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,

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,

Right.

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.

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,

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.

that is you.

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

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,

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.

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

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,

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".

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.

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,

It says that,

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 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.

ON RESUMPTION:

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,

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.

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: My note, though, Mr Visser, combines the two of them. The r