CHAIRPERSON: I see you are optimistic about the weather today, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I will rectify that problem immediately.

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, before we start the hearing today I would like to make it clear that we will be expecting you to address us when the evidence has been concluded. To address us on the merits of the application.

Right, have we got any more victims this morning.

MR STANDER: It is true we have a further victim present here today, it is Mr Molefe. He is sitting behind the witness stand, I will call him to the stand.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Stander, could you just inform us, does he support the application or not.

MR STANDER: He does.

Mr Molefe.

CHAIRPERSON: S.S. Molefe?

MR STANDER: S.S. Molefe, that is him, Mr Chairman.

SERAME MOLEFE: (Duly sworn in, states).

MR STANDER: Mr Molefe, just put on the microphone before you please. Thank you Mr Chair. May I proceed?

EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER:

MR STANDER: Mr Molefe, during 1984 of which political organisation were you a member?

MR MOLEFE: The Pan Africanist Congress of Azania.

MR STANDER: Nineteen eighty four. At that stage where did you return from?

MR MOLEFE: Robben Island.

MR STANDER: Were you in prison there?

MR MOLEFE: Yes.

MR STANDER: What happened or where were you employed after your return from Robben Island?

MR MOLEFE: Well, after my return from Robben Island I was found a job by my uncle at Metro. My uncle is a shop owner in Bloemfontein. He spoke to the manager of Metro with whom he was in good terms to give me employment. That was immediately after my return from prison.

MR STANDER: What happened after you were employed there?

MR MOLEFE: Well, in no time the manager of Metro, Neil Otto, started questioning me about my attitude, about the present chairman of the TRC, Bishop Tutu then, who was advocating for disinvestment. So, he looked me, at me from, at the same level as Bishop Tutu, because the police use to come to where I was working, you know, to ask me questions about people that I know.

You know, they would come with names which were fictitious or unknown to me and I would tell them I do not know about such people and when I was called, say from the floor of the wholesale, I would find Mr Otto surrounded policemen amongst them Motsamai was present. So, obviously they had been talking to him about who I am and who I come from and what I believe in.

MR STANDER: What happened eventually?

MR MOLEFE: Well, the manager developed a negative attitude towards me, police kept on coming there and finally it was unbearable for me to continue working there. I remember even at, at the time the present MEC for the Police, Bapi Ganare, was organising there for a trade union council to be established there and he would come to me, talk to me that I must make it possible that the council must be established there and all those factors put together made Mr Neil Otto to be negative towards me.

MR STANDER: What happened after or let me put it differently, did you leave Metro later?

MR MOLEFE: Well, yes.

MR STANDER: Where did you go then?

MR MOLEFE: I went to a place not far from Metro, Coca Cola. It was in Tannery Road, I was working for Metro Bloom, Tannery Road. Now Coca Cola is not far from there and I happened to hear that they were looking for more hands, then eventually I got myself a job there.

MR STANDER: What happened after you were employed by Coca Cola?

MR MOLEFE: Well, they continue. I remember at the time they were driving a Laurel, a Black and White Laurel, registration HSR.

MR STANDER: If you say that they continued are you talking about Mr Motsamai and other police officers or what do you actually mean?

MR MOLEFE: Yes, other policemen, Mr Motsamai present. They use to come to Metro, no, no, to Coca Cola and talked to then manager who was coming from the local police force. His name is just escaping me. Anyway, he was a former policeman that manager. He also started saying that I am a boss, I am a "Meneer", so evidently his attitude was that of regret that I had been employed.

MR STANDER: Why would you say did his attitude towards you change?

MR MOLEFE: Like I am saying the police use to go to Coca Cola, from where I was working I could have a good view of the tarred road. I was working in house sales and I was issuing receipts there to people who were coming to make purchases when lorries could not make deliveries to their shops. Now, I could see what was happening, their ups and downs were very clear to me and undisguised and I had an informant inside there, a person who told me to go and find for a job there, is a person of the same origin as myself. He is coming from Petrusburg, by the name of Coetzee, Lifu Coetzee. He informed me that the management were talking with the police and I have also been seeing them going in. I mean, it is very clear.

MR STANDER: If you refer to the police who are you referring to?

MR MOLEFE: The special branch, the special branch.

MR STANDER: Were any of the applicants present during any of the visits?

MR MOLEFE: Yes, yes Motsamai was present. He has always been present.

MR STANDER: Were you dismissed later?

MR MOLEFE: Unceremoniously, within one, a month and a half.

MR STANDER: Could you gain any other employment after you were dismissed from Coca Cola?

MR MOLEFE: I remember going to "Asyn", the vinegar "fabriek" not very far from Coca Cola. I mean, I walked through the Hamilton in the streets, you know, from door to door trying to look for a job. I remember at one firm the management wanted to know where I worked before and I said Metro and he phoned Metro. After talking to Neil Otto he dropped the phone and only to say to me that, you know what, when I look at you, then I must put in glasses. I am reminded of Robert Mugabi of Zimbabwe. So, obviously he had painted me negatively and thereafter I went to "Asyn.

The management of Asyn was looking for someone to man the store, I mean a storeman. Well, I was ready for that, but then he wanted to know also where I worked before and he again or also phoned Metro and after phoning Metro he said, man, you are another Meneer, you know, so ...

MR STANDER: When did you have anything to do for the first time with some of the security officers or what happened after your dismissal from Coca Cola?

MR MOLEFE: Well, they kept going even to my home, I was staying with my uncle. They would come in the morning, I would hear a knock, when I asked who is that, they would say it is the police. When I opened the door, say slightly, I would see that, okay, here are they deployed, you know, around the house, you know, in front of the door and they would again say, ask me, do you know Tebogo, who is Tebogo, no, Tebogo says he knows you. No man, even if he knows me, but I do not know him.

MR STANDER: When were you arrested again?

MR MOLEFE: Well, I think I should mention that I was arrested in 1973, May 25, together with the PAC nationally, there was that kind of a (...indistinct).

MR STANDER: But I am now talking about the time after you were dismissed from Coca Cola.

MR MOLEFE: Well, police would only come and, for instance, yes, there was a time when the municipality policemen came for me to arrest me for being in Bloemfontein for over 72 and that was in 1984, influx control had been relaxed. So, the came to me and I was sent before or brought before the Chief of Security, Mr Boucher there, with officers, you know having ...

MR STANDER: When were you arrested by the Security Police again?

MR MOLEFE: Well, formally it was 93, but in between they would go for me and take me to Fountain for questioning, you know. Even the local police there, after that incident when I met Boucher, they still would come to me, I remember Khanya, one policeman in the security branch of the local police force.

MR STANDER: Can you just repeat the name for us, please.

MR MOLEFE: Khanya.

MR STANDER: Can you spell it for us please?

MR MOLEFE: K H A N Y A. I am just not familiar with his first name.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that please?

MR MOLEFE: K H A N Y, for New York, A, at the end.

MR STANDER: What happened on the 25th of May 1993?

MR MOLEFE: It was around two o' clock in the morning when I heard a knock, you know, a silent knock at my door of my mukhukhu, an informal settlement and then I just did not respond immediately. I was alone at home by that time. I just kept quiet and the knock was persistent. Then I realised that, no man, whoever is knocking from outside is aware that I am inside, so I asked who are you. Then someone said, the police, very quietly, the police. Then I said, at this time of the day, no man, wait outside, up until it is, you know, dawn. I do not allow visitors at this time of the day, you see.

No, no, no, I was really not prepared to open. Then they, well, continued to be quiet, so I was wondering that police are men of force, you know, threatening people, they are so quiet. Then I went to the windows screaming, opened them and screamed at my next door neighbours, you see, on the left and on the right-hand. Well, you know, I could not see whether they were, they responded to my call, then I started using,making noise, taking window frames and knocking them against the wall of my mukhukhu, the zinc house, just to attract the attention of the people in the neighbourhood.

Well, they were in the meantime, battling with the door and they broke it open, they broke the handle, presently it is without that handle, and they used some tile lever, they thought that it is a door that they could push in, only to find that it is a door that must be pushed, pulled, you know, not pushed in. So, they broke the handle in the process and they went for a, because they could not open it, they went for a tile lever and forced it open.

At that point in time I was in front of the house and now, of the door. When it opened there were just police here who, you know, leapt into the house, grabbed me and, you know, dragged me outside.

MR STANDER: Did you recognise any of the police officers who were at your home?

MR MOLEFE: Yes, Motsamai, as always. He has always been there. I remember even before that time, he would go to stadiums. I remember I wanted to be familiar with this Celtics, it was then popular, I went to the stadiums. When I was at the stadiums, Mr Motsamai would always be around there, looking at me.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Stander, could you please assist us in regard to which application, from which applicant is evidence being given, with regard to which deed that was committed?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I am offering evidence with regard to the applicant, Mr Motsamai, due to assaults which took place on this witness. It was on the 25th of May 1993.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR STANDER: What happened after you were arrested at that house that evening?

MR MOLEFE: I have got to mention that as I was dragged out of the house I sustained an injury on the left knee, because I was thrown and, out and knocked myself against the door and on the ground there were stones in front there, I mean, it is a clay environment there, so I put in, you know, stones. So, they trampled on me there with the guns levelled against me and thereafter they went into the house and I remember someone calling himself Captain Shaw, if I am not mistaken, who was saying that, okay, they had come to search me and they have got a warrant with them.

MR VISSER OBJECTS:

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Visser on record before the witness continues. I am afraid I must now make an objection. It is our submission that it is not the time nor the place for any alleged victim to come to you and to tell you about being victimised in incidents which have nothing to do with the present applications of the applicants before you. If you just look at the date in regard to which this evidence is now being presented, 1993, there is not a single application concerning that period of time by either Mr Motsamai or Mr Ngo before you.

The evidence from the word go, has been entirely irrelevant and now, Mr Chairman, I have an interest in so far as one of the persons for whom I appear, is now being mentioned and that is why you will forgive me that I interrupted the witness to stop him giving further evidence, because the ramifications and implications of this, if he is allowed to continue are clear Mr Chairman. We are just going to prolong the matter on an issue which is not before you and which is therefore irrelevant. I object to this evidence, Mr Chairman.

MR MOLEFE: Mr Chairman, I object in my own defence. When I made an application to the TRC it was not in response to Motsamai. I did not even know that Motsamai has made an application. My own conscience made me to make an application and in that application I made mention of events starting from 78 when I was arrested and detained and tortured at John Vorster. So, I had expected the TRC to investigate from there, because the 93 has got a basis, you know. It is because of my activism from, I am twenty years deep in the struggle.

CHAIRPERSON: This is not a hearing of the TRC to investigate complaints of victims. This is a hearing of the Amnesty Committee to consider applications for amnesty by Ngo and Motsamai.

MR MOLEFE: My Lord, I am trying to say that ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance of this evidence in connection with the two applications before us?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, please help me if I am wrong, but Mr Motsamai testified that on several occasions he assaulted other persons whose names he cannot remember. It is on, based on this that this evidence was placed before you. If you tell me today that we must not offer that evidence then I will leave it there. It is based on that, that this evidence has been placed before you. I agree that there was not a specific incident after, to which Mr Motsamai referred to as the 25th of May 1993, it is not part of his application, but he also informed the Committee that he assaulted various other persons whose names he cannot even remember and it is based on that, that I have offered this evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no application in respect of this incident in May 1993, is there?

MR STANDER: I agree with that, that specific date does not appear before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Because Motsamai has admitted, has he not, that he assaulted many people?

MR STANDER: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: So this evidence is not called to contradict Motsamai who is adopting the line that he only assaulted one person on one case when he asked for amnesty, is it?

MR STANDER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So, I must, I have great difficulty in understanding the relevance of it. Motsamai says, I assaulted people, I do not know some of their names. I am not asking for amnesty. We do not give general amnesty like that. It has got to be amnesty in respective incidents.

MR STANDER: I understand the argument, the only reason is that it is a confirmation of what Mr Motsamai said, possibly it is seen against that background and when Mr Molefe came forward and said he would like to come and offer evidence in respect of that specific incident and that is why I thought it was relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: But he has just told us, he has told us he wanted to come and give evidence before of the TRC about repeated assaults on him by security policeman.

MR STANDER: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not the same thing.

MR MOLEFE: I think, Mr Chairman, it is important to impart this information to you that I also met Mr Motsamai long before he came to you, to say to him that, hey man, you know a lot of what happened to us. So, in the interest of peace and development in our country, go and make a confession. Then he said to me he did not do anything, but I said you know.

MR STANDER: I think we could possibly adjourn, Mr Chairman, possibly it will solve the problem for us, if we could adjourn for a while.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to consult with your client?

MR STANDER: That is indeed so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before you do that, I feel that it behoves us to explain to ignorant people, like the applicant, in as clear a manner and frankly and accommodative manner as possible to make him understand what the process is all about. I am addressing myself, Mr Molefe, in particular to you. Mr Molefe, I am addressing myself in particular to you, because many people come here without understanding what is happening and when we make certain rulings they feel as though they are being denied the opportunity to tell about their sufferings in the past when, in fact, it is not the case. We are not here to suppress anything. It is just that it is a procedure with which we have got to follow.

In your case it should have been explained to you from the beginning that this hearing is the amnesty hearing, is not the right platform for you. The right platform for you was not the Amnesty Committee but the Committee on the Violation of Human Rights. That is where you should have been advised from the beginning that you should go there and give evidence there. There are different committees within the Commission. The Commission consist of a number of committees. Now for you, the evidence that you are giving now does not belong here, it belongs to the committee which listens to people who want to tell us, to tell the country, to tell the nation about their mistreatment by others in the past. This is simple a wrong place, they sent you to a wrong place and you must please understand that.

MR MOLEFE: Okay, so long, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Because looking at the affidavit filed it relates apparently to the act of the applicant in his application for amnesty.

MR STANDER: That is true, Mr Chairman, as I argued with you on strength of that, that Mr Motsamai at various stages has said that other people were also assaulted and that is why I thought it was relevant. It obviously seems not to be the case and therefore could you perhaps give us the adjournment, give me the adjournment so that I can consult with the witness and then we can possibly solve the problem.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, it might be persistence to go through the cross-examination of Mr Motsamai. My instructions are that during cross examination by Mr Stander, the issue of the assault on this victim was raised and it was ventilated.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will take a short adjournment now.

ON RESUMPTION:

SERAME S MOLEFE: (s.u.o)

MR VISSER: At page 141 of bundle A, it would seem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: It has just been pointed out to me that this particular person at the same page is number 22, point 21, so it may not refer to that. Molefe is also referred to at that very same page as item 21, so the item 26 may not be what I suggest that it might mean.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, further I took Mr Motsamai under cross-examination, you will find this in bundle number three of the last record on page 779, under the headline "Further cross-examination by Mr Stander".

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR STANDER: Thank you very much.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps, Mr (...indistinct), whether you (...indistinct) consider whether he is falling under which item in the pre-trail conference where we agreed that this is the incidence for (...indistinct) amnesty is being asked. (...Indistinct) trying to see whether you could (...indistinct).

MR STANDER: I will indeed. I did not, unfortunately, attend those pre-trial conferences, I will have to look at that, if one of my colleagues can just make that available to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, gentlemen, have you reached agreement?

MR STANDER: It seems that Mr Visser's attitude is that no decision has been made by the Committee, so unfortunately I cannot take the matter further than this apart from saying that this witness was, as Mr Memani has said, raised by me during the previous hearing and in the parts which you will find on page 779 and further on. I think that it goes up to 781, in bundle three of the previous record. You will also see on page 780, there is a reference to Judge Ngoepe when he referred to page 141. Unfortunately I cannot remember what bundle he referred to, but also number 21. I am grateful to my colleague. He refers me to the fact that it is the list of victims which you will find on page 141 under item 21.

I was asked just before the adjournment to indicate on basis, what basis this evidence is being offered in terms of the pre-hearing discussions. You will find it under item 615, on page 5 of the minutes which were compiled, namely the "Assaults and Torture at police offices in Bloemfontein".

CHAIRPERSON: Did this take place in the offices of Bloemfontein?

MR STANDER: That is true, I was leading up to that. Unfortunately, I first had to give a background. I could not just start there. As a result of that I led this witness in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Because so far we have had no mention made of the officers of Bloemfontein.

MR STANDER: That is true Mr Chairman, but if we give the witness the opportunity to go further then he will eventually get to that part which will fall under paragraph 6.15.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, do I ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: If it does not take too long for us to get there, if you can do it as soon as possible.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, can you ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: But I understood Mr Visser's objection to being evidence led of incidents that were not part of what happened at the office in Bloemfontein and was therefore not relevant to the present application. That was your objection was it not?

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, but just a short reply to what is now being advanced to you. The notes in the minutes at 6.5 refers very specifically to annexure A attached to Mr Motsamai's application for amnesty, item 13. It does not refer to anything else. It refers to the group of persons of approximately 19 who were arrested, and who you have heard evidence about, that were brought to Fountain Street where they were allegedly assaulted. It was restricted to that. There is no way in the world that it can ever be argued that the members that participated in that pre-trial conference had in mind that a victim or an alleged victim, who gave evidence, wanted to come and give evidence as if before the Humans Rights Commission about other issues, were included in 6.5 of that minute, Mr Chairman. That argument cannot go up.

CHAIRPERSON: It is 6.15.

MR VISSER: 6.15, whichever. The fact is, Mr Chairman, my submission is a crisp one. Where we spoke and where you spoke to me in the beginning on the record regarding assaults by Mr Motsamai, it was always intended and so understood, to be restricted to the incident relating to the sixth of April 1986 when a group of 19 people were brought to Fountain Street, nothing else.

ADV DE JAGER: Paragraph 13 of the application does not restrict it to persons, to the 19 persons, it does not mention the 19 persons, there is no reference to the 19 persons.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, you are, of course, quite correct, but you will remember that there was cross-examination by myself. At that stage the Chairman pointed out to me that I cannot restrict it only to Fountain street, but I also had to include the possibility that reference could be made to Botshebelo which we accepted at the time. It then later appeared, Mr Chairman, that when Mr Motsamai gave his evidence, and I can give you the references on the record, stated specifically that he did not apply for amnesty in regard to Botshebelo which brought us back to point one, square one, which was assaults on this group of 19 people at Fountain Street.

I immediately concede that on the application on Annexure A it is not that specific. What we are submitting to you, Mr Chairman, is it was always in the spirit of understanding that we are talking about incidents. The one incident is the one that Mr Ngo refers to as the Botshebelo incident and the other as the Fountain Street, the Bloemfontein incident. It certainly never encompassed any other assaults although they may have taken place, Mr Chairman, in the Fountain Street Building, but unrelated to this incident, because, as you have pointed out yourself, there is no general amnesty and the references on the record that Mr Stander refers you to is of no assistance to you at all, because all that was put is that Mr Molefe will say that he was assaulted on numerous occasions. Well, fine, no problem with that, he can go and tell the Humans Rights Commission about that if he feels, as Mr, Judge Ngoepe has pointed, Justice Ngeope has pointed out to him, is his right.

We persist in the objection, Mr Chairman, we cannot

just go on and have people implicated in, with, in regard to matters which are not before you. What are before you? Before you, for Mr Motsamai, are 14 groups or individual incidents and we submit, Mr Chairman, that the implicated persons have a right to see the Chairman say, Mr Stander, you are restricted to bring your application or your evidence within the confines of one of them. If he chooses 13, that is fine, Mr Chairman, but then we will deal with that, because we have been prepared on that, we have been given notice about that and we will deal with that, but we cannot deal with incidents in 1993 or any other incident which does not fall within the purview of that incident. That is my submission, with respect.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, in fact, you may, I may have to say this, because you may need to answer that, because not only does it affect, possibly, (...indistinct) implicated people, but the victims as well, because if 13 is going to be construed as something like a blanket amnesty in respect of everyone else other than the 19 or people who were arrested on the 19th, then it could very well mean that we are going to grant Mr Motsamai amnesty in respect of other victims. We have not been notified, we might not have notified them on the basis that we assumed that under paragraph 13 he was applying for amnesty only in respect of people who were arrested at the border and those are the people that could have been, might have been notified.

It is so wide 13 that it would, it almost amounts to granting Mr Motsamai amnesty in respect of every other victim who was assaulted at the offices in Bloemfontein. It is very wide an is it not so, Mr Memani, that the understanding all along has been that that applies only to the people that Mr Visser is referring to or did you understand that he is applying for amnesty in respect of every other person on earth who was assaulted at the offices at Bloemfontein?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the, quite frankly I am not sure under which category it fell, but I can see that at page 711, in chief, Mr Serame Molefe is referred to and the incident is described as that is Serame Molefe,

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, he might have said that, but ... (intervention).

MR MEMANI: (...Indistinct) Motsamai.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That was, could have been his evidence, but can you try and just get outside the ambit of his application, specific application, at any time, as he wishes and go on adding incidents and incidents and incidents and then we go on listening, hearing to evidence simply because in his evidence in-chief he introduced to other offenses in respect of which, which cannot be accommodated within these papers.

MR MEMANI: My understanding is that his name was included in the list of victims which was prepared at the pre-hearing conference.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But is he accommodated in the founding papers? Now, it does not help to say that he was included in the pre-trial minutes. The pre-trial minutes cannot amend his founding papers to increase the number of incidents or to include incidents which were not included in the founding papers.

MR MEMANI: My understanding, my Lord was that the pre-trial conference was called specifically for the purpose of defining issues in respect of which amnesty was being applied for and ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: The pre-trial ...

MR MEMANI: ... it means, therefore, that if someones name was included in that list that he was being included as a victim in respect of which Mr Motsamai was applying for amnesty ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: But the ...

MR MEMANI: ... and that it was settled at the pre-trial conference.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was the list settled at the pre-trial conference or was it submitted subsequently by Mr Stander, I am not sure?

MR MEMANI: It was submitted before, before my Lord..

ADV DE JAGER: The list was prepared by the TRC in order to give notice to all implicated or interested or persons having, may, who may have an interest in the applications to give notice in terms of section 19.4.

MR VISSER: May I add, Mr Chairman, from our part, we did not ever concede the legality or the loco standi of any of these persons. We simply took note that they were alleged victims, it goes no further than that.

MR STANDER: Is it possible that I can make a suggestion to you? I mean that we are wasting time at this stage, that the witness complete his evidence, it will most probably take another half an hour after cross-examination, then it is finished and you can make a ruling later as to whether this witness was of any assistance or what the circumstances are.

MR VISSER: If I may just say, (...indistinct) now that some of my clients will be put up in the world, on the stage of the world as perpetrators of gross violations of human rights and then when you say the evidence was irrelevant, it is not going to help them one little bit, Mr Chairman. There was a good reason why I made the objection at the time when I did.

CHAIRPERSON: You objected to the mention of Lieutenant Shaw, did you not?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose name appears in two places in the applicants application for amnesty. It was not just introduced here and now.

MR VISSER: No, I am not saying this, but his name is now mentioned in regard to something else which is unrelated to the application for amnesty, Mr Chairman, and there is another person, Khanya, now. I do not know what the evidence is going to be about them, but I do not appear for him, but just by way of, of demonstration, Mr Chairman, if you going to allow this evidence to go on, this is the problem we are going to run into and it remains irrelevant.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani, do you concede the possibility of us granting amnesty to Mr Motsamai in respect of an incident which is not included in his application? Forget about what he said in his evidence.

MR MEMANI: My Lord, I am not in a position fully to answer the question, I am taken by surprise, so to speak, but my understanding is that the list that was drawn up, was drawn up on the basis that Mr Motsamai had applied for, except for amnesty in respect of a certain incidents and my understanding is that if at that time he had mentioned Serame Molefe, therefore, it must have been the understanding of all parties involved that he was saying that he did something to Molefe that requires of him to apply for amnesty. Now, as I am saying I am not fully prepared to deal with the question at this stage and I am not able to take it any much further than it is now.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears there may have been some misunderstanding. I am looking at the record now and as far as I can see you are taking him through the matters for which he has applied for amnesty and then at page 702 you come and you say,

Then you,

and he said

It would seem that he was not considering or you were not considering that you were bound by a decision taken at the pre-trial hearing to limit yourself to the persons involved in crossing the border crossing, the 19 people, that you were taking it as it is set out at 6.15, "Assaults and torture at the police office" and you were listing all the assaults and tortures that took place there. Was that your intention?

MR MEMANI: It seems to have been so, my Lord, because the other people were mentioned that like Brian Nagedi, who was not part of the group that attempted to escape or rather to skip the country.

CHAIRPERSON: And you dealt with all of them?

MR MEMANI: Yes, and Renegade is mentioned at page 703.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR MEMANI: He is Mos Mogamesi.

CHAIRPERSON: So you do not say, as far as I can recollect, you were, what you were, or at least as far as I estimate, you have not said that, you have said that, in fact, that when the objection was taking place that Lieutenant Shaw was behaving more lawfully than I have ever known a security officer to do, in that he had obtained a warrant before he was searching premises. Is that the evidence that was being led? There was no question of an assault. Was not the last thing he said, Captain Shaw said they had a warrant?

MR VISSER: Are you addressing yourself to me Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: May I make a crisp point? If you look at page 712 of the record, Motsamai says specifically, he did not assault this witness. He, therefore, does not apply for amnesty in regard to that incident, that makes it irrelevant, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We do not know what happened after that, he is not applying for amnesty, he is not purporting to apply for amnesty for arrests made at persons houses. The application is assaults at the building. That is the general amnesty 6.15. He has not got to that stage yet. I do not know if he is going there.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we have had his evidence, Mr Motsamai, he never gave evidence that he assaulted Mr Molefe, for which he is applying for amnesty. It is not before you. Look at page 712 if you will, with respect, Mr Chairman, the second paragraph line three. May I read it to you?

It is implicit in that, that Motsamai says I did not assault him, I did not even want to see who assaulted him. Now that is there. That is the last words spoken about this issue, there is nothing about any assault on him by Motsamai according to his evidence at the Fountain Building of the police in Bloemfontein, Mr Chairman, with respect. It does not really have to do anything with Shaw, but the fact is that is just the basis for my locus standi to object. And as my learned attorney points out, Mr Chair, Mr Stander, in his cross-examination, did not put any questions about this to Mr Motsamai and that you will find at page 779 over the page to 780. In fact it takes the matter no further at all, but Mr Chairman, if you are going to allow this evidence it will, in my respectful submission to you, and I do not want to waste time, be tantamount to extending yet again the application of Mr Motsamai in regard to yet another incident for which he has not applied in the beginning.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, I do not have a copy of the record further on. Is it apparent from the record that not only does he, Mr Motsamai, deny any assault at the house at the time when the witness was in a blanket, does he also cover the offices as well? Does he also deny the assault at the offices?

MR VISSER: I must speak from recollection, let me place that on record first, but my recollection is that he never referred to anything that happened at Fountain's, but I may be wrong, I have not had time to study the record. My attorney is busy reading now, the period, Mr Chairman. It is just a page and a half. Can I quickly glance through it and perhaps I will find your answer, Mr Chairman.

Yes, I believe my attorney is quite correct when he says that the only relevant question put by Mr Stander is at page 780, at the bottom of the page. Let me start a little before that. Mr Stander says,

and let us assume now for purposes of argument he is talking about this witness, Mr Molefe.

at 781,

and that is it. Again, there is no identification that these assaults took place anywhere which would form part of the application of Mr Motsamai. That is the way we understood the evidence, Mr Chairman, there was no cross-examination on this issue. If there was any indication that Mr Motsamai was applying for amnesty in this regard, obviously, we would have cross-examined him. We would put aversion there.

JUDGE NGOEPE: If Mr Motsamai denies having assaulted the witness, does that not put an end to the debate?

MR VISSER: That is exactly our submission. That is the end to the debate, it is irrelevant, irrevocably, irrelevant, Mr Chairman, and the evidence should not be allowed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, looking at the record and my recollection, it appears that, I disagree slightly with Mr Visser, he never said he did not assault this man, but he never said he assaulted him. He has never claimed to have assaulted this man. He lists this man as a member of the PAC who was subject to security branch ... (intervention).

MR MOLEFE: Sorry for ...

CHAIRPERSON: ... investigation.

MR MOLEFE: Sorry for interruption, Mr Chairman, I would like to be excused, recused, I want to go outside just for a minute.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR MOLEFE: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: And on the occasion when they went to his house, on one occasion, somebody assaulted him but Motsamai does not know who. He does not refer to any other specific assault at the building, does he? You remember you took, you carefully led Motsamai to the list of names. After he explained what it was, you started with Brian Nagedi and he says there,

and so he goes on.

He says,

He admits to taking part in the harassment and torture of some people and others he says, I do not know. Now, he is not asking for amnesty in respect of those offenses, is he?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, my understanding is that there is an application here for amnesty, but that the evidence might be deficient and it is a matter that ought to be dealt with on the basis that ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: He must apply for amnesty in respect of specific incidents.

MR MEMANI: That is correct, my Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and he has not applied.

MR MEMANI: No, he has done that my Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: He has not, you led him in evidence and he ... (intervention).

MR MEMANI: So, that is why my Lord, Mr Molefe is in the list of victims. He would not be in the list of victims if he was not seen as a person in respect of whom Mr Motsamai was applying for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he does not say it, he gave evidence, Mr Memani, he said, I do not know who assaulted him. His application is not based on a list of victims, his application is based on the evidence he gave before us, which has to be a full and frank disclosure. He has not disclosed any assault on this man.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the application is not limited to what he says. What you have got is a situation where a person launches his, an application and, perhaps, and I am not conceding that at this stage and perhaps the evidence does not go far enough to entitle me to the relief that he seeks.

CHAIRPERSON: But he does not even say it, Mr, you do not see the point, Mr Memani, he does not say that he had any part in an assault on this man.

MR MOLEFE: Mr Chairman, may I come to your rescue please? I think let us call the whole thing off, please. I will just stand and walk away from here.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should keep in touch with the TRC, because as my brother, Judge Ngoepe, explained to you, I think you could give them a great deal of information about the harassment you were subjected to over a number of years. It appears that deliberate steps were taken to make sure that you did not get employment, that you could not lead a normal life and I think that should be exposed, but that is not the function of this Committee.

MR MOLEFE: You know, I cry, I cry for South Africa really, because South Africa is having representatives like the Visser of today and I am afraid he is only digging a grave for South Africa, nothing else, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Your witness no longer wishes to give evidence, do you agree that he withdraws.

MR STANDER: I do not have any choice, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, I have listened to what happened, but on page 716, at the bottom,

Then Mr,

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

ADV DE JAGER: That is on page 716. Seven hundred and fifteen and up to 716. So, I am not, it is not quite clear here, but is he not excluding Yekila and Serame and the people of the Pan African Congress from those in paragraph 13 of his application, because you will see now we turn over to paragraph 14, we have dealt, we have finished with paragraph 13.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, it is just that I do not understand what the 26 above refers to. I think the 26 could possibly refer to the number of people who were taken from what? From Ladybrand, but I am not sure what he is referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 714,

This is the passage I referred you to during the adjournment.

MR VISSER: If I may try to be helpful, Mr Chairman? It could only refer to that item 26 at page 141, because that refers to the task force of the Pan Africanist Congress.

ADV DE JAGER: Page one hundred ...

MR VISSER: One four one ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: One.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, yes. It can only refer to that. Oh, yes. The point being, Mr Chairman, already at that stage we all knew that this was not an incident for which Mr Motsamai was applying for incident, the former Smith incident, I think we called it. It was not part of his application and that came up in cross-examination again. You will remember what happened in re-examination, Mr Memani told, said to Mr Motsamai or Mr Motsamai, first of all, said in cross-examination, I will apply at a later date for amnesty in regard to these incidents.

In fact, it is just coming back to me, Mr Chairman, maybe it is a piece of useless information, but apart from that there was also the Botshebelo incident about which he was criticised that he had not applied for amnesty and he conceded that he had not and then there was in cross- examination that remarkable piece of evidence that he did not assault anybody there which was changed to I was with the people inside not outside, which was changed to I assaulted people inside and not outside and I will apply for amnesty later, that was in the same breath as this particular incident to which we are referring to now.

ADV DE JAGER: I think it is clear that item 26 has been defined on page 714.

So item 26 refers to the task force who resided at Ficksburg and who were arrested at a certain time.

MR VISSER: Of course, if I may add, Mr Chairman, who were arrested by the askaris at the, I am sorry assaulted by the askaris, at the bottom of the page.

Mr Chairman, I have just found the passage, it is actually on the next page, 715,

I am sorry, no, I misread it. I thought this was the passage where he says, no, I will apply later. I am sorry, it is not the right passage.

ADV DE JAGER: I think at the bottom of that page, 715,

MR VISSER: Yes, referring to Jekila, clearly.

ADV DE JAGER: And Serami.

MR VISSER: Jekila, but certainly, Mr Chairman, ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Jekila and, Jekila and Molefe.

CHAIRPERSON: He was assaulted, not they were assaulted by the askaris. He was taken.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I must with respect, Mr Chairman submit that, Mr De Jager, I do not think he is reading it correctly. This is referring to Jekila and it was thrown in together with Molefe, but the whole narration concerns Jekila, with great respect, Mr Chairman, but we are going to leave it at that. We have made our submission, Mr Chairman. We would like to see us continue, not go backwards.

ADV DE JAGER: But I think the point is whether he has been assaulted or not, his situation would be relevant if Mr Memani could convince us that he is applying for amnesty in respect of the assault on Mr Molefe.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I have already said that I cannot deal with that question conclusively. I am taken by surprise and if it is a condition to these proceedings proceeding, we might have to be given time to go through the old documents and all the documents and see what the actual position is, but my understanding is that his name would not have been on that list if there was no intention to apply for amnesty in respect of that incident and that at the time when this evidence was led there was no objection from Mr Visser. He was, this evidence was led in-chief and it was again led again in, under cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: This list was not part of his application was it? It was entered by the TRC.

MR MEMANI: Yes, my Lord, there are many things which were not part of this application and, you know, I cannot recall the history of the matter clearly, but a lot of things happened in the interim.

CHAIRPERSON: But was there any other application? Are you satisfied? There was the one application which is before us, a handwritten application and a typed Annexure A. Is that his application?

MR MEMANI: Yes, your ...

CHAIRPERSON: And he makes it clear in the application that the supplying particulars we must look at Annexure A. These are the matters he is applying for amnesty for.

MR STANDER: May I refer you, Mr Chairman, the typed section in Bundle A of his application. If I could perhaps be of assistance to you. It possibly belongs to item 13 which reads,

CHAIRPERSON: Read the next, yes, read on.

MR STANDER: "The said assaults and torture took place at

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is the point we are making, that is what he is asking for, amnesty for, incidents that took place at the fifth floor, Fountain Building.

MR STANDER: That is, that is true, Mr Chairman, ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STANDER: ... but as I submitted to you, I had to bring the witness to the point where he was arrested. I was about to take him further where he would have been taken to Fountain Street where he has, where he was assaulted, but the objection was raised before I could get to that part of the evidence.

ADV DE JAGER: But I think it is, as far as the evidence of Motsamai is concerned, the applicant, he deals with this person by name. On page 711 while he is dealing with all the victims and he comes to Serame Lefe,

and then we go on to the next victim, victim number 22. So, that is all the evidence that the applicant has given and the applicant does not admit that he assaulted him and he is not, I cannot see how he could apply for amnesty unless he says, well, I assaulted him.

MR MEMANI: He does say, Mr Chair, it is a mistake, that they assaulted him.

ADV DE JAGER: They assaulted him. (...Indistinct) yes, I have read that to you.

MR MEMANI: Yes, but there is also the part where he says we assaulted him because we wanted him to be an informer. Apparently, you know, there is a possibility that he is referring to two different incidents here where he was wrapped in a blanket and at a certain stage where he was being recruited as an informer, which would probably ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: No, here he is specifically dealing with a person, a victim.

MR MEMANI: Yes, but he says, when he speaks of Serame, he speaks of him at a time when he went in, they went in and he was wrapped in a blanket. He also speaks of him being assaulted, because we wanted him to be our informer. It seems to me that there is a possibility that the first assault where he was wrapped in a blanket could have taken place in a residential place and the assault which he associates himself with when they were recruiting him as an informer could have taken place in an office.

MR VISSER: We know that is not so, we know it took place in Ficksburg, Mr Chairman. That is what the record says on ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani, I think if people want amnesty they must have the courage to clearly and unambiguously state it clearly that they have assaulted this person, I assaulted this person and this is what I did to him. I mean, Mr Motsamai is not coming out clearly with regard to Mr Olifant, was trying to put together pieces of evidence here and there to try and decide by his evidence to say that he admits he has assaulted the person. If a person applies for amnesty, if he wanted to apply for amnesty in respect of Mr Olifant, he should have stated it clearly, it should have come out clearly either in the application or in the evidence. It must be clear. We should not struggle to pick up one page there, one sentence there and the like.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, that is a valid criticism of the manner in which he deals with the, with this aspect. However, it seems to me, at the same time, it does not go to say that there is no application for amnesty in respect of this incident and, you know, it is ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, we are struggling to find it. That is what I am saying. It is not the question of sufficiency of evidence. We are at the stage trying to read the record with magnifying glasses to see whether there is such an application and that is my problem.

MR MEMANI: I share the difficulty with you, my Lord, but my difficulties, as I have said, I am not, like everyone else, in a position conclusively to deal with this question now.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Which makes my, emphasises the point that I am making. If you, as counsel for the applicant, are not even able to answer that query as to whether there is a clear application by your client with regard to Mr Molefe, it just makes it worse, it makes it even more dubious. I have a problem about people not coming out clearly and specifying that, look, I have done this, I have assaulted this man, I want amnesty for him. I have a problem with that.

MR MEMANI: But, Mr Chair, as I have said, I have conceded that there is a difficulty with the evidence and which I share and, however, my Lord, I have also stated to you that my view is that there is an application or, which was before the Committee about Serame and that is why he was listed as a victim and that matter was led in-chief and it was dealt with under cross-examination. That is the position which I take of the matter now. However, I am not in a position to say anything further.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Gentleman, Mr Molefe has told us that he discussed the matter with Mr Motsamai and reminded Mr, and reminded and encouraged Mr Motsamai that Mr Motsamai must make applications for amnesty, disclose all sorts of things with regard to himself. So, if anything, I would expect that Mr Motsamai's papers would be very loud with regard to Mr Molefe, the man who has encouraged him to make application for amnesty.

MR MEMANI: Well, Mr Chairman, I understand what you are saying. I am not, you know, I do not want to mislead the Committee and say I am definite, I am sure that there was an application. I am saying that this is an incident which, as you are saying, is quite dubious and if you want me to deal with the matter properly then you should stand the matter down, I will go and look through the papers and take further instructions and clarify the matter, because there were many incidents that we are dealing with, I cannot recall clearly what went on during those proceedings. We are speaking about evidence which was led over three weeks in the past.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, I think that would be a matter of argument and you could argue that later, but as far as the papers at the moment, you may convince us to the contrary, but as far as I can see there is no application in this respect and, but it is still open for you to argue it in the end that there is an application and that we should grant amnesty. If there is no application Mr, the, Molefe's rights would not be affected, he would be able to sue the police and the, your client for damages if he has been assaulted by them.

MR MEMANI: What I would suggest, Mr Chairman, is that we proceed with other witnesses and that overnight we will deal with the question and I will come back to you in the morning about whether there is a proper application on this aspect or not, in the morning, and you can take it from there. If Mr Stander then, then it will determine whether Mr Visser's objection is correct or whether Mr Stander is entitled to continue with the witness and the option will be left to the witness to come back if he wishes to.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR MEMANI: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I will continue to bring further prejudiced or disadvantaged people to you for their testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: We do not want prejudiced, disadvantaged people, we want testimony that affects the amnesty application of the two applicants.

MR STANDER: I understand, Mr Chairman, which is in fact true that they are members of the group of people who were arrested in Ladybrand. Two of them are present here today and I will continue to present these people's evidence and I do not think that there is any question that amnesty is being applied for with regard to these people.

CHAIRPERSON: These were part of the group of 19, are they, who were taken to Fountain ...

MR STANDER: That is correct. May I continue?

CHAIRPERSON: I do not think any objection can be taken to their evidence, because it appears, according to Mr Visser's client, nothing happened.

MR STANDER: No, Mr Chairman, but the fact is there is an application for amnesty in regard to Fountain Station for this group. That is why there is no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STANDER: I call to the witness stand Nthabiseng Lekitlane.

MILDRED NTHABISENG LEKITLANE: (Duly sworn in, states).

JUDGE NGOEPE: You can sit down.

EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER:

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I will continue to let the witness spell her name for you. Could you please proceed and spell your name to us?

MS LEKITLANE: Mildred Nthabiseng Lekitlane. N T H A B I S E N G, L E ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Can you kindly spell the name for the sake of the record?

CHAIRPERSON: That is what she was doing.

MS LEKITLANE: I am Mildred Nthabiseng Lekitlane. N T H A B I S E N G, L E K I T L A N E.

MR STANDER: Ms Lekitlane, were you part of the group of people who were arrested when you were trying to skip the country?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Where were you arrested?

MS LEKITLANE: We were at Ladybrand.

MR STANDER: Where were you eventually taken after you returned to Bloemfontein?

MS LEKITLANE: We went to Ramkraal.

MR STANDER: What happened there?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken to Voegs Way, I am sorry, to Park Road.

MR STANDER: No, I am referring to Ramkraal, were the people there prepared to receive you?

MS LEKITLANE: We found female policemen, they gave us clothes. Whilst we were still there, we were then taken, we were told we were being taken to somewhere else.

MR STANDER: And you were taken to the police station here in Bloemfontein?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Did Park way receive you?

MS LEKITLANE: We did not stay, we were further removed.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken to Fountain.

MR STANDER: What happened at Fountain Street?

MS LEKITLANE: When we arrived Mr Motsamai said to us he had been waiting for us for a long time, he was, he wanted us. He said we should walk in pairs, a boy and a girl. He said he was conducting a marriage ceremony. We were taken to the kitchen, all of us ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could you give us his name again?

MS LEKITLANE: Mr Motsamai.

MR STANDER: After you reached the kitchen what happened then?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken out one by one, everyone one was picked by one person.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken to certain rooms, I do not know whose rooms were they.

MR STANDER: Who took you out the first time?

INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not hear the question.

MS LEKITLANE: We were, the three of us were taken by Mr Motsamai. It was myself, my sister ... (intervention).

MR STANDER: The question was who took you out the first time?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken by Mr Motsamai.

CHAIRPERSON: You were interrupted before you could tell us who the third person was. You say yourself, your sister and who else?

MS LEKITLANE: And my brother.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that Mathepelo?

MS LEKITLANE: That is Mathapelo and Don Letsigo.

MR STANDER: What happened to you when you were taken out by Mr Motsamai, the three of you?

MS LEKITLANE: We were shown a photo album. In that album there were people, we were asked as to whether we know those people. We denied that we do not know those people. Then he started assaulting us.

MR STANDER: What did he do when he assaulted you?

MS LEKITLANE: He was slapping us when you deny that you know a certain person on the album. If he asks you that do you know this person, you say no, he slap you on the face.

ADV DE JAGER: The "him" that you are referring to, the one who slapped you, is it Mr Motsamai or another person?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR STANDER: What happened after this?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken out of that room and were taken back to the kitchen.

MR STANDER: Were you assaulted again on that specific day?

MS LEKITLANE: When a photo of me was taken I was assaulted, because I could not face upright.

MR STANDER: Who was the person who assaulted you then?

MS LEKITLANE: I do not remember him. We were tired of the road.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken that evening?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken to Glen.

MR STANDER: Were you taken back to Fountain Street Security Police branch after that?

MS LEKITLANE: The next day we were taken (end of tape 1B) back.

MR STANDER: Were you assaulted on the second day?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, we were told to give our statement.

MR STANDER: Was Mr Motsamai involved in the assaults on the second day again?

MS LEKITLANE: He was not present on that day.

MR STANDER: Were you recalled to give evidence or testify at a later stage? Before court when there were members of your group who were charged?

MS LEKITLANE: Firstly, we were taken to court. When we arrived there we were put in a cell. When they read those statements we said to them those statements are not complete, because, then they took us back again.

MR STANDER: And were you then released from detention after the case had been withdrawn in the local Magistrates Court?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, we were released.

MR STANDER: Of which political organisation were you a member at that stage?

MS LEKITLANE: I was a member of Manung Youth Congress.

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: (...Indistinct).

MS LEKITLANE: That is Mr Mamome.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am terribly sorry, I did not hear your question, Mr Commissioner, could you just repeat it please?

JUDGE NGOEPE: I asked her who assaulted her on the second day.

How did he assault you?

MS LEKITLANE: He was using a cable, it seems it was a kettle cord.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he hit you with that or what did he do with the cord?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, he was beating us with that kettle cord. We were, it was the three of us.

JUDGE NGOEPE: (...Indistinct) were the three. You, it was not clear to me, at some point mention was made of a brother or something.

CHAIRPERSON: Just her brother.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Don Letsigo, is it your brother?

MS LEKITLANE: She is a girl.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Give me the names, it is yourself and whom?

It was yourself and whom, on the first occasion when the three of you were taken in the kitchen?

MS LEKITLANE: Don, Mildred and Daureen.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Don, Mildred is yourself, of course, and then ... (intervention).

MS LEKITLANE: Daureen.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ... Daureen. Are you related to her, is that the sister?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And Don, are you related to Don?

MS LEKITLANE: She comes after me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Oh, the three of you are sisters.

MS LEKITLANE: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER:

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Perhaps, if you would allow me just to try to clarify this. Mathapelo, is that either Don or Daureen? Can you just tell us please? Mathapelo Lekitlane, who is that?

MS LEKITLANE: Mathapelo is Daureen.

MR VISSER: I see. Well, it appears, Mr Chairman, perhaps I should ask the witness.

Who is the person that you refer to as Motsego, is that Don?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, that is Don.

MR VISSER: Is she here today?

MS LEKITLANE: No, she is not here.

MR VISSER: It appears, Mr Chairman, that on the list handed in by Mr Stander there is no affidavit for this, the third sister, so it seems.

MR STANDER: That is true. She is not one of the prejudiced persons for whom I received instructions. That is correct.

MR VISSER: Am I, do I understand you correctly that you were assaulted, according to your evidence, by only two people? By Mr Motsamai on the first day, by Mr Mamome on the second occasion, on the second day? Have I got it right?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you remember that you made an affidavit to your attorney, Mr Stander, - page seven, Mr Chairman, of the bundle - do you remember that?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: And is that what you said in your affidavit as well, that you were assaulted by two persons, Mr Motsamai and Mr Mamome?

MS LEKITLANE: Those are the people who have assaulted me, but or people who assaulted me were five, (...indistinct) Mr Magesa was just insulting us, Ngo wanted me to be his informer, but I did not agree, Molefe was together with Mr Mamome all the time or in many times.

MR VISSER: Yes. I am sorry, I am not certain that I follow you. You have told us that Mr Magesa was insulting you. Is that correct?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, he was insulting us.

MR VISSER: So, he was not torturing or assaulting you, he was insulting you?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Well, we know about Constable Motsamai. Then we have Ngo and you say that all he wanted to do was to have as his informer?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, that is so.

MR VISSER: (...Indistinct) to you?

MS LEKITLANE: No, Sir.

MR VISSER: Now, the person that you referred to as Mr Molefe...

MS LEKITLANE: I said in many instances he would be, always be with Mr Mamome, but did not take part in assault.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, what was the last part of your sentence, but he?

CHAIRPERSON: Did not take part in the assault.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I want to suggest to you, Madam, that the person that you refer to as Mr Molefe is probably or maybe a reference to Mr Mmelesi who is, which is spelt, as I have it, Mr Chairman as M M L E S I, M M L E S I. I am told it is M M E L E S I, I beg your pardon and I want to put to you that I consulted with Mr Mmelesi, it is Sergeant Mmelesi, and, well, perhaps, if he is in the room can he just stand up - oh, he is outside - and he informs me that, in face, he interrogated two of the three sisters that were there and, obviously, you were one of them.

Now, do you see the difference here, first of all? He says he did not interrogate all three the sisters, he says he interrogated two of the three sisters. Would that be correct? Two of three sisters.

MS LEKITLANE: May you please repeat your question?

MR VISSER: Yes. He tells me that he was present when you were detained and when you were at Fountain's and where he differs from your evidence is he says that he interrogated two of the three sisters and he mentions Mathapelo and you have told us that Mathapelo is - bear with me, Mr Chairman -is Daureen. So, he can remember the name of Daureen, but he could not remember another name and I am prepared to accept that it might have, that it would have been you. All that I am putting to you now is, is it correct that only two of the three of you sisters, not much turns on it, but two of the three of you were in the same room.

MS LEKITLANE: The audio instrument does not work well.

MR VISSER: Perhaps point it upwards so that it can receive signals.

MS LEKITLANE: I can now hear, Sir.

MR VISSER: Yes, I just want to put to you what he can tell the Committee, is he ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: For how long have you not heard what counsel has said? Did you hear him say that he was putting to you that it was not Molefe, but somebody known as Mmelesi, Sergeant Mmelesi? Did you hear counsel put that?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, I heard him saying Sergeant Mmelesi.

MR VISSER: Yes, perhaps, Mr Chairman, in fairness to the witness, I should take it up from there again.

Do you know a Sergeant Molefe, Mmelesi, I am sorry?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, I do know him.

MR VISSER: Is that the person that you intended to refer to in your affidavit when you referred to Molefe in 5.3 of your affidavit?

MS LEKITLANE: That Molefe was called Davu?

MR VISSER: Somebody quite different from Mr, from Sergeant Mmelesi, not the same person?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, that is a different person.

MR VISSER: Oh, all right. Well, then let me tell you that Sergeant Mmelesi says he, in fact, interrogated two of the three sisters who were in detention and he specifically identified Daureen. Was there a time that Daureen and one of your other sisters or yourself were, the two of you were interrogated by anyone during your detention at that time that you can remember?

MS LEKITLANE: I am requesting that you repeat your question again.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, sorry, with your permission, can I just ask this? Were you ever interrogated by Mmelesi?

MS LEKITLANE: No, Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: If Mmelesi had interrogated two of the three sisters would it be, would you be one, would you have been one of them?

MS LEKITLANE: No, Sir.

MR BRINK: Mr Chair, may I suggest that if Mr Mmelesi is now in the hall, if Mr Mmelesi is in the hall, I wonder, to save a lot of confusion, if he could stand up and see whether this witness recognises him as being one of those who interrogated her.

MR VISSER: In fact, the same solution occurred to me, but it was to no avail, because he cannot remember, Mr Chairman. The fact of the matter is not much turns on this, with great respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Well (...indistinct) waste time on it.

MR VISSER: I am not going to waste time on it, Mr Chairman. I am not going to waste time on it. The result of that is that we are left only with Sergeant Mamome and Sergeant Mamome, I put it to you, will deny (...indistinct) ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I do not know whether your microphone is on, but I cannot hear you at all and I am listening to the Afrikaans. So, either you must speak closer to the microphone so that I can hear you, otherwise I cannot hear the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, I did forget to switch it on. It is now switched on.

I put it to you that Sergeant Mamome will deny that he assaulted you or anyone else during that period time or that you were assaulted in his presence by anyone that he knows about.

MS LEKITLANE: I saw him.

MR VISSER: Those are my questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, have you got any questions?

MR MEMANI: No questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: No. No further questions. Very well.

One aspect that was raised yesterday, perhaps you can tell us a little about it. You have told us that when you were taken to Ramkraal Police Station there were female police officers there.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, can I just assist you. Ramkraal is not a police station, it is a name for the former prison services here in Bloemfontein. The building has been evacuated, it was known as Ramkraal, it is not a police station.

CHAIRPERSON: There were women officers there who gave you dresses, you told us.

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct, they were there.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there any women police officers at Fountain Police Station or Fountain Security Branch offices when you were taken there?

MS LEKITLANE: No, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to take it further. Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, perhaps because it is relevant to your question I should just take up one further point.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER:

MR VISSER: Were you kept over the weekend in custody as well after you were arrested? Perhaps I should ask you how long were you in detention?

MS LEKITLANE: Three months, Sir.

MR VISSER: Over the weekends were you sometimes visited by female police officers to discuss with you whether there was anything that you had a complaint about?

MS LEKITLANE: I have not seen any female police coming to visit.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I ask a question which arises from Mr Visser's question?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI:

MR MEMANI: Yes. Now, did you at any stage see Erasmus visiting cells at the police station or at the prison?

MS LEKITLANE: No, I did not see anybody. I did not see Mr Erasmus.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you know him?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, I do know him.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you. We will take the short adjournment now.

 ON RESUMPTION:

MR STANDER: If we could just wait a moment, Mr Chairman. Daureen Lekitlane is most probably still having tea. She will most probably be here within a minute or so. Unfortunately, I do not have any other witness to call. Otherwise you must just grant me leave to go and call her.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am switching on my microphone (...indistinct) speaking, but rather just to amplify my voice. I am hoping that ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: You will switch it on.

MR VISSER: It was switched on, Mr Chairman. Can you still no hear me, Mr Chairman? That might help. Can you hear me now, Mr de Jager?

ADV DE JAGER: (...Indistinct) very well (...indistinct) can hear you.

MR VISSER: I am not sure whether it is being interpreted. She says it is being interpreted, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I was just trying to take up the lull that we had by wanting to ask your directions on a way forward today, but the witness is here, I do not want to delay proceedings. We can do this later, Mr Chairman.

EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER:

MR STANDER: Can you just give us your full names once again and spell it please.

MS LEKITLANE: Mathapelo, M A T H A P E L O, Daureen Lekitlane, L E K I T L A N E.

MR STANDER: Tell me if I am correct when I say that you were also a member of the group of persons who were arrested when you tried to skip the country in the vicinity of Ladybrand?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct, I was present.

MR STANDER: You were brought to Bloemfontein later and that was on the sixth of April?

MS LEKITLANE: Nineteen eighty six, Sir.

MR STANDER: Where were you initially taken after you arrived in Bloemfontein?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken to Ramkraal, from there we were taken to Park Road, from Park Road we were taken to Fountain Street.

MR STANDER: What happened at Fountain Street?

MS LEKITLANE: When we were taken out of the van we met Motsamai and other police waiting for us outside. Motsamai said to us I was waiting for you, hold each other by hand, I am going to marry you. We entered the passage called Violent Street. We were directed to the kitchen. Then we entered the kitchen.

MR STANDER: What happened after you were taken into the kitchen?

MS LEKITLANE: We were grouped and the three of us were taken to a particular room and we were interrogated. They produced an album, but we did not want to repress whether we know those people or not. Then Motsamai assaulted us.

MR STANDER: How did Motsamai assault you?

MS LEKITLANE: He was slapping us. He was assaulting us on the face. I would not be able to explain how.

MR STANDER: Who were all present on that occasion when Motsamai assaulted you?

MS LEKITLANE: Where? You mean in the kitchen?

MR STANDER: I am now referring to your particular group. CHAIRPERSON: If I understand you, Motsamai assaulted you in a room where he showed you photographs, not in the kitchen and I think the question is who was in that room.

MR STANDER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is so.

MS LEKITLANE: In that room it was myself and my two sisters and Motsamai.

MR STANDER: Who were your two sisters?

MS LEKITLANE: That is Mildred and Don.

MR STANDER: Were you taken back to the kitchen at a later stage?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct. After we were assaulted in that room, after we denied to respond to those questions we were taken back to the kitchen.

MR STANDER: What happened further on that specific day, I am now referring to the first day?

MS LEKITLANE: We were waiting, we were taken to the kitchen and we were taken again one by one and we were made to identify people in the photo until, we refused to say we know them or we do not know them.

MR STANDER: What time did you leave there that day?

MS LEKITLANE: It was at night, it was dark, I do not know what time was it.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken to Glen.

MR STANDER: Were there any female police officers present on the first day when you were questioned at Fountain Street?

MS LEKITLANE: No, there were no female police.

MR STANDER: What happened on the second day?

MS LEKITLANE: On the second day we were taken from Glen back to Fountain. At Fountain we were taken again, we were taken by Mamome.

MR STANDER: What did Mr Mamome do to you?

MS LEKITLANE: When he took us to a particular room he had a cord. It looked like a kettle cord. He was beating us with that cord, the three of us.

MR STANDER: Were you assaulted with that by Mr Mamome?

MS LEKITLANE: I do not know why, because he took us there, he interrogated us. Then he pulled that cord and assaulted us with it.

MR STANDER: In the statement that you made and which has been placed before the Committee, you mention ... (intervention). MR VISSER OBJECTS:

MR VISSER: This is a terribly leading question. He can ask the witness this. It has to do with her credibility. We know that credibility is an issue here.

MR STANDER: Were any other police officers present.

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, in the kitchen there were other policemen.

MR STANDER: Can you remember who they were?

MS LEKITLANE: This I remember is Ngo, Mafisa, Motsamai, Molefe. It was Motsamai, Mafisa, Molefe, Ngo. Other, others I know, but I just forget the names.

MR STANDER: Were any Whites present there?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Do you know who they were?

MS LEKITLANE: The one I remember is Erasmus.

MR STANDER: Did Warrant Officer Erasmus do anything to you?

MS LEKITLANE: He was assaulting us while the time we were taking photo's, because at that time we were crying. That is the person who was assaulting us on the face.

MR STANDER: How did he assault you?

MS LEKITLANE: I do not know how, I will not say how, but he was hitting us with his hands.

MR STANDER: Do you mean that he slapped you with an open hand or with his fist, what do you mean?

MS LEKITLANE: He would push you or your head underneath with his fist if you do not want to respond.

MR STANDER: What happened thereafter? I am now referring to after the second day.

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken back to the kitchen.

MR STANDER: Were you interrogated any further on that day?

MS LEKITLANE: We were interrogated three consecutive days.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken then?

MS LEKITLANE: After the assault, interrogation they would take us back to the kitchen.

MR STANDER: Were there any female police officers present on the second day?

MS LEKITLANE: I said there are no female police at Fountain, I have not seen them there.

MR STANDER: While you were detained at Glen were you ever visited by any other police officers from the security branch?

MS LEKITLANE: You mean visiting us? No, I did not see any police visiting us there.

MR STANDER: How did it happen that you were released at a later stage?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken to court. Whilst we were at court they read for us the statement. Then we said their statement is not complete, we should make our own statement, so they took us back to Glen, Glen Police Station. From there we were released there.

MR STANDER: Of which political organisation were you a member?

MS LEKITLANE: Myco, that Manung Youth Congress.

MR STANDER: I have no further questions for this witness, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: You testified about the first day, the second day and the third day. According to your testimony on the first day, you were assaulted by Motsamai, on the second day, Mamome was the person you took you and on the third day?

MS LEKITLANE: That is Motsamai.

ADV DE JAGER: Was anything done to you on the third day?

MS LEKITLANE: He assaulted us.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did this take place?

MS LEKITLANE: You mean where Motsamai assaulted me? He assaulted me in such a way that my teeth were loose and even now I do not have the tooth on my left-hand side.

ADV DE JAGER: Did this take place in the kitchen or where, in which place?

MS LEKITLANE: We were assaulted in those private rooms where they assaulted us all the time.

ADV DE JAGER: And who was with you on the third day?

MS LEKITLANE: You mean the time when we were assaulted?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MS LEKITLANE: We were three, but on the third day we were taken one by one. We were assaulted individually.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you see any of the assaults on the other persons or could you not see what was happening to them, I am now referring to your sisters, on that specific day?

MS LEKITLANE: I did not see them when they were assaulted on the third day.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Visser, who assaulted you on the third day? I am asking you this question, because I am under the impression that there is some variance between your, what you say in your language, in your own language and the interpretation. I may be wrong, but I just wanted to be clear about this. Who assaulted you on the third day?

MS LEKITLANE: On the third day it was Motsamai and Mamome.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am asking this question, because when you spoke about being assaulted on the third day, you put in the plural, you said they said assaulted us, they assaulted me and that is why I am putting this question.

Who assaulted you to the extent that your teeth became loose?

MS LEKITLANE: I do not know well, because the time when they were assaulting us on the third day I was sitting on a chair, Mamome was using that cord. They would hit you in such a way that you become dizzy or drowsy and not realise what was happening.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Interpreter, sorry, I have to query you on this, because the witness kept, with regard to the third day, kept on saying they assaulted us and they, she was speaking the plural and you are, in your interpretation you are not saying they assaulted us, you just kept on saying Motsamai assaulted us and that, this is the query that I was having. It could cause problems for the witness.

INTERPRETER: Thank you, Chairperson.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER:

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Just to summarise then, on the first day you were assaulted by Motsamai only. Am I right?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And was that while the three sisters, you and your two sisters and Mr Motsamai were alone in a room?

MS LEKITLANE: He, Motsamai, took us to that particular room, the three of us.

MR VISSER: Yes, the question is this, there were four people in the room, the three sisters and Mr Motsamai. Have I got it right?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: On the second day Mr Mamome assaulted you with a cord. Is that correct?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: That was in a room?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And were there again four people present, you three sisters and Mr Mamome?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: On the third day you were assaulted, as we now understand, by Mr Motsamai and also by Mr Mamome?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: When you were assaulted by Mr Motsamai was that in a room?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, they were assaulting us in the room. That is a private room and they, he was alone there.

MR VISSER: Now, that is the question, the next question. Who were present at the time when Mr Motsamai assaulted you in a room on the third day?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken one by one on the third day when we were assaulted. It was Motsamai and Mamome in that room and they said I should sit on a chair in front of a small table.

MR VISSER: So, there were three in the room.

MS LEKITLANE: We were three when they assaulted me.

MR VISSER: It was you and Mr Motsamai and Mr Mamome?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, on the third day.

MR VISSER: Now, would you please explain to us whether anybody else assaulted you during the whole entire period other than what you have just tell us, told us.

MS LEKITLANE: Those are the two people who assaulted us.

MR VISSER: Why I am asking you the question is that you made a remark about Colonel Erasmus. Now, where does he slot into this picture of assault on you?

MS LEKITLANE: Erasmus assaulted us once when we were taking photos. We only met him during that short period.

MR VISSER: Were, at that time, I am now just talking about the time when Erasmus assaulted, as you say, us. Were you in a private room again?

MS LEKITLANE: When they took photos of you they would take you into a private room, then they took us, the three sisters, and they showed us a camera and they said they are taking photos of us.

MR VISSER: You know, it is very confusing when you speak of they, could you try to identify the people that you are referring to.

Did Mr Erasmus take you ... (intervention).

MS LEKITLANE: I am saying Erasmus took us into a room and he showed us a photo, he said he is going to take photos of us.

MR VISSER: Who were present in that room at the time when you were assaulted by Erasmus? It was the three sisters?

MS LEKITLANE: We were three.

MR VISSER: Okay, who were they.

MS LEKITLANE: It was Don, Mildred and myself and Erasmus.

MR VISSER: All right. Now, will you explain precisely why you say Mr Erasmus assaulted you personally? What did he do?

MS LEKITLANE: We were not able to look direct at that photo. Now, if he wanted you to look direct at the photo, he would hit you with the fist underneath the chin, so that your head faces upright.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, excuse me, but a point of clarity, the interpretation was we were made to look at the photo, is it not we were made to look at the camera?

MS LEKITLANE: He wanted us to look at the camera.

MR VISSER: This conduct by Erasmus, did he hit you or did he push you up, as I understand you to explain when you spoke about the first time, did he push up your chin or did he hit you?

MS LEKITLANE: He was not pushing me, he was hitting me, because I felt pain.

MR VISSER: All right. Well, I put it to you that Colonel Erasmus, if it is the same person that you are referring to, will tell this Committee that he was not present at all during your interrogation, he had nothing to do with your, you, your group or any of you while you were at Fountains at any stage.

MS LEKITLANE: From where do I know him then?

MR VISSER: I am saying that he will say that he had nothing to do with you and he will deny that he ever assaulted you himself or saw that anyone else assaulted you, for that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: You put further, did you not, you put that he was not present at Fountain?

MR VISSER: Well, he was not, perhaps I should more accurately place upon record the following question, Mr Chairman. Mr Erasmus' evidence will be that he had no, nothing to do with the group of you who were arrested while you were at Fountains and, in fact, that he was not present during any interrogation or anything that concerned you at Fountains. I think that makes it clear, Mr Chairman.

MS LEKITLANE: I saw him present.

MR VISSER: And if I have it, my notes are correct, your sister, who has just given evidence, Mildred, not so, you heard your evidence?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, I heard.

MR VISSER: Did you hear her say that she was assaulted by Erasmus?

MS LEKITLANE: This happened in 1986, she might have forgotten, you did not ask her.

MR VISSER: Were you made to do frog-jumps by anybody at any stage?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, we did frog-jumps in Violent Street.

MR VISSER: Did you consider that to be an assault or a method of torture?

MS LEKITLANE: I do not know how to classify it.

MR VISSER: Was it not important to you, you did not feel any discomfort because of that?

MS LEKITLANE: I was supposed to do frog-jumps, there was nothing else to do.

MR VISSER: You did not feel any discomfort because of that? Was it a game?

MS LEKITLANE: Even if it made me uncomfortable what would I have done. I was supposed to make those frog jumps, because they were forced, whether you liked it or not and if you refused to make those frog-jumps, Motsamai would come and kick you at the back.

MR VISSER: Where did this happen?

MS LEKITLANE: At Fountain in Violent Street.

MR VISSER: Room?

MS LEKITLANE: At the passage, there is a long passage called Violent Street. Frog-jumps were done in that ... (end of tape 2A)

MR VISSER: ... tell them about this?

MS LEKITLANE: About frog-jumps? I said this happened in 1986. Some of the things she would not keep in your memory, but I still remember them.

MR VISSER: You did not tell Mr Stander about frog-jumps, being compelled to do frog-jumps, is that your answer?

MS LEKITLANE: I do not know whether I told him.

MR VISSER: Nor did you tell this Committee about that this morning, did you?

MS LEKITLANE: I say these things happened in 1986 and some of the things are coming back to my memory. I remember that we made frog-jumps.

MR VISSER: And strangely enough, your sister, Mildred, also did not tell this Committee about that this morning, about frog-jumps.

MS LEKITLANE: You did not ask her about them.

MR VISSER: All right. Were you compelled to do anything else apart from frog-jumps?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, the statement.

MR VISSER: No, you see, what I want to put to you is this, it may very well be, and it is true, that nobody specifically asked you about frog-jumps before I did, but everybody asked you about how you were assaulted and where. Do you agree with that?

MS LEKITLANE: You have just asked about the frog-jumps, Sir, it comes from you.

MR VISSER: Everybody in this Committee asked you this morning about how you were assaulted, is that not true?

MS LEKITLANE: Assault and frog-jumps are different. To be assaulted is to be beaten and a frog-jump is something else. These things differ.

MR VISSER: Mrs Lekitlane, Ms Lekitlane, forget about frog-jumps, we are on to something else. Everybody asked you this morning precisely where and how and by whom you were assaulted. Do you agree with that?

MS LEKITLANE: Who asked me, because this is my first time to even, this is the first time to speak, it is my first time to speak.

MR VISSER: Mrs Lekitlane, perhaps you are not understanding me. I am not sure how the translation is going across.

You came here to give evidence about how you were assaulted. Is that correct?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you were asked this morning by Mr Stander and by members of the Committee who assaulted you and where.

MS LEKITLANE: Sir, I have just come to this seat to testify.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MS LEKITLANE: Nobody asked me that.

MR VISSER: Ja.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I think that the witness said what she understands about assault and frog-jumps are different to assault, yes. Should she have asked what had happened to you and what has happened to her with reference to the assault and her definition, would she not have included the other facts.

MR VISSER: (...Indistinct) you are absolutely right, but this witness has, just now, told this Committee that she was also kicked in the passage by Motsamai. That is what it is about.

MR STANDER: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did she say that, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: She said so.

MR STANDER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: She said if you did not do frog-jumps, you were kicked from behind by Motsamai, she did not say that he kicked her.

MR STANDER: That is true, Mr Chairman, I could not have put it better myself.

MR VISSER: (...Indistinct) to you, Mr Chairman.

Were you kicked in the passage by Mr Motsamai on any of the occasions when you were at Fountain Street?

MS LEKITLANE: It was when I was doing frog-jumps.

MR VISSER: Please answer the question directly so that there can be no doubt this time.

Were you kicked by Mr Motsamai in the passage, at any time?

MS LEKITLANE: He kicked me at the passage when I was doing frog-jumps. He did not just come and kick me.

MR VISSER: Why did you not tell us about that this morning when you gave your evidence in chief?

MS LEKITLANE: You are asking me, Sir, about it. You asked me whether we did frog-jumps at the passages, you are the first person to ask me that.

MR VISSER: I was not the first person who asked you whether you were assaulted and by whom.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, in fairness to the witness, the witness has explained that he was, she was kicked by Motsamai while she was doing frog-jumps, Motsamai did not just kick me. That clearly means that she sees the, being kicked as part of the command to do frog-jumps and does not take it as an independent assault.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, on a point of order, my learned friend, Mr ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: I would like to just say what I had said from the translation. She was doing the frog-jumps, because if she did not do them she would have been kicked. That is how the interpretation has come through to me. She did not give evidence that she was kicked, but on grounds of this we put the question through the Chairman to you, but when did she say she was kicked. So, as regards the translation which came through to me, she did not say at that stage that she had been kicked, but she would have been kicked had she not done the frog-jumps. I do not know if your interpretation is correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, (...indistinct) the impression that you have got, then I can step off this point, because then I have made my point. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Were you compelled to do push-ups?

MS LEKITLANE: I remember of frog-jumps, not push-ups.

MR VISSER: How did Mr Mamome assault you with the cord that you spoke about?

MS LEKITLANE: He was, he, I explained that he had this cord that was like a kettle cord and he was beating me with it.

MR VISSER: Where on your body?

MS LEKITLANE: Here at the back. Sometimes he hit us on the head.

MR VISSER: On your behind and on your head?

MS LEKITLANE: (Not translated).

MR VISSER: The witness indicates on her back, not her behind, her back and her head.

How did this make you dizzy is what I would like to, you to explain, when you were hit with the cord?

MS LEKITLANE: If you are assaulted you feel pain and you become dizzy because of crying.

MR VISSER: And you are saying that the assault with the cord caused one of your tooth to become loose, is that what you are saying?

MS LEKITLANE: On the third day these people were beating us. You would be beaten by Motsamai and Mamome.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, then I misunderstood you. Oh, I see, I am sorry, my attorney has now just drawn my attention to the fact. She says she does not know who did that. Sorry, I withdraw that, Mr Chairman.

Is it, is it not true that you were visited at Glen Police Station by police officers who did inspection there and talked to you about any complaints that you might have?

MS LEKITLANE: I have never seen them.

MR VISSER: Did you see Erasmus there over weekends, over a weekend, I am sorry?

MS LEKITLANE: No, Sir, I saw Erasmus at Fountain.

MR VISSER: Would you bear with me a moment, Mr Chairman, please?

I just want to talk to you briefly about the people that you have implicated. First of all, in your affidavit, page nine, Mr Chairman, you mention the following names, Constable Mamome, Warrant Officer Erasmus and Constable Motsamai. Now, we have spoken about those. Then you also mentioned Constable Ngo and Constable Kopi, K O P I. Do you remember that you told Mr Stander that those were people who took part in your torturing?

MS LEKITLANE: Some of the people I knew with names. Some of them did not torture me.

MR VISSER: So, what you are saying is this affidavit is not entirely correct?

MS LEKITLANE: It is correct. I did not remember others, I remembered them, I remember them, I would remember them when I see them.

MR VISSER: Who of the five people that I have just mentioned to you did not take part in your torturing? I am going to mention the names again ... (intervention).

MS LEKITLANE: Mafisa was insulting us, Kopi was present, but I do not remember what he did. Ngo was also present. Those are the names of the people I remember.

MR VISSER: Now, what did, can you remember what Ngo did?

MS LEKITLANE: I do not remember.

MR VISSER: All right. In your evidence here today you mention the following names, Ngo, Mafisa, am I right, M A F I S A, Motsamai and Molefe. Is that correct?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Apart now from the others that you have mentioned. Now, are you quite sure about your facts? Who is Mafisa?

MS LEKITLANE: Mafisa is a certain policeman who was in the kitchen who was insulting us, he was insulting us with terrible insults. I just, I remember him through his insults.

MR VISSER: And was he a member of the security branch?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, he was a member of the security branch, because he was with them.

MR VISSER: All right. Now, what must we make of the difference between what you have placed on affidavit and what you have told us today? Must we lump them all together? Is that what you want us to do and say all of them were there and did what you today told us that they did? Is that what you want us to do?

MS LEKITLANE: I am saying there were other policemen in the kitchen. Some I do not know their names.

MR VISSER: I would put to you that both Erasmus and Mamome will deny that they took part in any assault on you or that they witnessed any assault on you or any or your sisters in their presence. Do you want to comment on that?

MS LEKITLANE: Well, fine, if they refuse, fine, but I saw them assaulting me.

MR VISSER: Yes. Incidentally, Kopi is one of the persons for whom I appear and he, in fact, confirms your evidence. Kopi can tell the Committee, if he is asked to do so, that he was present and he was, in fact, one of the persons who interrogated people in that group, but he says that he never saw anybody assault anyone in his presence either. I know that you did not implicate him, but he says he never saw any assaults on any of you. I just want to put it to you. If you want to make a comment about it you are welcome.

MS LEKITLANE: It is fine if he did not see the assault, fine, I saw Kopi at Fountain.

MR VISSER: Just one last person that I want to attempt to get clarity on. The person that you refer to as Molefe, could that be a reference, perhaps, to a person by the name of Mmelesi, M M E L E S I?

MS LEKITLANE: Molefe and Mmelesi are two different people.

MR VISSER: You see, what is, becomes apparent, and I want to ask you this as a question is didn't you and your sister discuss with each other in detail what your evidence was going to be and who you were going to come and implicate here and I will tell you why I am putting this to you. It is because your sister, Mildred, implicated or mentioned the name Molefe, Constable Molefe, in paragraph five of her affidavit. You did not in your affidavit, but you now mention her, him in your evidence. Is that because you and your sister spoke about this incident?

MS LEKITLANE: Molefe was present in the kitchen, I forgot his name. He was present in the kitchen at that time.

MR VISSER: And who reminded you of his name?

MS LEKITLANE: I remembered his name when I saw him.

MR VISSER: Yes. Where did you see him?

MS LEKITLANE: I saw him here.

MR VISSER: Oh, was he here this morning? No, please, this is not a laughing matter, was he here this morning?

MS LEKITLANE: I saw him, Sir. He was here.

MR VISSER: Do you still see him as you are sitting there?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Well, would you please do us a favour and point him out so that we can know what you, who you are talking about.

MS LEKITLANE: Right there.

MR VISSER: Is that the person, the person now standing up?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, let the record show that she has identified Mr Morakile, M O R A K I L E.

Now, that you have done that, let me see what he says about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, is he a policeman? You said Mr.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, he is one of the persons for whom I appear and he is also a policeman. Will you bear with me a moment, I was not aware that he is being implicated or referred to.

Well, are you saying that he did anything to you, Mr Morakile?

MS LEKITLANE: He did not do anything to me, I just know him.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Is he to be added to the list of people we were given whom you appeared for? Oh, he is not, so you do not appear for him?

MS LEKITLANE: No, he is on the list, Mr Chairman, I have appeared for him at all times. If he is not on the list I would be very surprised. He is number nine.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is he also known as Molefe?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I was looking at the wrong list.

MR VISSER: (...Indistinct) but I can tell you now that he is not down as Molefe.

Is your name Molefe? The answer is negative.

Now, ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am asking you this question, because when the witness pointed him out a section of the audience said also indicated that he is Molefe.

MR VISSER: Well, I did not notice that. I am not sure whether this is going to complicate, confuse issues now, but I have made a blanket, stated a blanket proposition of denial to all the witnesses. I am hoping that we do not have to recall everybody who has referred to a Molefe, because I certainly did not tie it up with ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: The fact is that she said he did nothing.

MR VISSER: But I am compelled to put one thing to you as a fact and that is that Morakile was not in Bloemfontein at the time. He was, in fact, stationed as a member of the Stock Theft Unit at Weppener, so you could not have seen him, whatever you want to call him, you could not have seen him in April 1986 in Bloemfontein. He was not working here. What do you say to that? Will you concede that you might have made a mistake?

MS LEKITLANE: Are you talking to me, Sir?

MR VISSER: (...Indistinct) to you, I am telling you that he was not working in Bloemfontein, he was ... (intervention).

MS LEKITLANE: If it is a mistake, I do not know, but he is identical to him.

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

MR STANDER: We have no questions, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI:

MR MEMANI: Now, Ms Lekitlane, your sister said the other name of Morakile is Davu, no, the other name of Molefe is Davu. Did you hear that?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Do you agree that Molefe is Davu or do you not know that name?

MS LEKITLANE: These people were so many I mixed, we mixed their names. I do not know their names properly, I know them when I see them. I do not know whether Davu is Molefe.

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that Davu is short for David and David's surname is Morakile. Do you have any comment on that?

MS LEKITLANE: I do not know, but he is identic