Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, I understand that there was a problem this morning with the bus that transports the victims. Would you investigate what was the cause of the problem and would you just let us know so that we can see what must be done to make sure that they are picked up in time, alright?

MR BERGER: I will, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete, may I remind you that you are still under oath.

FLORENCE MOLETE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, before my learned starts, might I hand in to you three bundles. They are the documents which were filled out and submitted to the Reparations Committee. They have been divided into

- Deceased persons;

- Injured persons and;

- Damage to property.

I'm not handing it in as an exhibit, but I'm handing it in for your assistance. That should have the relevant details for each of the victims.

Chairperson, the other point that I just wished to raise before my learned friend continues with his cross-examination, relates to what was put yesterday by my learned friend, Mr Lowies, in relation to the criminal trial and the calling in of certain witnesses, including Miriam Molete and Florence Molete and in relation to their apparent refusal to speak to Mr Strydom and the other counsel, on instructions from the ANC.

I've read the relevant section of the record and in particular it's pages 3208 through to 3215, 3-2-1-5. And with respect to my learned friend, I don't believe that he put the position fairly to the witness. At page 3210, Mr Botha is asked, Adv Botha is asked by the court whether he spoke with all the people concerned and he's asked; is it - I'm translating from the Afrikaans:

"Is it everyone's attitude that they have instructions from the ANC, not to speak to anyone besides the ANC?"

And Adv Botha says:

"M'Lord, I was not able to speak to any of the witnesses other than two, Abudnega Mabusa and Simon Moloi, who informed me that they were conveying the attitude of the other persons."

There's then a debate and the judge says:

"Tell them that I am busy with a trial arising from the attack on Boipatong on the 17th of June. I've been informed by one of the advocates who acts for the accused, that they have summoned you here to give possible evidence after they've consulted with you. And I've been further informed that you tell the advocates that you are not prepared to consult with them because you've been instructed by representatives of the ANC, that you should not speak to anyone about the case other than the ANC, is that so?"

And then there's - no-one speaks, the record simply reflects:

"All the witness indicate that it is so."

... but no-one speaks. Then the judge says:

"All of them are satisfied, is that so?"

And then again no-one speaks and it's:

"All the witnesses answer in the affirmative."

And immediately after that the judge says:

"As a result of the "mededeling" (as a result of this intimation) I've been informed that they say that they are now afraid to speak to the advocates because they have been told to do so, or prohibited to do so by the ANC, is that so?"

And then the interpreter says:

"No, M'Lord"

And then the court says:

"Why will you not speak with the advocates?"

And the interpreter says:

"They are not our advocates, M'Lord. Mr Abudnega Mabusa wants to speak, M'Lord."

And then the court says:

"Yes"

And then Mr Mabusa says:

"We don't know these advocates. This is the first time that we come into contact with them. It would have been better if the previous advocates, if it was the previous advocates who had called us. At this stage it is not a question of fear, we don't have trust."

And then the court says:

"Who is the advocate that you consulted with previously?"

Mr Mabusa says:

"There they sit."

And the interpreter says:

"He is pointing to the State advocates."

Then the court says:

"Who at the ANC offices said that, or said to them that they should not speak to anyone about the case other than the ANC."

And then Mr Mabusa says:

"Concerning the ANC, they are not at issue here, we are talking about the advocates currently before the court."

I'm not going to go through everything in detail, but then two described as "women witness", "vroue getuie" not identified, are asked:

"Is this the position, that you have been instructed by the ANC not to talk to anyone?"

And they say:

"No, it is not so, M'Lord."

Both of them say. And then the second one says:

"We are amazed that we have been called by strange people, not those who usually call us."

And then ultimately the court asks, this is at 3213 in the middle:

"Are there any of them who say that they were told by the ANC not to speak to anyone other than the ANC?"

And the interpreter says:

"Skud die kop ontkennend" (They shake their heads in the negative, M'Lord)

The whole debate is from the witnesses saying; we trust the State advocates, we don't know who these people are and we don't want to speak to them for that reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't it indicate though that what was asked of them was that they had received these instructions from the ANC, and what was conveyed back to the judge was that they had been and as the further debate then, then Mabusa comes in ...?

MR BERGER: He'd only spoken to two, Mabusa and Moloi.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I mean at the beginning.

MR BERGER: Well the point I'm making is that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Of course that doesn't apply to Miriam because she denies that she ever went to court. So that doesn't apply to her.

MR BERGER: No, but what I'm saying is, other than the note to say the witnesses agree that this is so, when someone speaks for the first time, which is the very next line, they say no, that's not the position. And we've seen what happens or what has happened in these proceedings. As you know, misinterpretations get put forward ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well it is vague but what should have been done you know is simply that - because the part that you are referring to is also obvious from the record, what should have happened was that the other portion in which there was an indication that what appears to be the issue is not so much what the ANC said, ...(indistinct) it has to do with we don't know these people would prefer the advocates ...

MR BERGER: The State advocates, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but from my reading of that portion I assume that that is covered by what Lowies said when he added, in fairness to you, there was some dissent amongst the people who were interviewed ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: Yes, I'm suggesting that it went further than dissent and that when the two women witnesses, whoever they were, were specifically asked, they said "no". Chairperson, I don't want to take it any further, all I'm saying is that if one reads from 3208 right through to 3215, one gets the full picture. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I want to enquire what the relevance of this evidence is, how does it become relevant what happened in Pretoria to these proceedings at this stage? I was not here when certain things were said yesterday, but some of that was, and I'll repeat it and my question is, I want a ruling on that, to rule on the relevance of that what happened in Pretoria at that stage.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ... recall what was the context of, but the witnesses were cross-examined at length about the statements that were made and in particular the interview which you are supposed to have had with them, okay, in Pretoria. As I understand it's an issue which at this stage it's difficult to say which way, what it would affect. It may well be that it's a matter of credibility, and the issue is whether the witnesses did testify in court or whether they were willing to testify. I have no idea what counsel will arguing at the end. It's difficult to say, to rule at this stage whether it's relevant or not relevant.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, if I could say that the context was, how it all arose, Mr Strydom wasn't here, was Mr Lowies put to Ms Molete yesterday

"I put it to you that there were no whites or no police involved in the attack."

And her comment on that was:

"No, it's not correct, because even when we went to Pretoria, Mr Strydom said to us he accepted that there were whites and police involved."

And then went on to explain what happened. And then she was cross-examined on that whole context of what happened in Pretoria. That's how it arose, it arose as a response to a proposition which was put in cross-examination.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson, but if that was in response to the question, why was she led in-chief now, the second witness, to also state what happened in Pretoria?

MR BERGER: Okay. She was led in-chief because she was referred to by her sister, Miriam Molete, Florence Molete was also there, and I thought if I don't lead her in-chief I'm going to be criticised for, or some inference will be drawn for not leading the evidence which is apparently available to us. That was the only reason for putting it up in-chief.

MR STRYDOM: Because the same situation arose earlier on in regard to Mr Berger, that I've become a witness now. I will cross-examine this witness now on these aspects and if needs be we will have to investigate this whole issue further and then I'll have to call witnesses at a later stage, to rebut what these witnesses are saying. But just for record purposes, I must rely on my memory, I obviously deny one hundred percent that I paid them any money whatsoever and my recollection is that they did not want to speak to us, as is reflected in the record, at that stage.

MR BERGER: Well then surely that should be canvassed in cross-examination.

MR STRYDOM: But I'm in the situation that I must cross-examine a witness now, which makes an allegation towards me ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: I had to do exactly the same.

MR STRYDOM: Would that mean that I can put leading questions to this witness in that regard?

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR STRYDOM: Can I proceed with the cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: (Cont)

Yesterday I asked you about statements you made and if you testified at the Goldstone Commission. We've established now that you did testify at the Goldstone Commission. The question is, did you tell the Commission exactly what you told this Committee, as to what happened in Boipatong?

MR LAX: Just let her speak to us directly. Just explain your problem please. Please explain your problem.

MS F MOLETE: I can't hear properly.

INTERPRETER: Apparently the witness doesn't receive the message.

MR LAX ARRANGES DIFFERENT HEADSET

INTERPRETER: She can now receive. May you please repeat the question, Advocate Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: The question was; did you - the version you told to the Goldstone Commission, does it correspond with what you've stated here in front of this Committee, in relation to what happened in Boipatong on that night?

MS F MOLETE: At the Goldstone Commission I remember everything that happened, but now I have forgotten some things that took place that day.

MR STRYDOM: After the Goldstone Commission and at a later stage you've signed another statement which was taken by Lucky Samuel Kekana, the police officer, do you remember that?

MS F MOLETE: Lucky Kekana came to us and took the statements but I don't remember whether I signed that statement.

MR STRYDOM: I want you to have a look at Exhibit GG, the statement appears on pages 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, but look at page 11, the bottom of that. A portion of the signature is cut off, but can you still make out your signature on that page?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I do see.

MR STRYDOM: And also on the next page, page 12?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I do see.

MR STRYDOM: And then at the end of your statement, on page 13, there also appears the signature of Florence Molete, is that your signature?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that's mine.

CHAIRPERSON: What page is that, Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: 13, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Mr Lax, it will be 11.

MR LAX: Ja, I've got it. Not only do we work backwards, but you know ...

MR STRYDOM: When you spoke to Kekana, could you understand him?

MS F MOLETE: He was speaking in Sebedi, Northern Sotho, mixing with other languages. I speak Sesotho, but I could understand him because I do understand iSebedi.

MR STRYDOM: Which languages did he mix?

MS F MOLETE: He would mix iSebedi and seTswana. I know iSebedi.

MR STRYDOM: But did you tell him what happened on that night in Boipatong?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And did he write it down?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And after the statement was written down, did he read it to you again, translate it to you again?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR STRYDOM: When you signed the statement were you happy that what you were signing is in fact your statement?

MS F MOLETE: May you please repeat your question again.

MR STRYDOM: I'll put it differently, why did you sign the statement?

MS F MOLETE: He told me to sign the statement as he had finished writing.

MR STRYDOM: But will you only sign a statement if you're happy with the contents of it?

MS F MOLETE: I was not happy because I was still feeling pains, emotional pain as well.

MR STRYDOM: Why did you sign the statement then?

MS F MOLETE: Because he was a policeman I did sign the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you conveying, Ms Molete, are you saying that you did not want to sign the statement?

MS F MOLETE: I did sign the statement. He said to me I should tell him everything that I know. I did so, then after that he said to me I should sign and I signed the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: And as far as you are concerned, you told him everything you know of and concerning the attack?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I told him everything except my injury.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we know that. And before you were asked to sign the statement, it was not read back to you? Before you signed the statement, it was not read back to you?

MS F MOLETE: It was not read back to me, he was in a hurry.

MR STRYDOM: But the statement you gave you did so freely and voluntarily, is that right? You were not forced to do it.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I did it voluntarily.

MR STRYDOM: You testified yesterday that the one injury to your private parts is something you kept for yourself up to two months ago and that was the first occasion, about two months ago, when you were prepared to tell someone about that, is that right?

MR BERGER: She didn't say two months.

MR STRYDOM: I think the estimate was two months ago.

MR BERGER: A few months ago.

MR STRYDOM: A few months, a few months, sorry. A few months ago, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct, that's when I was prepared to tell everything concerning my injury.

MR STRYDOM: But why weren't you prepared to tell the policeman, Kekana that?

MS F MOLETE: He is younger than myself.

MR STRYDOM: Why were you not prepared to tell Caroline Nichols and Barbara, I forgot the surname again ...

MR BERGER: Sudana.

MR STRYDOM: Sudana. ... that at an earlier stage when they took a statement?

MS F MOLETE: I was still afraid to tell that.

MR STRYDOM: But will you be afraid to tell about the injury you sustained?

MS F MOLETE: May you please repeat the question.

MR STRYDOM: I can't understand why you were afraid to tell about the injury you sustained.

MS F MOLETE: It was embarrassing to me. Even Caroline and those people who accompanied her were younger than myself.

MR STRYDOM: I want to refer you to your statement on page 13, and I'm referring to the statement you made to Kekana, paragraph 7, page 13. It reads as follows

"During that time the ambulance were already transporting people to the hospital. I then realised that my head was injured, my stomach was painful but not bleed, and my thighs were painful. But I was bleeding from the vagina as a result of being stabbed with sharp instrument. (instruments it seems)"

Is that what you told Kekana?

MS F MOLETE: I cannot see, the writing is very thin.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but accept for the moment what I've read is correct.

MS F MOLETE: It is true. These things happened many years ago, maybe I told him about that.

MR STRYDOM: So this version that you kept this for yourself up to a few months ago is incorrect, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: I was still in pain. People were coming asking for statements and we were also burying the dead. So we were really confused then.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Molete we understand that. What counsel wants to find out is, you've just told us that you didn't disclose the injury to your private parts to Mr Kekana because he was younger than you, and you went on to say that you didn't disclose it to Ms Nichols I think it is, because you were afraid at the time. And you also told us that because it was embarrassing and the people who accompanied her were younger, do you understand that? Do you understand what I've just repeated, said to you?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I do understand, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But now it appears that in the statement which you signed, there is mention of the injury to your private parts. Do you understand that, do you understand what I'm ...(intervention)

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: So what counsel wants you to explain is why did you tell us that until approximately two months I think was the estimate, the injury to your private parts, you had never disclosed that to anyone, including Ms Nichols, because it was embarrassing and the people that accompanied her were younger. Do you understand what he wants you to explain?

MS F MOLETE: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand what counsel wants you to explain?

MS F MOLETE: I do understand, Chair. I had already forgotten that I told him about that because we were still in pain at that time, but now it appears on the statement that I told him about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what about the explanation that you've given us as to why you didn't tell Mr Kekana? I understand that because you were still in pains at the time and you were emotionally disturbed, you may not remember having told Mr Kekana about this injury, but what about the explanation that you gave us as to why you did not tell him? Do you understand what I'm asking you?

MS F MOLETE: I do understand, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS F MOLETE: That's why I say that it's apparent that I told him. I was thinking that I did not tell him. Honestly, he was younger than myself, but now it appears that I told him. I have always been under the impression that I had not told anybody. I thought that it was the first time that I told Ms Cambanis about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, is the position that the reason that you gave us as to why you did not tell him what you consider to have been the only reason which could have prevented you from disclosing the injury to Mr Kekana? It is on the assumption that you didn't tell him.

MS F MOLETE: Are you referring to the reason that he was younger than myself?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MS F MOLETE: That's correct, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Strydom.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chair.

According to you, what injuries did you sustain during that night?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR STRYDOM: Ja, well we can exclude the one we know now or you've just testified about, the injury to the vagina and the other injuries.

MS F MOLETE: I was injured on my head and my body because I was beaten by sticks.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, the head and?

MS F MOLETE: My head was swollen. I had to shave my head.

MR STRYDOM: Other parts of the body?

MS F MOLETE: That's on my private parts, my thighs as well.

MR STRYDOM: Is that all?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Were both your thighs injured or just one side?

MS F MOLETE: The other one was badly injured, but the other one was not seriously injured.

MR STRYDOM: Your shoulder, was that injured?

MS F MOLETE: They were beating me. All over my body was beaten.

MR STRYDOM: And you went to the hospital and you were discharged the next day, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: I left the hospital in the morning.

MR STRYDOM: Which one of the injuries was the more serious one?

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Strydom, I'm feeling hell-of-a uncomfortable, I must be absolutely frank, about this. It's patently clear that this person has been stabbed in a particular place. You've probably go the medical evidence there. I mean really, is this necessary, to put her through this in this way?

MR STRYDOM: Mr Lax, unfortunately it is because of her evidence about the injury to the vagina and things that were said at the time the injury was sustained, it becomes relevant unfortunately. I've got the medical records, I'll deal with that now.

The question was, the more serious injury, which one was that?

MR BERGER: But with respect, Chair, is that necessary, to have to get the witness to describe which injury was more serious?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I don't want a description, I just want her to tell, to say which one, if she knows.

MR BERGER: But to what end? The woman has been ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just not waste time, let the witness tell us whether she knows. If she doesn't, let's get on with the examination.

MR BERGER: But does she have to?

CHAIRPERSON: I've ruled that she has to.

Do you know which injury was the more serious one? If you know, tell us, if you don't, tell us.

MS F MOLETE: I was unable to walk because I was injured in my private parts.

MR STRYDOM: What I want to put to you is your medical record. You were taken to the hospital, Sebokeng Hospital and according to the examination, treatment, progress, and then there's a description. It states here

"Assaulted last night with an iron bar on the left thigh and left shoulder."

And that's the only injuries that appear on this medical report, and you were given voltaren and maybe some other medication. But what I'm putting to you is, it does not state the injury which according to you was the more serious injury to the vagina.

MR BERGER: Is my learned friend suggesting that Ms Molete was not injured where she says she was injured?

CHAIRPERSON: He is simply putting to her what appears on the medical report.

MR BERGER: Yes, but implicit in what he's putting to the witness is that she was not injured where she says she was injured.

CHAIRPERSON: But this is what the report that's been put to her states. Maybe she will be able to explain to us why.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the other point is that I understood a ruling from you, Chair, that we were not to put in documents on a piecemeal basis and that as soon as we had the documents we were supposed to hand them in to you. My learned friend has known that Ms Molete was going to come and give evidence and this is the first time we get these documents. We had documents which we got from Iscor, relating to Mr Vanana Zulu, we didn't wait until he's called as witness, we handed them in long ago.

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, the affect of cross-examination may be lost if certain documents are handed in beforehand, and this is one of the documents. I'm not sure exactly when we got hold of this document, but I was handed this document only this morning. But I would submit in certain circumstances, for cross-examination purposes, it would appropriate to hand in a document at the relevant time when the witness is cross-examined and when the witness has already committed herself to certain answers, otherwise the affect is gone of the cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: The purpose my urging the parties to make sure that they exchange documents well in advance is to prevent unnecessary delays, just like is happening now. It is a complete waste of time. This is not a trial by ambush, it may be necessary to investigate some of the documents that are being handed in.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson, we are in the unfortunate position that we don't have ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Carry with your cross-examination.

MR STRYDOM: Ja. I've put to you that according to this medical report two injuries are stated here, do you want to comment why the other injuries do not appear on this, or don't you want to comment?

MS F MOLETE: If they do not appear on that report, I don't know, because I was at the hospital.

MR STRYDOM: Can this exhibit be marked HH?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: You've testified yesterday that whilst you were injured on your private parts, that things like - what was said was that

"That's where the children from Mandela comes from"

Is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON

"The dogs from Mandela come from".

MR STRYDOM

"The dogs from Mandela come from"

MS F MOLETE: That is what happened to me.

MR STRYDOM: Why didn't you tell that to Kekana when he took the statement?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Kekana would ask a question and I would give him the answer and then he will ask me to explain and I did that. I have also mentioned before this Committee, that I was still in pain at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete, to enable us to go through this ...(indistinct) much easier, would you please endeavour to answer the question. What is being put to you is that in the statement that you made to Mr Kekana, there is no mention of the statement to the effect that this is where Mandela's dogs come from. Do you understand that?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as you can remember, did you tell Mr Kekana about this?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct, Chair, I did not tell him because many things were written and he was in a hurry as well.

MR STRYDOM: But you told him about the injury to your vagina, why didn't you at that stage - it wouldn't have taken much time, tell him what was said whilst that injury was inflicted?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, can we take this point any further? The witness has said she did not tell him.

MR LAX: Mr Strydom, you know if one looks at the statement there is no mention other than assault, of the actual details of what happened to her as relayed in her oral evidence at all. And at the end she just talks about in general all the injuries she sustained, at the very end of the statement. So if you are going to explore anything that would be what to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Strydom, did you ask her whether she told Kekana about the statements relating to the dogs of Mandela?

MR STRYDOM: With special reference as she testified, where they come from, pointing to her private parts, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was the witness' answer?

MR STRYDOM: She didn't tell that to Kekana because she didn't have, he was in a hurry and she didn't have time to tell him that.

MR BERGER: No, he was in a hurry and many things were written down.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So is her answer "I did not tell him because Kekana was in a hurry and many things were said".

MR BERGER: Yes. - written down.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say written down, because I've got here

"Many things were said"

MR BERGER: Many things were written.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, alright.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you. I want to turn now to your evidence about the elimination. You testified about the Apollo lights and if you can have a look at Exhibit J, I want you to indicate where these lights are.

CHAIRPERSON: Before he does that, is there any issue about where these Apollo lights were?

MR STRYDOM: There's still the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Objectively speaking.

MR BERGER: Well the only think is, Mr Strydom has a report which indicates certain things and Ms Molete disputed that, but I'm sure we could take a drive out and establish it for ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if you could at a certain point just verify the location of those, with reference to the exhibit. I think it's ...(indistinct).

MR BERGER: Yes, alright.

CHAIRPERSON: And also, I suppose you would take the map, Exhibit J, if you could just highlight them where they are because it just seems to me that it's not an issue which can just occupy us for the whole day. Either these Apollo lights were where they are and that's the end of the matter.

MR BERGER: If Mr Strydom wants to come with us he's welcome to, we can together.

MR STRYDOM: We'll do it in due course, at an appropriate time. I just want to enquire about a third source of light that's mentioned, apart from the Apollo lights.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed.

MR STRYDOM: Your evidence - apart from the Apollo lights, you also said that there was a light, next to the shack there was also a light. Do you still refer to the same Apollo lights or was there some other source of light next to the shack? - in your evidence-in-chief. Do you understand the question? You said that - you made reference to light in QwaQwa and another one at the curb at Bakwena Street and then you said

"Next to the shack there was also a light"

Now I just want to find out if, apart from the Apollo light there's another light?

MS F MOLETE: The Apollo light is at the curb in Mohokari Street.

MR STRYDOM: ...(inaudible)

MS F MOLETE: It's at the corner of Mohokari in Babedi Street.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I think - I agree with you that there is a light, but I want to know, you said something about the light next to the shack. I just want to find out if there's another light.

MR LAX: Can I help you, Mr Strydom. Her evidence was that there were houses on the built-up portion of Boipatong, that borders on Mokwena, it's the road between them and Slovo Park, and she said the lights from those houses were an additional source. That was her testimony.

MR STRYDOM: Did you hear that? Is that what you said?

MS F MOLETE: The house that is facing my shack, they have a light on the kitchen door and on the other two sides of the house. So when those lights are on, the light reaches my shack.

MR STRYDOM: When you heard the sounds outside, did you speak to Phule at all?

CHAIRPERSON: Would you just answer the question first.

MR STRYDOM: The question was: at the stage you heard sounds outside, just before the attack, did you speak to Phule or did he speak to you? - before the people entered the shack.

MS F MOLETE: I was talking to them. While they in the bedroom I was in the kitchen.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let me just get this explained. You mention a house that has a light on the outside, would that house be located along, would that be the row of houses located along Bakwena Street?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR STRYDOM: Now the question is, did you say something to Phule when you heard sounds outside?

MS F MOLETE: I called Matsileng and I told her that there is something that is happening outside and I also called Phule and then I said to him: "There are men outside". I was talking to them while they were in the bedroom.

MR STRYDOM: Did he reply to you?

MS F MOLETE: He said to me we should sleep.

MR STRYDOM: Now when you peeped through the hole from the kitchen, you saw people at shack number 23, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Number 33?

MR STRYDOM: No, 23.

MS F MOLETE: They were at Agnes' place.

MR STRYDOM: Agnes Malindi, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: How far is that shack from where you stood in the kitchen, peeping through the hole?

MS F MOLETE: It is not far from my shack, you can clearly see what's happening on that shack.

MR STRYDOM: Could you identify the people, give a description of the people that you saw at that stage, at that shack?

MS F MOLETE: They were many and they were outside the shack. Some of them were running. I could see there was something happening there and then I told them that something is happening outside.

MR STRYDOM: Could you see that they were wearing headbands, either white or red?

MS F MOLETE: I could only see that there were people when I was peeping.

MR STRYDOM: So over that distance from where you were looking to the shack of the Malindis, you could not see if they were wearing headbands, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: That hole was not that big that you could see a person at that distance.

MR STRYDOM: Wasn't the reason for the fact that you could not observe headbands because of the light situation, it was too dark?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, that hole was very small, so when you peep through that hole you only see that there are people outside.

MR STRYDOM: When your shack was broken into, can you tell the Committee how many people entered initially?

MS F MOLETE: Because there was a fight I didn't have time to count people.

MR STRYDOM: Did you see that people came into the kitchen where you were?

MS F MOLETE: After they had broken down the door the other one was standing at the door and then a group of them entered.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you just repeat that, I didn't get that.

MS F MOLETE: After they had broken down the door one of them was standing at the door and thereafter a group of them entered.

MR STRYDOM: The man that was standing at the door, was that a black or a white man?

MS F MOLETE: He entered with them.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what he's asking you is about the man who stood at the door. You see you've told us that after they had broken the door there was one man who stood at the door and a group of them entered. Did you understand that? Do you see the man that we're talking about?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that is the one who was standing at the door. After the door was broken down he entered with the other group that entered and they were all running into the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. So what happened is, after the door was broken a man appeared at the door.

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And a group of men appeared also at the door and all of them got into the ...(indistinct)

MS F MOLETE: That's correct, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what he wants to find out is about the first man that emerged at the door, was that man black or was he white?

MS F MOLETE: He was a black person.

MR STRYDOM: During the course of this attack, did you at any stage see any white people inside the shack?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, the people who were assaulting me were black men.

MR STRYDOM: What he is asking you is, during the attack on yourself during this attack, did you see any white men inside the shack?

MR STRYDOM: Inside the shack.

MS F MOLETE: We were screaming and we were facing death. The other people were in the bedroom, I was in the kitchen. I was just trying to save my life because I was facing death. I did not recognise, I didn't see whether they were white or black people.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say "we were screaming", who else was screaming?

MS F MOLETE: The family of Lekabe were in the bedroom, myself I was in the kitchen and the door had already been broken down then.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand that, but what I want to find out, I heard you say "we were screaming", so what I want to find out is, who else was screaming apart from you?

MS F MOLETE: I don't understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I get the impression from your answer that it was not only yourself who was screaming, but there may have been other people or another person who was also screaming, do you understand what I'm trying to say?

MS F MOLETE: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: When she says ...(Zulu)

INTERPRETER: She was actually asking whether you are saying "in the shack".

MS F MOLETE: We were all crying. We were screaming when these people entered the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: That is as far as ... who is the "we" you are talking about?

MS F MOLETE: I was with Phule and his family in that shack. That is my shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Were they also screaming? That is all I want to find out from you.

MS F MOLETE: We were all crying.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, did you hear the screams or did you see the people screaming? Did you see them as they were screaming or were in a place where you could not see them but you hear the screams?

MS F MOLETE: They were crying in the bedroom and I was also crying in the place where I was.

ADV SIGODI: Could you see them?

MS F MOLETE: There was a door leading to the bedroom and they were inside and they had closed that door because they were about to sleep.

ADV SIGODI: So you could only hear the screaming?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I heard the cries and then the other part that separating the kitchen and the bedroom, fell.

CHAIRPERSON: We will be taking the tea adjournment at 11 o'clock.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson, maybe one more question.

Did you see the attack on your sister, Miriam and on Mita?

MS F MOLETE: We were all attacked in the house.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I accept that, but what I want to know is, did you see the attack? Whilst the attack was going on on these people, did you see the attack on them?

MS F MOLETE: I was trying to protect myself, my life. Miriam was in the bedroom, how would I see Miriam, because I was also being assaulted on the other side.

MR STRYDOM: Whilst the attack was taking ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is the answer

"I couldn't see because I was also being attacked"

Is that the answer?

MR LAX: Yes. ...(indistinct) bedroom. Can I just confirm, you say you couldn't see, there were two basic reasons, one, it was happening in the bedroom and two, you were being attacked yourself? Did I understand your answer correctly?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, the others were in the kitchen and the others broke from behind and they entered into the bedroom where Miriam was.

MR LAX: I just want to take you back one little bit. You spoke about - the way it was interpreted were these words

"The other part separating the kitchen and the bedroom, fell"

Just explain what you mean by that. Was it the wall that fell, was it the door that fell, what exactly fell?

MS F MOLETE: They were broken down. This was just soft hardboards, they were tied to the door. Even if you just apply pressure on it, it will fall down.

MR LAX: So it was the door and the wall that all fell down in one go, is that what you are saying?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

MR LAX: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And did any part of the bedroom also fall off?

MS F MOLETE: It fell down. While we were still fighting, even this part that was separating the kitchen from the bedroom, fell down.

CHAIRPERSON: But did any other wall of the bedroom also fall down? - to enable people simply to walk into the, to come directly into the bedroom from outside.

MS F MOLETE: This was a four-cornered shack, it fell as I am indicating now, also in the middle.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that between the kitchen and the bedroom?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that's between the kitchen and the bedroom, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Did any other wall fall, apart from that wall?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LAX: But just - I'm now confused because I thought you said earlier, you may not have used the word "fall", but you said that

"The bedroom door was closed and the people got into the bedroom from some other place"

And my understanding is that they must opened the bedroom from another side, and the hardboards you mentioned in your evidence-in-chief. So I'm now puzzled.

MS F MOLETE: This shack fell at the back and in front and also in the middle. In the middle is the wall separating the kitchen from the bedroom. These were very soft hardboards.

MR LAX: Now explain the one at the back and the front then, just so we get a clear picture in total.

MS F MOLETE: This other side was also closed and this side we have a kitchen door, it fell at that side as I'm indicating and also in the front. And then in the middle, the wall that was separating the kitchen from the bedroom also fell.

CHAIRPERSON: So is the position that, you see the door from the outside goes into the kitchen and then from the kitchen you go into the bedroom. Now the door fell, together with the surrounding walls?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And then the wall in-between the kitchen and the bedroom also gave in?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did any other wall fall, apart from these two that you've just mentioned?

MS F MOLETE: This part that is on the side of the street did not fall, it only fell as I'm indicating here.

MR LAX: So how did people get into the bedroom then?

MS F MOLETE: Others entered from behind. As they were entering they broke down the shack, so the back part of the shack fell. There were other people who were in the kitchen with me and there were other people who were in the bedroom with Miriam.

MR LAX: Now I understand you properly, thank you.

MR STRYDOM: I see it's six past eleven.

CHAIRPERSON: It is. Very well, we will take the tea adjournment and resume at half past eleven.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

FLORENCE MOLETE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, I handed out a further document, which I would ask to be marked HH. That is this witness' - II. That is this witness' evidence at the Goldstone Commission, which I will refer to later.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Now this document is?

MR STRYDOM: That's the evidence of this witness that was given at the Goldstone Commission, at the hearing which was held at Vereeniging.

CHAIRPERSON: Did this Commission make any findings?

MR STRYDOM: No, not as far as I'm aware.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose if it had, Mr Lowies would us have asked us to declare our ...(indistinct)

MR BERGER: I can confirm that Judge Goldstone says he's waiting for the outcome of the appeal, before he makes a finding.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean to the Supreme Court of Appeal?

MR BERGER: Indeed, yes.

MR STRYDOM: Just before the attackers came into the shack, what was the light inside the shack? If you can start with the kitchen where you were.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you continue - at least this document has numbers. I think in future we should endeavour to paginate documents, if a document has more than one page, but at least this one does have pages we can refer to, page 265 and so on. Anyway, yes?

MR STRYDOM: Did you get the question? I want to know, the light in the kitchen before the attack started.

MS F MOLETE: With a lamp.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you here when the witness gave evidence?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR STRYDOM: What I want to know, was that source of light there right through until after the attack, or did something happen in-between?

MS F MOLETE: The paraffin lamp was on and it fell on the ground.

MR STRYDOM: And the light went out, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Was that during the attack?

MS F MOLETE: That is when the attackers had already entered the house.

MR STRYDOM: Was there any source of light in the bedroom section?

MS F MOLETE: The attackers were assaulting me, so I don't know what was happening in the bedroom.

MR STRYDOM: Whilst you were under attack, did you try to get out of the shack to go outside?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And was it at that stage when you got outside, that you saw this person which you thought to be a white person?

MR BERGER: I don't believe the witness said she thought him to be a white person, she said he was a white person.

MR STRYDOM: So she definitely said she thought him to be a white person. Later on she gave a description and then she said that according to her he was a white person, but the note I've got here has got the word "thought", but nothing turns around that, I just want to know, to get the sequence right.

When you went outside and you saw the person which you later described to be a white person, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: How far out did you go?

MS F MOLETE: I was crawling on the stoep, when I lifted my head I saw this man.

MR STRYDOM: And did he say anything or not, this man you saw, the white person?

MS F MOLETE: He was just standing looking inside the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but did he say anything? - if you can recall.

MS F MOLETE: He was just standing and looking inside.

MR STRYDOM: And just to get clarity, that's the only white person which you saw during the course of the attack, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that's the person.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that is the person.

MS F MOLETE: He was standing outside.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think the question was, is that the only white man that you saw during the attack?

MS F MOLETE: When I went outside I saw him.

MR LAX: You're not understanding the question, let me try and help you here. You're being asked; during the whole attack, besides this one man, did you see any other white people? Do you understand?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I understand.

MR LAX: So the answer is either yes or no, it's as simple as that.

MS F MOLETE: In the kitchen there were only black men and then I saw this man. When they ran out I only recognised one. I saw two, I recognised two.

CHAIRPERSON: Two what?

MS F MOLETE: They were wearing camouflage clothes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, were these white men?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, they were white.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's get this right. Now at what stage did you say you saw these white men? Where were these white men who were wearing camouflage?

MS F MOLETE: While I was crawling to the outside I saw this one man and then when they were all running out ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MS F MOLETE: ... then I realised that he was not the only white person.

MR LAX: And what made you to realise this?

MS F MOLETE: He was easily recognisable.

MR LAX: Just explain what you mean by that, "easily recognisable".

MS F MOLETE: There's a difference between a white person and a black person.

MR LAX: And what was this difference that you noticed?

MS F MOLETE: A white person's nose is longer than a black person's nose.

MR LAX: Anything that you noticed that helped you come to this realisation?

MS F MOLETE: That is his height.

MR LAX: Anything else?

CHAIRPERSON: What about his height?

MS F MOLETE: Normally Sotho people are short and white people are tall.

MR LAX: Anything else?

MS F MOLETE: That's the only thing that I remember.

MR LAX: Did this other person also have a balaclava on?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, the second person that I realised that he was white, he had a balaclava on.

MR LAX: And just so I'm clear in my own mind, you noticed him when they were running away you said, when they were leaving the shack, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LAX: Where were you at that stage? - just so we can be clear about that.

MS F MOLETE: I was in the kitchen pretending to be dead, but I was watching them.

MR LAX: And you saw this person inside or outside the shack?

MS F MOLETE: He was passing as they were running out of the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Well was he running from inside the shack, out of the shack?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, they were running from the bedroom, running outside.

MR STRYDOM: This man running out, did he wear camouflage clothing?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: So you did not see this person entering the shack, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, how could I see these people, how could I see him because we were fighting?

CHAIRPERSON: So is the answer that you didn't see him entering the shack?

MS F MOLETE: I did not see him when he entered the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you did see was a group of people who entered the shack?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and you can't tell us whether he was in that group?

MS F MOLETE: I cannot say he was in that group because I only saw him when he was going out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know you didn't say that, but all I want to find out is, you cannot say whether or not he was in that group that entered.

MS F MOLETE: Mr Ngcobo, this person was running out of the house and that shows that he was also in the house, because when they passed I was at the door.

CHAIRPERSON: The group of people that you saw entering the shack, in that group did you see anyone wearing a camouflage?

MS F MOLETE: Are you referring to the people who entered in the kitchen?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS F MOLETE: Those who entered from the kitchen door, when they entered they were already fighting.

MR STRYDOM: What I want to put to you, you testified, and I've got a note here that you only saw black people entering the kitchen, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, you are right.

MR STRYDOM: So what you're saying now, apart from the man who stood outside who you said was a white, you also saw a white leaving the shack. So did you see two whites in total?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir, others were in the bedroom with Miriam and others were in the kitchen with me.

MR STRYDOM: No, no, I'm just talking about white people, you're talking about others now, but just tell me if I'm correct if I state that you in total saw two white people on that night of the attack. We know about the one standing outside, we know now about one running out, only those two?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: The one you saw outside, could it be the same person who later on came out of the shack?

MS F MOLETE: That one was standing, looking inside the shack.

MR STRYDOM: So according to you it could not have been the same person, is that what you're saying?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, when I was on the ground pretending to be dead, these people passed me when they were running and that person who was standing outside left with them as they went out.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Ms Molete, what counsel wants to establish is the number of white people that you saw, do you understand that?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us that one such person was the one who was outside of shack already, who was merely standing looking into the shack and this is the person that you saw as you crawled out of the shack on the stoep, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: May you please repeat again. With respect, Sir, I don't understand you.

MR SIBANYONI: Ms Molete, I notice that sometimes you answer before the interpreter finishes to speak, so what I want to know from you, are you listening directly to the Chairperson, or are you listening to the earphones or both?

MS F MOLETE: I am listening to Sesotho.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let me start all over again. When you respond to what I'm saying, please do not just nod your head because it doesn't come through, do you understand that? Just answer by saying yes or no.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I've been explaining to you that what counsel is trying to establish is how many white men, or should I say white persons you saw that evening.

MS F MOLETE: I saw two.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The first one that you saw was the man who was outside of the shack, whom you saw as you crawled out of the shack on the stoep.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And the second person that you saw is when you were lying down pretending to be dead, and he was amongst a group of people who ran out of the shack.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that's correct.

MR STRYDOM: What I want to know, you say that you tried to pretend that you're dead and you were in the kitchen now ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry. And now the question was, is it possible that the person you saw could be the same person who was standing outside? - you saw running out of the house, could he be the same person that you saw standing outside?

MS F MOLETE: I saw two, the one who was standing outside and this one who passed me running to the outside.

ADV SIGODI: Do you remember what the person who was standing outside was wearing?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I remember.

ADV SIGODI: What was he wearing?

MS F MOLETE: He wore camouflage and he had a balaclava on.

ADV SIGODI: And the white person who was running outside whilst you were pretending to be dead, what was he wearing? The one who ran out of the house whilst you were pretending to be dead, can you still remember what he was wearing?

MS F MOLETE: He wore a coat and this camouflage overall with a coat on top.

ADV SIGODI: Did he have a balaclava on his face or just ...?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, he had a balaclava.

CHAIRPERSON: How were you - as I understand you were lying down pretending to be dead, now how were you lying? Were you lying down with your face down or with your face upwards, or were you lying on your side?

MS F MOLETE: I was lying with(sic) my stomach, but my head was facing the door, I could see outside. When they were running out I was looking at them.

MR STRYDOM: So all that you would have been able to see of this person running out, is you would see him from behind?

MS F MOLETE: The shack was down, as they were running out they passed me when I was on the ground.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but the point is, they're running out of the shack so they're running away from you, so you would have seen him from behind.

MS F MOLETE: Sir, these people were passing me as I was lying on the ground. I did not see him only from behind, I also saw him from the front.

CHAIRPERSON: When you saw his front, was he already outside the shack or was he still inside the shack?

MS F MOLETE: They were running to the outside.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you still recall where exactly in the shack he was, was he still inside the shack or was he already outside the shack?

MS F MOLETE: They were running out.

CHAIRPERSON: When you first saw this white man, where was he, was he still inside the shack, was he outside the shack? - if you can remember. If you don't remember, say so.

MS F MOLETE: The first one that I saw is the one who was outside looking inside and then the second one is the one that I saw when they were running out. That is when they were leaving.

CHAIRPERSON: I've heard you describe how you saw the first one and I think that was when you were outside, what I want to find out is, the second person, when you first saw him, this second white man, was he still inside of the shack or was he already outside the shack?

MS F MOLETE: He was outside the shack and they were running away.

MR STRYDOM: When you were asked yesterday by Mr Berger, if you've seen any white people during the attack, why did you not mention this second white person?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Berger asked me about one person, one white person.

MR STRYDOM: Mr Berger asked you if you saw any white people, why didn't you mention the other person?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, Mr Berger asked me whether I saw a white person, he didn't say white persons.

MR STRYDOM: The question was

"Did you see any white men at any time during the attack?"

So I put to you that the question was clear enough to also include another person if you saw that person, why didn't you mention that person?

CHAIRPERSON: But as I understand her explanation, she says she was asked about a person, which is why she didn't tell us about persons. Is that right, Ms Molete?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that's correct, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why you only mentioned one person.

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: I'll leave that for argument because the record speaks for itself.

Now you were just asked about the clothing of the people outside, of the white man outside, and you said he had camouflage clothing on and you mentioned that the person inside had a coat on. So can I gather from that that the person standing outside, the white person, did not have a coat on?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, I said the person who was outside wore a camouflage and this second person a had camouflage and a coat over that camouflage.

MR STRYDOM: You see the statement you made to Mr Kekana, you said the following, on page 11: - just to put it in perspective I'll read from the fifth line from the bottom ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR STRYDOM: Page 11, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR STRYDOM: Ja, but just the last five sentences of paragraph 4.

"One of the attackers tried to stab me with a spear and shifted and he missed and I managed to get out of the shack. When I got outside it was full-moon (there seems to be a letter there which I can't read, but then) a bright, and I saw a white male person wearing a (camouflage) and an overcoat which was unbuttoned and it made it possible for me to see the clothing. He was having a rifle which was pointed towards the shack. Even though he was wearing a balaclava his face was fully visible and I could clearly see that he is a white person. I then ran back into the shack and called Phule."

Now firstly, do you remember stating this to Mr Kekana?

MS F MOLETE: There is a mistake there, the portion that refers to Phuleng.

MR STRYDOM: To Phuleng? I didn't read a portion relating to Phuleng.

CHAIRPERSON: She's referring obviously to the part relating to Phule.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, she may have heard Phuleng, who is her sister.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm just you know telling Mr Strydom that she probably would be referring to the part relating to Phule.

MR STRYDOM: But it's unclear now, I didn't read about him. Did she read the paragraph herself?

MR BERGER: You did read, you read to the end of paragraph 4, and the last word is Phule.

MR STRYDOM: Sorry, I'm wrong, I missed that, that's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just clarify this. You say in the portion that has just been read to you, the only aspect that's incorrect is the one that refers to Phule?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. What's incorrect about that?

MS F MOLETE: I thought that he was referring to Phuleng.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, no but - oh yes, I see. What he read to you, what he should have read to you is the following

"I then ran back into the shack and called Phuleng"

Is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that portion is correct, that is when we were still fighting.

MR STRYDOM: And you said you're happy with the rest of the paragraph.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I'm satisfied.

MR STRYDOM: So then you're also satisfied with the portion that the person standing outside had an overcoat, which you even could say that was unbuttoned and that made it possible for you to see the clothing?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: But I asked you a while ago if the person outside was wearing an overcoat and you said "no", why are you happy now with this what is stated here?

MS F MOLETE: Sir, you have asked me so many questions. The way it is written here this person wore a camouflage.

MR LAX: The simple issue is that you were asked about whether the person outside was wearing an overcoat. In fact to put the whole question to you fairly, you were firstly asked about the person inside and you were clear that person had an overcoat, you were then asked about the person outside and you differentiated between the two of them, on the basis that only the one inside had an overcoat. Now the question Mr Strydom is putting to you is, why are you happy with this statement if it says that the person outside had an overcoat, when in your evidence you told us he didn't. Do you understand the question? Do you understand the question?

MS F MOLETE: I understand the question.

MR LAX: What is your comment or answer?

MS F MOLETE: The man who was standing outside wore a camouflage, he had an overcoat and a balaclava on.

MR STRYDOM: I'm going to leave it at that, but I'm going to put to you that you are changing your version as you carry on.

CHAIRPERSON: The man who was standing outside wore a camouflage and an overcoat, is that what you said?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And a balaclava?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, on his face.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now the one inside?

MS F MOLETE: He had an overcoat, he wore a camouflage overall, he had a balaclava over his face.

CHAIRPERSON: So these two white men then appear to have been wearing the same clothing, that is camouflage, overcoat and balaclava?

MS F MOLETE: That is how I saw them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, ja.

MR STRYDOM: I also want to put to you that in your statement to Kekana you do not mention a second white person that was on the scene on the night. Can you give an explanation?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, I explained that Mr Kekana was in a hurry when he was writing this statement.

MR STRYDOM: But apart from Mr Kekana being in a hurry, did you mention it to him?

MS F MOLETE: He said to me I should be quick because he has to go to Pretoria and then come back again.

MR LAX: Sorry, the question was, did you tell him about the second person or not? It's really quite simple, either you did or you didn't. Just give us a simple answer.

MS F MOLETE: Everything that I told Mr Kekana is what is written on that statement.

MR LAX: Does that mean you didn't tell him.

MS F MOLETE: I don't remember well because this happened many years ago.

MR STRYDOM: Just before the attack, your sister and her husband and the child went to the one room and you stayed in the kitchen and obviously you must have seen them going into that room. But from that time, when was the first time for you to see your sister again and Mita?

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection may not be accurate, but did she say that just immediately before the attack they went there or did she merely say they were already in the bedroom?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I can put it differently because nothing revolves around that. I just want to find out, from the last time she saw them, when they went to go and sleep on that specific night, when was the next occasion when she saw them, that's now Mita and hers sister.

MS F MOLETE: While I was going to seek help from Mr Sampson, she jumped over the fence to my brother-in-law's place. She had her baby in her hands.

MR STRYDOM: So whilst the attack was going on you did not go to her and try to assist her or try to assist Mita, or anything of the kind?

MS F MOLETE: I went there trying to protect the baby. She had the baby in her arms and they were fighting.

MR STRYDOM: But Ms Molete, I just asked you when did you see them again, from the time they went to bed, and you said

"Afterwards when she stepped over the fence with the baby."

Now why do you say now that you saw her during the course of the attack?

MS F MOLETE: When the attack was still on I was trying to protect myself and I was also trying to protect the baby because the shack was already down on the other side.

CHAIRPERSON: In order to protect the baby, did you go to the bedroom where your sister was?

MS F MOLETE: The all between the bedroom and the kitchen was already down on all these people were inside the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: When you - as I understand your evidence, in the course of the attack on yourself you were trying to defend yourself, but at the same time - well protect yourself, and at the same time you were trying to protect the baby.

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And how did you try to protect the baby?

MS F MOLETE: I was trying to take the baby from her mother.

CHAIRPERSON: And can you still recall - I mean if you don't remember, say so, but can you still recall where the mother was with the baby at the time?

MS F MOLETE: They were just next to the wardrobe.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be in the bedroom?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

MR STRYDOM: Was that at a stage before you went out of the shack?

MS F MOLETE: That is before there was a fight inside the house.

MR STRYDOM: Was that at the stage when you anticipated that the people may come into the shack and injure somebody?

MS F MOLETE: Are you referring to the time before the attack, Sir?

MR STRYDOM: No, maybe you're confused now. You went -according to your evidence now, to Mita to protect her. Now what we want to know is, when did you go to Mita to protect her?

MS F MOLETE: That is when the fight was already on. I was asking myself where the baby was. I was crying that time, I was also being assaulted at that time, so what I wanted was to protect the baby, so that if I die, I die with the baby.

MR STRYDOM: And what did you do to protect the baby?

MS F MOLETE: I didn't even make an attempt because when I was crawling towards the baby I was hit by a knopkierrie and then I fell back.

MR STRYDOM: Then we're back to the first question. So, did you see your sister and Mita at that stage or didn't you even get to see them? That's now at the stage when you tried to crawl towards Mita but you were assaulted again and you couldn't reach them.

MS F MOLETE: They were just next to the wardrobe.

MR STRYDOM: So is the answer you saw them?

MS F MOLETE: The lights were on, yes, I saw them.

MR STRYDOM: What light was on at that stage in that room?

MS F MOLETE: Moonlight, Sir.

MR STRYDOM: Did you see the assault on Miriam, your sister?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, when I was assaulted I was in the kitchen, she was in the bedroom, how could I see her?

MR STRYDOM: No, I'm asking, when you tried to get to them you started crawling to them, did you see that there's an assault in progress on your sister and on Mita?

MS F MOLETE: The fight was already on at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete, just take a moment or two and just listen to what I'm about to ask you now. We've heard from you that you tried to protect the baby ...

WITNESS DISTRESSED

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, would you find out from the lady who is assisting Ms Molete, whether she's in a position to continue at the moment.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, could we just take a short adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'm just thinking - because it's about twenty one, I was just thinking whether we should ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: Take the lunch now?

CHAIRPERSON: ... take the luncheon adjournment and perhaps reconvene at about half past one.

MR BERGER: Please, that would be appreciated.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: I've got no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Ms Molete, we will take the lunch adjournment now and we will reconvene and one thirty.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, would it be in order for Ms Cambanis to speak to Ms Molete during the interval and just find out how she's doing and how she's coping?

MS CAMBANIS: I'll clearly undertake, Chair, I undertake not to discuss the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean, do you have any objection to that?

MR STRYDOM: In the light of the undertaking I've got no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. And then if there are problems, would you come back to us in the conference room?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Together with the other counsel.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Chair, we will.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay very well, we'll rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR BERGER: Chairperson, Ms Molete would just like to say something to you. She says she's got something she wants to ... Well, she is still under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

MR BERGER: Ms Cambanis said that I should just confirm she's still under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You're still under oath, Ma'am.

FLORENCE MOLETE: (s.u.o.)

MS F MOLETE: There is something that hurts me and that concerns Mita, always when Mr Strydom talks about Mita and Miriam, because the baby is now crippled.

MR LAX: I'm sorry, we didn't get your interpretation, could you just repeat it please?

INTERPRETER: She says the only thing that hurts her is when Mr Strydom talks about Mita and Miriam, because the baby is now crippled or handicapped.

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom hurts me when he talks about Mita, because we are struggling about this baby who is now handicapped, so always when he refers or he talks about Mita, it hurts me a lot.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position that you do not want to be asked questions often concerning the child?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis and Mr Berger, perhaps you should explain to your client what is required of her when she takes a witness stand, because whilst one understands her feelings and the feelings of those who may have lost or had their relatives injured in the attack, once a witness takes the witness stand the witness has to be asked questions. It would hamper these proceedings if witnesses tell this Committee what questions they do not want to be asked, because if another witness takes the witness stand and then adopts the same attitude, this will render the task of this Committee difficult.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, we have explained to Ms Molete what is required of her when she gives evidence and that Mr Strydom is doing his job when he asks these questions. At the same time however, Chairperson, the Act requires in Section 11(a), that victims shall be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that applies to the victims only, it applies to anyone who appears before this Committee, everyone has to be treated with respect and with compassion.

MR BERGER ADDRESSES: Chairperson, Section 11 deals with the principles governing the actions of the Commission when dealing with victims, it's specific to victims only. And as you've said, Chairperson, this isn't a trial and one has to be robust about the cross-examination of a witness.

She's given evidence at length now, about an incident which probably didn't take more than a couple of minutes and she's been cross-examined over and over again about the hacking of the child and the hacking of herself and the sexual attack on her and injuries, and there comes a time I submit, Chairperson, where compassion must enter the picture and there must be a limit to such cross-examination because if she's going to be treated as a witness in a motor collision case, then she's not being treated anymore with compassion. And Chairperson, you speak about other witnesses coming forward, we've indicated in the past the difficulty that we've had to get women who were sexually assaulted, to come forward and Ms Molete is the first woman to volunteer to come forward and talk about her experience, and if she's going to be cross-examined at such length and with such intensity, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be cross-examination, but at such length, it is going to result, if it hasn't already, in the other women not coming forward and then there will be no evidence before this Committee, other than the evidence of Ms Molete. So in a sense the treatment of Ms Molete will play a role in whether other women are going to come forward and talk about their sexual assaults.

All we're asking Chairperson, we understand that, and we've explained to Ms Molete that she can't refuse to answer questions, but all we're asking is that she be treated with compassion, as the Act requires, and that in our submission she has been cross-examined at length already and has answered all the questions put to her.

CHAIRPERSON: So is it your submission that she should not be cross-examined further at this stage?

MR BERGER: No, that's not our submission. She broke down, Chairperson, and she's explaining to you why she broke down ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand that. What's your submission, Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM ADDRESSES: Chairperson, my aim is definitely not to treat this witness without compassion, my aim is not to injure or to hurt her in any way, but she made certain statements stating that white people and police were involved and that's contrary to our instructions and I have to test her credibility, and unfortunately I'll have to go through portions of her evidence which is not pleasant, but I would argue later that it is a deviation from her statement, and it's on these aspects that it's unpleasant.

So I'll have to - in the process of testing her on her credibility I'll have to go through some of these aspects. I'll try not to go into it any deeper than I feel is necessary for purposes to attack her credibility. That's just for the ordinary purpose of cross-examination and I'll try to do it with compassion.

CHAIRPERSON: What's the submission of the other counsel?

MR LOWIES ADDRESSES: Chair, I'd like to make one remark. Is it really necessary to lead evidence regarding sexual assaults when there's no amnesty required for that, requested sorry, requested by the applicants. Otherwise I have nothing further to add than what my learned friend has said.

MS PRETORIUS ADDRESSES: Chair, I full agree and I think, I am very sorry for the witness, she's in an enviable position that not one of us would like to be, but I submit that Mr Strydom has been treating her with compassion. Unfortunately there are questions that have to be asked about the child, and if Mr Strydom doesn't do it one of the other counsel will have to do it. So it's my submission that it will have to be done in any case.

MR DA SILVA ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, for what it may be worth, I submit that Mr Strydom has treated the witness very fairly, I don't think he has been unfair to her at all, with respect.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chair, I have no submissions to make.

MR MEY: I have not submission, I'll leave it in your hands, Chairperson.

MS TANZER ADDRESSES: Mr Chair, I think it's difficult to cross-examine a person and be compassionate at the same time, but I think Mr Strydom is doing his utmost to be fair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malindi?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I associate myself with the submission by Mr Berger. Chairperson, in addition I would say that if this cross-examination leads to witnesses like Ms Molete, breaking down, that will hamper the proceedings of these hearings more than it would if these victims who have come here as witnesses are treated with more compassion than has been shown so far. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS ADDRESSES: Thank you, Chair. I also associate myself with the comments of Advocate Berger. However, we have always given the undertaking to witnesses that should they not wish to, that no-one will be forced to give evidence and should she wish to withdraw at this stage, that will have to be put to her, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA ADDRESSES: Chairperson, I align myself with the legal position put by Mr Berger, insofar as the treatment of victims is concerned. I may want, Chairperson, further to ask the Committee to take into account that the victim is not an ordinary witness and some kind of, some measures will have to be adopted in whatever fashion as the Act may require in adhering to the principles that are laid down there when it comes to victims.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) measures?

MR MAPOMA: I can't think of, Chairperson, at this point in time, but I did canvass the point with the legal representatives at the start of the hearing, I mean at the start of the testimony by one, by the first victim, and one of the proposals I made to them is that out of the testimony of the victims it does not seem to be an issue, the question of the injuries that they suffered, the points which are in issue here are the presence of the police and white persons. And I did canvass with them that it may well be in the advantage of the victims and also the proceedings themselves, if issues which are not in dispute are not put before the Committee by the legal representatives.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the presence or otherwise of the police a matter which will have to be resolved on the basis of the credibility of the witnesses?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, whilst that is the position we are confronted here with a situation where that credibility has to be, whilst the credibility has to be tested, the principles which require the Committee ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Now how does one test the credibility of witnesses without asking the witnesses about matters which are not strictly speaking in dispute? Because the question is where does one draw the line, should cross-examination not be allowed on any other issue other than the issue of whether the police were present.

MR MAPOMA: Chair, now that the evidence has been led on other issues other than police involvement, I find it difficult to argue that cross-examination on those issues must not be made.

CHAIRPERSON: No you see, the problem is that it is an issue which is going to arise in regard to the other witnesses, because when these witnesses come and they don't talk about the police only, they talk about other matters. Now is it your submission that the cross-examination of the witnesses should not go beyond the question of whether the witnesses ...(indistinct) and if so, what are those measures that this Committee should take in order to ensure that that doesn't happen?

MR MAPOMA: My submission, Chairperson would be that the witnesses who are called must be the witnesses who are going to testify about the issues which are in dispute and be led only on issues which are in dispute and such issues be dealt with without going into the injuries suffered.

The applicants have in their applications mentioned that they attacked people there, and the question of whether those people were injured or not is not in dispute. So I think one of the measures would be for the legal representatives to agree that evidence which must be led here must be evidence which deals with the issues that are in dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: From the very beginning I made that clear but that has not worked out. Okay, so you say the witness has to be led on issues that are in dispute?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, as far as ...(indistinct) and cross-examination be confined thereto as well.

CHAIRPERSON: What other measures do you have in mind?

MR MAPOMA: Well that is all that I have in mind at this moment, Chairperson, I may think of some other measures as the hearing goes by.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You see because what concerns me is even if you lead witnesses only on the disputed facts, when you're testing the credibility of the witness you are bound to go beyond those issues. The question is, how far do you go?

MR MAPOMA: I appreciate Chairperson, it's very difficult but I think ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because it doesn't help me or anyone to say that there should be compassion. I don't think that there's anyone who can dispute that. The only question is, how does one regulate to the cross-examination when one's dealing with matters of credibility, without hampering the right of the applicants to a fair hearing? How does one draw the line? Where counsel goes beyond what I consider to be the bounds ...(indistinct), what should be the, you know how does one determine what questions to ask when one is testing the credibility of the witnesses because some of the evidence that we hear is the evidence that I would have thought is common cause or is not in dispute, but nevertheless we have to listen to that evidence. Issues relating to the poles, you know the Apollo lights, I would have thought that those are matters which ought to be common cause unless the suggestion is that since the attack the lights have moved or are no longer located where they were located at the time, but nevertheless we still have to go through that evidence. Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand the point you are making, that the witnesses be led on the issues that are in dispute, but simply where does one draw the line?

MR MAPOMA: I think, Chair, cross-examination must be limited in whatever manner ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand that.

MR MAPOMA: That's one of the measure that can be employed. Thank you, Chairperson, I don't take it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, what is your submission on the proposal made by Mr Mapoma?

MR BERGER IN REPLY: Chairperson, I agree fully with the position that you have stated, that even in respect of issues in dispute, cross-examination must go beyond those issues in order to test credibility. That must be the correct position in law, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You see the difficulty really that I see is, to the extent that those extent that those are collateral issues, where does one - it's easy to say there has to be a line, and I don't think there is anyone who will disagree with the fact that, with the proposition that there has to be a line and I've talked to counsel in chambers and I have made this point, that people have to be - I understand people may be longwinded in their cross-examination, I can't stop a person when he is just laying a foundation, but how does one limit the cross-examination in a manner which does not interfere with the right of these applicants to a fair hearing?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, yes. The general rule in cross-examination is that any question asked on an issue which is a collateral issue, the answer that is given to that question is final.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BERGER: So there can't be endless cross-examination on collateral issues, that position is clear. The second thing is, when we lead a witness and we lead a witness on a full story, we do that because we don't want to be seen to be leading in the unacceptable sense of the word, so we say tell your story, and in the process of telling a lot of things which are common cause, so the issue in dispute gets dealt with in a way that isn't leading the witness in the unacceptable manner. So that's why we ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because the - you know the other difficulty that may arise is that you will then have to put a witness onto the witness stand and you'll simply say to her: "Did you see the police and where did you see those police?". We've got to lay some kind of foundation so as to introduce the witness. I think it's, there's a difficulty in simply saying you lead the witness on those issues whilst one can safeguard the problem of "why didn't you mention this in evidence-in-chief", on the basis of "I wasn't asked that", but still when that's the very issue that's disputed you can't just get the witness in and say "Did you see the police?"

MR BERGER: No, you can't. Chairperson, you asked what measures can be taken. The first is, when it's a collateral issue the question is asked, the answer is given, it's final. The second thing is that cross-examination shouldn't be repetitive. And I know it comes back "well, we're laying a foundation", but there's a limit to laying the foundation as well. And the third point, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well it depends on how ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: How long winded?

CHAIRPERSON: No, how deep your foundation wants to be.

MR BERGER: Yes. But the third thing about credibility, I understand fully that credibility has to be tested, but it's got to be seen in context, and here we have the context of a woman who is being treated like a rugby ball being ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think that's just an overstatement.

MR BERGER: Well she's been thrown and she's ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) to suggest that.

MR BERGER: No, no, no, I'm not ...(intervention)

MR LAX: He's not talking about counsel.

MR BERGER: I'm not talking about counsel.

CHAIRPERSON: You are talking about the woman.

MR LAX: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR BERGER: No, no, I'm suggesting my learned friend ...(intervention)

MR LAX: It's in the context of the attack.

MR BERGER: I'm not suggesting my learned friends are doing that, I'm saying the attackers. Sorry if I was misunderstood.

MR LOWIES: ... apologise for misunderstanding.

MR BERGER: The attackers are treating her like a rugby ball and she's being thrown and kicked and punched and all sorts of things are happening to her in a very, very short space of time. So one has to assess her credibility in that context and one can't, I would submit, keep going into minute detail on and on and on. That's where, I submit, there has to be a limit to the cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: Continue cross-examining?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, just ...

MR STRYDOM IN REPLY: Oh. Chairperson, what is also important is her ability to observe because she made certain observations and she said that she saw white people under these circumstances, so I'll have to test her ability and then I'll have to ask her certain questions about other aspects as well just to test that. That maybe is not a credibility issue, but there's a chance that she can make a bona fide mistake and I must also test that possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES IN REPLY: Chairman, I would suggest - there's a lot of what Mr Mapoma said that I agree with, you are at this stage limiting cross-examination, I know from my own experience, when I want to cross-examine on certain aspects, which normally in a criminal court I would be entitled to, to start afresh on any aspect that Mr Strydom has covered, you limit us and everybody else down the line, so from that point of view I would say yes, there is.

But my - where I also find common ground with the argument of Mr Mapoma is really, is it necessary to lead evidence regarding a sexual assault? It reflects badly and that is definitely something which is irrelevant here because you can't get amnesty for it and the applicants are not applying for that. So that is for instance one instance where I think it's completely unnecessary to lead such evidence. I have nothing further to add.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you see what Mr Berger is saying as I understand the submission, is that one just can't call the witness into the witness stand and simply ask the witness about the issues that are in dispute, one has to lay some kind of, be it of a background.

MR LOWIES: Oh yes, there we are all ad idem. I think all counsel is.

CHAIRPERSON: And also, he is also concerned about a witness not mentioning something in the evidence-in-chief and then to be taxed on why you didn't mention that. Do you understand the ...

MR LOWIES: Ja, but on the other hand say for instance, to come back to the sexual assaults, who can say that that is strictly speaking relevant if we know that it's something that is from a victim's point of view, not nice to talk about. We don't want to go into that, that I give you the assurance and my, speaking for my clients and myself, we don't want amnesty for something that happened like that, but you have listened to their versions, it's not their versions that they have committed it, unless of course a witness comes and identifies a specific witness, then it's a different story. But I think strictly speaking we're all talking about the same thing.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I'm sorry I have to differ.

MS PRETORIUS IN REPLY: Chair, my opinion is that we are being limited, that's why I don't ask many questions, not because I don't want to represent my applicant, but I don't want to repeat what Mr Strydom has said and get another version and test that again. So we are limiting the time and the questions as far as we possibly can.

MR DA SILVA IN REPLY: Chairperson, I submit that Section 11 is to remind the Committee and the parties, that the victims in an application like this should be treated with compassion. It is not the rule of law saying that they should be cross-examined any differently than any of the other witnesses that have testified. If that was the rule it would mean that one set of rules is applied to an applicant, a different set of rules is applied to a witness that's testified. And I submit with respect, that in the manner that this hearing has been dealt with, it's been dealt with correctly and it can't be dealt with in any other manner. Unfortunately issues like credibility is an issue that is pertinent in this matter and it can't be dealt with in any other manner. I can't foresee ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And there's reliability.

MR DA SILVA: And the reliability of a witness. Mr Chairman, I can't see how a person can curtail the cross-examination other than what has been done in this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. What do you say about the suggestion by Mr Mapoma, that the witnesses be led only on the issues that are in dispute?

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairman with respect, I don't think that is practical because an issue, for instance whether police were on the scene or not, that must be seen against the background of the global evidence, and it would be a farce, with respect, if only those issues were led, with respect. I don't have any further submissions, Mr Chairman.

MR BOTHA(?): Mr Chairman, I align myself with the submission of Mr da Costa(sic) and I have nothing else to say.

MS TANZER IN REPLY: I also align myself with what Advocate Pretorius said and with what Advocate da Silva said, especially in light of the lengthy cross-examination that Mr Nosenga underwent and I do submit that witnesses certainly should be cross-examined to some degree on their credibility the way Mr Nosenga was. I also say that in trying to restrict the cross-examination it's really, they're not putting much faith in the Committee itself, the Committee is the body that is presiding over these hearings and they are the body that makes the decision on limitations or when evidence is beyond its reach or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mey?

MR MEY IN REPLY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I am of the opinion that if I do understand the witness correctly, that her breakdown resulted due to the questions asked about Mita and she didn't mention anything about the sexual assault, that was mentioned by Mr Berger, but I do align myself with Mr Strydom and the others, that it is essential that the credibility must be tested and on her version, on the witness' version the only thing that was in dispute here, what resulted in the breakdown, was the fact that she was questioned about the injuries to the child and not to the sexual assault.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me that the problem with Ms Molete arose because she was asked about the baby, which she says she does not, which she says hurt her, but counsel has in the course of indicating the basis of her position, raised the issue of the limits of cross-examination.

I have now heard the evidence, it seems to me that the Committee must now take a decision as to what would be the proper course to take in these circumstances, noting the objections by Ms Molete and her unwillingness to talk about the baby.

We will take a 15 minutes adjournment and then I will come back and make a ruling.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

FLORENCE MOLETE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, Mr Lowies, Advocate Pretorius, am I correct in saying that the applicants deny that there were white persons during the attack, whether policemen or otherwise? Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson. I will put it this way, the applicants I appear for testified and already denied that white people or police were involved during the attack, but I must add a rider to that. If some white people participated at some point in Slovo Park or Boipatong, at a stage when my clients weren't there, they won't be able to say if they did something wrong because they didn't see them.

But my instructions are that there was nothing, they never saw white people and they never police vehicles but implicit in that is that a possibility cannot be ruled out that somewhere in Boipatong or in Slovo Park, whilst my clients were some other place in that area, a white person could have been. That they can't rule out. But I will add also that it's my clear instructions that there was nothing said beforehand or no discussions or anything that indicated that whites or police will be participating in the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Advocate Lowies?

MR LOWIES: Exactly my instructions as well, Mr Chairman. As to Mr Vanana Zulu, who is also my client, what I have put is also that he wasn't there at all. So his is a complete denial and an alibi.

MS PRETORIUS: My position is exactly the same and also that Vanana Zulu was not part of the attack that night, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not representing Vanana Zulu are you?

MS PRETORIUS: I'm not representing him, but the applicant that I am representing also states that Vanana Zulu was not there that night.

CHAIRPERSON: There is the position with regard to the applicants that you represent, Mr Strydom.

MR STRYDOM: That they deny the presence and participation of Vanana Zulu, that is indeed so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Ms Tanzer?

MS TANZER: My client obviously as you heard, states that the police were intricately involved in the attack on Boipatong and he had a version where Mtwana Zulu was also involved in the planning of the attack, although he said he did not see him on the night of the attack during the attack, but he definitely believes he was part of the planning of the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but do you have any instructions as to whether Mr Zulu was present during the attack?

MS TANZER: Yes, my initial instruction was that he was part of the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. The victims as I understand it, is that there were white men or white persons during the attack.

MR BERGER: That is correct, yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that of course they saw the police vehicles during the attack.

MR BERGER: Yes, that is also correct, Chairperson. - assisting the attackers.

CHAIRPERSON: And that Mr Vanana Zulu was present during the attack.

MR BERGER: Indeed yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, we don't have a position, we are probing.

R U L I N G

Having listened to counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the issue in this hearing is whether there were police or white persons during the attack who took part and assisted the attackers and secondly, whether Mr Vanana Zulu was present and took part in the attack.

These issues raise matters of credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of the evidence relating to the identity of persons alleged to have been present during the attack.

Insofar as issues of credibility are concerned, the ordinary rule relating to cross-examination is that a cross-examiner is allowed a wide latitude, in particular to probe matters that are in issue. The limit to that cross-examination will be repetition, but on matters that are not in issue, that is collateral issues, the answer to those questions given by the witness, is final. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules but broadly-speaking these are the limits that will be allowed during these proceedings, bearing in mind that one is dealing with an inquiry.

The other matter which is of grave concern to us and we find it deeply disturbing is that at the very beginning of these hearings it was agreed that there will be an exchange of documents that will be used during the proceedings so as to afford the other side a proper opportunity to examine the documents and prepare the case of those that counsel is representing. That role has not been observed, and I once again urge the parties to comply with that rule.

We have urged the parties to reach some agreement as to what precisely are the matters that are in dispute, that has not been done. As a result of that we hear evidence on matters that appear to be common cause or that are not in dispute and in the process the process is being delayed. And I want to state and urge the parties once again, we now know what is in issue and what is not in issue, I urge the parties to stop fighting about matters that are not in dispute or matters which can readily be ascertained, but only to agree on what evidence we need to hear relating to these matters that I have now placed on record and which the parties have agreed are in dispute. I sincerely hope that the legal representatives will comply with this request.

To the victims who are here to testify, it is necessary that we know what happened and one way that it can be done is to ask questions as to what happened. The purpose is not to traumatise the witnesses, but it is a sincere attempt to know what happened, so that at the conclusion of these hearings when we sit down to consider the evidence, we have the full picture of what happened.

I hope I am expressing the sentiments of each and every Member of this Committee, when I say we understand the pain and the trauma that you suffered at the time. If we had an option we would have preferred not to ask you to relate these events once again, but we have a job to do. When counsel oversteps the limit we will intervene. I therefore ask you for you co-operation so that we can bring these proceedings to some finality.

Yes, Mr Strydom?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, just before Mr Strydom continues and lest we be seen to be conceding certain issues, I understand your ruling is in the context of the evidence which is being given at the moment, there are however other issues which have to be decided, such as proportionality, authority and motive and other issues and quite clearly those don't touch on the evidence we're hearing at the moment. The one thing which does is the question my learned friend, Mr Lowies spoke about, sexual assaults and that that is irrelevant.

Our submission is that that would be relevant to the whole question of proportionality and that's why that evidence is being tendered where it is possible to tender such evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Strydom?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: (Cont)

Thank you, Chairperson.

Ms Molete, I want to read a certain portion of your evidence-in-chief to you. I've got a cryptic note and I just want you to confirm that evidence and then I'll ask you a few questions in that regard. The question was:

"Did you see other white people during the attack?"

Your answer was:

"It was difficult, facing death, to see if the attackers were white or black."

When ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Strydom, are you referring to ...(intervention)

MR STRYDOM: Evidence-in-chief, according to my notes.

ADV SIGODI: Oh, thank you.

MR STRYDOM: Do you confirm that portion of your evidence?

MS F MOLETE: Can you please explain yourself?

MR STRYDOM: I'm just reading from what you said in your evidence-in-chief, because I want to ask you certain questions after that. According to my note it reads as follows: - the question was

"Where there other white people during the attack?"

And you said:

"It was difficult, facing death, to see white or black"

That's my note, but I would assume it said "to see if the attackers were white or black", is that correct? I just want you to confirm the evidence.

MR BERGER: Perhaps if you could explain what the evidence-in-chief was, that might help.

MR STRYDOM: Maybe I should do that. When Mr Berger asked you questions you gave certain answers and at that stage I was writing down what you said. Now you testified quite quickly and it was difficult to write down every word, but my note reads as follows and I want you to confirm if this is what you said. The question by Mr Berger was

"Did you see other white people during the attack?"

And then you answered:

"It was difficult, facing death, to see white or black."

That is according to my note.

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom has asked me many questions and now he returns to the same question again.

MR STRYDOM: All I want to ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, if I can ...

Please Mrs Molete, you must understand, we're not trying to badger you, this question is question of what you said when you first testified when Mr Berger led you and Mr Strydom is entitled to ask you this question and we'd like you to please give us an answer. So he's not unfairly questioning you at this stage.

MS F MOLETE: I do not dispute that.

MR LAX: All he is asking you is, can you remember saying that to us when Mr Berger was asking you questions, that is was difficult to tell whether a person was black or white when you're facing death. If you can't remember saying that, that's okay, just give us ...(intervention)

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember because he has asked me so many questions.

MR STRYDOM: Then my note goes further to read when you testified

"When the men came in I was fighting for my life. I didn't know where Miriam and Mita were."

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And then you said something

"When I came back from the dumping ground I saw her inside the ambulance. The ambulance was full."

And that is why you couldn't get into the ambulance.

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: So if this portion of your evidence is correct you did not see who attacked Miriam?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, you were not there. This happened in my house. I'm talking about something that happened in my house. So if you now dispute what happened in my house I really don't know what to say.

MR STRYDOM: No, all I want to put to you, I accept that there were attackers in your house and those attackers attacked Miriam, but what I'm putting to you, you cannot say this or that or any other person was the attacker that attacked her. She was attacked by attackers but you can't identify or say anything about the person that attacked her.

MS F MOLETE: I know nothing about Miriam. I know what happened to me.

MR STRYDOM: So it would not be correct to say that you met Miriam after the attack in a shack of the neighbour, because you saw her in the ambulance?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, you asked me a question and then said what was the last time that I saw her, you didn't ask me about the neighbour.

MR STRYDOM: Well tell us, before you saw her in the ambulance again did you see her at any other place before that?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, you repeat the same question again. You asked me that question and I gave you an answer.

MR STRYDOM: I don't want to be difficult and I don't want to make it difficult for you. All I want to know, before you saw Miriam in the ambulance did you see her at any other place?

MS F MOLETE: I cannot answer that question.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Strydom. Maybe if I phrase it this way: before you saw Miriam in the ambulance when was the last time that you saw her?

MS F MOLETE: I told Mr Strydom that the last time I saw Miriam was when she ran out with the baby in her hands and the other time that I saw her after that was when she was in the ambulance. Now she's repeating the very same questions again.

MR STRYDOM: In your statement, paragraph 4, and I'm not going to read it to you to avoid making it unpleasant for you, but I'll put to you that you stated there that you in fact saw the attack on Miriam and what you told us now is that you did not see the attack. Can you explain that? I want you to try to clear that up.

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, if you were present at that time you wouldn't be asking me these difficult questions. I explained where Miriam was and where I was. I don't even want to know about what happened to Miriam.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, could I have permission just to speak to Ms Molete and just tell her to be patient with Mr Strydom, it might help. I'm not suggesting Mr Strydom is doing anything wrong.

Thank you, Chair. Just for the record, I explained to Ms Molete that - she said she doesn't want to keep on answering questions about Miriam, I explained to her that in her statement she says things about Miriam and Mr Strydom wants to ask her questions about what is in her statement and I've asked her just to be patient and to answer the questions. That is what I said to her.

MR STRYDOM: Do you remember when you - I want to ask you certain questions about your testimony at the Goldstone Commission, and just to put you in the picture, it seems to me that you made a statement and your statement was read into the record and certain questions were also asked then. Now I want to refer to page 258 where you were asked the following, in the middle of the page

"Was that the only white person that you saw that night? - at that stage, sorry."

You said:

"Well I noticed this white person and another one who came in through the broken portion of the shack."

MR BERGER: Perhaps it should be explained that the first white person is the white person standing outside the door that's being referred to.

MR STRYDOM: Ja, that is indeed correct. I don't want to read the full document but that is correct.

You referred to another white person and you referred to somebody standing outside, and then the question was asked:

"Was that the only white person that you saw that night? - at that stage, sorry."

MS F MOLETE: Well I noticed this white person and another who came in through the broken portion of the shack. He walked over the planks of the shack that had been broken down and got into the bedroom. Is that portion of your evidence correct?

MS F MOLETE: This thing happened a long time ago in 1992, it's been years now, I forget some of the things. I have made many statements. I cannot remember some of the things that happened in 1992, that were written in those statements.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but you see the reason why I'm asking this, what you could you remember today is that you saw, whilst lying pretending to be dead, you saw a white person leaving the shack. Now this is not the same as this, here you said that you saw him coming into the shack.

MS F MOLETE: In that statement I have also mentioned two people, two white people.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but it still doesn't explain what you told this Committee, that you saw the second white person when he left and that's the only time you saw, when he left the shack.

MS F MOLETE: That's what I'm explaining to you, that what happened in 1992, you'll not remember it in totality, we were at pains that time.

MR STRYDOM: If you saw that Miriam's attacker was a white person, you have remembered that at any occasion, and all occasions, is that so?

MS F MOLETE: That Sir, that one affects Miriam alone.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete ...

MS F MOLETE: Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: What Mr Strydom is putting to you is the following, and he is not saying you saw this, he's putting to you that if you had seen a white man attacking Miriam, you would not have forgotten this. Do you understand the question?

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, Ms Molete has indicated that she wishes to address us, which we ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, do you have any objection if the witness ...

MR STRYDOM: Well not for this occasion.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger ...

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ... if Ms Molete is not comfortable in answering questions relating to Miriam, we understand that, we will move on.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, Ms Cambanis and I have spoken to some neighbours of Ms Molete and we've come to the opinion that she appears to be taking a lot of strain at the moment. She tells me that she's prepared and able to carry on, but I don't know if her perception is the only perception that's relevant. She appears to be taking a lot of strain.

I don't know if we can stand her down and start with another witness or if that's just going to cause too many problems, or maybe we have to adjourn for the day, I don't know. I am sorry about this, but it's now becoming, you know every question is a hardship and she's also not appreciating what Mr Strydom is doing. She's saying that Mr Strydom is telling her what to say, when clearly he is not telling her what to say, but that's the way she's perceiving it at the moment. Perhaps it's just exhaustion at this stage, or being over stressed, but she's clearly not coping.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

Would it be possible, this is just a suggestion, that we stand down Ms Molete, we lead our next witness only in-chief and we then adjourn and Ms Molete continues her cross-examination first thing tomorrow morning?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand your offer, Mr Berger and perhaps that might be the solution, but what concerns me is that this is recurring. We might stand the matter down and the same thing might happen again. So that is what I am trying to resolve with my colleagues.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

What do you say to the proposal by Mr Berger?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, if this witness is going to stand down, I will have to ask all the questions leading up to my next question again tomorrow morning and we'll be in the same situation probably. What - I do not have an objection if we adjourn at this stage, but I think I just want to ask her one more question because the questions that, the groundwork to ask the next question. But if the witness is really distressed I'm not going to stand in her way to take the adjournment and to relax. I just hope we won't have the same situation tomorrow, and it will obviously take some time to get to the same point where I am now to ask that question.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: What about the proposal that we excuse her at this stage and then call another witness and then bring her in tomorrow morning, when she would have relaxed overnight?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I'm not going to be unfair. If she needs the adjournment I won't stand in her way.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Mr Strydom - you've heard what Mr Strydom has said in terms of laying down the foundation to the questions which if we break now without him completing this line, he would have to take her through the same motions again. Is it not desirable that he should finish this line and then we adjourn? But if Ms Molete is not in a position to continue now, we will excuse her and then deal with another witness and we will deal with her tomorrow morning.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, she's not comprehending, she's not understanding anymore what Mr Strydom is doing. I think if we start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning she would have had a night's rest, she will be in a far better frame of mind than she is now.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: And perhaps what we should do is to lead the evidence-in-chief of the next witness.

MR STRYDOM: That will be in order.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you can commence cross-examination tomorrow morning.

MR STRYDOM: I accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: You accept that. Yes, very well.

MS PRETORIUS: Chairperson, may I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies?

MR LOWIES: I have nothing to say, I have no opinion.

I have no contribution we'd like to make, I fall in with whatever you decide.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PRETORIUS: The only problem I can possibly foresee for the next witness is that is may be a part-heard by Friday when we adjourn and especially if being a victim I don't think it's fair to get the victim halfway and then adjourn for a couple of weeks and come back. I don't know, but if Mr Berger has no problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: She won't be part-heard.

CHAIRPERSON: ... that is the consequence which we'd have to live with unfortunately, the manner in which these proceedings are proceeding.

Mr da Silva, do you ...

MR DA SILVA: I abide by the Committee's decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BOTHA: I abide by the Commission's decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mey?

MR MEY: I abide, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MS TANZER: I also abide, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Why is it that when you're right in front of me I can't see you? I think maybe you should wave a flag. I suppose if you want to hide something you've got to put it right in front of the eyes.

Very well. Ms Molete?

MS F MOLETE: Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: We understand and we are satisfied that you are no longer in a position to carry on with your evidence, at least for the time being. We will therefore excuse you from the witness stand. Will you return tomorrow morning for further cross-examination?

MS F MOLETE: Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: We've lost a great deal of time. I know that counsel come from Johannesburg and Pretoria, is there a possibility that we might start earlier than 9 o'clock, to make up for the lost time?

MR BERGER: Yes, we'll come early.

MS PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well okay, if counsel can just co-operate in that regard I would appreciate it. I take it Mr Lowies, you'll abide with the decision of the majority?

MR LOWIES: Is the word for it "under protest"? Yes, Chairman, I'll abide.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, very well.

MR BERGER: We'll make arrangements for Ms Molete to come by taxi because otherwise she won't get here earlier if she has to come by bus.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, half past eight, quarter to nine.

MS PRETORIUS: Half past eight is fine, Chair.

MR MALINDI: Yes, I support ...

MR BERGER: Half past eight it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Half past eight, okay. Very well, we will then - will you make sure that you are here at half past eight tomorrow morning?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And your legal representative will ensure that you are here by then.

MS F MOLETE: I thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS CAMBANIS: Chair, may I excuse myself for a few minutes?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BERGER: My learned friend, Mr Malindi will lead the next witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Yes, Mr Malindi?

MR MALINDI: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, the next witness will be Mrs Hilda Monokoane; M-O-N-O-K-O-A-N-E.

MR MALINDI: The witness will testify in Sesotho, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Mrs Monokoane, will you state your full names please.

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni. Mr Malindi?

EXAMINATION BY MR MALINDI: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mrs Monokoane, were did you reside in June of 1992?

MS MONOKOANE: I stayed at Boipatong.

MR MALINDI: What was the house address in Boipatong?

MS MONOKOANE: 544 Bafokeng Street.

MR MALINDI: On the 17th of June 1992, is there anything of significance that happened that you know of?

MS MONOKOANE: There is something of significance that happened, I was attacked in the house.

MR MALINDI: What time did this attack take place, if you can remember.

MS MONOKOANE: I cannot remember the time.

MR MALINDI: Can you tell the Committee how this attack occurred when you first realised that it was taking place.

MS MONOKOANE: The attack started whilst we were seated. I heard the window breaking and I asked my husband: "What is taking place outside?". We stood up ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, we would ask the witness to take it slowly please.

CHAIRPERSON: Ma'am would you please speak slower so that the interpreter can have time to interpret what you are saying. Do you understand that?

MS MONOKOANE: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Sorry, you were saying that you heard a window breaking, you asked your husband what's happening and you stood up to look at the window to see what was happening.

MR MALINDI: Whose window was breaking at that time, your window or neighbours?

MS MONOKOANE: What was breaking were my windows.

MR MALINDI: Besides your husband were there other people in the house?

MS MONOKOANE: Yes, Sir, there were others.

MR MALINDI: Could you please name the other people who were in the house.

MS MONOKOANE: It was Moses Monokoane and Miriam Monokoane and Alicia Monokoane and Elias.

MR MALINDI: Are those all the people who were in the house?

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: You say after uttering those words to your husband you stood up to look as to what was happening.

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: And what did you, your husband and other members of the family do?

MS MONOKOANE: At that time my husband stood at the passage to look.

MR MALINDI: And then what happened thereafter?

MS MONOKOANE: Then a spear appeared at the door.

MR MALINDI: And after that what happened? If you can relate the whole incident of the attack.

MS MONOKOANE: They broke down the door. They kicked the door inside. It was a wooden door.

MR MALINDI: And then what happened?

MS MONOKOANE: At the time they kicked the door I hid myself.

MR MALINDI: During this attack, were you personally attacked?

MS MONOKOANE: It was at the time I was hiding.

MR MALINDI: And during the duration of that attack did you see any member of the family being attacked?

MS MONOKOANE: I did not see them but where I was hiding I heard them.

MR MALINDI: Is there anything in particular that you heard that was uttered during this attack?

MS MONOKOANE: Yes, Sir, there is.

MR MALINDI: What did you hear?

MS MONOKOANE: I heard at the time my husband started shouting, saying: "Zulu, what have I done to you when I worked with you?"

MR MALINDI: After you heard that did you hear any other things being said?

MS MONOKOANE: Yes, I did. At the time they have attacked my daughter-in-law and my daughter.

MR MALINDI: What is it that you heard?

MS MONOKOANE: The other one who got into my daughter-in-law's room stabbed her with this spear.

MR MALINDI: These words that you heard, could you link them to any particular person?

MS MONOKOANE: The person I may say might have said those words has since passed away.

MR MALINDI: Is that your husband?

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: Now after this attack at your house, did you discuss this attack with you - in fact before I ask that question, when did your husband die?

MS MONOKOANE: In 1996.

MR MALINDI: Before your husband died did you discuss this attack with him?

MS MONOKOANE: Yes, I did.

MR MALINDI: Did he tell you anything in particular about this attack?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, if the witness is now going to state what her late husband to her I submit it's hearsay evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Malindi?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, if she relates the late husband said to her it would not be hearsay, it will be something that she herself can testify about. If it is something that her husband experienced himself and then told to her, then that would constitute hearsay and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you want to the witness to say? I mean you know what the witness said.

MR MALINDI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to lead - you know that you can't just lead hearsay evidence unless it falls within the exception of the 1998 Evidence Act.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the witness heard her husband utter certain words and her husband must have later told her what had happened to him and who he identified as one of the attackers. That is what I want to put to this witness. And Chairperson, I submit that if it is hearsay it will fall within the exceptions that will be allowed in the circumstances.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: You see, to the extent that this, that evidence is going to be highly prejudicial to the person that is implicated, we are disposed of not allowing that evidence to be led unless you can convince us that there is a good basis for it.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the person who will be identified is a person whose name has previously been identified in these hearings and a person who is represented.

CHAIRPERSON: If it is highly prejudicial against that person, we are disposed not to allow the evidence of what he was told who the person was, identifying the person.

Yes Mr Strydom, do you have anything to add?

MR STRYDOM: Ja, to fall within the ambit of the Act, there are seven criteria, which I can't mention now, but one of them is if it's highly prejudicial then it would not be allowed. That's one. I would in any event say at this stage that no basis has been laid for that evidence to be accepted.

CHAIRPERSON: Well since I understand the criteria, one of them is that the witness who made the statement must be shown to be unavailable to give evidence, he himself or herself, and secondly, if it is in the interest of justice to allow the evidence, and thirdly, one has to consider how prejudicial the evidence is. But at the end of the day it's a discretionary matter as to whether or not that has to be led and I'm satisfied that it doesn't fall within any of those. The Acts asks us for our discretionary ...(intervention)

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the person who can give evidence as to identifying who it was being referred to as: "Zulu, you are doing this to me when I've worked with you for such a long time", is dead, it's the witness' husband. And Chairperson, I would submit that this evidence at this stage can be allowed and then it is the property(?) value thereof that can be weighed at a later stage and the Committee can use that discretion ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well we've heard the evidence from her indicating what she overheard. Is that going to take it any further than that? Because we have heard the evidence of what she herself heard. I mean, what else is there? She heard what was said.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I will abide by the ruling.

Mrs Monokoane, in your mind, when you heard your husband uttering these words did you conclude in your mind who he was referring to?

MS MONOKOANE: I reached the conclusion that he knows this person, he knows these persons because he has been working with them for a long time.

MR MALINDI: Do you know any Zulu that your husband has worked with for a long time?

MS MONOKOANE: My husband worked at Iscor, worked with everybody at Iscor.

MR MALINDI: And when your husband referred the Zulu who was attacking him, with whom he had worked for a long time, do you know who he was referring to?

MS MONOKOANE: The person I knew was the same Vanana Zulu.

MR MALINDI: Besides seeing the attackers who came into your house, is there anything else that you saw during this attack?

MS MONOKOANE: I have already stated that during the attack I did hide myself, but as I came out of hiding I found blood all over the place.

MR MALINDI: After the attack, did you observe anything that's relevant to the attack itself?

MS MONOKOANE: I cannot remember, Sir.

MR MALINDI: During or after the attack, did you see anything outside?

MS MONOKOANE: Nothing at all. I never went outside, I was helping the children inside.

MR MALINDI: Thank you, Mrs Monokoane. No further questions, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, are you in a position to commence your cross-examination? I know I have said we will lead the evidence-in-chief, but ...

MR LOWIES: Can you proceed or do you want ...

MR LOWIES: No, I can proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: You can proceed, very well.

MR LAX: Can I just - before you do. The bundle GG refers to a statement by this person, but I can't - is it Miriam Monokoane? But there's nothing there with the surname Monokoane that I can find.

MR STRYDOM: Ja, I think the reference is too that she, a Miriam Monokoane testified in the criminal trial. That is what we have, not the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Now is there a statement by Hilda Monokoane?

MR LAX: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a statement?

MR LAX: It's shown as number 7 on this list, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

MR LAX: I can't find it in my bundle. It should be between Anna Mbatha and Diana Maneyka, but there's nothing there, in this bundle. It's obviously missing.

CHAIRPERSON: What about - Mr Berger, do you have it?

MR BERGER: No, we don't have any statement.

MR STRYDOM: We have the statement of Miriam Monokoane, and she testified at the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but not this witness.

MR STRYDOM: Not this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay. Okay so there is only - as I understand the position, Miriam Monokoane is somebody else is it?

MR STRYDOM: It's the family members that lives at the same house, 544 Bafokeng Street. I think the witness mentioned her name.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no statement by this witness, is that correct?

MR LOWIES: Not as far as we know, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, alright. I may have jumped you, Mr Strydom, but do you have any questions to ask of this witness?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I prefer it if my learned friend does the cross-examination. If there's something left out I'll ask questions, but at this stage I haven't got questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. It's about that time of the day.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: I hear you, Chairman.

Mrs Monokoane, did you give evidence in the criminal matter, either at Delmas or at Pretoria?

MS MONOKOANE: I have never given evidence at a criminal trial. The person who did so was my husband.

MR LOWIES: And do I understand you correctly, his name was Moses, or am I wrong? - or is he Elias?

MS MONOKOANE: Moses is my son.

MR LOWIES: What is the name of your husband.

MS MONOKOANE: My husband was George Monokoane.

MR LOWIES: George?

MS MONOKOANE: That's correct.

MR LOWIES: Now I would just like to put to you that in the criminal trial there were a few Zulu accused, I mean their surnames were Zulu, do you know Nkambuzana Bernard Zulu? He was accused number 1, for record purposes, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just get the question straight. There were a few accused with the surname Zulu.

MR LOWIES: Z-U-L-U.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Okay, do you want to give those to us or do you want to - are you giving them to the witness?

MR LOWIES: I'm giving it to her.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR LOWIES: The first one was Nkambuzana Bernard Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you just spell the name.

MR LOWIES: N-K-A-N-B-U-Z-A-N-A. Sorry, let me spell it again: N-K-A-M-B-U-Z-A-N-A. I'm sorry, Chairman, I may have confused you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...-M-B-U-Z-A-N-A?

MR LOWIES: That's right, and the second name is Bernard: B-E-R-N-A-R-D. Then ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, is that the second name of Nkambuzana or is it ...

MR LOWIES: Ja, the second name of accused number 1, in the criminal trial.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you're going to ask her about these individuals, is it not better perhaps to go through them individually? Ask her whether she knows this one.

MR LOWIES: Do you know this chap?

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know every a single one of them.

MR LOWIES: So I take it you can't also say whether he worked with your husband at Iscor.

MS MONOKOANE: Nkambuzana, I do not know that person.

MR LOWIES: Then accused number 10 was a chap by the name of Amos Velenkosini Zulu; V-E-L-E-N-K-O-S-I-N-I, one word. Do you know this person?

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know them at all. There isn't anything regarding Xhosa in my house.

MR LOWIES: Do you know accused number 47: Jotham Zulu: J-O-T-H-A-M?

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know the person.

MR LOWIES: There was a chap who was accused number 56: Sifiso Phinda Zulu. I spell Sifiso: S-I-F-I-S-O, Phinda; P-H-I-N-D-A. Do you know this person?

MS MONOKOANE: I have already stated that neither Zulu nor Xhosa is used in my house or people of such names are in my house.

INTERPRETER: I would take it that that is the answer from the witness.

MR LOWIES: Do you know ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What you're being asked is whether you know these individuals whose names are being read to you. So your answer should be yes, I know them or I don't know them. It is necessary for counsel to read all these names to you, do you understand that?

MS MONOKOANE: Yes, I do.

MR SIBANYONI: And if I may add, Mr Chairperson - and these names are not purported to be names of the people in your house, but are the names of the people who were charged in connection with the Boipatong incident.

MS MONOKOANE: Well I do not know them.

MR LOWIES: Do you know a chap by the name of Vanana Zulu?

MS MONOKOANE: I know the person.

MR LOWIES: Have you met him personally?

MS MONOKOANE: No, I have not talked to him.

MR LOWIES: Have you ever met him yourself?

MS MONOKOANE: I have been meeting him here when we assemble here at the hearings.

MR LOWIES: So you did not know him before '92?

MS MONOKOANE: I did know him, he stayed at Serela.

MR LOWIES: Did you meet him in '92, or before?

MS MONOKOANE: No, I have not met him.

MR LOWIES: Do you know where he stayed in Serela?

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know. He stayed at Bafokeng, at upper Bafokeng.

MR LOWIES: Did he stay there personally?

MS MONOKOANE: I'm not sure about that.

CHAIRPERSON: What you know is that he had a house in Bafokeng, somewhere in Bafokeng Street.

MS MONOKOANE: That is where he, he married in Bafokeng. His house was in Majola Street.

MR LOWIES: When did you know that his house - sorry, you say that his house was in Majola Street, when did you know this for the first time?

MS MONOKOANE: What thing are you referring to? May you please repeat the question, Sir.

MR LOWIES: According to you he had a house in Majola Street, when did you learn about this fact?

MS MONOKOANE: He was a person who stayed at Serela, long ago.

MR LOWIES: Could you just repeat, what did your husband say - this is the last point I want to canvass with you, I won't be long with you. What precisely did your husband say when he said the words about Zulu? - during the attack.

MS MONOKOANE: It was when he had attacked her and hitting him and that is when he said: "Zulu, is it you who is doing this to me when I have worked with you for so long?"

MR LOWIES: Isn't it possible that he referred to a man by virtue of his race, saying to him you're a Zulu person? His ethnic group instead of his surname?

MS MONOKOANE: That is where I do not know, Sir.

MR LOWIES: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOWIES

CHAIRPERSON: Do we know where these individuals worked, if at all they worked?

MR LOWIES: They're not known to me at all. I have no instructions regarding that. You mean, Chairman, the accused persons that I've ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the individuals.

MR LOWIES: No, no, I - hang on, sorry Chairman, I apologise, we may have in the charge sheet.

CHAIRPERSON: I think your client wants to say something to you.

MR LOWIES: Chair, could we take the adjournment regarding this, I'd like to get instructions, there are a few names. I see my client wants to draw my attention to ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's just see whether you can ...

MR LOWIES: May I have your permission to consult with Mr Khanyile?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR LOWIES: Thanks.

MR LAX: Mr Khanyile, just come up.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR LOWIES: Thank you, Chair. My instructions are from Mr Khanyile, although he's not my client, he acts as my interpreter, that all these people that I've mentioned the names of, work at Iscor indeed. He says that Mr Jotham Zulu, for instance, is here today and he is an Iscor worker. He's sitting somewhere in the back.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

ADV SIGODI: Mr Lowies, sorry. Do you have instructions as to when these people started working at Iscor?

MR LOWIES: No, but I get. Well I'll try to get, but no, I have no instructions.

ADV SIGODI: And also if they were working at Iscor at the time of the attack.

MR LOWIES: No, I haven't got instructions regarding that, but I took it from the consultation that I had, they were working there then.

CHAIRPERSON: Well don't take it like that.

MR LOWIES: No, well he confirms with me that it's the situation.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you have to take proper instructions whether they were.

ADV SIGODI: And how long they had been working at Iscor.

MR LOWIES: ...(indistinct). I can take it no further. I'm sorry.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR LOWIES: Thank you. I have the following instructions, Chair. Amos Velikasi(sic) Zulu was definitely working there at the time of the attack, he's now on pension.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, he's on pension.

MR LOWIES: Jotham Zulu working there for longer than 20 years.

MR LOWIES: Sifiso Phinda Zulu, according to this person, may work there now but he does not know what the situation was ... Let me rephrase, Chairperson, I started with the wrong name and I apologise. Everything I was wrong. Let me start again. Nkambuzana Bernard Zulu did definitely work there in '92, he's now on pension.

CHAIRPERSON: So that is the one that, you should have started with him?

MR LOWIES: I'm sorry, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, so we'll simply make an arrow here, right. Amos Velenkosini?

MR LOWIES: He thinks he works there now but he does not know whether at that stage he worked there.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR LOWIES: Mr Qwambelani Buthelezi I think knows that he's been working there.

CHAIRPERSON: What about Jotham?

MR LOWIES: Jotham Zulu works there for 20 years.

CHAIRPERSON: At least that's one thing that was correct. Alright.

MR LOWIES: Sifiso Phinda Zulu, not sure whether he worked there then, has a suspicion he works there at present.

MR LAX: So the suspicion regarding whether he works there applies to both Sifiso and to Amos?

MR LOWIES: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, yes?

MR LOWIES: That's all, thank you Chairman, that I know of.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, is Mr Lowies saying that all these persons were present during the attack?

CHAIRPERSON: No, these persons were working at Iscor in 1992 and they were accused persons at the trial. That's all I'll answer.

MR LOWIES: No, the point is not, I'm not implicating them on behalf of my clients or anything, all I said is they were working there and they were accused persons, fullstop.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Pretorius?

MS PRETORIUS: I have no questions, Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS PRETORIUS

MR DA SILVA: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR DA SILVA

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

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

MS PRETORIUS: Mr Mey has no questions, Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MEY

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS TANZER: I just have one question.

Did you know whether your husband worked closely with Vanana Zulu, when he was at Iscor?

MS MONOKOANE: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR LAX: Just repeat your answer, the mike wasn't on.

MS MONOKOANE: My husband worked at Iscor Medical Station as a nurse there.

MS TANZER: My questions was, did you know whether he worked closely with Vanana Zulu, while working for Iscor?

MS MONOKOANE: I would not know that point because they are at the firm and I am not there.

MS TANZER: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS TANZER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got a question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: You made mention of Miriam Monokoane. I just want to put to you she testified at the criminal trial and not your husband, but according to her testimony she heard the following at the stage when the people came into your house, as far as I can recall, Bafokeng Street.

CHAIRPERSON: You say ...

MR LAX: George.

MR STRYDOM: No it's Miriam who testified, George did not testify.

MR LAX: You're saying George didn't testify, Miriam testified.

MR BERGER: It has not been interpreted for the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Mrs Monokoane, what counsel is putting to you firstly is that according to the court records your husband did not testify at the trial. Do you have any comment on that or don't you know?

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know, Sir, because he would leave with my daughter-in-law when they were called.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and is your daughter-in-law Miriam?

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the second aspect of the question is that according to the records only Miriam, that is your daughter-in-law, testified but you don't know that.

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know that Sir, because they were first from home to that place.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Strydom.

MR STRYDOM: Now from Miriam's evidence it appears that she was in fact asked if she heard the people that came in say anything. That appears in volume 14 on page 1585, towards the bottom of the page. Now she was asked

"Did you hear any people talk at any stage?"

That's now with reference to after they had been in the house, came into the house and her answer was:

"Yes, when they came into the house - yes, as they were coming into the house they asked: 'Where are the dogs'?"

And then she used the Zulu words:

"Zipi izinja"

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: So did you also hear that?

MS MONOKOANE: At the time they entered the door, after they had kicked the door inside.

MR STRYDOM: And she didn't state anything further in answer to that question, and specifically did not state that she heard your late husband saying anything. She doesn't state that. I just want to put that to you.

MS MONOKOANE: I would not be able to answer that because I do not know.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malindi, do you have any re-examination? I beg your pardon, Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Malindi?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MALINDI: Just a few questions, Chairperson.

Mrs Monokoane, where was your daughter-in-law Miriam during the attack?

MS MONOKOANE: She was in the bedroom.

MR MALINDI: And where was your husband?

MS MONOKOANE: He was standing at the door of our bedroom.

MR MALINDI: And where were you?

MS MONOKOANE: I was hiding.

MR MALINDI: Where?

MS MONOKOANE: Underneath the bed.

MR MALINDI: Of which bedroom?

MS MONOKOANE: In my daughter's bedroom.

CHAIRPERSON: Which daughter?

MS MONOKOANE: There is a daughter of mine who was also stabbed, she is still at school.

MR MALINDI: Can you say what the distance more-or-less is between where your husband was and the bedroom where Miriam was in? Chairperson, I think the interpretation is no - the question that I asked. I'm asking the distance between where ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Put the question in Sotho. Put the question to her in Sotho if you can.

MR MALINDI: Oh, okay, Mr Chairman.

Mrs Monokoane, would you tell us the distance between the room where your daughter-in-law Miriam, was sleeping and where your husband was attacked?

MS MONOKOANE: Miriam's room is at the passage as you walk out of the sitting-room and my husband's room is on the left.

MR MALINDI: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat the answer, I didn't catch that. Miriam's room is where?

MS MONOKOANE: It is on the right of the passage as you leave the dining-room.

CHAIRPERSON: And does this room open to the passage?

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And where was your husband?

MS MONOKOANE: He was in our bedroom.

CHAIRPERSON: And does this bedroom also open into the passage?

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct, the passage that leads to the kitchen.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this a separate passage from the one that you referred to earlier on, to which Miriam's room leads to or is it the same passage?

MS MONOKOANE: I'm referring to two passages. These passages, the other one is from Miriam's room and my room. They are separate passages.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Yes, thank you. Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I said I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I beg your pardon. Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment now and we will return tomorrow morning at half past eight.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS