothing was done about those matters.

MR BESTER: If a case had been made and I had been notified, I would have investigated it or one of my people would have done so. We had to investigate it, it was our job.

MR MEMANI: Now, what unrest related matters did you investigate at Brandfort before 1989?

MR BESTER: During August 1985 there was a stone throwing incident at Mrs Winnie Mandela’s house, I investigated that. Thereafter there was a fire at her house, I investigated that. Then ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Before you proceed, who was responsible for the stone throwing at Winnie Mandela’s house?

MR BESTER: A number of persons had been arrested. I no longer have the names as it occurred in 1985 a long time ago.

MR MEMANI: And were these people not associated with the anti-comrades?

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, I don’t know who the anti-comrades were.

MR MEMANI: To which formation were they associated?

MR BESTER: They were criminals.

MR MEMANI: And what was their motive in throwing stones at Mrs Mandela’s home?

MR BESTER: The police had given them the opportunity to disperse. After they had been warned they attacked the police and they were arrested after that.

MR MEMANI: Now, we heard that you were with Mr Motsamai to investigate an occurrence at Winnie Mandela’s house, do you remember that?

MR BESTER: I know Mr Motsamai very well. I was never on an investigation of a case with him. If he was there quite possibly but that I went from Bloemfontein where Motsamai was involved is a blatant lie, it’s not true.

MR MEMANI: Don’t you recall that in the morning after the bombing of Mrs Mandela’s house you went with him to the house?

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, I have a problem with the statement: "Bomb attack". If we refer to the clinic that had been burnt, I was there alone, I found Mr Mamome there that morning, he did not do the investigation with me, I found him there, he was there.

MR MEMANI: I may have misled you, I meant to refer to the day after the clinic was bombed.

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, if we could just get clarity. The day after the attack was the first morning I was there, I think the clinic burnt at 2 o’clock and the day after that I wasn’t there but I was there on the same day. Perhaps I don’t understand the question clearly.

MR MEMANI: I see. Thank you for reminding me. The point is, you went there with Motsamai.

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, I just testified that I went there alone. I went there and I found Motsamai there, he didn’t go there from Bloemfontein and he didn’t return with me, I went with my own vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say you found Motsamai there?

MR BESTER: It’s Motsamai [End of tape 4A - no follow-on sound]

... after me but he was in Brandfort, he was also at the clinic.

ADV DE JAGER: But previously you said you found Mamome there.

MR BESTER: Mamome and Motsamai. They way I understood the question, it was Motsamai.

MR MEMANI: Did you say you found him there, Motsamai?

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Now, you seemed also not to be sure whether you found him there or whether he might have arrived there.

MR BESTER: That is entirely correct.

MR MEMANI: Is it possible that he might have arrived there after he had been there?

MR BESTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR MEMANI: Now if it is possible that he might have arrived there after you had been there then you wouldn’t have found him there or you wouldn’t have seen him there.

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, we are splitting hairs, I was in Brandfort for a number of hours. I think I arrived there in the morning at 5 o’clock, I’m not entirely sure, it’s many years ago. If Motsamai arrived at 7 o’clock it’s possible he arrived after me but I only departed at about 10 o’clock.

MR MEMANI: I see. Mr Motsamai - Mr Ngo also told us that you were with him in a vehicle on the night in which the clinic was bombed?

CHAIRPERSON: Clinic?

MR MEMANI: Yes.

MR BESTER: Mr Ngo and I never worked together. Under no circumstances for a single moment, it is a blatant lie, it is entirely wrong.

MR MEMANI: Isn’t it also correct that you investigated the attempted murder on Motsamai? - rather on Ngo.

MR BESTER: In my evidence in chief I stated that I hadn’t. If you are referring to an assault on him, I testified right at the beginning that I’m not sure whether I was part of the group but that I assisted in the interrogation of Mr White Mohapi and I’m not sure whether I investigated that case. I was not the chief investigating officer, I testified to that effect.

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that you were the investigating officer.

MR BESTER: That is incorrect.

MR MEMANI: And Mr Bester, is it true that often members of the security branch charged people merely to harass them?

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, if that question was put to me, I never did it and I don’t believe other members of the security branch did it.

MR MEMANI: And Mr Bester, do you have any problems with Mr Motsamai?

MR BESTER: Mr Motsamai was part of my team of which I was section head, I had no problem with him. Mr Motsamai for many years was on my assistance team whom I used after hours. I had no problems with him, he’s actually a good friend of mine.

MR MEMANI: And you also have no friction with Mr Ngo, isn’t it?

MR BESTER: Mr Ngo was a complainant in an assault case, that’s where I got to know him. He was later at the security branch. I didn’t work with him, there was no reason for me to have any friction with him. I didn’t know the man.

MR MEMANI: No further questions Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

MR BRINK: No thank you Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

MR STANDER: Mr Chair, there’s just one matter which I neglected addressing, it concerns the detached service. I would ask permission to ask a few questions to Mr Bester in this regard, with your permission.

CHAIRPERSON: A few.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Yes, I will try to be as quick as possible about it.

Mr Bester, you said you were on the detached service, were there other members as well who were on detached service at the security branch?

MR BESTER: Mr Chair, yes, there were. But I think after approximately two weeks they departed and I basically remained behind alone.

MR STANDER: But it did sometimes happen that members from other police stations, for example from Wepener, would be here at the security branch on detached service?

MR BESTER: No, what did happen was that the railway police, as it was known, some of their members were used to interrogate detainees in terms of emergency measures. If there were others, I don’t know.

MR STANDER: Why I’m asking this is, Constable Morakile who apparently was stationed at the stock theft unit at Wepener, I was instructed that he did security work at the security branch although at that stage he was actually still officially attached to the stock theft unit in Wepener.

MR BESTER: Mr Chairman, if that is correct and true then I must say that I did not really associate with the security branch members, because I was investigating I was more at the town where the problems had occurred.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

You have just referred to the fact that you got to know Mr Ngo as a complainant in an assault case.

MR BESTER: That is correct, that is what I said.

MR VISSER: Can you remember in which year the incident in which he was injured took place?

MR BESTER: Under correction I will say that it was in 1985.

MR VISSER: And was there a trial that followed on that.

MR BESTER: That can be very misleading. If the incident perhaps took place in ‘84 then the trial would be in ‘85

MR VISSER: So you’re not sure?

MR BESTER: I’m definitely not sure.

MR VISSER: But did a trial follow on that that you were aware of?

MR BESTER: Yes.

MR VISSER: And the finding of this trial was that these people were found to be not guilty and released.

MR BESTER: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: And one of those accused was Mr White Mohapi.

MR BESTER: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: Are you aware of any other case where Mr White Mohapi was "taken to court" where he got off scott free except in this one case.

MR BESTER: No, I’m not aware of any other case.

MR VISSER: I may add Mr Chairman, nor have we been told by Mr White Mohapi of any such case. This is in regard to the question which you put to the witness just now. I have no further questions thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Bester, were you the person who investigated the bombing of the clinic until the docket was closed?

MR BESTER: No, I was not the investigating officer for a very long time, I did the preliminary investigation but it was handed over to the detective team at Brandfort.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The house, what about the house?

MR BESTER: I investigated the house, I investigated that matter until I couldn’t trace the suspects and I believe that that case was closed as unsolved.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That was while you were not yet a member of the security branch.

MR BESTER: That’s correct, yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And I believe there was a lot of speculation that members of the security branch, taking into account the political profile then of Mrs Mandela, accusations that the security branch could have been behind that, the bombing of, or responsible for the bombing of the house. Were you aware of such rumours?

MR BESTER: No, I was not aware of any such accusations, if I had been I would have investigated it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Again given the political profile of Mrs Mandela and the huge interests which the police had in her, did that thought ever occur to you? That the security branch might have been responsible as a form of harassment?

MR BESTER: When I investigated that matter I was not part of the detective team and that idea, in those earlier years, would not have arisen.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why not? Why wouldn’t it have arisen? I mean I’ve just put it to you that given the interest in which the police, security branch had interest in Mrs Mandela.

MR BESTER: If the police had been interested in her, the detective team would not have been. What I’m trying to say is that at that stage I was very inexperienced, I came from a detective team or branch where I did cases of theft and assault and this was a new team suddenly, a new field. If I heard that a policeman did something I would have brought that man to court. That’s how it worked and I left the police force last year.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So the matter was never investigated from that angle?

MR BESTER: No, most certainly not.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I find this quite surprising in the light of the allegations which were flown around, that the security branch were harassing Mrs Mandela.

MR BESTER: If Mrs Mandela had been harassed by the security branch, I was not the one who was doing it. I’ve just made the remark that I have nothing to lie about, I only want to speak the truth. If I do not know about something then I really do not know anything about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, I don’t know if you can remember, Mrs Mandela’s house, what was the cause of the damage? Were you able to ascertain that?

MR BESTER: I suspect that the house was set alight by petrol. I wouldn’t say it was a petrol bomb but if I can remember correctly it was petrol.

CHAIRPERSON: And the clinic?

MR BESTER: The burnt very badly when I arrived there. Usually if a place is set alight by petrol then one smells the petrol but I could not smell this and because the case was not investigated any further by me, I showed no further interest in exactly what had caused the fire. But we did suspect that it could have been a petrol bomb or that it was set alight with petrol.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn’t smell petrol there?

MR BESTER: The whole clinic was filled with smoke, the smell of smoke was overpowering. If I can just tell you, I remember about a lot of books that burnt and these books were smouldering. They were on a pile and I think that is what caused the terrible smoke if I can remember correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Bester.

WITNESS EXCUSED

Mr Chairman, there’s now 25 minutes left. Would it be convenient to deal with the matter concerning Mr White Mohapi. I wouldn’t like to keep him here unnecessarily if we can dispose of the issue. You will recall that this morning I told you that we have discovered the docket relating to a charge which he laid and that docket has been, copies of the docket have been provided to Mr Stander. Perhaps he can place on record what his viewpoints are in that regard.

MR STANDER: I have been given the docket and during the first adjournment I discussed the docket with Mr White Mohapi. I must say that the only aspect which is very clear from that docket, and which I have instructions to place on record, is that the date of the incident was the 13th of April - if you’ll just give me a moment, it is the 13th day of April 1984 when he was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Which date is that?

MR STANDER: That is date on which he was arrested in terms of Section 50 of the former legislation and the date on which he was released was the 27th of April ‘84. It has also been mentioned that an amount of R60,00 has been mentioned in his statement which he had in his possession and which was taken away from him.

There are a number statements of different police officers and other people as well. I pertinently asked Mr Mohapi whether he knew anything about that information because it places the incident in a totally different light and I’m afraid I cannot acknowledge that and I have instructions not to do so.

I cannot take the aspect any further than this. Mr White Mohapi is present in the audience and with great respect, I feel that if we recall him new aspects will be added again from other police officers and the process which is relevant here will be lengthened to such an extent that it won’t be in the interest of justice to deal with it on that basis.

I feel that it was important to place this date in front of you and that is why this has been done. I cannot take the aspect any further than that.

MR VISSER: If I may make a short reply. Mr Chairman, you and your Honourable Members of this Committee are here to seek the truth, we know that. Mr White Mohapi has implicated various people and today again Bester had been implicated by Mr White Mohapi. His credibility must be of some concern to you. He has told you a version here, which my learned friend has now conceded, is a materially different story from what appears from the docket. That is what my learned friend has conceded to you now. We believe that you should have a look at this docket. Let us give you the copies, you can read through it. I just thought this morning, with respect Mr Chairman, that Mr White Mohapi should be given the opportunity to put his version or give any explanation which he can but I’m quite willing and happy to leave it in your hands Mr Chairman, but at this stage we have been asked to trace dockets and papers and pocket books. We’ve traced the docket Mr Chairman and I wish now to hand in the docket to you together with copies made of the docket for you.

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: It is not my view that the docket be handed in and if this matter has to be discussed in chambers, if it would be necessary that it be discussed in chambers, it may have to be discussed in chambers but I am of the firm view as of now provisional though it may be, that that docket should not be given to us now so that we read the statements in there.

Mr Visser, from the point of view in particular of your clients, all they have to do here for the reason for them to be here is to come and deny that, with regard to the matter in question, that they took part in the assault of Mr Mohapi.

And I believe that a reasonable platform has been given to them to state their cases. And I’m considering this aspect, I’m not giving reasons, I’m just debating the issue with you. Of the 18 months that initially the Truth Commission was given to dispose of applications for amnesty and a few other months thereafter as well, we have spent on this matter alone among thousands of applications, we have spent two months already.

This week it will be two months on this matter alone. And I feel that somewhere along the way a line must be drawn. And at this rate, the rate at which we are about to go now we are going to find ourselves bringing in Mr Mohapi to deny certain things contained in the docket and we will not be able to resolve the matter of credibility in the light that you’re saying until we would have also have heard from the policemen who allegedly paint a different picture which reflects adversely on Mr Mohapi’s credibility. Where are we going to end with this?

CHAIRPERSON: Can I add something? We are not here to investigate the allegations made about police officers by other witnesses. It’s not an applicant who’s saying this, it’s one of the witnesses who has seen fit to say things about some policemen.

And I agree entirely with what my brother says that if we’re starting to devote time to collateral matters of this nature we will not complete the matter in the time we have left to us. It is not a matter that we are here to make findings on.

I think that we should stress that our function is not to make credibility findings about police officers, our function is to decide whether the applicants have made out a case in terms of the Act for amnesty. And their credibility may be in issue but I do not think it’s necessary to reopen matters of this nature which are very much collateral.

MR VISSER: If I may just reply Mr Chairman. Mr Ngo applies for amnesty in regard to this very incident. The amnesty application is based on the evidence of Mr Ngo that is was members of the security branch who perpetrated this deed. That has been supported by Mr White Mohapi Mr Chairman. We are not concerned with Mr White Mohapi’s credibility, we are concerned with Mr Ngo’s credibility. Because Mr Chairman, with respect, this docket is material to Mr Ngo’s credibility because if you read the docket you would immediately see why Mr Chairman. And with great respect, Commissioner Ngoepe has quite rightly pointed out how long this matter has taken. We must say Mr Chairman that, with all due respect, that we may have contributed somewhat to the delay or to the fact that it hasn’t been completed. But really, if you want to draw a line Mr Chairman, why must it be drawn when my clients are trying to put evidence before you? With great respect ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Because your clients had the opportunity to do that when Mr Ngo and Mr White Mohapi gave evidence. They had not prepared the matter at that stage and they have now, this weekend, seen fit to go and do some research, they are asking for an indulgence.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I suggest that if anyone wants to make any application to recall, let that be shelved until we have finished all the witnesses who are entitled as right now to testify. I also wish to recall some people but I think it’s not proper at this stage to interrupt these proceedings. Let us proceed and you’ll determine our applications when that moment comes.

MR STANDER: If I can perhaps just add something. Mr Visser is asking you leave to hand in the docket. I am sorry I cannot allow this, I have serious objections to this. This will mean that untested evidence is placed before you, something which none of has the right to cross-examine. We have already heard ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand Mr Visser, he wants to hand us up the document to persuade us to allow him to put in and call those witnesses. I don’t understand that he wants us to take a docket and wants us to read it and place credence on the evidence of witnesses who have not given evidence.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that is correct. In point of fact Mr Chairman, there is only one witness that is relevant flowing from the contents of this document and I can tell you where this witness fits in. It’s a witness who says that Mr Mohapi made a ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, you say it’s a witness who says. I sincerely hope you are not going to mention the contents of the statement to us.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, just give me an opportunity please. It’s a witness that gave a statement in regard to a report made by him by Mr Mohapi on the evening of the 27th of March, simple as that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And we don’t know whether Mr Mohapi agrees that he made that report on that day.

MR VISSER: That is the reason why I suggested in fairness to Mr Mohapi, it can just be put to him Mr Chairman. He can deny it ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before you say that Mr Visser, that is the reason why I said don’t tell us what is in here because what you have just told us, that Mr Mohapi made a report on such and such a day may just be disputed. We don’t want to hear a word of the contents of that docket Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if you’re going to rule that you don’t want to have insight in this evidence which is available then you must make such a ruling.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Chairman, I suggest that we continue with his other witnesses at the moment and if he wants to make the application at a later stage he can perhaps make the application if you want to listen to it.

CHAIRPERSON: He’s made the application now, we will reserve our ruling on it, as my brother has said it’s a matter we have to discuss. And we can carry on.

MR VISSER: I call Mr Erasmus.

ADV DE JAGER: Your full names please?

JACOBUS PETRUS PAULUS ERASMUS: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: You may sit down Mr Erasmus. (discussions on microphones) Colonel Coetzee, I beg your pardon, Mr Erasmus, are you attached to the South African Police Service?

MR ERASMUS: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: And were you previously attached to the security branch of the South African Police?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is correct Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: What is your present rank?

MR ERASMUS: I’m a Senior Superintendent in the South African Police Service.

MR VISSER: And in which unit or section are you presently operating?

MR ERASMUS: I’m the Provincial Anti-corruption Commissioner of the Free State.

MR VISSER: Who is your immediate senior at present?

MR ERASMUS: I’m under the direct command of the Provincial Commissioner.

MR VISSER: And who is that?

MR ERASMUS: That is Commissioner de Wit.

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

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, I joined them on the 26th March 1977.

MR VISSER: If the interpreters think I’m going too quickly would you please just give me a signal.

You joined the South African Police on 26 March 1977?

MR ERASMUS: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: 27 March 1977. That’s with the police?

MR ERASMUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: And with the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR ERASMUS: That was since November ‘81 that I became attached to the security branch.

MR VISSER: Mr Erasmus, in which section did you operate in the security branch here in Bloemfontein?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, just after I joined the security branch or was transferred to it, I initially worked in the registration office and early the next year I went on a course after which I joined the so-called black section. After becoming an officer I became involved in the investigating teams and I also dealt with emergency measures and detached services.

MR VISSER: Could we quickly run through this? You were with admin and then you went to black section, can you give us a date when you went to the black section?

MR ERASMUS: That would have been March ‘82 until the middle of 1985.

MR VISSER: And you say you went to the investigating unit or did you then go to the emergency measures, detentions?

MR ERASMUS: My officer’s course was the first half of ‘85 and immediately after that from the middle of ‘85 until the major portion of 1986 I was more desk bound where I was concerned with more administrative duties.

In 1985 I was in the Cape for three months on an investigation and from August ‘86 to December ‘88 I was detached by head office for an investigation in the North West Province which was eventually heard in Pretoria.

MR VISSER: What was this case?

MR ERASMUS: It concerned the State against Ian Auguzulu and six others.

MR VISSER: While you are referring to courses, could you perhaps tell the Committee members, during the 1986, were you on courses?

MR ERASMUS: No, Mr Chair. No, I did not attend courses, not as far as I can remember at the moment.

MR VISSER: In your black section with which you were involved until mid 1985, who were the people involved in that section with you?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, initially we were only a few but when I left we were probably approximately 20 people.

MR VISSER: In order to just keep it short or keep it brief, could I - no okay, then I will leave it. Could you give us the names of the people who were in the black section?

MR ERASMUS: Middle ‘86 it would have been me ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Sorry, I missed some of the names. If we could just possibly just have a repeat.

MR ERASMUS: It was me, Terry Shaw, Mamome, M-A-M-O-M-E, Motsamai, there was a Constable Kabusa but he committed suicide at one stage, there was also Constable Mancho.

MR VISSER: Can you spell that to us?

MR ERASMUS: M-A-N-C-H-O. Morakile was there at a stage in the black section. Hendrik Ramosoeu also worked there.

MR VISSER: And Hendrik Ramosoeu, what were his duties? What did he concern himself with?

MR ERASMUS: He worked with us in Bloemfontein but then he went to work exclusively in Brandfort.

MR VISSER: How many members were there in the security branch as far as you can remember? Just an approximation during 1985/’86.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, at an estimate I would say 70 to 80 staff members.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it is three minutes on my watch to go to 5 o’clock. I’m going to commence now with the background concerning Mr Ngo because this was this person and I wouldn’t like to break the concentration of the evidence as I’m going to present it to you. May I suggest that we take the adjournment now?

CHAIRPERSON: 08H30 tomorrow morning.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS