Amnesty Hearings

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Motsamai, you will find in front of you three sets of papers. There is a bundle A, bundle B and a bundle C. Those are the papers of my attorney which have now been placed before you and to which we will refer. Yesterday, if I could remind you, you told this Committee that you went to Pretoria, because you thought that a lawyer was being arranged for you by Erasmus for your amnesty application. Do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is what I thought.

MR VISSER: And you told, you told the Committee also that you saw no reason why you had to tell either Erasmus or Mamome or anyone else that you had applied for amnesty. Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: When we adjourned, Mr Motsamai, I referred you to bundle B, page 29. Will you please turn to that page? Have you got it in front of you?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I have got that.

MR VISSER: You told the Committee yesterday that when arriving in Pretoria you first had a general discussion, all of you, with Mr Wagenaar and thereafter he spoke to each of you individually. Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And when he spoke to you personally and individually - Mr Motsamai, do you have a problem?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not have a problem.

MR VISSER: When he spoke to you personally did he ask you to tell him the truth? In other words, if you knew something about any of the persons that were outside the room, you were invited to tell him. Did that happen?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is not correct.

MR VISSER: All right. Did he then ask you what you, what your version is in regard to the amnesty application of Mr Ngo?

MR MOTSAMAI: He never asked me for an observation of my side, about Mr Ngo's amnesty application.

MR VISSER: Who told him what is stated in your affidavit from page 29 to 31? Who told him those facts?

MR MOTSAMAI: He looked through Ngo's amnesty application. I told him what was contained in here so that I could leave that office. I wanted to leave that office altogether, because I could see there was something happening there.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, why did you not tell Mr Wagenaar that you had applied for amnesty?

MR MOTSAMAI: I did not want to tell him because of the following reasons. I was amongst people I knew what kind of people they were.

MR VISSER: And what kind of people were they, Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: They did not explain to you and I think they will never explain to you. They are people who are very cruel. They would never tell you what kind of people they are. I worked with them, I know what kind of people they are.

MR VISSER: Let us not mince words, let us not, - Mr Motsamai, with all due respect to you, I find it terribly disturbing if you keep on moving around and knocking the mike around, please. Let us not mince words, Mr Motsamai. Did you think they would kill you if you told Mr Wagenaar that you had applied for amnesty?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would never tell him, because I left that place knowing the first time that they, he was, what kind of person he was. I would not tell him.

MR VISSER: Did you think, did you think that the persons, your colleagues, that were there with you would kill you if they knew that you told Mr Wagenaar that you had applied for amnesty?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And since the end of March, when we first came to Bloemfontein, everybody knew that you had applied for amnesty. Is that not correct, Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: They knew.

MR VISSER: And has anybody threatened or attempted to kill you, any of those people?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sir, please listen to me, you take this very lightly. I say these people have got deep feelings even though they did not threaten me, timeously my life was in danger.

MR VISSER: You see, Mr Motsamai, you were invited by Mr Wagenaar in privacy in his office where the two of you were alone to tell him what you wanted to tell him. I put it to you. Do you agree with that?

MR MOTSAMAI: I told him what he asked from me and he wanted us to deny all that thing, all of us who were there. Even though I tried to explain to him that, Sir, as it is stated there, I wanted everybody to come and account before the TRC. Then he did not agree with me. That brings some sort of feelings to me. I can be in danger at any time.

MR VISSER: Are you suggesting, are you suggesting that you were in danger from something that Mr Wagenaar might do to you? Is that what you are suggesting?

MR MOTSAMAI: Mr Wagenaar is Mr Wagenaar. People I was with had independent minds. He would not know what they were thinking and even up to date he does not know what they are thinking.

MR VISSER: I will repeat the question. Are you suggesting that Mr Wagenaar would do something to you if you told him the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: I cannot tell what decision he would come to.

MR VISSER: I am asking you what you thought, Mr Motsamai. Why did you not tell him that you applied for amnesty?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know how many times must I repeat this. I did not tell him that I made an application for amnesty after hearing his words and the decision that he wanted us to take, that we must do all these things together.

MR VISSER: All right. I am putting it to you, Mr Motsamai, that you knew very well why you were going to Pretoria and that it was as a result of a notification which you received from the TRC because you were implicated in the application for amnesty of Mr Ngo and there was no other reason and you knew it.

MR MOTSAMAI: It is not as you state. Those are your own words, not mine.

MR VISSER: And your evidence was that you went to Pretoria, because you were tricked by Mr Erasmus and Mr Mamome. Is that not correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: They did trick me. Even all those people did, they were tricked. I have the evidence, if they could come here as adults and speak the truth, they were tricked.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I promise you, they will all come and give evidence and all of them will deny what you are telling this Committee. All the ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, they have come together as a clique, they are a conspiracy now.

MR VISSER: Yes, and you are the only one that is telling the truth? And you are the only one that is telling the truth, they are all lying? Is that so?

MR MOTSAMAI: I am telling the truth.

MR VISSER: Well, let us look at what you said in your affidavit, paragraph two. You said that during the week of the 10th to the 14th of April 1997 you received a notification in terms of Section 19(4) of the TRC from the TRC in which you were notified that you are implied in the amnesty application of Mr Ngo - you see that at the top of the page, Mr Chairman - of Mr Ngo. That was the truth. Is that ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: Not translated.

MR VISSER: I do not hear anything.

INTERPRETER: He was asking which page and which paragraph, but you have already repeated it. I was just putting it to him as stated by you, Sir.

MR MOTSAMAI: What is your question on that paragraph?

MR VISSER: That paragraph is the truth, is it not?

MR MOTSAMAI: That paragraph tells the truth.

MR VISSER: In paragraph three you stated that you studied the application of Mr Ngo, personally, and you deny the allegations in so far as you are implicated therein. Did you say that in your affidavit?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sir, please, listen to me, pay attention.

MR VISSER: Listen, I am not your child, Mr Motsamai. Do you understand me? Just answer the questions and leave the personal attack out of it.

MR MOTSAMAI: I am also not your child. Listen here, this I did under the directions of the person who is seated next to me. All this, I did under instructions by, I am taking this as a whole. I am taking this as a whole, all of this that is contained in here. I did not say to him he must be my counsel here, I never signed that he must come here and be my attorney here.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, is it now your evidence that Mr Wagenaar, in fact, told you what to say in this affidavit? Is that what you are now saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know how to answer you, because I said to you I do not agree with all this that is contained in this affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he sit and write things down while you were in the room with him, Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: He was writing, Sir, and whilst writing he was answering from Nelson Ngo's application. He was writing from his mind, I did not state anything in this affidavit. I do not know how many times must I repeat this.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he read to you what he was writing?

MR MOTSAMAI: He did read that to me.

MR VISSER: Is that all from the Chair, Mr Chairman? Thank you Mr Chairman. Did he tell you to say in your affidavit that you know Ngo for many years? Did he tell you to say that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Must I repeat this, Sir, that this is the person who wrote here, responding from what was contained in Ngo's amnesty application. I do not know how to put it to you.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, do you have a problem understanding the interpretation of the questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, he has told you, as I understand it, many times, that he did not tell Mr Wagenaar anything. Mr Wagenaar wrote things down and told him.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with great respect to the Chair, I am asking him whether Wagenaar told him to say that he knew Ngo. That, I would submit, with great respect, is a perfectly fair question for him to reply to.

CHAIRPERSON: How many times has he replied to it by telling you he did not say things, Wagenaar said them.

MR VISSER: All right. Let me ask you this, one last question. Is your evidence that nothing in this affidavit is your own evidence, all of it is what Wagenaar told you to say? Is that your evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you cannot get away from "told you to say", you repeat that every time. Are you not putting to him, is everything in this affidavit what Wagenaar wrote?

MR VISSER: Did you understand that question put by the Chair? Is everything in this affidavit something which Wagenaar wrote and which you did not tell him to write?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You are quite sure of that, Mr Motsamai, that everyone of these, you had an opportunity to read this affidavit now, that every, all the information contained in there came from Mr Wagenaar, none of it came from you?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct. He just looked where my names appeared from the, from Mr Ngo's application and denies such allegations and wrote in this affidavit with his hand.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with that question in mind, oh, that answer in mind, I am not going to take him through every paragraph of this affidavit and I will leave the rest for argument later. You know what it means to swear under oath, to speak the truth, do you not, Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was the statement which Mr Wagenaar wrote down typed out while you were in Pretoria on the same day and given to you to read?

MR MOTSAMAI: I never read it. I just kept hold on this, on that paper. I wanted to leave that office.

MR VISSER: The question is whether it was given to you to read.

MR MOTSAMAI: Who did that? Nobody gave me a statement to read. I just kept hold on those papers.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these papers given to you after Mr Wagenaar had written them down, was it typed out and was it given to you?

MR MOTSAMAI: They were given to me.

MR VISSER: And you told this Committee yesterday that they were given to you to read and then Mr Mamome said he is not satisfied, that is not going to happen. Is that not what you told us yesterday?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would request you to listen to me as I speak. We received these things, Mr Wagenaar said they would be read that side before we take the oath. That is what I stated. I never said Sergeant Mamome, that comes from you.

MR VISSER: I see. Just to make it absolutely plain, you say yesterday you never said Mamome said he does not want it like that? You never said that?

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: No, Mr Chairman, he is misleading. The witness is denying that they were read. He is saying that I said that the statement, we received the statement and Wagenaar said they will be read in the other office. That is what the witness is denying.

MR VISSER: I will repeat the question to you. Did you or did you not say yesterday that Mamome said he does not want it like that, referring to the reading of the affidavits before you signed them?

CHAIRPERSON: Was that not reading the affidavits in public? He said he was going to read them, my recollection is he said he was going to read them to all of them and Mamome said he did not want that. That was a general reading of each of their affidavits to the group.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of the evidence. I withdraw that question. Just one last question on this issue, Mr Motsamai. If you wanted to read your affidavit, would you say that you had the fullest opportunity to do so before you went to sign it?

MR MOTSAMAI: If I wanted to.

MR VISSER: Did you, in fact, read it before you signed it?

MR MOTSAMAI: I did not read it.

MR VISSER: And when you signed it were you asked to take the oath, to say that it is the truth that you, that is contained in the affidavit and that you understand that those to be the facts according to your personal knowledge. Were you asked that?

MR MOTSAMAI: What I stated here, the times stated in here are the same. The date stamp that is here corresponds with the date that I have stated and this is what I stated yesterday. Nobody was asked to confirm the contents of the affidavits. All the papers were put on the table and everybody signed. The dates are the same, the time is the same. That shows that the person who signed here, this Captain here, did not work according to the Law.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, Mr Motsamai, did you intend to sign an affidavit, you personally, did you intend to sign an affidavit? It does not matter what anybody else did or did not do, your intention.

MR MOTSAMAI: I was not intending to do that. I just signed that to leave that office and come back home to Bloemfontein alive. That is the only thing that was in my mind. That is why I checked for mistakes, to see if I could find mistakes.

MR VISSER: All right. In fairness to you, apart from checking for mistakes, are you saying today that what Wagenaar wrote, apart from paragraph two, was not the truth or is there something there which is the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: The truth is what I told the TRC. The statement that I gave to the TRC is the truth. That is why I say I am here to speak the truth, not this.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I want to be fair to you. Is there anything you want to draw to the attention of this Committee in your affidavit at page 29 of bundle B which is not the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: From page 29 of bundle B, from page 29 up till to the page where I signed this affidavit, it should be page 31, there is nothing of the truth contained in here. The truth, the whole truth is what I stated here.

MR VISSER: I see.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Motsamai, the first paragraph three, sub-paragraph one,

"During 1986 I was at the security branch in Bloemfontein".

Are you now telling me that is not the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: This person here is playing with words here. Seemingly he is a good writer. At that time I was there, I was in Bloemfontein.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Motsamai, is that correct ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: That is because ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: ... or is it not correct? Is it the truth or not the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, why did you tell us just now nothing is the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know how many times must I repeat this. This person is intelligent and he expresses it on paper. He wants to force upon me, I agree that there are some facts that are correct here, when I started joining the police force.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, could you kindly tell us which facts are correct and which facts are not correct and do not start playing with words like they did.

MR MOTSAMAI: I will pick them one by one. The very first one on paragraph three.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You see, Mr Motsamai, for my part I perfectly understand why you say. You seem to look at this affidavit and the whole of it within the context of allegations against Mr Ngo and you just should, from the point of view, that you disagree with whatever stands on page 29 to 31. I think you must read sentence by sentence if you are asked whether you agree, for example, with what stands on page 29. For a minute just forget about your troubles with allegations relating to Ngo. Just look at what you are being asked and is written in Afrikaans. If you do not understand a particular paragraph, you must ask for interpretation.

MR MOTSAMAI: I understand, Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Paragraph one.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Paragraph two. Read it and tell us whether there was, there is any truth in it. Is that the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct, Sir. That is the truth.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Paragraph three.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think three you must do by sub-paragraphs, because three is over a page long. Paragraph three, the first sentence, is that true?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, Sir, at the very top, the very first sentence of paragraph three. That ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: The one that says you studied the application, you have told us that is not correct already. Do you still say that is not correct, that you did not, yourself, study the application and reasons which follow, deny the allegations where you are implicated? Is that not, is that correct or not correct? Had you, yourself, studied Ngo's application?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I did. I did read it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, would you not, because the, a problem always arises when, and I am not blaming you, because the witness also made a global statement, a problem always arises when a witness is asked what is, typically referred to as a pregnant question, in relation to a document and say, well, does this book contain the truth, and if there are a few pages involved and the witness says, well, it does contain the truth or it does not contain the truth, usually problems arise. Of course, the best way to deal with it would be to take sentence by sentence. It is laborious, but sometimes, particularly, when the contents of an affidavit are in dispute, it is the safest way to deal with it.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may we say, with respect, that we are in full agreement with Justice Ngoepe. You, we are asking you, please, to understand that we are attempting to save time and, I think, in the process, perhaps, I am wasting more time than saving time. Please bear with me, Mr Chairman, we did intend to go through it sentence by sentence and it seems that that would be the only reasonable way to do it. The Chair just asked you about whether you studied the application of Mr Ngo and you said you did read it. The next question is did you tell Mr Wagenaar that you deny the allegations of Mr Ngo in so far as he implicates you in his application?

MR MOTSAMAI: Okay. I never said that I deny those allegations. Hence, I posed a question that why can we not come before the TRC. Every one of us must come here and account. That is how I stated it.

MR VISSER: You then went on to tell us, just a moment ago, that paragraphs (i) and (ii) are correct. Did I understand you correctly? Those facts are true?

MR MOTSAMAI: Right, that is correct, but at, in the paragraph right at the top there,

"... ontken ek die beveerings waar ek geintereseer word en openeer ek die aansoek ..."

Right.

"... ontken ek die beveerings ...",

It was supposed to have been 3.1 corresponding with that I deny what is stated in here.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I do not think we understand what you are saying. Maybe if Mr Visser understands you better, but I will tell you what. I think what we are doing now is simply to ask you whether, Mr Visser, are you, is the question whether what stands there came from him or whether it is the truth?

MR VISSER: The last question was simply this. He has already told us that paragraphs three, (i) and (ii) are the correct facts. That is all I asked him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Asking him is whether what we are reading is the truth?

MR VISSER: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You see, if, as far as possible, just try to be brief and just tell us whether what is being read to you is true or not true. Forget about the grammatical arrangements of paragraphs or otherwise or sentences. I think they are going to read you sentence by sentence. All we want to know from you, very briefly, is whether that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I come in here? I think, from what I heard said, and I do not think it was all interpreted, that you were saying, Mr Motsamai, that you did not say that you opposed the application. that that is not true. Did you say that a few minutes ago?

MR MOTSAMAI: Which application are you referring to? This one?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that you did not say that you opposed Ngo's application. You told us what you said is why can we not all come before the TRC. Did I mishear you?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct, that is what I stated.

MR VISSER: All right, Mr Ngo, can we turn to page two please, page 30, top of the page.

ADV DE JAGER: Paragraph three, sub-paragraph two.

CHAIRPERSON: He said he has agreed.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay.

MR VISSER: If we can go to page 30, paragraph (iii). Do you understand Afrikaans well enough to read it for yourself and tell us whether it is correct or wrong?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: All right. Are you saying that the contents of paragraph (iii) is correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you. The next paragraph, (iv).

MR MOTSAMAI: It is a bit wrong. Let me say that is incorrect. Where it is correct is where the years are stated.

MR VISSER: Well, perhaps, just tell us what the correct facts are.

MR MOTSAMAI: That he joined the SAP. I knew him from 1985 to 1988 and this other one is correct. That I met him, I do not agree. Well, I will explain later as we continue. That is correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what you are telling us. What is not correct here?

CHAIRPERSON: Did he join the South African Police in 1985? He is reading it as saying that he joined the South African Police and during 1985 to 88, as a member of the South African Police. He met him on many opportunities in Bloemfontein. He is reading this paragraph as saying that he was in the South African Police in 1985 to 1988. Is that not what you are doing, Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is the true fact.

MR VISSER: Well, I am sorry that I am not, I do not understand, Mr Chairman, but can you just tell us, do you deny that Ngo was in the police in 1985 to 1988? Is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not deny that fact, but before he joined the SAP he was a student working with us.

MR VISSER: Yes, and the next sentence, Mr Motsamai.

"... I never worked with him as a member of the SAP, as members of the SAP ..."

Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: Than sentence is incorrect.

MR VISSER: Okay and I think you are correct in saying that it is incorrect, because, clearly, he was a member of the South African Police in Bloemfontein during the first part of 1986. We know that that is the evidence. All right, the next paragraph, (v)? Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct, because I did not have the knowledge of what was explained.

MR VISSER: Now, let us come to a more vital part of your affidavit. The next paragraph, (vi), and let me deal with this paragraph with you, Mr Motsamai. You said in this paragraph that you have no knowledge of an abduction of White Mohapi. Is that the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: I did not have the knowledge, but there were people who told me that he was kidnapped.

MR VISSER: So, you were aware of it by hearsay, is what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Right.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: The sentence then continues to say that you were definitely not involved in that abduction. Is that the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: I was never involved. However, I participated before he was arrested. Not actually participation. People who participated were those that I saw.

MR VISSER: Well, whatever that means. You then say the same applies, that means that you were definitely not involved as far as the alleged assault on Mohapi is concerned. Is that the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sir, ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Is that sentence the last sentence, is the last sentence, in fact, the truth that you had nothing to do with the assault on Mr Mohapi, Mr White Mohapi?

MR MOTSAMAI: I want to ask you this. Are you referring this to Ngo or this to me? Is it based on Ngo' evidence?

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I thought it is perfectly clear what we are doing. We are reading from your affidavit and I am simply asking you is it the truth what is written in this affidavit that you are supposed to have stated that you have, that you were definitely ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Now you are getting onto the stated and you are going to raise all sorts of difficulties, Mr Visser. I thought we were merely asking is it true or not. Is it true or not that you were not, in any way, connected with the assault on Mohapi?

MR MOTSAMAI: I was involved when we instructed him to do frog-jumps.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, the incident to which this paragraph refers is the kidnapping of Mr Mohapi and I am told, listen to me, I am told that when you were discussing this in Mr Wagenaar's office you used bundle C, page 12, as the basis for your consultations. This is what you were talking about.

MR MOTSAMAI: Are you referring to bundle C, page 12?

MR VISSER: I am, indeed, Mr Motsamai.

CHAIRPERSON: That is sub-division A in bundle C.

MR VISSER: I was just waiting for the witness to turn to page 12 and I was going to refer him, thank you Mr Chairman. It is A and the (a) which says,

"... during the course of 1986 I took part in the kidnapping of the Secretary of Cosas, White Mohapi, of Pahameng, Bloemfontein. During this incident, which occurred during the 1986 student uprisings, I was accompanied by Warrant Officer Tsoametsi, Sergeant Mamome, Constable Mtyala ..."

CHAIRPERSON: Somebody is trying to interpret this Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: I am so sorry, I forgot. So sorry. I think I should repeat it then. Thank you for reminding me.

"... during the course of 1986 I took part in the kidnapping of the Secretary of Cosas, White Mohapi, of Pahameng, Bloemfontein. During this incident, which occurred during the 1986 students uprisings, I was accompanied by Warrant Officer Tsoametsi, Sergeant Mamome, Constable Mtyala and Motsamai ...",

that is you.

"... we took Mohapi to an open veld somewhere between Bloemspruit and Shannon ..."

S H A N N O N it is spelt here,

"... where we assaulted him with hammers and crowbars. Throughout this incident we had covered our faces so that Mohapi could not recognise us and we left him in the field."

Was this not what was discussed between you and Mr Wagenaar during your private consultation with him when you went to Pretoria?

MR MOTSAMAI: We did discuss this. We did discuss this.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

MR MOTSAMAI: Again, he did this so as to mention these people where Ngo, as Ngo stated, I told him. He stated these names. That is a fact, I was not here, I was not involved. I emphasise.

MR VISSER: So, are you then saying, Mr Motsamai, that paragraph (vi) at page 30 is, in fact, correct, the last sentence? That you told Mr Wagenaar that you were in no way part of the assault on Mr Mohapi?

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the question is not fair. It is not justified to add the words "told". The question that was put is whether that is true or not. It does not go according to his evidence to say that he told Mr Wagenaar. He said that Mr Wagenaar was reading from notes and he was telling him the things that appeared from the notes.

ADV DE JAGER: He also said he denied all the names. So, he responded to what was read to him.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood that he said a moment ago, we did discuss this. That is him and Wagenaar. You told us, did you not, that you and Wagenaar discussed this?

MR MOTSAMAI: He read. Afterwards he would look at me and remove that name there. He read to me and I could hear what he did. He wanted to get rid of what Ngo was saying here, taking out all the names that, where everybody was involved in Ngo's application.

ADV DE JAGER: But let us come back now to paragraph, the (vi). What you stated there or what is stated there as far as,

"... an assault on Mr Mohapi ..."

is concerned. That is correct, is it not, as far as you were not involved in the assault on Mr Mohapi?

MR MOTSAMAI: When we come to this thing of kidnapping, but before he went to the cell, I did participate and ordered him to perform frog-jumps in the office.

ADV DE JAGER: But now you, they are referring to the assault with the hammers in the veld where he was left after the abduction, paragraph 12, that you discussed with Mr Wagenaar. Did you take part in the assault with the hammers on Mr Mohapi? Were you there?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, I was not involved there. I was not even present.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Commissioner de Jager. So, that last sentence of paragraph (vi) is correct. Can we go on to (vii). Can you read that for yourself or do you want me to read it for you?

MR MOTSAMAI: I was not involved. Mr Wagenaar took out my name as it appeared here.

MR VISSER: Is what is stated in (vii) correct, is it the truth or is it not true?

MR MOTSAMAI: I was not present in that house, I was not involved there.

MR VISSER: All right. Let us go on to (viii).

MR BRINK: Sorry, Mr Chair, I wonder in so far as sub-paragraph seven is concerned, Max Maraboela, I think there was, that was the house, if I recollect correctly, of City, City Mzuzwana.

MR VISSER: Well, that is absolutely correct, Mr Chairman, but that has nothing to do, with great respect to my learned friend, to what is written in this affidavit. Whatever the explanation may be later and whether it is correct or incorrect, it has got nothing to do with what he supposedly told Mr Wagenaar, but thank you, Robin.

MR VISSER: What do you say about paragraph (viii).

MR MOTSAMAI: That paragraph, sub-paragraph is false.

MR VISSER: Is false.

MR MOTSAMAI: I was involved here.

MR VISSER: Now, the question which I now have to ask you, listen carefully, is did you tell Mr Wagenaar that you were, in fact, involved? Did you tell him that? Just yes or no.

MR MOTSAMAI: May you repeat your question, Sir?

MR VISSER: Did you tell Mr Wagenaar that you were involved in the attack on the house and clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela at Brandfort? Yes or did you not tell him that?

MR MOTSAMAI: I did not tell him.

MR VISSER: Is that whole paragraph (viii), therefore, not the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: As he put it, as it is stated here, to me, this paragraph here is false.

MR VISSER: All right. Paragraph (ix). It is short, let me translate it for you. In that paragraph you have stated that you have knowledge of attacks on the motor vehicles of Jani Mohapi and Elia Mohapi.

MR MOTSAMAI: With respect to Jani's motor vehicle, I was involved, but with respect to Elia Mohapi's vehicle, I was not involved.

MR VISSER: All right. So, we have the first part of that sentence is not the truth. The second part of that sentence and Elia Mohapi is, in fact - have I got it wrong now? - no, the second part as far as it refers to Elia Mohapi is correct, that is the truth. You have no knowledge and you were not involved. So, that is correct. Then paragraph ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: Just give me a moment, please, before you continue. Let me answer this again. I was involved in respect of Jani Mohapi's motor vehicle, but in respect of Jani, Elia Mohapi's motor vehicle, I was not involved. I do not know that person. What is his name, the person seated next to him?

MR VISSER: Mr Wagenaar.

MR MOTSAMAI: Mr Wagenaar took my name out with, in respect to Jani Mohapi and Elia Mohapi. That is why you get Elia there.

MR VISSER: I see. So, he was half right and half wrong. All right. What about paragraph (x)? Well, in fairness to you, Mr Motsamai, I think I better put to you what is stated at bundle C, page 12 in this regard. You see, this deals with item (c) at the bottom of page 12, I am sorry (e).

MR MOTSAMAI: Which documents are you referring to?

MR VISSER: Bundle C, page 12, the last paragraph on page 12 and let me just summarise it for you. That deals with the attack, kidnapping, torture, not kidnapping, torture and eventual killing of a person to whom Mr Ngo refers to as Papie or JJ who had a UDF t-shirt on when he was found, when his body was found. Now, dealing with that incident, in paragraph (x) of your affidavit, it is stated here that you have no knowledge of the alleged assault and murder of a member of the UDF, the one that I have just referred you to. Is that the truth or is that false?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is true, I was not involved. My name was excluded out of this.

MR VISSER: Okay.

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not say I was involved here. He excluded my name here.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, Mr Ngo, because I thought I understood your answer until you gave the last bit.

CHAIRPERSON: He is Mr Motsamai.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I do not understand your last answer. Will you just repeat that please? What do you mean, I do not know, Mr Chairman, whether I missed something. I understood him to say that it is correct what is stated there.

CHAIRPERSON: That he is not involved.

MR VISSER: That he is not involved. Then he said something else which appears to suggest that he might have been involved, but ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: No, I think then he said and his name should be excluded there as far as the allegation is concerned.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Now, Mr Motsamai, your application for amnesty is a serious matter, is it not?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And is it not so that you realised full well that when you implicate someone else that is, indeed, also a very serious matter for that person?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. And may we assume, Mr Motsamai, that before you would have implicated a person in the serious crime, you would have thought very carefully about it and made quite sure that your memory was correct in doing so?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Let us talk, for a moment, about Mr Ngo. Did you visit Mr Ngo while he was in prison at any stage?

MR MOTSAMAI: Are you referring in prison? Why do you ask me that question? With, in regards to what did I visit Mr Ngo and I want to ask you at which prison did I visit Mr Ngo? Explain.

CHAIRPERSON: It is a very simple question, Mr Motsamai. Did you visit Mr Ngo when he was in prison?

MR MOTSAMAI: I never visited Mr Ngo whilst he was in prison.

MR VISSER: Well, then, I do not understand the difficulty in your answering the question. Did you, at any stage, discuss with Mr Ngo the merits of his application for amnesty?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is what you say. I never did that with Mr Ngo. That is what you are telling us.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Perhaps, you need to be advised that arguing with counsel, unnecessarily, does not necessarily help your case. It does not, necessarily, make your case better. You would help us a lot if you would just concentrate on answering questions and, perhaps, that may shorten your stay in that witness box. You do not help us, you do not help proceedings by engaging in unnecessary argument with counsel. If you know your facts, you should have no difficulties in answering simple questions.

MR VISSER: I am indebted to Justice Ngoepe. Did you see the written application of Mr Ngo at any time?

MR MOTSAMAI: No.

MR VISSER: Did you give him your written application to look at or to read at any time?

MR MOTSAMAI: There are two questions here.

MR VISSER: Well, answer them both.

MR MOTSAMAI: I never gave him my application to look at.

MR VISSER: Now, you see, Mr Motsamai, I may be mistaken, but I understood Mr Ngo, in his evidence, to say that you met each other here at the amnesty hearings, here in Bloemfontein, at this very hall earlier this year and that he showed you his application form and you showed him your application form. Would that be incorrect?

MR MOTSAMAI: I will say that is incorrect, because your meaning of when a person gives you something to look at will not be the same as you take, give him your documents to look at and read through. To give your documents to somebody and look and comparing it to reading. It is not different, you want to force me in believing that I, agreeing that Mr Ngo read through my statement. That is not correct.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Motsamai, and I have no doubt that your counsel attempt to argue that very point. So, I am going to ask you the next question. I ask you specifically, now, whether you read through the application of Mr Ngo, yes or no, at any stage?

MR MOTSAMAI: I never did that.

MR VISSER: All right.

MR MOTSAMAI: No.

MR VISSER: All right. You see, because then it becomes very difficult to understand Mr Ngo's evidence, because he told this Committee that you pointed out to him that where he applied for the burning of a house of Max Makhubalo, he was mistaken. It was, in reality, and, in fact, the house, the parental home or the home of Mr City Mzuzwana. That is what he told this Committee. Do you want me to repeat all of that? It is rather a long statement. I will repeat it for you if you wish or do you understand it?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would explain it in this manner. Maybe he did remember as he met me, because I told him a long time ago, when we attacked City Mzuzwana's home and when we came back we tricked him that we were attacking Jani Mohapi's place. That is what I told him at that time.

MR VISSER: Well, that is simply not true, is it, Mr Motsamai? I will tell you why not. Because Mr Ngo was emphatic that you told him this here at this hall, as I put to you before, in the early part of this year when we came here for the amnesty applications of you and Mr Ngo. Not earlier, this year. He was specific.

MR MOTSAMAI: You merely emphasise that I never showed him, that he knows nothing about my statements and my application. He knows nothing. You are merely emphasising.

MR VISSER: Yes, okay, and you are engaging in argument instead of answering the question. You see, Mr Motsamai, I am telling you now that you are not telling the truth, because you have attempted to suggest some reason why Mr Ngo would have known it was not the house of Max Makhubalo, but that of City Mzuzwana which, I suggest to you, is false, because he said, explicitly, you told him so here at this hall this year and that is how he knew that he was wrong with his application.

MR MOTSAMAI: No, that is not so.

MR VISSER: And, secondly, I would suggest to you that the only way in which you would have corrected him would have been, as he said, you read, either read his application or he told you, you discussed it, you exchanged notes.

MR MOTSAMAI: We never discussed anything with him. I repeat, I never showed him my statements, he did not show me his statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he not show you the portions of his statement that you were involved him?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, Sir. No, Sir. He said what he said here and I stated what I stated before the TRC and it is obvious they are quite different. We are going different ways. Nobody forced anybody here.

CHAIRPERSON: You agree that he did say here that he showed you his statement, he showed you the portion dealing with White Mohapi and you did not say anything? Did you, were you here when he said that?

MR MOTSAMAI: May you repeat the question, Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Were you here when he gave evidence saying that he showed you the portion of his statement relating to White Mohapi and that you did not say anything?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know how, I will repeat this now. He did not show me what he stated here. I was here, he did not show me that at all.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Motsamai, did you answer, give the answer a minute or two ago that you never read the application of Mr Ngo? Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: Are you referring to the application that ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: His application for amnesty.

MR MOTSAMAI: If you put it that way that the application of amnesty, the one I received from the TRC, I read through it, I did see that.

ADV DE JAGER: So, you did see it. He did not show it to you or give it to you to read?

MR MOTSAMAI: This document was given to us by the TRC, not him, personally, handing over the document to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know that there was a second application? MR MOTSAMAI: Whose application?

CHAIRPERSON: Ngo's.

MR MOTSAMAI: I did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood, I am sorry, that when we started you were saying that it is different giving somebody something to look at and giving them something to read and that you were agreeing that he gave you the statement to look at, but not to read. Did you not mean to say that?

MR MOTSAMAI: The statement I said I received was not given to me by Ngo. I do not know where that paper is. Everyone of us from the security branch had that paper.

CHAIRPERSON: No, when Mr Visser started questioning you about this aspect, he said Ngo said you met here earlier this year and showed one another your applications. You replied thereafter saying that you did not read it, that when you were given something to look at, it is not the same as being given something to read and that you never read Ngo's application.

MR MOTSAMAI: I never read through it. Everybody from the security branch received such documents. I do not know with, in respect to what is he asking me that.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you never read it?

MR MOTSAMAI: The one that I received from the TRC I read.

MR VISSER: Let us turn to your incident number one at page 146 of bundle A.

MR MOTSAMAI: 146?

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, there are papers here before this Committee relating to an inquest on the remains of one George Musi. My question to you is this, is that the man you shot in Melk Street?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: When did you decide that George Musi was the man whom you shot at Melk Street?

MR MOTSAMAI: At the time when we left for Melk Street ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, I do not understand this question and, I suppose, when he, what he did decide?

MR VISSER: Oh. Mr Chairman, my question to him was, when did he decide that George Musi was the individual whom he killed at Melk Street.

CHAIRPERSON: Is not decide the wrong word, Mr Visser? Is it not when did he know or when did he learn that George Musi was the man?

MR VISSER: Yes, yes, Mr Chairman, perhaps I should have chosen the words better. Well, let me put it to you a different way. In your application at page 146, is it not correct, Mr Ngo, that you said I cannot recall the name and the address of the deceased. That was in November 1996, last year November?

MR MOTSAMAI: Bundle, which bundle are you referring to?

MR VISSER: A.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so. That is correct.

MR VISSER: So, when did you realise that it was Mr George Musi?

MR MOTSAMAI: After that name was contained in the files. I forgot his names in full. After I contacted the TRC personnel and told them we did this and this, they took my statement. I did state, I do not deny, that I stated there that that was an unknown man. I told them to conduct researchers at Bhatu location and must go there in Melk Street and ask that man who stayed there. I would not go there. Those people would think that now here is the person who did this murder and they went to Melk Street and they investigated.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, when you said in paragraph one of Annexure A that you cannot recall the address did you mean by that the physical street address or did you mean by that being able to identify the house?

MR MOTSAMAI: I could not go and look at address. That is why at the bottom there I explain that I will point out to the TRC personnel where I did attack. I was writing here.

MR VISSER: You told that this Committee that you had a file in the security branch on Mr George Musi, did you not?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, there was a file and quite a lot of them.

MR VISSER: Quite a lot of files on Mr George Musi? Is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: I said there were a lot of files and amongst those files there was George Musi's file.

MR VISSER: And you have personal knowledge, you saw that file, did you?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: No. Well, I put it to you that I am instructed there was never a file on George Musi in the security branch.

MR MOTSAMAI: They did, they had time to conceal that fact. Even Joe Slovo's files must be disclosed and President Mandela's files must be disclosed. These files are hidden.

MR VISSER: What file of President Mandela is hidden, Mr Motsamai? What are you talking about? Is this just for sake of sensation that you are saying these things or what? Is there any merit at all in what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sir, there is merit in what I am saying. All the files, all the files.

MR VISSER: Yes, all the files.

MR MOTSAMAI: There are a lot of files. They are in hundreds, they are hidden in this manner. There was the Goldstone Commission where people applied for indemnity. I am referring here, the security personnel. There were allegations coming out of this Commission with respect to applications at the Goldstone Commission. At national all these files were collected and hidden. National Intelligence took those files and it was stated that they were taken to the farm, files and all the recordings. If they were lying to let them continue and lie to you.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Motsamai, there is no more dangerous thing than a person who has only half the facts. National Intelligence, being part of the SADF, has nothing to do with any files in the security branch. I am going to put to you, but I am not ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: But really, Mr Visser, I do not think it is relevant to this application.

MR VISSER: I will ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: (Speakers mike not on) the thing is whether there was a file of Mr Musi and whether, maybe, the file has been destroyed or whatever it, let us keep to Mr Musi's file.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman. All right. What about this person that you refer to as China? How long have you known him?

MR MOTSAMAI: I have known him for a long time.

MR VISSER: Yes, and Mabilo?

MR MOTSAMAI: I have known him for a long time also.

MR VISSER: Yes, and George Musi?

MR MOTSAMAI: I knew him from the files.

MR VISSER: But, you see, Mr Motsamai, you told this Committee that when you were instructed by Coetzee and Shaw to go and murder Mr Musi, you were told that China sometimes stays with the old man. Is that not correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: Did you not know exactly what they were talking about when they told you that, because China you have long, known for a long time?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I knew.

MR VISSER: But you did not have to look at a file to know where China lived, did you?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sir, Sergeant Mamome knew quite well where we were going. He knew the house. When I got into that office the files were open on the table. That is why we left and went straight to that house.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt for a minute, Mr Visser? You were asked by, how long you had known various people and when you were asked about Musi you said you knew him from the files.

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: My notes and my recollection is that a few minutes ago you said there was a file on George Musi, I did not see that file.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, how, if you did not see the file, can you say you knew him from the file?

MR MOTSAMAI: It is like that from the files.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you not understand when you say you did not see the file, but you mean you did not see it? What else do you mean by it?

MR MOTSAMAI: When I say I did not see the file, where they were seated, the two of them. I, what I meant was that the two files, there was George Musi's file and China's file. Mostly when we received commands they would put the files on the table and in those files, each one of the files has got a snapshot of that person.

CHAIRPERSON: So, you looked and saw a snapshot of him in the file. Is that what you are telling us now? That is how you knew him, because you had seen a snapshot of him in the file. Is that what you are saying? I just want you to clarify, please.

MR MOTSAMAI: When they took out these files, I found them on the table. Sergeant Mamome was the one who was told that we will be going to China and Mr Musi's residence.

CHAIRPERSON: You do not want to answer the question. We can merely record the fact. Carry on.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and you see, Mr Motsamai, another problem, which I suggest you have, is you, in your evidence in-chief, told this Committee quite explicitly while you were going on and on about files and hundreds of files, you said, inter alia, and I asking you whether you did, we would be given a command and we would collect the file and then went to collect the person. Is that not what you said? That is before we came ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: Are you saying we collect the file and go and collect this person? May you please elaborate.

MR VISSER: I do not want to elaborate. I am saying that is what you said, Mr Motsamai.

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not go and collect the file. The file is put on the table and we are given an instruction that we must go and collect this person. If there are a lot of people, these files are pegged on the table and not one of us who would come in that office would see those files.

MR VISSER: If it appears from the record later that you did say that we would collect the file and then go and collect the person, that evidence would be false. Is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: They would take the files and we would be given an instruction. That is when we will go and collect these people.

MR VISSER: I will take that as a yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, I just get confused here with his, I am not saying that the interpretation is wrong, but I have difficulties in understanding the evidence, literally, as it stands when the witness is suppose to be saying the files would be, will be put on the table and there would be a pile of them, but none of us would see that, those files. I am sure there is something wrong there, because if he is able to see that is a pile of files, then he is able to see them. Does he not when he says, none of us, does he not say or mean that, by saying none of us would see those files, does he not mean none of us would read them?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, you are quite right. That is the basis on which I am putting the question now, because, you see, if he said, if my note is correct, that he said we would go and collect the file and go and collect the person, it would appear, and if he said that is the case, I said that, I would have taken it further to say, well, look, if you collected the file then what did you with it, did you read it, etcetera, but that falls away now, because he says, no, I did not even say that. I did not say I went to collect the file and you are quite correct, Mr Commissioner, because, clearly, on the hypothesis which you just put to me, if the man went into the room and he saw there are two files, there could be one or two scenarios.

One is I took the file, I collected it, which he now says he did not say and, obviously, that he would have read it. The next scenario would be I saw the files, I was told it was the file of Musi and China and that is the end of the matter. So, the first scenario has now fallen away. I am now back on the second scenario, Mr Chairman, in which he says I saw the files on the table and I am just going to ask him one question. I think the Chairman has already made that quite clear, but just in fairness to the witness, I would ask him the last question on this issue and then I would like to step off it.

Mr Motsamai, ... (intervention).

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: But, Mr Chairman, I think Mr Visser is not entirely correct. As far as I understand, the evidence is that on the occasion when Mr Musi was killed, Mamome had the file on the table and then again, he then tells us about the general practice that you would go into an office and you would see a pile of documents and you would not read those documents. You would then go and arrest people. It is different. They did not go and collect Musi, they went to kill Musi and I do not know what, why Mr Visser proceeds like this while, at the end of the day, he is going to have problems with his style of cross-examination, because eventually there will not be any weight to be put to it. If he thinks he can, you know, he can use such lousy strategies, so to speak.

CHAIRPERSON: He did not say it was on Mamome's table. He said, in his evidence in-chief, when he was being led by you, that after he was fetched from where he was drinking tea as usual and had been told the command they had been given, they went to the office where they found Coetzee and Shaw. On Coetzee's table there were two files. He referred to them as he spoke to us.

"... I asked Mamome whose files they were and he told me they were China's and Musi's".

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think you have made the point. I am not going to labour the point. Mr Motsamai, is it correct that you said that your instruction from Coetzee was

"... Boysi, you must be very careful, you are going to commit a murder."

Is that what you told us? Do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And then you added that Coetzee said,

"... sometimes this boy China stays with him."

referring to the old man. Do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You know, what I would like to ask you, Mr Motsamai, is on, well, first of all. Did Coetzee say anything else? Was the instruction more refined, made more refined or defined better than what you have just heard me read to you here, your evidence was? Did he say anything else?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: Well, then, pray tell, how did you know which of these two people that were mentioned you had to go and murder? The old man or China?

MR MOTSAMAI: That was China and the old man, if China was in that house.

MR VISSER: Oh, is your evidence now that your instructions were to go and murder both China and the old man if you found them together in the same house?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you went there, on your evidence, with Mr Mamome?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And he showed you a firearm with six bullets, a 38 special?

CHAIRPERSON: You have information that it was a 38 special, have you Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: I am sorry for the word "special".

"He showed me a 38 small firearm, a small firearm which uses small bullets."

A small 38 firearm? You knew that there was a firearm, Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct. He found a firearm from Coetzee.

MR VISSER: Now, that is brand new evidence, Mr Motsamai, and I am going to treat it as such.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is not so. That is not brand new evidence.

MR VISSER: Well, I challenge you to say when you told this Committee either on paper or in your evidence, at any time whatsoever, that Coetzee gave Mamome this firearm.

MR MOTSAMAI: I said Sergeant Mamome told me that he got the gun from Coetzee. We were in the kitchen.

MR VISSER: And I put it to you that is also brand new evidence.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is not brand new evidence.

MR VISSER: Yes. You see, Mr Motsamai, I am going to suggest to you, and I am already doing so, that you make up your evidence as you go along.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that is a being a little unkind, Mr Visser. You will recall that he said that Motsamai, Mamome came into where he was drinking tea and said he had received the command that they must go to China's place.

"He said come along, we are going to commit murder there and he showed me a 38 firearm and he told, took them to Coetzee's office."

Now, he did not directly say he said he had got it from Coetzee, but is that not a very reasonable inference?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I here what you say, but we will argue otherwise. Here he is implicating a man far more than he does so before and one would have imagined, in such a serious incident as a murder, there would have been left no doubt in his evidence in-chief if that was, in fact, the facts and that is why I am putting it to him on that basis, but I will leave it there, Mr Chairman. Fact of the matter is at the very least, Mr Motsamai, on your own evidence you went there to murder China and if he were there, you would have killed him. Is that what you are telling us?

MR MOTSAMAI: There were two people, China and the old man. If China was present he would have been killed ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOTSAMAI: ... according to the command we received.

MR VISSER: Okay. You also told the Committee yesterday that if you had found any other person, a third person, in the house you would have shot him also.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: But you never told us that you received any instructions to do that, did you?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so. We would also kill the third person and afterwards they would stand by our side if there was a mistake. MR VISSER: May I enquire from Justice Ngoepe, who seems to be following the interpretation, Mr Chairman, whether the interpretation or the translation is done fairly accurately, because I am not getting answers to my questions from the witness. I am not sure whether you are following the translation.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Occasionally I do and on occasions where I feel, perhaps, it is grossly out, I think I make occasional remarks, but having said that, Mr Visser, I think that, really, it is also incumbent on the attorneys for the applicant to make sure that they listen for the interpretation themselves and to make sure that their clients version is being interpreted, Mr Memani, ... (intervention).

MR MEMANI: As your Lordship pleases.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ... and my impression so far has been that, I may be wrong, but my impression so far has been that that is not being done, because there were instances where I would have thought that the attorney would have drawn your attention to that.

MR MEMANI: As your Lordship pleases.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, it, thank you, Mr Chairman. For somebody who is not conversant in the Black language, it is a relief to know that there is somebody that is checking the evidence. So, well, let us go on, Mr Motsamai, and try to finish this year.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: While you are, why would you have killed anybody you found in the house? I mean, I am referring to the third person.

MR MOTSAMAI: That would be to stop he, that person giving evidence against us.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I want you to listen carefully. Are you saying that if somebody saw you there at that house, you were instructed to shoot him to prevent such person from identifying you? Is that the evidence or is it something different that you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is not the evidence there and that is also not the command we received, but I knew that they would stand by our side if we would find a third person there, the very one we were not commanded to kill.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Motsamai, I just wanted to clear up the fact that you never got such an instruction and you have cleared that up. Let us just emphasise one fact here. Is it correct to say that in not one single one of the incidents for which you apply for amnesty, you apply on a basis that you acted with a political objective, the basis of your applications being that you were instructed to do so and, as a member of the police, you had to obey orders. Am I correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I was supposed to receive commands from my officers.

MR VISSER: Is it also your evidence that you when you were given a command, you were told by either Coetzee or Shaw or Shaw or whoever, what the background was as to why this command was given to you. Do I understand your evidence correctly?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would be given a command only. I can make an example here.

MR VISSER: Would you like to give the example?

MR MOTSAMAI: This was an instruction I received from the office to go to Ladybrand. When I arrived there I found Jantjie who received an instructions that we must go to Lesotho, there is a person who we are going to shoot there. We went to Lesotho. Luckily that MK man escaped before we reached him. That was the instruction. There are a lot of instructions I received.

MR VISSER: So, why are you telling us this, Mr Motsamai? Are you telling us this because you want to tell the Committee that you are also, you were also involved in an attempted murder on somebody in Lesotho? Is that ... (intervention).

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: Objection, Mr Chairman, the witness is answering the question. He is saying that I was not told reasons. For instance, I was sent to Lesotho, I went there without knowing the reason.

CHAIRPERSON: He said we had to go there and shoot someone.

MR MEMANI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood his evidence, he said Jantjies said we had instructions to go to Lesotho to shoot someone and we went there, but luckily he had left before we got there. Is that not what he said?

MR MEMANI: That is what he said, but what I am objecting to is the insinuation that he is not answering the question. He is saying I did go to Lesotho without giving, without being told what I was, what the reason for the instruction was.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and what Mr Visser was putting to him is are you now saying that it was an attempted murder. You are now telling us that you had committed an attempted murder there and that is when you objected.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, what Mr, what I am objecting to is Mr Visser insinuating that the answer is not justified and I am saying that the answer that the witness is giving is justified.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, what were you saying?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, he was giving an example and I was saying to him is the relevance of this evidence to tell the Committee that you were also involved in another incident of attempted murder, because otherwise than that I fail to see the relevance, Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: And I am saying that it is relevant. It is an answer to the question. He is giving an example. That it happens that is an MK person who was sought to be killed, does not detract from the fact that he is answering the question.

MR VISSER: And that is a matter for argument and I am not taking it any further, Mr Chairman. My learned friend might be right at the end of your day, in your opinion, or I might be right, but it is not the time and the place to argue about that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, when you asked me about interpretation I should have made this important qualification that I am not listening the interpretation from English into the witnesses language, because it is virtually impossible to, I am listening from the witnesses answer into English and it is impossible to do both and, perhaps, that could be an important linkage as well, but I just wanted to mention that for the record.

MR VISSER: Well, that is very upsetting to hear, Mr Chairman, because one would like to be fair to everybody, especially the witness, and, perhaps, one might suggest that if his attorney or and/or counsel wishes to, wish to help him or assist him that they might do the other part, as I think you suggested earlier, because I am afraid I cannot be of any assistance in that regard. Well, Mr Motsamai, if you hear a question that does not make sense to you, would you please alert it to us, as to it so that we can repeat the question?

May I now, quickly, try to come, before teatime, to the actual event. You arrive at this house, you go in through the little gate, that is the front gate, is it not? Am I right so far?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You go around to the back door where you knock on the door?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And eventually the door is opened by George Musi?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Mamome then grabs him around his neck and they, apparently, move inside the house. Am I correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, there is one fact that you omitted.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOTSAMAI: Where he grabbed him by the hand and pulled him.

MR VISSER: Where did he pull him to?

MR MOTSAMAI: That old man opened the door. He grabbed him by the hand and pulled him outside. I explained that yesterday.

MR VISSER: Did he pull him outside the house? Did Mamome pull the ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: He wanted to pull him outside. The old man grabbed by the door as he pressed him by the door.

MR VISSER: All right. And where did you then shoot him? Outside the house or inside the house?

MR MOTSAMAI: Inside the house.

MR VISSER: All right. Was the old man shouting for help when he realised that he is being attacked?

MR MOTSAMAI: I stated that.

MR VISSER: Just answer the questions, Mr Motsamai. Was ... (intervention).

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: The question has been answered, I stated that.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that is not a reply to the question and my learned friend ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Does it not mean that is what I said, that he shouted for help.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, all right, I am not going to argue about that, but that is typical of an evasive witness, but let us continue. Was he shouting in a loud voice?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Were you concerned that the neighbours might hear him?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: How many times did you shoot him?

MR MOTSAMAI: Once.

MR VISSER: And how many times did you fire the gun?

MR MOTSAMAI: I said I shot once.

MR VISSER: All right. I would like to refer you to Annexure, page 172, no, page 112. I am sorry. In the documentation, Mr Motsamai, that we, if you are finished singing, Mr Motsamai, can we continue? At page 112, we were given by the Committee or by the TRC, a statement by one Motsi Moses Tito. Do you know him?

MR MOTSAMAI: These statements were given to you by the Committee. I do not know this person.

MR VISSER: Yes, that would be right, because he says, well, in any event, it does not matter. He says this, he says that it was at night and he was playing outside his house, which was next to the house of George Musi. Can you deny that? You cannot deny that, can you?

MR MOTSAMAI: I cannot.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is how it is stated.

MR VISSER: And he says, in this statement, that while he was playing with his top he heard people in the house of George Musi arguing. Do you think that he is right when he says that, if he is referring to the time when you were there, do you think that he is correct in his evidence?

MR MOTSAMAI: If he says arguing, he is correct. Yes, we were arguing. That is the time whilst Mamome was grabbing, grabbed this old man.

MR VISSER: Do you know what arguing means, Mr Motsamai? The meaning of arguing, I put it to you, is that people, when people disagree with each other loudly.

MR MOTSAMAI: Why if I speak in Sesotho to argue, it can mean a lot of things. It may be an altercation or rather in words.

MR VISSER: Yes, but what it will not mean is a shout for help, I put it to you?

MR MOTSAMAI: May you repeat your question, Sir?

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, if he is going to go so finely into the matter, then he is also not entirely correct, that is Mr Visser, because the Afrikaans used there is that,

"ek het gestry ..."

It says that,

"I recognised the deceased's voice as well as the person who was arguing with him. The people were arguing."

There is no, you know, it is not being said that they actually argued. One could be referring to a quarrel, one could be referring to a physical, what would I call it, a physical encounter between two people. It is not entirely clear that what we are being referred to is, in fact, an argument.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought the witness had made that point, that in Sotho it covers a wide spectrum of things, but the point Mr Visser is making is this is not a scream for help. There is a difference between two people arguing violently or otherwise and somebody screaming for help.

MR MEMANI: What I am saying, Mr Chairman, is that the Afrikaans equivalent which is used there is not precise in nature and Mr Visser cannot put it as if a precise word was used. The person simply says I heard people "stry" and it is not clear what "stry" here was.

CHAIRPERSON: The point he is making is he does not say I heard him screaming, shouting for help.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Chairman, I think Mr Memani is referring to the point earlier and, Mr Visser, I think Mr Memani is right.

MR VISSER: Well, he is entirely incorrect, Mr ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: "Stryery" does not necessarily mean shouting, it means struggle, is it not?

MR VISSER: Not at all, that is the last thing it means. There is no Afrikaans dictionary that will give you that explanation for "stry". "Stry" is not a physical contest of any nature, it is a verbal exchange of words. That is "stry". With all due respect, Mr Chairman, that is very, very much not the position. My learned friend is entirely incorrect and he can go and check it, he can go and check it.

MR MEMANI: I am sure we will, thank you, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: But the point is simply this, if the man says he heard an argument, violent or otherwise, it is not the same as saying that he was crying out for help. Do you agree with me? Because that is your evidence, you see.

MR MOTSAMAI: This man was crying for help. He was screaming and a person outside would hear.

MR VISSER: And this person, Tito, says that he heard two shots, like a firearm, but you have already told us that you only fired one shot.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so, I shot only once.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now, you see, why I am putting that to you is that, at least, we know that Tito can count up to two, because that is very relevant to the next sentence which he says in his statement. He says after that he saw one person running away from the house. One person. He saw somebody.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is how he saw, because when we left that place I was the first one to jump the fence and Mamome came following me. We were running. It might happen that he saw only person.

MR VISSER: Yes, well, I put it to you, Mr Motsamai, if you place yourself on the scene that evening when Mr Musi was murdered, as we know he was, then you were there alone and you were arguing with him, in all probability, and you shot him in an altercation which you had with him.

MR MOTSAMAI: We were the two of us there, I was not alone.

MR VISSER: Yes, and I am putting it to you that you never received any instructions from anybody to go and kill Mr Musi or China or anyone else and Mr Mamome never accompanied you as you allege that he did.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is what I knew and we received the instructions from the very people. They came from them. I knew they would dispute what I am saying here. I got instructions from them and I was accompanied by Mamome to that place.

MR VISSER: Yes, I can put to you very shortly, very briefly, that Ramara, the Investigating Officer, made certain enquiries and he refers to an affidavit by Mr Mabelo, whom you know very well, at page 116, Mr Chairman, and that statement of Mabelo he says that George Musi was his uncle, at page 116. He lived alone and he was not a person who use to go out.

"He did not go out".

He was an elderly person and he did not go out at night and I am suggesting to you this is not the type of life one would expect from a politically active, a political activist, but that is a matter for argument, Mr Chairman, and, perhaps, now is a convenient time to take a short adjournment.

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: I think, Mr Chairman, a person during cross-examination puts what he is going to argue, a witness is entitled to react if he can react.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct. He must not just put a point and then run away from it. That is not being wise.

ADV DE JAGER: But you can answer him, Mr Motsamai. Answer him.

MR MOTSAMAI: I want to explain to him, people who are contacts, whether you laugh or not, I worked there and your laughing might not spite me. People who are contacts work with people who have to be taken outside. They work with people who are outside, because they work underground. Not everybody would know about them. He was in the organisation. Their operations were done underground. That is how people managed to arrange for others to skip the country. That is how it was done. I want to emphasise a fact that China stayed there with the old man even though he did not stay there at all times. He stayed there, that is the information I know. And the old man was involved in politics and his file is there. They know where they took his file.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment now.

HEARING ADJOURNS

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser.

CROSS-EXAMINAION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Just before we step off the Melk River, the Melk Street murder, Mr Musi's murder, just on the question of instructions, Mr Motsamai, apparently, according to you, Mr Coetzee told you why George Musi had to be eliminated, if I understand you correctly. Is that right?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes, did he tell you, also, why China had to be eliminated?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And what did he tell you?

MR MOTSAMAI: That China was involved a lot in politics.

MR VISSER: Is that all?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is all.

MR VISSER: And did you personally agree that that was sufficient reason to kill him?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, according to the work we did.

MR VISSER: Why did you not, in your evidence in-chief or anywhere else, tell the Committee about the explanation that was given by Coetzee in regard to why China had to be eliminated?

MR MOTSAMAI: I did not explain at all.

MR VISSER: You see, Mr Motsamai, the procedure which we are busy with is you are an applicant for amnesty and, I suggest to you, that you should make a full disclosure of all the facts relevant to your application. Is it argument, Mr Chairman, if you rule that this is argument I will leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting he has not been making a disclosure of enough facts, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: There is a subtle difference between throwing in hundreds of incidents and giving you full disclosure in regard to those incidents, Mr Chairman, but if you feel it is a matter of argument I will leave it.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you want to comment on that or do you want to leave it at that?

MR MOTSAMAI: There is nothing I want to add. I received a command to go and kill those people. There is nothing I am going to add to it.

MR VISSER: Let us proceed to the house and clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela. Just for background, for the Committee, I will make certain statements and please just tell me, as I go along, whether you agree or disagree with them. Firstly, the house and the clinic are two separate buildings on the same erf.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: The clinic consists of two separate rooms. The clinic consists of two separate rooms.

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, it is right.

MR VISSER: The house has been divided into two units where two different families can live in.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: I am unfortunately not in the possession to make a firm statement as to how many rooms each of those units consist, but, perhaps, you know.

MR MOTSAMAI: I am not sure how many rooms they have.

MR VISSER: All right.

MR MOTSAMAI: But there were two rooms.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now, Mr Motsamai, as far as you are concerned, when you were given the instruction to burn the house of Mrs Winnie Mandela there was, apparently, Coetzee and Shaw had a problem on how to tell you this. They appeared to be a bit coy about telling you what to do. Do I understand you correctly?

MR MOTSAMAI: Just a moment before I respond to your question. MR VISSER: Is this the proverbial sitting on a different chair now, Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, there was a problem. However, they did give us, give a command that showed they solved their problem amongst themselves.

MR VISSER: Yes and the way you did it, you explained to us, graphically, by pouring petrol over a cat after you poured petrol in the house and you let the cat run haphazardly through the house. I am not going to repeat that, but then you added, Mr Motsamai, did you not, that the security branch at Brandfort, apparently, I assume, had tapped the telephone of Mrs Winnie Mandela. Do you remember saying that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is it also correct that, apparently, you monitored some of the conversations that took place over the telephone to Mrs Winnie Mandela's house or clinic, I am not certain which, but one of the two?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, that is not correct.

MR VISSER: Oh, I see, so when you gave evidence that,

"... we would write the names down and compare with our files ..."

that was not a reference to what you heard on the bugging of the telephone of Mrs Winnie Mandela?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so. That was done by Mr Ramoseu.

MR VISSER: How would you react to the statement that Mrs Winnie Mandela did not have a telephone on that erf?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sir, that depends from where Winnie phoned. However, they could record what was said through, on the telephone. Whether she phoned from the neighbour, but they could get conversations from the telephones.

MR VISSER: All right. Do you agree that there was not a telephone installed on that erf? As far as your knowledge goes?

MR MOTSAMAI: There was a telephone, because that telephone was bugged.

MR VISSER: Where was this telephone precisely, in which building?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sir, that is not what I can know.

MR VISSER: All right, we will then leave it there. Let us go on to the clinic. You again received instructions and it turned out that at midnight, according to you, Mamome arrived with a combi and you were surprised to see that there were other people in the combi. Can you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And you mentioned the names of Morakile, Mtyala, Miningwa that were in the company of Mr Mamome in the combi.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now, you also told us then that you drove on the road that leads to Brandfort for about 20 to 25 kilometres, when you came across a car.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: And that car, to your knowledge, belonged to Warrant Officer Ramoseu.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: For the sake of the record, Mr Chairman, I have been requested to do this, is to spell the names that, I have forgotten about that, to spell the names. The previous names which I mentioned Morakile, I think, is spelt M O R A K I L E, Mtyala is spelt M, for Mike, T Y A L A, Miningwa is M I N I N G W A and Warrant Officer Ramosoeu is spelt R A M O S O E U.

What I want to know from you, Mr Motsamai, is either in the combi, with yourself, or in the car with Mr Ramosoeu, was Mr Nelson Ngo present?

MR MOTSAMAI: You are asking me a question I cannot respond to. Whether he was with Ramosoeu I do not know. However, he was a person used. He was always here in Bloemfontein, for most of the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you repeat that answer? He was what for most of the time?

MR MOTSAMAI: He was timeously in Bloemfontein, at the office. I cannot tell whether he was with Ramosoeu in that car.

MR VISSER: Why is it that you cannot tell us whether he was with Mr Ramosoeu in the car, Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: We drove past that car and I could not tell whether it was Mr Ramosoeu in that car, but I knew that it, that was his car.

MR VISSER: But did you not stop with the combi at that car? MR MOTSAMAI: Not at all.

MR VISSER: Well, then, please would you explain, because I thought I heard you say yesterday that you asked Mr Mamome what Ramosoeu was doing there? Did you say so?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is what I said.

MR VISSER: And that question could only have been asked on the basis that Ramosoeu was there.

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, if I see your motorcar parked somewhere, will I not draw the assumption it is, you are there?

MR VISSER: That is what I am putting to the witness, Mr Chairman. He says he does not know whether he was there. With all due respect, Mr Chairman, it is not an unreasonable question. The man says he does not know now, suddenly, whether Ramosoeu was there or not. He says his car was there and I am saying to him, but you asked Mamome what Ramosoeu was doing there and that question could only have been based on the assumption that Ramosoeu was.

CHAIRPERSON: He asked Mamome what was happening, did he not?

MR VISSER: My notes are not as clear as yours, but my attorney agrees with your notes. He agrees in, basically, what your notes says, Mr Chairman, but let me take it to the next point, Mr Motsamai. You told us that Mamome then said that he is the one that gave the order or did you not say that?

MR MOTSAMAI: According to the information from Coetzee, he listened to the recordings of Winnie Mandela.

MR VISSER: I do not want to split hairs with you, Mr Motsamai. Did you tell us yesterday that Mamome, when you asked Mamome what was happening, Mamome said to you he, referring to Ramosoeu, is the one who gave the order? Did you say so or not?

MR MOTSAMAI: I never said Ramosoeu gave instructions, but gave information.

MR VISSER: All right. We can check the record. We know, fairly accurately, that the attack on the house and the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela took place during August or September of 1985. Would you agree with that date?

MR MOTSAMAI: I can agree with those dates. It was during the 80s.

MR VISSER: Can you deny that during 1985 Mr Ngo was still at school?

MR MOTSAMAI: I cannot deny that fact. I do not know quite well. The person who handled him was Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Let me ask you this simple question. At any stage during the attack on the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela, where you were present, was Mr Ngo present, according to your recollection?

MR MOTSAMAI: I have already explained how many we were and I never mentioned Ngo. Nowhere did I mention Ngo.

MR VISSER: You see ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Does that just mean you did not see him there?

MR MOTSAMAI: I did not see him at all.

MR VISSER: But if he participated you would have known about, surely, Mr Motsamai, would you not?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would not know, because when we received a command, that is a command. Whether who knows about it I cannot tell, but that would be a mistake.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Motsamai. Can I put this to you, that Mr Ngo, in bundle C, page 12, in (c), Mr Chairman, (a), (b), (c), stated in his application that he was present when the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela in Brandfort was attacked and in which he stated that Warrant Officer Ramosoeu had, on that occasion, threw an incendiary device which he explained, in his evidence, to be a grenade into the clinic which caused it to catch fire and to burn. Now, I am just giving you the background, because I am now going to ask you a question in regard to that.

Were you ever present in an attack on the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela when a grenade was used to set it alight and where Mr Ngo was present?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would say I was not present there and the clinic was attacked by these people. These that Ngo is stating here. Let me point out, this one Mamome was with me and Mtyala was with me. He was present and the clinic, as we left, was already up in flames and the fire brigade would not extinguish that fire.

MR VISSER: You see, Mr Motsamai, said in his amnesty application, page 12, I am sorry, Mr Ngo, said in his amnesty application at page 12 that the people in whose company he was when the clinic was attacked with the grenade were Ramosoeu, Mamome, Constable Motsamai, that is you, and Constable Mtyala. Now, Ngo says he participated with you in this criminal offence of an attack on the clinic. Do you agree with that?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not agree with this that Ngo is stating here. The clinic was attacked by myself and Mamome. People who were present were Mtyala, Morakile and Miningwa.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this untrue? When Ngo says this is he not telling the truth?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, here he is telling a lie.

MR VISSER: Let us proceed, then, to the next incident at page 146. This is the attack on the house of Bobby Sebotsa. Do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: And you received instructions, if I remember correctly, from Coetzee and Shaw, once again?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: I may add, this is according to your evidence, but not according to your application form. Is that not true? Because in your application in paragraph three you never said anything about receiving instructions from anybody. Do you agree?

MR MOTSAMAI: Which application? May you clarify that one.

MR VISSER: You can choose any application, Mr, I am referring to page 146 of bundle A, but if you said it somewhere else please be free to draw our attention to it, but ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: In my application the instructions are from those people.

MR VISSER: I see. Now, Bobby Sebotsa, I understood from your evidence, had undergone a crash course in Lesotho in the use of explosives. That is correct so far?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And that is why you called him, you told us, a MK member, because he was trained.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes, and you said that your instructions were ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, about instructions you could, perhaps, look at page 145, paragraph 1(b).

CHAIRPERSON: Eleven.

ADV DE JAGER: 11(b), Sorry.

MR VISSER: Yes, point taken, Mr Chairman, yes. Indeed, point taken, yes. When you were given instructions, you told us, I think, that the instructions came from Coetzee and Shaw again.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is what I said.

MR VISSER: All right. Now, I want to know is this, the attack on the house of the, or the instructions to attack the house of Bopi Sebotsa, did that come before the instructions to kill Musi, George Musi, or after that time? Can you help us?

MR MOTSAMAI: You see, Mr Visser, these incidents took place around 1986. I cannot recall which one we started with and what transpired, things of that nature.

MR VISSER: All right. You see, because the reason why I ask you that is it, it would seem to the objective reader that here, in the case of Bobby Sebotza, was a far more deserving case for him to be killed than on the evidence which you said Musi had to be killed. He was a MK member, he had received training in explosives in Lesotho. Why didn't Coetzee and Shaw say, listen, Boysi, go kill this man.

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: How can the witness be expected to know what was in the mind of Shaw and Coetzee?

MR VISSER: He was there and he can give an opinion, Mr Chairman, surely.

MR MEMANI: The instructions were not given simultaneously.

MR VISSER: He was still there and he can still give an opinion, Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, you must adjudicate on the objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't the tenure of his evidence been throughout that they were called in and merely given instructions. I certainly have not heard it suggested that he ever debated anything with Coetzee or Shaw.

MR VISSER: That is, in fact, true. I am asking what went on in his mind, Mr Chairman, and, perhaps, again, as we have often seen in these proceedings, it may be a question of argument. Certainly, certainly, Mr Chairman, the point about placing this on record at this stage is that, hopefully, it might assist you at some stage or other when you have come to a conclusion and you read the record you will find all of this together. It is one the purposes of putting these questions in the order in which I am putting them.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not purely argument. They might have decided that Sebotsa was a really inefficient member of MK and not a danger whereas the others were sending a horde of young people out to get trained. It is, surely, something that only your clients can express an opinion on if they did succumb to such a decision.

MR VISSER: Now, what was the name of this brother of Bobby Sebotsa? Can I suggest to you that his name was Lebohang?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, that is him.

MR VISSER: Are you aware ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Spell please.

INTERPRETER: L E B O H A N G, Lebohang.

MR VISSER: Thank you for whoever did that. Now, are you aware that Lebohang shot at people on two occasions? Once at his shop and once at the trade centre, are you aware of that?

MR DU PLESSIS OBJECTS

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chair, I am not certain whether if we are speaking about the correct person. At a certain stage there was a command with regards to one of the Sebotsas that one of the persons had to be shot due to a problem he had with the police and because he is still having this problem with the police. I am not sure if it is the same person, it is my instructions that it is, indeed, not the same person, except if I am completely wrong.

MR VISSER: I have no comment on who the gentlemen is, I am putting my instructions, Mr Chairman. He was the brother of Bobby Sebotsa and now my learned friend can work out for himself whether that is the man he likes it to be or not.

MR MEMANI: Maybe you should give him a moment. I think he is being instructed on the very issue.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chair, it was my instructions that the matter regarding Mr Sebotsa's brother does not have anything to do with this incident. I cannot take this matter any further, but I can put it to you that it is, in fact, the case that the Sebotsa we are dealing with here and about whom this application is has nothing to do with these facts. I do not know what the relevance could be except if my learned friend could inform me, perhaps, about that.

MR VISSER: Well, I trust, Mr Chairman, that on our track record you will be entitled to expect us to give you the answer to that question very shortly. He shot at people, one, and one occasion at his shop, he had a shop and there he shot at people and again at the trade centre, I am told. Do you know about that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: And is it not correct that in both those instances there were, there was a child involved that was shot?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: In point of fact, the child or the young person that was shot at the trade centre was here during the proceedings yesterday or the day before, in a wheelchair. He is paralysed. Do you know about that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I know that child.

MR VISSER: Yes, and I am going to suggest to you, Mr Motsamai, that the community did not take too kindly to this situation where Mr Lebohang shot at people and the probabilities are that somebody of the community attacked his house to express their dissatisfaction. MR MOTSAMAI: Do not compare my attack with Mamome to Mr Sebotsa, at Mr Sebotsa's house and the attack at his shop by the community, I beg you.

MR VISSER: Yes, I just want to suggest to you that it will be denied that you ever received instructions or went with any other one of my clients to perpetrate an attack on the house of the brother of Mr Bobby Sebotsa.

MR MOTSAMAI: It does not confirm that which you state. I am telling you that we were told this that I stated to you.

MR VISSER: Whatever that means.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I understand you to say that there was an attack by the community on his shop?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so. His shop was attacked, but the house was not attacked. The shop was attacked and at that house, he no longer stayed there in that house. His brother stayed there, Bobby Sebotsa's brother. The shop was then attacked, they never attacked the house. I am referring here to the community.

MR VISSER: You see, Mr Motsamai, I am told that because of the reaction of the community, Bobby Sebotsa's brother, Lebohang, actually fled Bloemfontein and he now lives in Mafikeng. No, oh, I am sorry, I withdraw the last part of the question. He fled Bloemfontein.

MR MOTSAMAI: Sir, he never ran away or fled Bloemfontein. He just immigrated somewhere. He still comes to Bloemfontein. That is the story you are told so that you come and argue with me here. Based on the command we received, that is all.

MR VISSER: I will tell you another story I am told. His house, that is the brother's house, Lebohang's house, was not attacked and burnt once, it happened twice. Do you know about that?

MR MOTSAMAI: You are asking me what I do not know. I am stating here the attack I took part in. Now you are asking me something that I do not know. When you refer to the two attacks, I do not know about that.

MR VISSER: All right. After you attacked and burnt the house, and I will stay with the reference as we have it on the papers, Mr Chairman, of Bobby Sebotsa's brother, was that house thereafter, to your knowledge, fixed up and did somebody live in it again, after you attacked it?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not have that knowledge. You are the one who was giving that, who is giving that knowledge.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, you are the one that went to report to Coetzee and Shaw on how you say you carried out your instructions. Did you tell them that the house was destroyed or what did you tell them?

MR MOTSAMAI: Are you angry, Sir?

MR VISSER: I hope I do not sound angry, because there is no point in the world of getting angry with you, Mr Motsamai. It is not that important to me.

MR MOTSAMAI: We did report to him that the house burnt down.

MR VISSER: Completely? Completely?

MR MOTSAMAI: That the house burnt completely, we did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can explain, this house that you talk about, did it belong to Bobby Sebotsa?

MR MOTSAMAI: That belonged to his brother, Lebohang. The one who is stated here.

MR VISSER: All right. I just want to place on record that, according to my instructions, the house was burnt on one occasion, it was then fixed up and was burnt down again and now it is not suitable for human habitation anymore. It is completely burnt down now, on the second occasion. Do you agree with anything of what I have put to you?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know, Sir. I never walked along that street. That is something I would not know.

MR VISSER: All right. Let us go onto the house of Nicos. That is your item four, I believe, at page 146 of bundle A.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chair, can I please just make sure, was it put as saying that the community burnt down the house of Mr Bobby Sebotsa? I am not sure what was said. Can my learned friend please just clear that up for me?

MR VISSER: The statement that was made is that there, that it is probable that the community, in fact, burnt the house of Mr Bobby Sebotsa's brother. There is a probability. I take it no further than that.

MR MEMANI: And subsequently a member of the security branch took the rap for that.

MR VISSER: Well, now there is evidence that we are not aware of. Who is that? Mr Motsamai?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is it on the probabilities that you are putting forward, is that on both occasions it was burnt by the community?

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, you know, it is a difficult thing for a man who is accused of something to say I can prove that I am not there. All that he can do is to say, you know, I can give you facts to make it easier, if possible, for you to decide and what I know is these are things that happened. If you want to draw from that an inference, well, we would be very pleased if you would. If you do not, well, then if, then it is not strong enough, but it is only on that basis, yes, Mr Ngoepe, Judge Ngoepe.

I would like to go to Nicos. Now, here again, we have a very similar situation, do we not, because is it not true that Nicos is a wealthy business man or he was a wealthy business man at some stage. Would you agree with that?

MR MOTSAMAI: He is not a very wealthy man like they stated to you. He only has got a shop and a bottle store.

MR VISSER: Yes, and would you agree that it is possible that he has business associates which come from the Transvaal, from Gauteng or do you deny that?

MR MOTSAMAI: May you repeat your question? What are you saying, people from Gauteng or business associates?

MR VISSER: Of Nicos?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know that fact.

MR VISSER: All right.

MR MOTSAMAI: Your people know that, they told that to you. MR VISSER: Yes, all right. You see, I am told by my people, as you put it, that the corpse of a young child was found next to the business premises of Mr, where Mr Nicos has his bottle store. Do you know anything about that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Just a little about that.

MR VISSER: Did you hear ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: However, I do know just a little about that. MR VISSER: All right. Well, let us find out how much you know about that. Is it the ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: I just know that they found that corpse there. I do not know who placed that corpse there.

MR VISSER: All right. Did you hear a rumour in regard to this murder of this, I think it was a little girl, a rumour that it was a muti murder?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know that fact.

MR VISSER: And that the purpose was to sell the body of this little girl, this unfortunate little girl, to somebody in the Transvaal? I am not trying to make a joke, I am just asking whether you heard of it, Mr Motsamai.

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know that.

MR VISSER: All right. Mr Motsamai, perhaps you know this. Was there not a time when motor vehicles with Transvaal registration plates were attacked in the Mangagaung township with stones, rocks?

MR MOTSAMAI: That one I know.

MR VISSER: Yes, I was just going to put to you that, in fact, it happened to you, did it not? Is it true that you once was in a vehicle, I am just looking at my notes to find the name of, with certain, Koch, you know a Koch in the security branch, Koch?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: You worked with him, he was your leader, he was your handler, he was your, what do you call it, team leader, Mr Motsamai, your team leader, was he not?

MR MOTSAMAI: Are you saying my team leader?

MR VISSER: That is what I said.

MR MOTSAMAI: He was not my team leader.

MR VISSER: Did you have a White person in the team in which you worked in the security branch, Mr ... (intervention).

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: I beg your pardon, I think the witness also said that he has to check informers with him, that is Koch.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Did you have a White person as part of the team in the security branch where you worked?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, we worked with White people, Sir. I do not understand whether your question leads or is it a fact that you do not like Black people?

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, why do you not just stick to answering questions. Mr Motsamai, I am told that in the security branch, for practical purposes and not because somebody disliked Black people, teams were always divided in a way that there would be at least one White person in each team. Would you agree or disagree with that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was it the same in regard to yourself?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Who was the White person in your team?

MR MOTSAMAI: I want to say to you have focus here, all of us being Black and White, we were under a command of a certain officer. I just to, you to focus your mind on that. I did not go everywhere with this person. It is not as you state. You want to lead me to accepting that I worked with a specific person.

MR VISSER: All right. Are you saying you did not work with a specific White person? Is that your evidence?

MR MOTSAMAI: There are many that I worked with. Willeman, Koch, a lot of them.

MR VISSER: All right and it is, is it not true that on a certain day you together with Koch were travelling in a blue Ford Husky Combi with Transvaal registration plates when you were stoned by the residents in Mangoaung?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I was driving with him. It had the curtains on the windows. People could not see who was driving inside.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOTSAMAI: And they would tell you what happened afterwards.

MR VISSER: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Was the combi stoned or was it not stoned, Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: The combi was stoned, because of the registration plates.

MR VISSER: Thank you, that is exactly the point, and I am putting it to you that it was during the aftermath of this body of this unfortunate girl being found on the erf next to the business of Mr Nicos. It was as a, it was just in the aftermath of that occurrence.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you, Mr. Now, is it not true, also, that there was a certain Constable Kabuza ... (intervention).

INTERPRETER: Could you please spell that name?

MR VISSER: I am going to. I have got it as K A B U S A. I may be wrong with the spelling. I am told that it is a Z by my attorney. It is K A B U Z A. Did you know a Constable Kabuza at any stage. Mr Motsamai, do you have a problem?

MR MOTSAMAI: You are still asking your questions, I am ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: No, but you are kicking with your feet all the time.

MR MOTSAMAI: Kabuza stayed there at Nicos' place.

MR VISSER: Coetzee and Shaw, you say, gave you instructions? I want to ask you to tell the Committee precisely what those instructions were in regard to Nicos.

MR MOTSAMAI: The instructions were to go and burn down his house, because Nicos was a courier, a MK courier, and the Captain Kabuza, we called him Captain, knew before he stayed there and as he stayed there that Nicos had a file at the security branch offices.

MR VISSER: Well, how did you feel, well, let me ask you this first. Is it correct that Kabuza stayed in the yard in a room behind the house of Mr Nicos? Would that be correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And when you went to petrol bomb Nicos' house did you give any thought to what is going to happen to Mr Kabuza?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sir, I did not know whether Kabuza stayed there or after we attacked Mr Nicos' house.

MR VISSER: Well, it was my instructions that he stayed there before you, before you say you, before his house was attacked.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he stay there during the attack?

MR VISSER: Indeed, Mr Chairman, at the time when the attack was there, Kabuza stayed there.

CHAIRPERSON: Does the applicant agree with that? Was Kabuza staying there at the time of the attack?

MR MOTSAMAI: I am not quite sure. Even though he stayed there our instructions was to attack Nicos' house. The extent of the damage was something we did not know. Whether his belongings would burn, the insurance would pay and security branch operation would be concealed until today as I am saying here now.

MR VISSER: Would you agree that Constable Kabuza was a member of the security branch, not just a policeman? That he was also a member of the security branch.

MR MOTSAMAI: He worked with us, he was a member of the security branch.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, the room in which he lived, was it attached to the main house or was it a separate room?

MR MOTSAMAI: It was attached to the main house. However, it was far at the back to where we attacked. Even though the house would start burning, he would have the chance to remove all his belongings.

MR VISSER: If I may proceed to item five at page 146 of bundle A. This deals with the burning of a motor vehicle belonging to Jani Mohapi. I want to ask you this. You told us that he was a very troublesome person to the security branch. Is that not correct.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And Coetzee attempted to convince him to become an informer, to recruit him as an informer and he refused.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And he was also the Chairperson of Mico?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Am I correct in your, in understanding your evidence, that you then said that it was because he refused to become an informer that Coetzee and Shaw said that he must be assaulted? Do you remember that evidence?

MR MOTSAMAI: May you repeat, Sir? Are you saying he was to be assaulted or his house assaulted?

MR VISSER: I can do only, as best I can, to read what I have here as your evidence and what I am putting to you is my note of your evidence and what you said in your evidence, according to my note, is this.

"Because he refused ..."

I am adding "to become an informer" of the security branch,

"... Coetzee and Shaw said he must be assaulted ..."

JUDGE NGOEPE: My note, though, Mr Visser, combines the two of them. The reason for the assault would be because he refused to be recruited and also because he was Chairman of Mico which covered many places or something to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON: My note goes a little further even. He said he was Chairman of Mico, which had jurisdiction of, over a large area of the Orange Free State and he recruited many people to join Mico. He said Coetzee and Shaw emphasised he must be assaulted.

MR VISSER: Yes. Having listened to the evidence, Mr Chairman, I got a different impression, but not much turns on this. The point about this is that, apparently, you were instructed to assault him. Was that your evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, my note goes on, and I should have cleared it up at the time. Sorry. Coetzee and Shaw emphasised he must be assaulted. The first assault or harassment was to burn his car, as a start. So, I do not think assault was, necessarily, a physical assault, it was an attack on his, him or his property.

MR VISSER: Yes, perhaps, Mr Chairman, it would be more fair to put the whole thing. I just did not want to make the question too long, but, perhaps, I should. As I understand your evidence, Mr Motsamai, Coetzee and Shaw thought that Jani Mohapi had to be assaulted and, for a start, they instructed or commanded that his motor vehicle had to be burnt. Am I putting that correctly?

MR MOTSAMAI: Let me say, when I meant he should be tortured, that is my Sesotho I used. He should be harassed in that manner, that his car be burnt down.

MR VISSER: All right.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, I think I am going to read my note in regard to that, to yesterdays interpretation. The word "assault" was used by the interpreter and my note says in brackets, this is probably misinterpreted due to some ambiguity in the witnesses language. The witness is, spoke of, he said something like (not interpreted) and the interpreter interpreted that to mean assault, but it could have and it did, in fact, mean harassment.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I, actually I was not going to make a big point out of this. I am just leading up to something, but thank you for pointing that out. I am going to ask you this. With this huge influence that Jani Mohapi had, you in your own mind, would you have thought that he is a good candidate to be eliminated?

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: What is the relevance of this question?

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai is applying for amnesty here, Mr Chairman. With great respect, in many instances I am assisting him in giving you the full facts and the full version of what happened. If my learned friend wants to object to it, I will withdraw that question, I will go on to something else. I have got no problem with that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think it is relevant, Mr Memani, to, as to why the witness, as to whether or not the witness could have seen any political purpose being possibly served by targeting this particular person. If he says that we attacked him because he was a hawker, then, well, that would be relevant, but in a negative way, but your client is not applying for amnesty for killing people because they are hawkers. He is supposed to show that what they did to, well, the victims or the assault or whatever, was associated with a political objective and that must impact on the activities of the victims.

MR MEMANI: What causes the objection is the use of the word "elimination" whilst there was no instruction to eliminate him or there has not been any evidence of such an instruction. It is said, he is asked to reply on whether he would have been a candidate for elimination. The question, as you phrase it, would be perfect.

MR VISSER: May I respond, Mr Chairman? I am not here to waste time. May I just say this? May I just say this? I am not going to ask these questions, but I am placing it on record right now that in very many of Mr Ngo's applications we are going to argue that he failed not only to make a full disclosure, but that he failed, dismally, in complying with the requirements of the Act, Mr Chairman. So, I will skip those questions entirely, because it is not necessary to make, for me to put them.

I think Mr, Commissioner de Jager wanted to say something.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, you said Mr Ngo, and I think you referred to Mr Motsamai's application.

MR VISSER: I am sorry if I did. I was referring to Mr Motsamai's application, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

Now, you say late that afternoon Mamome, I take it, because you refer to "he", came in a car and he was in the company of Mr Nelson Ngo and you pointed out Mr Ngo sitting in front here. Do you remember that evidence?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And I have got a note here, and I want to ask you about that, because I found this strange. I wrote down here that you said that,

"I did not know where he got him from ..."

Have I got my note correct? Is that what you ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Now, what did you mean by that?

MR MOTSAMAI: I meant when we received the command, Ngo was not present. How he came with him and where he got him, I do not know.

MR VISSER: Mr ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: And his explanation, when I asked him, he said Ngo must watch over the car. I do not know how he thought this out.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, just refer to paragraph five at page 146 in front of you. Will you agree with me that you did not mention the name of Mr Ngo in your paragraph five as a co-perpetrator?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I did not mention his name.

MR VISSER: Was Mr Ngo in, according to your evidence today, a co-perpetrator or not?

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, that is a question of law on which the witness cannot be expected to answer. He has told us, in his application, that he and Mamome ... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON: It is not a question of law, he can tell us factually what happened.

MR MEMANI: He has told us that. He said he was watching the car and he and Mamome burnt the car, they burnt the house.

CHAIRPERSON: And if he thought he was not, that he was a co-conspirator, he can be asked why he did not mention him in his application.

MR MEMANI: What I am saying is if he wants to do that, he must do it in less higher terms than those that he is using.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: What is your reply to the question, Mr Ngo, Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: I did not mention him there, because I did not know this gentleman. I did not know where this gentleman worked, but he stayed with us at the office.

MR VISSER: You see, Mr Motsamai, I fully agree with you. That is exactly what the impression was that I got from you and that coincides with the instructions which I have. Let me explain to you what happened, because, clearly, you are still confused about it and many people are.

Mr Ngo applied to be admitted as a policeman and he took the oath at a station on the 11th of March 1986. Then he had to wait to be accommodated in the police training college for the second intake, the second annual intake which is in July. In the meantime, as happens with all of you fellows that apply, he became temporarily employed as, I think they call it, a student constable. Are you in agreement with me so far?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. And because, in fact, he was placed on the staff, the personnel of Bhatu police station, we know that from the records, and did you want to make a comment? Did you ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: I am listening to your question.

MR VISSER: Oh. And because he had been an informer there was a request that he should serve here at the security branch in Bloemfontein for certain specific tasks. Namely, continuation of information and pointing out of people whom he knew and that is what he was doing in Bloemfontein, Mr Motsamai, and that is why you did not understand and why, what he was doing there. Would you agree with that explanation? Does that seem to you a logical explanation?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is how they put it to you and how you explain it, but I do not accept this, because this gentleman, Ngo, worked with us all over we went. I do not know how they explained to you.

MR VISSER: Well, but just a moment ago, Mr Motsamai, you explained to this Committee that you could not understand what he was doing. Is that not what you said?

MR MOTSAMAI: How he, how Mamome brought him to us. That is how it is. How Mamome brought him in the car to us.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Motsamai, I am not going to make too much of it, but you said just a moment ago, your words were I did not know him, I did not know where he worked, but be that as it may. Are, do you consider that Ngo went along with you that night as a co-perpetrator, it does not matter what he did, he looked after the car, he threw a bomb, it does not matter what he did, but he was part of the group that went to attack the motor car of Jani Mohapi. Is that how you understood it to be?

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, in all fairness to the witness, the evidence was that Ngo was not even told that City Mzuzwana's house was going to be attacked. He was told a lie about the objective of the whole operation. While it may be perfect to ask him why he does not mention him there, it is another to disregard all those facts when putting the question to him.

CHAIRPERSON: He has, first of all, got to say he thought he was one of the party before you can ask why do you not mention him. That is the purpose of the questioning. Carry on Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: For the third time I am going to try to elicit an answer out of you. Mr Motsamai, did you consider that Mr Ngo was part of the party that went that evening to go and attack the motor vehicle of Jani Mohapi?

MR MOTSAMAI: He was not a part of the group. As we went there Mamome told me that he did not tell Ngo where we were going and he did not know that we were going to attack Jani Mohapi's motor vehicle.

MR VISSER: Strangely enough, Mr Motsamai, Mr Ngo has applied for amnesty in bundle C, page 12, (e), what seems to be this very incident.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is how he applied for amnesty there, but when we attacked Jani Mohapi's motor vehicle where we were, he was not present even there where we left him at the car, he did not know. Maybe that is what he discovered afterwards, after some days when we patrolled in cars and he saw that Jani Mohapi's car burnt and he concluded that this was Boysi's work.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right. Well, let us ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: You took a tyre with you, did you not? In the car?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, we took the tyre. Mamome took the car out of the boot and we pushed it to that vehicle.

ADV DE JAGER: You had paper and you had petrol?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: So, you would take that out of the car? Did he notice you taking it out?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would say so. He saw the tyre, the motor vehicle tyre and the papers, but he did not know what we were going to do.

ADV DE JAGER: And he saw you taking the petrol?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you suggest he could have thought that is a spare wheel you are going to put on somewhere?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, I cannot tell, maybe that is what he thought that it was a motor vehicle spare wheel or he thought that these two security policeman were going to do something.

CHAIRPERSON: What reference did you give to Ngo' application?

MR VISSER: Bundle C, Mr Chairman, page 12, (d) for donkey. You see while the honourable Chair is reading I may put it to you that in his application he says

"... I...",

that is Ngo,

"... I petrol bombed a Ford Cortina belonging to Jani Mohapi ..."

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Chairman, this is not a fair reading of the sentence. The sentence starts at the beginning of, next to the letter "d". It says,

"Within the course of two weeks the team consisting of Sergeant Mamome, Constable Motsamai, Constable Mtyala and I petrol bombed a Ford Cortina belonging to Jani Mohapi, a mini-bus belonging to Elia Mohapi. All the cars, vehicles were petrol bombed under the instructions and command of Colonel Coetzee".

MR VISSER: And my question is that he said ... (intervention).

MR MEMANI: I am still speaking, Mr Visser. It is not clear whether he is saying that on each occasion he was present. It is a reference to a team which operated over a certain period of time and we may go by what Ngo said in his evidence here.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Could you have a look at page 12, please, of Mr Ngo's application. Mr Ngo states,

"Within the course of two weeks the team consisting of Mamome, Constable Motsamai, Constable Mtyala and I ..."

that is Ngo,

"... petrol bombed the cars of Jani Mohapi, a mini-bus of Elia Mohapi and all the cars were petrol bombed on the instructions of Colonel Coetzee".

Were you involved in all those incidents?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I was involved in these incidents of the two cars.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you form a team?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, that is not the case. We were two with respect to these cars. There were three cars, but I was not involved in the third car.

ADV DE JAGER: And the other car you were involved with was Mr Ngo present?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, he was not present.

ADV DE JAGER: He did not watch the car or do anything in connection with the other car? He was not there at all?

MR MOTSAMAI: Well, in respect of Jani Mohapi's car, he was involved, but the second car and the third car he was not.

MR VISSER: Which were the other two cars that you refer to, Mr Motsamai? Please identify them for us. The one is Jani Mohapi's Ford Cortina and the other?

MR MOTSAMAI: That belonged to Teacher Thabatha.

MR VISSER: Yes, and the third one?

MR MOTSAMAI: Jabararu, the third one I never attacked, but I attacked the house. That belonged to City.

MR VISSER: All right. Now, do you know anything, and you were asked the question a moment ago and you said, yes, you were part of the attack, do you know anything of an attack on a mini-bus belonging to Elia Mohapi?

MR MOTSAMAI: No.

MR VISSER: Well, ... (intervention).

MR MOTSAMAI: I forgot to state that I know nothing about that incident. I mentioned three cars. When I mentioned three cars, that one I know nothing about. The one that I never stated I know nothing about, from the three that I mentioned.

MR VISSER: How, what is your reaction to the fact that Mr Ngo implicates you also in the burning of that car, as I read his evidence?

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I do not think Mr Visser is entitled to put the question to the witness nor that, nor is it fair to state it categorically that he is actually implicated in the burning of the other vehicle. The sentence, as I read it, says that,

"Within the course of two weeks the team consisting of ..."

the people mentioned there were involved in the petrol bombing of the various vehicle, vehicles. It does not go as far as to say on each occasion each member of the team was present in the burning of each vehicle.

MR VISSER: But we did have his evidence, Mr Chairman, and he was asked this specifically and he said Mr Motsamai was there.

CHAIRPERSON: I, the question, as I understood it, related to Mr Ngo's evidence. It may be that you find yourself in some difficulties now with your two clients giving conflicting versions as they have in other instances. It is a matter that you should, perhaps, have considered earlier.

MR MEMANI: The way I understand it, Mr Chairman, it is being put that that is what is stated here in this paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, did you not say his evidence?

MR VISSER: I thought I ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Well, I think if his evidence merely confirms the prima facie view of this paragraph.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

MR VISSER: And with respect, Mr Chairman, I can understand the discomfort of my learned friend, because Mr, Commissioner de Jager specifically brought this to the attention of Mr Memani at the pre-trial conference, because this was foreseen and he assured all of us that there is no conflict of interest.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, carry on with the examination. It is, we could argue (microphone not on).

MR VISSER: Let us go on to the parental home of City Mzuzwana. Is it, is my impression correct, Mr Motsamai, that City Mzuzwana's house was attacked while he was in detention? Is that your evidence?

ADV DE JAGER: His parent's home?

MR VISSER: Pardon?

ADV DE JAGER: His parent's home?

MR VISSER: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Not his home?

MR VISSER: No, no. His parent's home was attacked while he, City, was in detention. Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And according to your evidence he, they did not succeed in turning him into an informer and then one morning Coetzee and Shaw told you and Mamome that his car was at this house in Mshwesh Street. Do you remember saying that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: Which house was this is Mshwesh Street that you were referring to, Mr Motsamai? May I attempt to help you. Is that the house of City's parents? Is that in Mshwesh Street?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: All right. And then, apparently, you received instructions that the car and the house should be petrol bombed so that the parents should understand to reprimand City Mzuzwana for the political activities he was participating in or words to that effect. Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct. They tried to talk to him by recruiting him. He refused.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is why we got the instructions.

MR VISSER: Yes. I just want to make absolutely certain, when I read your application, that there is no doubt about the fact that at page 147, paragraph six, you apply for the petrol bombing of a parental house of City Mzuzwana. That is all I am trying to establish, but you went there to bomb the car and the house, not so, and, in fact, you did that? You petrol bombed the house as well as the car? Do you have any reply?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Okay. And then we come to the incident concerning the shooting of City Mzuzwana's brother and we now know that that is Matthew. Now, apparently, if I remember correctly, there was some evidence that you gave about Mamome coming to you, it was just past five in the afternoon and he said, Boysi, I received a telephone message from Shaw which informed me of a meeting of Mico at the AME Church. Do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes.

MR VISSER: And then you kept on referring to a person by the name of Muskwe and we now know that that is Matthew, the brother of City Mzuzwana, that he was present at this meeting and that they were carrying knives to attack the security branch if they were stopped in the street. Do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And, just to go very quickly through your evidence. You went with Mr Mamome to a certain place where you found a big yellow van, you got into the van, spoke to the people inside. Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: Sergeant Mamome spoke to those people.

MR VISSER: Yes, and he warned them about the fact that the people on the street might be armed with knives, you told us so.

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, that was their influence.

MR VISSER: And then, at some point (intervention) ...

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

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

MR VISSER: He said yes.

MR MOTSAMAI: That was Sergeant Mamome's influence or rather than the tactic that he used so that these people would manage to stop the others at a certain stage.

MR VISSER: Yes, well, I am just going on what you told us in-chief, Mr Motsamai, and, apparently, at some stage Mr Matthew was shot, Mzuzwana was shot, and it was suggested to you by my learned friend, Mr Stander, that he was shot by a person - perhaps my learned friend could just pronounce it over the microphone, Mr Chairman.

MR STANDER: It was my instruction that it was a certain Mr Mogashane.

MR VISSER: Well, now there you have it.

INTERPRETER: May we have that spelt please.

MR STANDER: I am going to try. It is M O G A S H A N E.

INTERPRETER: Onhoorbaar.

MR STANDER: M O G A S H A N E.

INTERPRETER: It is pronounced Mogoshane.

MR VISSER: Well, let me put it to you what facts I have, quickly, before lunch. I want to put it to you that a person by the name of Constable Ramolefe, R O M, R A M O L E F E, a Constable in the Riot Squad was the person who shot Matthew Mzuzwana. Do you know about that?

MR MOTSAMAI: The police who were in there I do not know their names. That is the first point. When Mr Stander asked me, he asked me whether I would say it was him or not. I said, I could say it might be him, I never said it was him.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, let me make it perfectly clear, I am not criticising you at all. I am just placing on record what the true facts are as I understand them to be and that is that Mr Ramolefe, who a Constable in the Riot Squad, shot him and he shot him with what is generally known as a "stopper geweer", a stopper gun, and that is a gun that is adapted to fire both these thick rubber bullets as well as gas cylinders.

MR MOTSAMAI: The knowledge that I have that the person who shot Matthew, shot himself also.

MR VISSER: Yes, indeed, that is correct. Those are the facts. He committed suicide, because of this incident, I am told. He committed suicide, yes. There was a claim, a civil claim by Mr Matthew Mzuzwana which was brought in the Bloemfontein Supreme Court, as it was at the time, and on the merits of the matter Judge van Koller found in favour of Matthew, that he was entitled to damages. You want to make any comment on that?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I know. They, he was awarded damages. That was awarded to him because all the facts were not stated. We right away there.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOTSAMAI: If we were all, as policemen, most of the policemen would have been imprisoned.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Motsamai. The only point, really, is this. During that civil case it was common cause, that means there was no dispute, between the plaintiffs and the defendants that Constable Ramolefe shot Matthew. That is at page three of the judgement, Mr Chairman. That, those documents were handed to me by Mr Brink, kindly, and they are in a bundle which is available to the Committee.

Would this be a convenient time?

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn till quarter to two.

HEARING ADJOURNS

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: (Still under oath).

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, before Mr Visser proceeds, during the lunch adjournment I got instructions that the evidence of Mr Ngo related to Jani Mohapi and so far he has indicated that Mr Motsamai and he did not implicate Mr Motsamai in the bombing of the, burning of the house of the car of Elia Mohapi and City Mzuzwana. CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I did not quite get that. Could you tell us, say it again?

MR MEMANI: That his evidence only implicated Mr Motsamai in so far as the house of Jani Mohapi and he did not implicate Mr Motsamai on Elia Mohapi. It seems then that this is a matter which ought to be cleared by reference to the record. I hope, perhaps, the recorders will be able to clarify the matter for us tomorrow morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was this in his evidence?

MR MEMANI: Unfortunately, my notes do not assist me in that regard and I have been unable to contact Mr Thembu who might have a relevant note.

MR VISSER: I think if I may be of assistance, Mr Chairman. Mr Ngo was previously questioned about the Venter incident and the Papie incident, J J incident, and the White Mohapi, but on record you will not find any reference to Elia Mohapi and Jani Mohapi's motor car. That occurred last week during his evidence in cross-examination. So, that is why we have been looking in vain for a, for the passage in the record. It does not exist in the record. It will be in your notes.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what I am trying to find (microphone not on).

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I may read to you the note of my attorney who keeps better notes than I do, I may add. He says under the heading,

"Elia Mohapi. The same people ...",

the question was,

"... were the same people involved in the attack on ...",

words to the effect of,

"... attack on Jani Mohapi's car as were, as was the case with Elia Mohapi and he said we were working as a team. It was the same people. Motsamai, he himself, threw nothing. I did it. Ngo says, I did it. Motsamai threw nothing. I did it. He knew what we were doing ...",

that would be Motsamai,

"... the problem with Mohapi is a problem of the SAP not to me personally ..."

some, words to that effect, but the remaining impression was, we specifically asked him are you saying it is the same people and he said yes.

MR MEMANI: If that is the case, doesn't then the note tally with the, with what he stated at the, at paragraph (d). The emphasis is on the team rather than his specific involvement at a particular time of Mr Motsamai.

CHAIRPERSON: He says that Jani Mohapi, he was present when Motsamai got the tyre and filled it with paper.

MR MEMANI: That is in order, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Which is then active participation. It is an active participation in the attack on Jani Mohapi's vehicle and then he said that the same people were involved in the attack on Elia Mohapi.

MR MEMANI: Yes, he then (intervention) ...

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on) while me and, Motsamai was in the car. So, he does directly involve, as it was put to him. In his evidence itself he directly involves Motsamai in both incidents and he did not mention him, was that your point, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: The point was simply that Motsamai is directly involved by Ngo in an, in incidents where Motsamai has told you nothing about it nor has he applied for amnesty in regard thereto.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on). Thank you.

MR VISSER: And what is more is he says he knows nothing about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on please.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just to round off the issue of the shooting of Matthew Mzuzwana. Did I hear you correctly that you gave evidence to say that he was shot with a teargas gun?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, it seems it was a teargas gun. When he fell on the ground there was smoke on him.

MR VISSER: You see, that is why I am asking you that, because it was, in fact, a teargas gun, but it could also fire rubber bullets, we know that, but is your impression or your recollection of the incident, that he was actually shot with a teargas canister. Is that your recollection?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would not say it was a teargas canister. It was the teargas gun, but after the shooting many people were shooting with teargas so the place was full of smoke and where he was lying there was full of smoke. So, that is why I thought it was a teargas gun and a teargas canister.

MR VISSER: All right. Well, just for the record, it seems to have been common cause that he was actually shot with a rubber bullet, but not much turns on that. You then, lastly, in regard to this incident, said that Shaw and Coetzee told you, apparently you and Mamome, that they will cover up the case for you. Do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: Yes. I will leave the rest for argument, Mr Chairman. We come now to the item which you describe, at page 147, in your paragraph eight, that is the petrol bombing of the house of City Mzuzwana. Not his parents house, his own. Again, you told us that you received instructions from Coetzee and Shaw.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: Because City, after his release from detention, was very problematic in that he arranged meetings everywhere.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: And then Mamome and yourself had to do something, but (intervention) ...

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: ... according to my notes you did not tell us what exactly the instructions were that you had to carry out and if you do, please forgive me, and tell us again.

MR MOTSAMAI: I gave the explanation that we were supposed to go and burn there. We should go and burn at City Mzuzwana's place.

MR VISSER: Yes. All right. This time you referred to a Nelson that was in the car when Mamome arrived to pick you up and I take it that refers to Mr Nelson Ngo.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: Yes. Did you, did, was Mr Ngo present when the instructions were given, according to you, by Coetzee and/or Shaw?

MR MOTSAMAI: I repeated that he was not present. He came with Mamome.

MR VISSER: All right. Did you explain to him what you were about to do?

MR MOTSAMAI: No.

MR VISSER: Do you believe that Mamome might have explained to him what you were about to do?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not know that.

MR VISSER: And you told us that you left Ngo inside the car, apparently to look after the motor car, when you went to bomb the house. Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: Was he close enough from where you were bombing the house to see what you were doing there?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, he was at a distance.

MR VISSER: Are you saying he could not see what was going on?

MR MOTSAMAI: Not at all.

MR VISSER: You got out of the car with petrol bombs, did you?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: And Ngo would have seen it, would he, would he not?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, he saw them.

MR VISSER: All right. So, he must have known that you were going to petrol bomb something. Would that be a fair assumption?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, after he saw the petrol bomb, maybe he had that kind of an idea.

MR VISSER: And when you came back to the car did he ask you what you went to do?

MR MOTSAMAI: He asked Mamome.

MR VISSER: And (intervention) ...

MR MOTSAMAI: I replied to him and said we bombed Jani Mohapi's house.

MR VISSER: Right. You said to him that you bombed Jani Mohapi's house. Are you quite certain of that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is true. Yes, I told him that.

MR VISSER: Is there no possibility that you are today mistaken and that you, in fact, told him that you had bombed Max Makubalo's house?

I see Commissioner de Jager has lost himself in his papers. I am referring, first of all Mr de Jager, to page 146, paragraph eight. That is the amnesty application for the petrol bombing of City Mzuzwana's house. The witness has now told us that when enquiring as to what they went to do he told Ngo that they had bombed Jani Mohapi's house. I am now asking him whether he may not be making a mistake in that he might have told him that they had bombed Max Makubalo's house. The reason for that is obvious, because Mr Ngo gave that evidence. Well, he gave evidence that he was told by Motsamai that it was not Max Makubalo's house, it was City Mzuzwana's house.

So, the only question is this.

MR MOTSAMAI: I told him that I bombed Jani Mohapi's house. Maybe that is him who made a mistake (intervention) ...

MR VISSER: All right.

MR MOTSAMAI: ... to talk about Max Makubalo.

MR VISSER: Yes. And he told us, that is Mr Ngo, that here at the hearing you told him that he had made a mistake in his application by referring to Max Makubalo, because it was really City Mzuzwana's house that you bombed. Would that be correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: I repeat, I told him that I did not say, I did not say what he says I said.

MR VISSER: So, are you saying that you dispute what he told the Committee? Is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I dispute that, because maybe he made a mistake.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you discuss this at this hearing, at this, last time when the hearing took place, did you discuss it and did you then point out that he made a mistake?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: When did you point this mistake to him out or that, when did you tell him, in fact, you bombed Jani's house and, or City's house and not Jani's house?

MR MOTSAMAI: When we returned to the car, that is when I told him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell him it was City's house then or did you tell him it was Jani's house?

MR MOTSAMAI: I told him that it was Jani Mohapi's house. I did not want to tell him the truth about that we bombed City Mzuzwana's house.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, did you ever tell him that you bombed City's house?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, Sir, I never told him.

MR VISSER: Now, the next burning question is why did you not want to tell Ngo that you had bombed City Mzuzwana's house, Mr Motsamai? What was the reason for that?

MR MOTSAMAI: The reason is that he came with Sergeant Mamome and he never received instructions that we should go with him there, because when we received the instructions it was the both of us, that is myself and Mamome. That is the reason which made me not to tell him directly which house we bombed.

MR VISSER: I suggest to you that is no reason at all, because you then go and you lie to him about the house by telling him you bombed, petrol bombed Jani Mohapi's house which you knew to be untrue and you are a person who does not like lying you told us.

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not like lies, but I did not want to tell him directly.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, why did you lie to Mr Ngo on your own evidence?

MR MOTSAMAI: I explained already. I did not want to tell him the truth that we went to that particular house.

MR VISSER: Yes, but what you have not explained is the reason for not wanting to tell him the truth. Did you just lie to him because of the sake of lying or was there some motivation?

MR MOTSAMAI: In terms of my own perspective, I was hiding that information from him so that he should not know exactly where we went. I think that is the only explanation I am able to give. I do not want that it should be emphasised that I am liar, because even your clients are telling a lie.

ADV DE JAGER: He should not know where you went, but he should know that, in fact, you have bombed a house?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, he would know that we bombed the house. ADV DE JAGER: And now you are telling him you have bombed a different house from the one that you really bombed?

MR MOTSAMAI: I gave him a wrong information.

ADV DE JAGER: And you told him, in fact, that you bombed a member of the Mohapi families house? Is that correct? Jani Mohapi's house?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is how I formulated that, but we went to City Mzuzwana's house. When I entered the car I told him that we went to bomb Jani Mohapi's house.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you know that he had a quarrel with the Mohapi family?

MR MOTSAMAI: He did not have any fight with the Mohapi family. He, Mohapi was involved in politics. Those people are holding the fact that Ngo had a clash with Mohapi's family. If he had a clash with the Mohapi family, I know him that he is short-tempered, he could have went there with a gun and would shoot those people to show that he was not in that position of fighting with that family. He was going, he kept them at an armslength and doing his work as members of the security branch.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he not at school have a quarrel with Mohapi?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, but he was not fighting directly with White Mohapi. They were students and because of that mistake by the officer who is, who was then Warrant Officer Erasmus then, when they knew that he was an informer that is why White Mohapi started fighting with Ngo. They were members of Cosas.

ADV DE JAGER: And you say he is a very short-tempered person that could easily shoot somebody?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, if he had a conflict with them or a clash with them.

ADV DE JAGER: Why do you say that? Why should he easily somebody if you have got a conflict with him, on what basis?

MR MOTSAMAI: I say that because I know that through my explanation he had a clash with Tsoametsi, then he took a gun and he nearly shot him. Then I stopped him.

MR VISSER: You see, Mr Motsamai, what Commissioner de Jager has put to you is really the point, is it not. If you are to be believed in that you came back from bombing City Mzuzwana's house and you told Ngo we bombed Jani Mohapi's house, the question must be why did you lie to him and is it not then true, on the probabilities, that you wanted to cause trouble, further trouble between the Mohapi's and Ngo, if you told him that.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is not so.

MR VISSER: All right. That is a short and sweet answer. Speaking of problems with people, it appears from your applications, if I may sidetrack myself for moment, Mr Chairman, it appears from your application that there were more than one occasion in which you did something unpleasant to either a Mohapi or a Mzuzwana. Would that be a fair assessment of your application? I do not want to go through them all.

MR MOTSAMAI: Under instructions, yes, that is true.

MR VISSER: Yes, so you say, but is it not also true that Jani Mohapi has a sister by the name of Selina, S E L I N, I N A, I think, Mr Chairman, to your knowledge? I am sorry. May I rephrase that question. I am terribly sorry.

MR MOTSAMAI: Maybe that is so, maybe I remember only the Sotho name.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOTSAMAI: But I know that there is somebody called Selina there.

MR VISSER: Yes. I am sorry, Mr Motsamai, I got my wires crossed. Is, what I really want to ask you, is it true that Jani Mohapi is married to City Mzuzwana's sister called Selina? That, those are the correct facts. Jani Mohapi's wife is the sister to City Mzuzwana.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is true.

MR VISSER: Yes. Is it not also true that Selina, on occasion, attacked you, grabbed you by the throat and tried to throttle you?

MR MOTSAMAI: She was not attacking me, but she was preventing me to take her younger sister. We were sent that we should go and fetch her younger sister, but she was not attacking me.

MR MOTSAMAI: Well, Mr Motsamai, I am told an entirely different story, but I am not going to embarrass you by telling this story here in public. So, we will let that slide.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is why I say your people. You are taking a wrong direction. They told you a lie. I was in the office, I was working in that office. You do not know what was happening in that office. They are busy telling a lie.

MR VISSER: Yes, well, you are causing great merriment with your observations, Mr Motsamai, but let us go on with the questions and try to finish. Is it true that Selina choked you or attempted to throttle you?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: Is it also true that you laid a criminal charge of assault against her?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not remember well.

MR VISSER: Is it also true that you later withdrew that charge against her?

MR MOTSAMAI: I say I do not remember well.

MR VISSER: I am asking you whether you laid a charge and later withdrew it. I am not asking you when that happened.

ADV DE JAGER: And as I understand him answering, he does not remember whether he laid a charge and he does not remember whether he had withdrawn the charge.

MR VISSER: Is that what you tried to say, Mr Motsamai, that you do not even remember laying a charge against Selina? Is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: I do not remember. If I did lay a charge MR should be there. That is why I say I do not remember.

MR VISSER: All right. Let us go on, Mr Motsamai. Now, you were quite emphatic, were you not, that during the bombing of this house of City Mzuzwana there were three of you. It was yourself, Mamome and Ngo. I am correct am I not?

MR MOTSAMAI: You are talking the truth and we left him in the car.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now, if we are to believe Mr Ngo that, in what he says, that he participated in the attack of a house of City Mzuzwana which he thought was the house of Max Makubalo, then I want to put to you this. That, according to Mr Ngo, Tsoametsi and Mtyala were also involved in that incident.

Mr Chairman, I am referring you now to, again, to page 12, item (b), paragraph, capitals, bundle C, because I cannot refer you to a record page number.

Now, what do you say of that?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would say it was myself, Sergeant Mamome, who attacked the house. Ngo was in the car. What he says there, that is how he put it, but I emphasise that the truth and the whole truth, it was myself, Sergeant Mamome, who attacked the house.

MR VISSER: All right. So, (intervention) ...

MR MEMANI OBJECTS

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, you know, in all fairness to Ngo and Motsamai, I think there was some variance between this written application and the evidence as it was led here and it might happen that what is being put here is not entirely correct, did not become the evidence. There were some qualifications.

ADV DE JAGER: Isn't his application evidence before us under oath? The document itself?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, you will recall that he, when he testified in the main he used the written document and in some instances it was at variance with what was stated in this, in the written application and I also (intervention) ...

CHAIRPERSON: Where does he refer to it in his written application, Mr Memani?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: He does not refer to it you see, Mr Chairman, in his written application. He refers to it in, at page 12, but as I remember it, Mr Chairman, he chose not to repeat it in his written application, which is just one of the little things that happened here.

MR MEMANI: Yes, exactly, that is my point. Then we do not, I cannot recall exactly what his evidence was, but it may not be, it may be that what is stated there is at variance with what is, with what was stated in the, in evidence.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I find it frightening that counsel can object and it does, on his own admission, does not even know what he is talking about. Unless he tells me that I am putting evidence which was not there or which is incorrect, I think my learned friend should keep quiet.

MR MEMANI: No, Mr Visser, we are not saying that you are putting what is said here, you are telling us that you are putting what is stated in these papers and I do not not understand why, in this forum, we have to be rude to each other. I do not know whether there is no, why there is no gentlemanly conduct between counsel here.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, what precisely is your objection?

MR MEMANI: I am bringing in a caveat. I am saying, in honesty, that I cannot recall what his evidence exactly was, but there is also a danger that what is being put to the witness is not what was said by Ngo in his evidence here.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it is what he said in his original sworn application.

MR MEMANI: But, Mr Chairman, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that this was qualified and they were, this was qualified in the written application as well and some qualifications were made during evidence to the written qualification, to the written application as well.

CHAIRPERSON: But you ...

MR MEMANI: .. this was qualified, and this was qualified in the written application as well, as some qualifications were made during evidence to the written application as well.

CHAIRPERSON: But you don't know if there was in this case, and you can't remember?

MR MEMANI: And my learned friend can't say that this was actually the evidence, and if he cannot say that this was actually the evidence, then he cannot put it to Mr Motsamai, that this was actually Ngo's evidence.

MR VISSER: With respect Mr Chairman, I am putting to him what is stated at page 12 of Bundle C, no more and no less.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, then that solves the problem. I think what Mr Visser is saying is as he says no more, no less. He is not saying that that was actually the evidence as given by Mr Ngo when he was in the witness box. He is referring to what is stated in the papers of Mr Ngo, am I right Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Yes, that is so Mr Chairman, obviously if the record bears out the evidence which is stated at page 12, that will be a different matter. I am just putting to this witness what is stated at page 12.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani, it seems that Mr Visser is not referring to the evidence, the oral evidence as given by Mr Ngo.

MR VISSER: No, but the problem is this Mr Chairman, my learned friend says I can't do that because in his evidence he might have changed it and if, but he is not certain, and if that is so, then it is an unfair question to put this to him, that is what he is saying.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But I am saying really what I am saying is that to the extent that we know what stands in the paper, we can see what stands in the paper, I see no difficulty if the question is restricted to what we can see and what we can verify Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: That I don't have any difficulty with My Lord.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. What do you say of the fact that Mr Ngo implicates two further people in this attack, Tsoametsi and Mtyala? I think you already told us that he is wrong, am I correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: Yes. You see Mr Motsamai, the question is isn't it you that is incorrect? Maybe he is right and you are wrong? How would we know?

MR MOTSAMAI: I am the one who is telling the truth.

MR VISSER: Yes, why should we take your word for it Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: I give evidence.

MR VISSER: Is that the only reason.

MR MOTSAMAI: And again, the way Nelson put it, that is the way he put it, but my truth is there and that is the truth that I am the one who went there together with Nelson Ngo, but he remained in the car.

MR VISSER: And is it correct that when you reported the next day, conveniently Mr Ngo was not present?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, he was not present.

MR VISSER: And therefore he would not have known at that time, that you actually bombed Citi Mzuzwana's house, would he?

MR MOTSAMAI: He was not present, he would not know.

MR VISSER: Yes. And just to round it off, on a question of the Honourable Chairman, you also never told him that at any time at this, on these grounds while we were busy with the application, the amnesty application of Mr Ngo, you never told him that, that the house was in fact the house of Citi Mzuzwana, is that your evidence?

MR MOTSAMAI: I said I never talked to Ngo about this. Not at all, that I said. I don't know why you repeat again, because I explained to you and the whole house that I never talked to Ngo about my applications for amnesty and I never showed him my application.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Mr Motsamai. Would you bear a moment with me, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, if I may explain my hesitation of a moment ago, I am attempting to cut out as many possible questions as possible, perhaps this is a convenient time for me to place something on record Mr Chairman.

It is clear and I am certain that the Committee understands this, that my clients deny all allegations of their involvement, whether it is by instructions or by participation claiming or covering up or whatever. It makes little sense again as it was in the case with Mr Ngo for me to put every single allegation, to controvert every single allegation and I am certain you will also appreciate that that would save a lot of time.

In the case of Mr Motsamai, it goes a little further. We will argue at the end of the day, that he has not made out a case in very many of these instances. We can, if you require us to do so, we can lift the deficiencies out for you, but with respect, it is not really the duty of the cross-examiner to allow him to build up his case in cross-examination and therefore we do not intend for example, he would say such and such a person was assaulted by us.

So what, unless of course he implicates somebody by name, that would elicit a reaction but otherwise not. I hope that you would understand that Mr Chairman, because it is all in the interest of perhaps saving time and that is why I am going fairly quickly over the incidents right now.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not quite sure that I understand what you said there. You said that if he said I assaulted somebody by name, it is not necessary to deal with it?

MR VISSER: No, I am sorry Mr Chairman, perhaps I misunderstood. I am saying that if a vague statement is made that I clapped this person in the car, I am not going to cross-examine him, unless he says well, Mamome also did that, or whatever. Unless he identifies one of my clients by name, I am not going to cross-examine him on that.

CHAIRPERSON: But if he says Mamome was in the car?

MR VISSER: Well of course that would ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: More particularly, he has and I have no desire to provoke cross-examination (indistinct), he has spoken of a whole series of assaults on the fifth floor of this building. It is for you to decide whether it is necessary to deal with it or not.

MR VISSER: I hear what you say Mr Chairman, it is a difficult decision. The proposition which I have just made was that unless there are circumstantial facts, circumstances or direct evidence implicating one of my clients, we were not intending to embark on cross-examination on that issue, but Mr Chairman, if it would be of assistance to you, we would gladly ask a few questions by way of clarification. That certainly we are quite happy to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I could ask one or two questions which may perhaps settle the issue more. You've told us about this building, a great deal about the building that you worked in. Is that so?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And I understand that you had offices on the fifth floor?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: You have spoken about offices of another Unit on the fourth floor, the Unit responsible for the ANC and Umkhonto?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, where was the kitchen that you go and have tea in frequently?

MR MOTSAMAI: It was on the fifth floor.

CHAIRPERSON: And where were Major Coetzee and Lieutenant Shaw's offices?

MR MOTSAMAI: They were on the fourth floor.

CHAIRPERSON: How big are the passages, can you tell us? I think you have indicated the one passage was about 25 paces long? Was that about the length of the passages in the building?

MR MOTSAMAI: That was the fifth floor passage. It will start from that wall up to that wall on the other side.

CHAIRPERSON: And is that the only passage on the fifth floor?

MR MOTSAMAI: No. It had a seventh shape, then there is again another short passage, which will start here to the curtains there on the other side.

CHAIRPERSON: About 15 paces? And are there lifts or staircases in the building?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes there are steps and lifts.

CHAIRPERSON: So can you hear what is going on on the floor above and the floor below you?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, you would hear. If you are in one room, if somebody was in another room and had been assaulted or tortured, you would hear him or her. Not if you are in the passage.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean not in the passage?

MR MOTSAMAI: If you are in the passage, there are walls then they will make it impossible for you to hear what was happening or what is happening on the other side, so if you are in the room, you would hear what is happening.

ADV DE JAGER: What is between the rooms, isn't there a wall too? You say you would hear if you are in the one room and somebody is assaulted in another room. Would that be, could I only hear if he is assaulted in the next door room or would I be able to hear if he is assaulted four rooms away from me?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, does it mean here you are referring to the rooms on the fifth floor? If you are on the fifth floor and somebody is being assaulted, you would hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't the rooms open onto the passage?

MR MOTSAMAI: I don't understand, what do you mean when you say they don't open, in what way?

CHAIRPERSON: Are there not doors in the passage which led you into the rooms?

MR MOTSAMAI: Along the passage there are doors leading to the rooms.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Are you saying that for you to can hear somebody on a different floor being assaulted, say if somebody is being assaulted on the fourth floor and you are on the fifth floor, if you are in the passage on the fifth floor, you are less likely to hear, but if you instead of standing in the passage on the fifth floor, you get into one of the offices on the fifth floor, you are likely to hear the noise from the fourth floor because then you would be in an office on the fifth floor, where there would obviously be a window to the outside?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know where that is taking us Mr Visser, beyond wasting a little more time. Perhaps you better continue.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, perhaps we are on the subject of buildings, Mr Motsamai, let me tell you how I understand the position. You can dispute it if you disagree.

This is a five storey building on the corner of Fountain Street and Aliwal Street?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is true.

MR VISSER: So first of all, there is no sixth floor?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you. On the ground floor, the following people or Units or departments occupied the ground floor, the District Surgeon was there and recruiting office, that is the ground floor, would that be correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: The first and the second floors were occupied by the District Commandant and his staff.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: The third floor was occupied by the Divisional Commissioner and his staff?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct, that is before we took that fifth floor.

MR VISSER: That is quite correct, later it changed and instead of just the fourth and the fifth floor, the Security Branch also occupied the third floor. I can't remember exactly when it was, I haven't got my notes in front of me, but I believe it was in 1989, if I am not mistaken. Yes, my Attorney also think so.

So you are quite correct, you are quite correct. So to complete the story on the fourth and the fifth floor before 1989, those two floors were occupied by the Security Branch, the fourth floor mainly Officers and administration, would that be correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: It was administration yes, in the other side. There were Officers who were occupying them, that section. Even that Unit which I mentioned, meaning the MK's and the ANC, occupied that section of the fourth floor.

MR VISSER: I was just going to add that in fairness to you, the Special Investigating Unit was also accommodated on the fourth floor, and you did already refer to that in your evidence. And the fifth floor were the field workers, isn't that so? That is where you chaps sat? The field workers?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is workers, you leave another fact about files, they were stored on the fourth floor. There was a big office or a big room where they called the administration office, there are tables. Then there would be a big space where files were stored.

There would be a space for the indexes where we looked the names of people.

MR VISSER: Yes, indeed, the files were kept on the fourth floor, there is no argument about that Mr Motsamai, but incidentally now that you mention that, would you have had access to that filing room? If you wanted to draw a file, could you walk in there as a Security Branch member and draw a file?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you. You don't take it and leave, you take it and look it from that room and you would read and see what is happening about ANC or SATU or SACP. If you want to make use of that file, you must get instruction from the Officer, before you take it out.

MR VISSER: The point is, you could also read if you wished to do so, files that you carried on Winnie Mandela and as you've said President Nelson Mandela or anybody else that were in that room, isn't that so?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you. You referred to two further petrol bombing of houses, the one is Kuze and the other is that of Sehope. Is it a coincidence or is it an omission on your part that you only referred to Shaw as giving the instructions and said nothing about Coetzee for a change?

MR MOTSAMAI: It is Shaw who gave instructions.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I misunderstood the conversation between yourself and Mr Visser at an earlier stage when he said that he did not intend putting what his clients are going to say. I thought he had come to the end of the cross-examination and I was going to say that if he doesn't put what they are going to say, my understanding is that we will be facing a bad denial type of situation and that he is not going to call them to testify, we will go by what is on record thus far.

MR VISSER: I have no idea what my learned friend is talking about. I never said that I am not going to put what the evidence was going to be, I never suggested in the least little bit that they were not going to come and give evidence.

MR MEMANI: But did I misunderstand you when you spoke to the Chairman and they conferred, I thought you were saying that you were not, you do not intend putting things to Motsamai because it is not necessary not going to put their denials in each case and I thought what was meant was that he was not going to put what they were going to say, we will have to do with the general denial and I am saying that is fine, if he doesn't put what they are going to say, then we are happy, then we would go by what Mr Motsamai has said.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not the position. What he said is he is not going to waste time by going through each one and say Coetzee will say he didn't give you instructions. He is putting a general denial. Coetzee will say that he did not give you instructions for any one of these instances. And he has not said as I understood it, the intention is that he will call his witnesses and say do you confirm your affidavits and that is it?

Perhaps in certain instances he might want to put more, but he has certainly not suggested that he is going to call anybody, because if he doesn't call anybody, there evidence will be of little value. So what is the point you wish to make? By him suggesting that he was laboriously go through each instance and each case, say he will deny he gave you these instructions?

Mamome will deny that he went with you and did these things?

MR MEMANI: What I am saying is that in the case of a witness who is going to say more than denying being involved, we are, I would expect him to tell us what that witness is going to say and if he doesn't do that, I don't think they will be entitled to come and testify about those things.

CHAIRPERSON: But they are going to say as I understand it, that they know nothing about these things, they have nothing to do with them and they gave no instructions.

They are not going to say anything about these incidents, as I understand it.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, he has given you affidavits of each and every witness. I presume they will stick to their affidavits.

MR MEMANI: That is not necessarily so. For instance we've heard about sisters-in-law who are going to say they attacked them. We've heard about Gosi's ritual murder and so on.

ADV DE JAGER: I think it is not disputed some of those, and as far as it is not disputed, your client agreed with it, so why should we hear further evidence about it if it is common cause?

MR MEMANI: I am not inviting further evidence on these things, what I am saying is if Mamome is going to say for instance that I was in Durban on leave on a particular day, that type of thing must be put and but if however, he is only going to say I was not involved, then that is the end of it and we are not entitled to more. This is what I just seek to have clarified.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Unless I am missing something, it sounds a little bit more like Mr Memani you would prefer Mr Visser presented his case in a certain way and don't you think it should be left to him to present his case the way that he wants to do. If he does it in such a way that we are likely not to believe what his clients are saying, that should be his problem.

I don't quite understand what this problem is all about.

MR MEMANI: What I was saying Mr Chairman, is that if I wanted to understand whether we should expect people to come and say more than has been put to Mr Motsamai or is it what he is saying that the people are only going to deny their involvement and no more and in that case, I am saying that we have a bad denial type of situation.

They won't be entitled to say more than I was not there and if he wishes to say more than, if he anticipates that they are going to say more than I was not there, then he must put that to Mr Motsamai.

CHAIRPERSON: Why must he put it to him, if the witness is going to come and say I was in Switzerland at the time, here is my passport, why must it be put to this witness?

MR MEMANI: This witness must be given the opportunity to say you are lying, this is a falsification. I was with you and produce a ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He mustn't, you get the opportunity to cross-examine the man when he does it. That is your function. It is for you to put to the man that it is a falsification. You can get instructions from your client, but you don't have to put everything to your client.

MR MEMANI: But surely Mr Chairman, I am giving examples, I am not saying that you know, he must do it, but if that is going to happen, if they are going to give more evidence than has been put to the witness, then you know, the problem ... (intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani, sorry, sorry Mr Chairman, this is what I have been saying. What happens in a case where somebody fails to put his version to a witness and then later he calls that witness, you would not be able to stop that person. All that you could do would be to say to that witness, you would be saying to Mr Visser's witness, why was this not put to the applicant?

By so doing, you would be causing us to doubt the (indistinct) of that evidence, but you would be entitled to say but why was this not put to my client and that is the risk which Mr Visser would be running at worst, and if he wants to run that risk, then so be it.

You can't say that we must force him to put certain things to us. If he doesn't want to put them, he doesn't want to. Maybe it is because he is quite satisfied that he has put what he has got to put fully what he has got to put.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, this is becoming a matter which, with great respect, should best be dealt with in chambers. Can I suggest we take a short adjournment so that - can we go on Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we continue. The objection was overruled. It is not an objection, he cannot call on you to put questions. It may be of great advantage to his client that Mr Memani can argue at the end this was never put to the applicant. He might well have been (indistinct) with it.

If you elect not to put things, on your head be it, carry on.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. But perhaps in a collegial spirit Mr Chairman, the issue that concerns my learned friend, Mr Memani, about whether my clients could have been present on account of they may have been on another place, has only one application, in fact two.

The one was Erasmus in the Venter case, who said I was on leave in February. There is one more thing, and I may as well put it right now and get it behind us, because it is a very short statement, it is out of context where I am at the moment, but it is a short statement.

You remember that you gave evidence that Mr Morakile was present and participated in the attack on - what was it now - I am sorry Mr Chairman, I don't find it in that page 146, could I just perhaps quickly take instructions and get this behind us Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at B, page 10, it says that he has implicated by Motsamai in a petrol bomb attack on the house of Bholosha, petrol bomb on the house of Nicos and on the parish church.

MR VISSER: I am indebted to you Mr Chairman. The only point I wish to make and put to you as a fact in regard to Mr Morakile, is that he was in fact up to 1989 not part of the Security Branch in Bloemfontein, but was in fact a member of the anti-theft, the Stop Theft Unit at Wepener. Do you have any comment on that? I am sorry, until June 1986, I am sorry my date was wrong. Until June 1986 and then he joined the Security Branch in Bloemfontein. For what that is worth, I am putting it to you.

MR MOTSAMAI: I would not have the knowledge about his transfer from Stop Theft, I explained that he was present and he came with Sergeant Mamome. Then about when Nicos' house was bombed, I don't remember well.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you, I rather suspected that would be your answer. Let's get back then to the matter in hand. Now, I am not going to ask you any questions about Sehope as well as Bholosha, let's move on to the parish house.

You gave evidence yesterday about something very interesting. You said that Mamome wrote a letter to the priest and you went at night with Mamome, to deliver it to the priest, do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What was that about, do you know? What was in the letter?

MR MOTSAMAI: I don't know the contents of that letter. I explained that I did not know the contents of that letter, but I was with him when he handed over the letter to the minister.

MR VISSER: Yes, you see Mr Mamome also knows nothing about this, that is why I am asking you.

MR MOTSAMAI: He must say that and all of them must say that because he himself was the one who was writing pamphlets, then they would be typed and then we would go at night and when we discredited the political organisations like COSAS and others, then we would distribute them in the townships.

CHAIRPERSON: This is somewhat different from pamphlets in the townships, this was a letter addressed to and apparently on your evidence, handed to the priest by you and Mamome.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will take it no further, that is the obvious answer.

MR MEMANI: Just in case it may be important My Lord, it was not actually handed to him, it was pushed under the door.

MR VISSER: Who says that Mr Chairman, does Mr Memani give evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Has that appeared in the evidence?

MR MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: My note says he, referring to Mamome, and I, took the letter to the priest during the night.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood he has just said I went with him at night and we handed the letter over to the minister. He has said it two minutes ago, he handed the letter over?

That is what you said, isn't it Mr Motsamai. A minute or two ago you said you went with him at night and you handed the letter over to the priest?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, we put it under the door.

MR MEMANI: If it was not pertinently stated in evidence, it might be that I was influenced by instructions My Lord.

MR VISSER: Well, is Mr Memani now admitting that he received different instructions from what the evidence under oath from this witness was?

MR MEMANI: No, no, no, you can't deliberately ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The witness has just changed somewhat his handing over to saying and we put it under the door. But that again may be a use of language rather than ... the letter was in fact received, I understand. Or a letter was received at some stage.

MR VISSER: We have heard no evidence of that Mr Chairman, not that I am aware of.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you make enquiries?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We can probably find out.

MR VISSER: I am sure you are addressing my learned friend, Mr Brink now.

CHAIRPERSON: It is contained in the report of the Investigators.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, can you kindly proceed and see whether we could finish this by Friday afternoon, because we would like to know what is your people's intention? Until when would you like to keep us here, but leave that now, keep it in mind and please proceed with the evidence.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with great respect, I am not keeping anybody here. I am busy doing a case here. I've been sitting here very cooperatively for two weeks, in fact since March this year.

ADV DE JAGER: Please proceed, that is all I am asking you to do. Ask your questions.

MR VISSER: Look at page 148 of Bundle A, paragraph 13. You heard the evidence of Mr Ngo that he was involved in the torture and assault of comrades who were arrested which torture and assault took place at Bloemfontein, you heard that evidence?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is what you referred to in your paragraph 13 a reference to the same incident or not?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, that is correct, it includes all the incidents that happened in the office.

MR VISSER: I want you to be absolutely clear in your mind what I am asking you. The reference to Mr Ngo to comrades that were assaulted and tortured at Fountains Street in Bloemfontein, is that the very same incident you are referring to in your paragraph 13? I just want you to be absolute certain of what I am asking you?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it quite clear that what he has just told you is that paragraph 13 is supposed to refer to all the assaults and tortures that took place at the office, Not one incident?

MR VISSER: That is precisely the point Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, get on with it, that is the answer he gave you. He said it includes all the incidents at the office.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have a difficulty here. Mr Ngo refers to an incident where 20 to 25 people were brought in one group to this building. I understand what you are telling me. Mr Motsamai says, I am talking about all of that and all the others.

But there is a problem Mr Chairman, and if we had a lot of time, we could go through it and work it out, there is a problem with names because Mr Motsamai in his application, gave no names. He later came and gave a list of 26 odd names.

Now, those are not necessarily the people that Mr Ngo refers to and I want to be fair to this witness. I want him to place on record precisely whether he was involved or whether he wasn't involved when a group of 20 to 25 people were interrogated.

CHAIRPERSON: Ask him about that incident.

MR VISSER: That is what I am trying to do Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You weren't, you were trying to ask him if his paragraph 13 covers only that incident and he said it covers all the incidents.

MR VISSER: No, that is not what I meant Mr Chairman, and if my question was incorrectly put, I will put it again.

Do you know of an incident where 20 to 25 people were arrested by the South African Defence Force, taken to Ladybrand and transferred to Bloemfontein, to Fountains Street police building?

MR MOTSAMAI: I think Mr Stander asked me about that and you were not paying attention.

MR VISSER: Is that your answer, because I am quite happy to go on that answer?

MR MOTSAMAI: I am saying to you that yes, that is so. What I said we arrived and found these people there. They were brought there by Jantjie and the others. As we entered, we started ordering them to perform frog jumps.

And then we were given an instruction that we must assault them.

MR VISSER: Yes. You heard the evidence about Mr Ngo about this incident how you were divided into two groups, who the people were that gave the instructions and who were involved. You heard the evidence, you were present here weren't you?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I heard Ngo's evidence, but we have been separated into two groups. The group that I am referring to is MK group and the ANC group. You understand that this is two groups meaning we were all in there together on the fifth floor.

MR VISSER: So are you saying you were not, are you saying you were not divided into two groups? I mean the comrades were not divided into two groups, the two groups were that they were MK's and ANC's is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: Please repeat your question, sir. Seemingly there is somewhere where you get lost.

MR VISSER: Were the members of the Security Branch divided into two groups?

MR MOTSAMAI: I explained yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you. And were the two groups, were the comrades separated into different offices?

MR MOTSAMAI: No sir. No sir. They were all in the passage.

MR VISSER: At all times during the course of every day in which you made them from jump, etc they were in the passage, is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes sir.

MR VISSER: So, is Mr Ngo incorrect when he told this Committee that they were taken into different offices and in fact the leaders were later taken down to the fourth floor, to the Special Investigating Unit?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, that is so. The leaders were taken to the fourth floor after they performed frog jumps and a lot of things. The group that we were left behind with on the fifth floor, was with us.

MR VISSER: I am afraid my question was a multiple question and let me put the other part which you haven't replied to.

Mr Ngo also gave the impression, I suggest to you, that the comrades were taken to different offices on the fifth floor. You see, I will tell you why he said that and what the purpose of the question is, he said that he couldn't see from where he was what was happening to the comrades in the other offices.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is so. Not that we were given instructions in the morning to get the information. As they were performing frog jumps, we would just pick from there. If you felt that you would recruit this one or you could get information from this one, you would take that person and talk to that person in there. Those who are along the passage, could hear what is happening on the other side of the passage.

MR VISSER: All right. Now, in regard to this group that was interrogated, what would you say if there was evidence to say that these people were regularly visited by government medical officials and by senior police officers while they were detained?

MR MOTSAMAI: I would agree with you. But somewhere along that I would not agree with you because they didn't disclose all the facts. They would come as people who have already been informed.

Even the medical officers, they would just come and browse through. You wouldn't understand what they would write on those papers. They didn't even complete the papers, they didn't give you all the information at all. They didn't give you all the information.

MR VISSER: And do you have personal knowledge of what you have just told us?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes. I have been taking people to the police station after they had been assaulted and they were giving instructions that I should stand there and it should not be written that that person has been assaulted. And those people who had been assaulted, would come here and testify that the medical officers performed their duties in a certain way. They would come and testify that.

MR VISSER: All right, are you suggesting that the District Surgeon and his staff of Bloemfontein, concealed facts from the records, in regard to marks of assaults which they did see on people, is that what you are saying?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: All right, now let me ask you this, is it not true, seeing that you know all these things, is it not true that a Magistrate also regularly visits or visited detainees?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I think Mr Visser must be polite with witnesses. It is for instance not necessary to add the (indistinct) that seeing that you know all these things. The witness is giving evidence, there are things which he says he doesn't know and may he please be polite towards witnesses?

MR VISSER: I will try to be polite Mr Chairman, the witness just said has personal knowledge, and it is on that basis, but I withdraw that.

Do you know whether a Magistrate and I want to put it to you, especially during the emergency detentions, regularly visited detainees? Would you agree with that?

MR MOTSAMAI: He used to visit them and they would be assaulted. We assaulted them whilst he visited them. They would not tell him, I am referring here to the detainees, they knew even if they would open a case, that would not take them anywhere.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, are you saying that, are you now giving evidence of an instance where the Magistrate was actually present when detainees were assaulted?

MR MOTSAMAI: No, what I am saying is how would the Magistrate be there whilst we were assaulting people?

MR VISSER: Because the translation that I heard said, the translation that I heard Mr Motsamai used the word while we were assaulting them, that is why I am asking you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you assaulted them for a week on end. He went on to say, as I heard it after then, they would not tell him.

MR VISSER: Now, you also heard Mr Ngo apply for a separate incident. This incident related to 40 to 45 arrested persons, who he says the Security Branch together with help from other police departments or units, arrested at Botshabelo and took to Botshabelo. Did you hear that evidence?

MR MOTSAMAI: May you repeat your question, sir.

MR VISSER: Did you hear Mr Ngo apply for amnesty and give evidence to the effect that he assaulted, he was part of an assault and torture of comrades at Botshabelo?

MR MOTSAMAI: Yes, I heard that evidence.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if you want to cross-refer to it, that is page 31 of Bundle A and following.

Now, you have not applied for amnesty in regard to that incident, did you?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I please get what was said to the witness in Sotho when the question was interpreted?

INTERPRETER: Do you want us to repeat what the witness said in Sesotho?

MR MEMANI: No, what the interpreter said to the witness.

INTERPRETER: What the interpreter said to the witness in Sesotho?

MR MEMANI: Yes. Yes, I understand you. And then it seems to me then that what you put to Mr Motsamai is whether he heard Mr Ngo testify that certain people were arrested and assaulted at Botshabelo, am I correct?

MR VISSER: Is he talking to me Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know who he is talking to.

MR MEMANI: I am speaking to the interpreter My Lord.

INTERPRETER: Oh, the interpreter. Your interpretation of what I said, was put to Mr Motsamai, is correct, but now what is implied here is that Mr Ngo did he hear, did Mr Motsamai hear the evidence to the fact that Mr Ngo stated that they assaulted and tortured people at Botshabelo, that is what was stated by Mr Visser.

MR MEMANI: Now, I hope Mr Visser understand what the yes was responding to.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am surprised to hear that there was a difficulty, I thought everything was pretty clear.

ADV DE JAGER: Then Mr Visser asked this witness, he said you didn't apply for amnesty in connection with these incidents and the witness said yes, as far as I could gather from your answer. Is that correct?

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct, sir.

MR MEMANI: And this is what I want to know, what did you say then when you interpreted that question to the witness?

MR MOTSAMAI: He is referring here to the Botshabelo incident, we arrested them and took them to the office, that is where we started assaulting them. That is what he is asking, that is where I said I did nothing at Botshabelo, hence I did not apply for amnesty.

We brought them to the office here at Bloemfontein, that is where the torture started.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think the last question which was put by Mr Visser, was you did not or let me rephrase it, is it so that you did not apply for amnesty in respect of the assault at Bloemfontein?

MR MOTSAMAI: I did apply for amnesty, that is the one I included here.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So, I think maybe put the question.

MR VISSER: Yes, quite simply this. You did not apply for amnesty in regard to any assault and torture of anybody at Botshabelo?

JUDGE NGOEPE: What is at, is it torture at Botshabelo or anybody ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: At Botshabelo.

MR VISSER: Botshabelo is about 50 kilometres down the road, apparently in the direction of Lesotho Mr Chairman, it is not Bloemfontein, and the incidents as I understand Mr Ngo's application and his evidence, as that there were two that he is applying for.

The one, the 20 to 25 comrades arrested by the SADF, taken to Ladybrand and then transferred to Bloemfontein and here they assaulted them.

Then there is another group, he says and he had a long story Mr Chairman, we will remember that three o'clock in the morning they were commandeered to come to the office and they were told that they were going to arrest a lot of people, they got some help in, the Riot Squad and heavens knows who else, they arrested 40 to 45 people and they had them detained at Botshabelo and that is where they assaulted them.

The question to this witness is you did not apply in regard to that issue, that incident, those incidents whatever you want to call them, and he says, no, I did not.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Visser, in that case, for the purpose of assisting the interpretation, then the question would be, you have not applied for amnesty in respect of any person that you tortured at Botshabelo?

MR VISSER: Quite correct, except that that must be related to the group of 40 to 45 people.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Well, let me put it to you again, just in case there is a misunderstanding. I am talking about the evidence of Mr Ngo where he said that 40 to 45 people were arrested and were held at Botshabelo. Do you remember that?

MR MOTSAMAI: They were not held at Botshabelo.

MR VISSER: Well, what do you want to call it Mr Motsamai?

MR MOTSAMAI: Let me assist here. Like Mr Ngo stated that he is applying for amnesty with respect to the people who were assaulted at Botshabelo, did he mention or did he specify in his amnesty application that he is applying with respect to the people he assaulted at Botshabelo and at Bloemfontein or in Bloemfontein?

MR VISSER: The answer to that and please pay attention to how I answer your question is yes. Now, Mr Motsamai, I don't know what the difficulty is.

MR MOTSAMAI: I applied for amnesty for people that were at Botshabelo, the people that we assaulted here at Bloemfontein. At Botshabelo I didn't assault anybody.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, he said in his application Bundle A, page 34, that you were one of the members of the Security Branch Bloemfontein, who participated personally and physically in the beating and torturing all those comrades and he listed 12 people whom he says were there, including you.

You say you did not take part?

MR MOTSAMAI: Were they assaulted at Botshabelo?

CHAIRPERSON: At Botshabelo, Botshabelo police station. They were assaulted with plastic sjamboks, he gave great details in his application and the injuries they suffered to their private parts and he set it all out. Did you take part in that assault?

MR MOTSAMAI: I didn't take part there in the people who were held there at Botshabelo, they would come here and state that I assaulted nobody there. Maybe he saw me there when I went to collect these people because when we went there and ordered, they know that they also take part.

You wouldn't know who was beating who, unless you would see that person grabbing the other one, taking him in the room and sjamboking him or assaulting him. They would come and explain here. It is not that I didn't apply for amnesty because I was involved there, but they would come here and explain I did nothing.

MR VISSER: Yes, well, let me just put to you that Mr Memani, who is Mr Ngo's counsel and who is also your counsel, led that evidence quite clearly that we are talking about attacks and assaults at Botshabelo and I am not suggesting to you Mr Motsamai, that I am referring to anybody that was brought from Botshabelo to Bloemfontein.

We are very specific about it as was Mr Ngo when his counsel led him in evidence in chief, it was an assault and torture at Botshabelo. Now my question to you is this, why does Ngo implicate you innocently in this affair of assault and torture, grievous torture of people at Botshabelo do you think?

MR MOTSAMAI: I have already answered, I do not know why he would do such a thing. He saw me there, but I do not know why he said I assaulted people. That is why I stand on that point that those people would come and testify that I never assaulted them.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, in all fairness to these two applicants, in the description of the assault of these people at Botshabelo, there is no reference to Motsamai and at the end the names of officers who would have been present, include the name of this witness. And this witness says that Mr Ngo would have said that I was present, because I was amongst the people who fetched these people at Botshabelo.

CHAIRPERSON: But in his application he says he took part, participated personally and physically in the beating and torturing of all these comrades and names Mr Motsamai.

At page 35, he gave the names of some of the comrades who were assaulted and at the bottom of page 35 he gave the names of other policemen who took part, participated in this matter of assault. So I don't understand how you can say he doesn't mention Motsamai.

MR MEMANI: I withdraw the suggestion Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: I really do feel that I must place something on record here, Mr Chairman. It is difficult enough for the cross-examiner to keep matters together and to make sense before a court or a Commission of his cross-examination because normally as you know very well, as an old practitioner Mr Chairman, it is difficult.

And every time that I am interrupted, unnecessarily, one looses the whole threat of what you are busy with, with great respect. I would suggest with respect that my learned friend restrains himself a little bit and just thinks before he leaps next time, when he wishes to make an application or make an objection.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you objection will be noted Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: I think you must also be warned not to be rude with me again. I am taking these things personally and it will go there if you persist.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a threat of some sort Mr Memani?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I ask for a short adjournment please, I am too upset to go on now.

CHAIRPERSON: It is four o'clock now and I understand Mr Visser, that you would welcome an adjournment at this stage for you to get an opportunity to finally peruse the papers and settle and decide if there are any specific questions you wish to raise with the applicant?

MR VISSER: That is so Mr Chairman, and I would appreciate it, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me that if we follow that course, we may in fact be saving time that other wise you might feel you have to put matters that need not be put.

Mr Stander, I understand it is your intention to make affidavits from the persons you represent, available prior to calling them?

MR STANDER: That is in fact so My Lord. I have been preparing the statements, I have handed them to my colleagues, all of them, I will be handing three sets of them to you. The only problem I am experiencing is that some of my clients which statements have been prepared, unfortunately did not turn up today, so I will be giving you those statements as soon as they sign it, I will be giving it to you, but in the meantime I have prepared the list of it, with the index, and as soon as they have been completed and properly signed, I will be giving it to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you. I think we have had a long and a tiring day, and I understand counsel are operating under pressure and I think it would be in the interest of all if we take the adjournment at this stage. We will adjourn till nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS: .