MR MOHAPE: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, yesterday we had just reached the point where I was asking you some questions about you leaving Bayswater Police Station, do you remember that?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

(Technical problem with microphones)

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, yesterday we were talking about the time when you left Bayswater Police Station. You told us yesterday, if I remember correctly, that that was the time you were arrested and you first thought that it was in terms of Section 27?

MR MOHAPE: 29.

MR VISSER: Oh, sorry 29 and then it appeared to be a Section 50 arrest if I understood you correctly?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR VISSER: I want to ask you first of all, just going back a step. Did that have anything to do with the attack on Mr Nelson Ngo? Was that unrelated, that arrest, was it unrelated to that particular attack? If you can't remember well then just say so.

MR MOHAPE: No, no, I remember it. Correct. It is very clear at that time we had already uncovered Ngo and the police, the security branch, beyond that, they continued to detain me. I was detained and detained to - what is this prison? Grootvlei prison. It was a continuous harassment from the security branch.

MR VISSER: The question is simply this. Did it have anything to do with the attack on Mr Ngo?

MR MOHAPE: I think that you should ask the security branch.

MR VISSER: Alright, okay, that's good enough. Now you went out of the police station that evening, late at night, eleven o'clock thereabouts?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR VISSER: And you told us that area was sufficiently lit by electric lights for you to realise that the two people that arrived there were people who were unknown to you, or am I wrong?

MR MOHAPE: I think you're wrong. I told you that there are lights, yes, in the road, but in the minute where people came to me and a person introduced himself as a security branch, I took to their introduction of theirs that they are coming to take me home and I agreed and got into the bakkie.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, with your permission can I just ask this witness this question? Mr Mohape, these two people who came to fetch you were in the bakkie. Had they been people that were well known to you, would you have - no, no listen to the question, had they been people that were well known to you would you have identified them?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: I am really indebted to you Mr Chairman, you have put it more crisply than I was building up to do. And we know from your evidence yesterday that had balaclavas on their heads but it hadn't been pulled over their faces and you could see that they were two black persons?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And the point where we reached yesterday was where I put to you that you had consistently refused to co-operate with, as you put it, Erasmus and Shaw and another person, Horn I think you mentioned?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: To co-operate with the security branch but nevertheless when you drove off on the bakkie after they had identified you, you had no problem talking to them about COSAS and the UDF and the ANC?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, I think you must not mistaken. A mere discussion with a person who is just talking to you and a person who's asking questions that he wants to use those questions against you and with those guys in the bakkie, as they just talking generally about COSAS, I was free because I've been free in the past to answer the very same questions to security branch members about COSAS and I will go to as far as telling them: "Yes I'm involved in COSAS.

Yes, COSAS has it's old objectives and it has problems to achieve" and that information to me, it was not information that will incriminate me or anybody else in COSAS. Anybody knew about that because every problem of COSAS or anything have been appearing in statements in the newspapers, on T.V's and everywhere, so that was nothing new that I could hide to anybody else.

MR VISSER: Is it at all possible for you today to just give us general description of the body build of these two people or one of them? Were they slightly built, heavily built, tall, whatever? Can you remember?

MR MOHAPE: Ja, I remember the one came out of the bakkie and introduced himself as a security branch member. He was short, he was not tall, he was I think of my size now and with body, I think he was the same body or bigger than mine.

MR VISSER: And how would you describe that? Medium?

MR MOHAPE: Probably.

MR VISSER: Right, and the driver?

MR MOHAPE: The driver, I did not get his tallness because he was sitting in the car so I could not determine if this one is short or tall.

MR VISSER: Right, but the fact is that - let me ask you rather, did you fit in quite comfortably on the front seat between these two people in an Isuzu bakkie or was it a cramped situation?

MR MOHAPE: No, it was not cramped.

MR VISSER: Not cramped. When you gave your evidence and you mentioned the money which you received back from the police at Bayswater, our notes state that you weren't sure of the exact amount?

MR MOHAPE: No, I told you it was one hundred and sixty.

MR VISSER: So you are quite sure it was one hundred and sixty?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I'm quite sure.

MR VISSER: Alright. The two people that came to fetch you that evening, have you ever seen them again after that day?

MR MOHAPE: No, since that day I did not see them. And one thing is that because I said I could not picture, put their face into my memory, therefore it is difficult for me to recall exactly, even if this person can come now here, I may not even be able to recognise him.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, is it correct that during the course of last year when evidence was lead before this committee, you did attend the hearings?

MR MOHAPE: Yes I've been attending hearings.

MR VISSER: Did you attend all the hearings or only some of them?

MR MOHAPE: I cannot recall correct but I attended hearings.

MR VISSER: Okay. Did you listen, did you hear, the evidence of Mr Ngo when he gave evidence regarding the incident concerning you?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: Were you satisfied that what he was saying was the truth?

MR MOHAPE: Let me explain this thing. You see when a policeman or security branch comes before the Truth Commission and explains situations that I been trying to get answers to, I will listen to that statement because I want the truth and if a person comes and tell about the very same thing that I wanted to know who are the people, I will listen to that.

I would want to correlate exactly with what happened to me because I want answers to exactly what happened to me. Who are those people who kidnapped me? I want that answer and if somebody comes and give information to that he is welcomed and the better if his handlers can do the very same thing.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, did what Mr Ngo said about your assault that he gave evidence about, accord with the facts as you knew them?

MR MOHAPE: You see, the information of Ngo in his evidence yes, correlates with what happened to me and there is one thing that I know he also said, he was not aware, he didn't hear the shots because he had already moved here that time. I don't know if he did move here that time or not but 99% of what he said, 100? what he said is correct.

MR VISSER: Hundred percent?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: As far as the detail as well?

MR MOHAPE: I don't know if details can detail if you are beaten by left or right or whatever but the whole scenario and the exact attack to me, it was exactly what happened to him.

MR VISSER: Yes. Just the last point, two points, on you leaving Bayswater Police Station. I'm informed that there is no general rule that when a prisoner is released, or a detainee is released, that he is automatically taken home.

MR MOHAPE: Who's telling you that?

MR VISSER: I'm instructed Mr Mohape, just answer the question.

MR MOHAPE: I cannot answer that, that is what they're saying but to my knowledge I know many a times I have been detained from home on the day of my release, they will pick me, wherever I've been detained at Hilton Police Station, I've been detained at Grootvlei, same Bayswater, there are so many including Park Road, so many police stations, that when upon my release they will come and fetch me.

MR VISSER: Yes, but I'm suggesting to you now that it wouldn't be a right that you have that if it happened it would have been a favour more than a right?

MR MOHAPE: I don't know.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOHAPE: It was up to them.

MR VISSER: Right

MR MOHAPE: You walk out of the Bayswater Police Station, now what do you do, do you expect somebody to be there to pick you up?

MR MOHAPE: I think I answered you yesterday.

MR VISSER: Well just answer me again then.

MR MOHAPE: I said to you, when they came, because at that time when they told me I must go home, there was nobody who was saying "I'm taking you home", there was a police van in the police station that was going out and they never even bothered to say we must give you a lift or whatever. But I had to take it upon myself that I'm walking and when I walked the bakkie stopped and they said then they are coming to fetch me.

MR VISSER: Alright, well that is the answer to the question. In other words you walked out of the police station and you started walking in the direction of your home?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Would that have been in Milner Street toward the city centre or the other direction?

MR MOHAPE: I don't know which Milner Street is.

MR VISSER: Milner Street is the road which leads from past Bayswater from Bloemfontein North into Bloemfontein. That's Milner Road - M-i-l-n-e-r.

MR MOHAPE: Probably that's it.

MR VISSER: Yes, now which direction did you walk?

MR MOHAPE: I was walking from the police station going down towards the city.

MR VISSER: Towards the city?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: How far had you moved before the bakkie?

MR MOHAPE: It was just in the vicinity outside the police station.

MR VISSER: Yes. You would walk out and you would turn left into - I don't know what the road is, and then you would turn left again in Milner Road and you'd go down towards the city centre, isn't that right?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Were you hitchhiking?

MR MOHAPE: No.

MR VISSER: No? Alright. Now let's come to this scene of the assault. Was there a moon?

MR MOHAPE: Hey, man. Don't ask me that.

MR VISSER: Was it sufficiently light? So that you can ...[intervention]

MR MOHAPE: No. In the situation where you are beaten, people are all over you, you cannot see if there is a moon, it's light or it's dark or whatever because I'm confused at that time. I'm beaten by people that I never expected they could do that at that time.

Why should I then stand and check if the weather is raining or it's not raining, or it's moon or it's sun when it's in actual fact dark at that time. It is clear that I, even perhaps there could have been a moon at one point or another, I may not ascertain that.

MR VISSER: Were there any electric lighting in that area?

MR MOHAPE: Mr Visser, if you want to make an inspection in loco, I think you should do that because I think that will answer some of your questions because the road that I'm talking about - the people who knows this dark road towards Grootvlei. they know there are no street lights in that side.

MR VISSER: Thank you, so that's the answer. But you were able to see that it was two further people who joined the original two who picked you up and who participated in your assault?

MR MOHAPE: You know why? Because they came to beat me up also, because they joined those ones to beat me up and it is clear when you're beaten by people who are surrounding you, you see these four figures standing before you, kicking you left and right. You can ascertain that these are four people who are doing that.

MR VISSER: So it was light enough to ascertain that it was four people, for example, not five?

MR MOHAPE: No man, I think I understand what I'm talking about.

MR VISSER: Now what is the answer to my question?

MR MOHAPE: It is clear, there were four people. In any situation where you can see figures of people, you cannot say when you are seeing there are four and then you come and see there are five because I never said I think there were five. I told you that there were four.

MR VISSER: And you said so and you were that certain because there was sufficient light, from whatever source, for you to see that?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Visser, I'm going to go back to the question of ninety 99%, 100% certain of the details. Mr Mohape, it could - I won't be able to recall details of Ngo's evidence around that, it could be that like you said, he said that you assaulted with hammers, it could be that he said, like you said too, that you were transported in a bakkie, that you were kidnapped and the like but did you hear him tell us as to who assaulted you?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I heard he told names of people who assaulted me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Which names do you recall he mentioned?

MR MOHAPE: He mentioned Tsoametsi, he mentioned himself, I can't remember the third person that he mentioned. At one point I think he mentioned Motsamai and then I understand later that was corrected to say he thought Motsamai was there because everybody was in balaclavas, something of that sort, but he could not ascertain if it was really Motsamai.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The people that you have mentioned, the people that Mr Ngo mentioned, were they known to you at that stage?

MR MOHAPE: No they were not known to me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Except Ngo himself?

MR MOHAPE: Except Ngo himself.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Are you able to tell us whether they were there or not?. Let's leave Ngo aside for awhile.

MR MOHAPE: You know it is exactly what I've said.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You can't say whether they?

MR MOHAPE: Because they had balaclavas you know? Because I cannot recall, you know, put the picture back into my memory.

JUDGE NGOEPE: For whatever reason, you are not able to say whether in fact they were there or not?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What about Ngo, he was known to you at that time? Do you agree with him that he was there, if he says he was there? I personally don't remember. I'm not very sure what his evidence was but let's assume that in his evidence he said that he was there will you agree with him that he was there?

MR MOHAPE: You see, this is exactly what I am saying, Judge, you know when a person comes to desks, you know sitting and give information that he did something and is able to correlate that in terms of exactly what happened and I look at that and I see it is exactly the very same things that happened to me, I am bound to say but this person could have been there, he knows everything about what happened because I don't think he can just come with a story of something that never happened, that he never saw.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But that is something else, it could be that he got his story from other people you know but I mean if you know a person, you know a person. You should be in a position to either say he was there or he was not there? I'm not sure that's what he said he was there.

MR MOHAPE: No, I ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: I'm told that in fact Mr Ngo said he was there he took part. Now considering that you knew him, surely you be able or shouldn't you be able to tell us whether what he saying is true or not true?

MR MOHAPE: It's exactly what I'm saying that you know what he's saying according to how he led evidence, it really tells me that he was there because he is able to explain details of their own operation.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You are saying he was there, not because you saw him, but because he's able to give the details?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, because I mean the way balaclavas and that time when I'm beaten, I cannot see in the face that this one is maybe Ngo and that because they had balaclavas on their faces.

MR VISSER: Perhaps I should follow on that Mr Chairman and then come back to my line of cross-examination. The four people who were beating you, were they all four black persons?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: There's no question of a doubt in your mind about that?

MR MOHAPE: Ja, because I'm saying you know, there is a difference between a black and white. And even if that person can put a balaclava but when he's in the process of beating you up you can see this one is black this one is white.

MR VISSER: And again, there was sufficient light for you to see that?

MR MOHAPE: When you talk about sufficient light.

MR VISSER: You see Mr Mohape, what is your problem with answering a simple question? I want to establish how much light there was to see what you saw because I want to be fair to you.

MR MOHAPE: Now I'm having a problem with that because you know, where I was as I explained yesterday you know, they parked the car next to a row of trees where I was supposed to even jump over the fence and there was general darkness but not darkness that I cannot, you know, see people, you know.

MR VISSER: Thank you, that's the answer thank you. And while you mention that, there was one motor car according to your recollection?

MR MOHAPE: No I only recollect the one that put me there I don't know if there was another one at the back.

MR VISSER: You didn't see any other vehicles around?

MR MOHAPE: No I did not see it.

MR VISSER: And you've just told Justice Ngoepe that you didn't know Mamome, Tsoametsi, at that time.

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: How does that accord with the evidence yesterday according to our notes, where you referred to the numerous arrests of yourself and you added "Mamome was always present"?

MR MOHAPE: No, I think you must get this thing into context. I said yesterday and various occasions, "Mamome has part of those people who have been detaining me" ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: No, I'm sorry Mr Mohape just answer the question.

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

MR STANDER: It's not Mr Memani's witness. Mr Chairman, certainly I want to object, the witness is answering the questions. We have already seen that the witness, that his answers are not precise because they want to give us the complete picture.

Therefore my learned friend with great respect,t should give him the opportunity to do so because it will help the commission to great extent to make some sort of ruling on what he says and judge what he's saying.

MR VISSER: Please continue with your reply Mr Mohape.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But before he continues, Mr Visser - I think Mr Mohape, I think in the interest of progress and clarity, you should endeavour to be more precise in your answers. I think sometimes you, we appreciate that these things are emotive issues and you were subjected to certain experiences, we appreciate that, but please try to be precise in giving your answers. We'll avoid a lot of problems and a lot of delays.

MR MOHAPE: Ja, my answer was that I said yesterday. In many occasions and you must understand when you talk about many occasions, I've talked about being detained since I've been an activist, a member of COSAS, and even beyond the time I knew Mamome and the rest, I was still being detained and I never implied yesterday that my first detention, Mamome was there.

I never implied, but he has been there until I was kidnapped, I never said that, but I said yesterday, on many occasions, when I was detained Mamome was there.

MR VISSER: Is that your reply?

CHAIRPERSON: In fairness to the witness, I would like to read my note which was that he had said: he refused to meet Ngo secretly because Ngo was an police informer and that he was arrested thereafter 10 to 15 fifteen times and: "After Ngo was working for Erasmus, he was one of those who came to my house. Mamome also always there when I was questioned by Erasmus and Shaw." So it would appear to indicate that he was talking of a period after Ngo started working for Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, I don't want to split hairs about it but I thought that was the period of time that we were talking about now because the issue which is now being addressed is the question as to whether this witness knew Mamome at the time and ought to have recognised him if he was one of the attackers, Mr Chairman, and I want to confine myself strictly to that area, no wider than that, if you will allow me. Do you know Mr Tsoametsi, presently?

MR MOHAPE: Yes I know him.

MR VISSER: Would it be fair to describe him as fairly stout, thickset person?

MR MOHAPE: I don't understand your question.

MR VISSER: Well, how would you describe his build? Would Mr Tsoametsi just rise please. Is he here? Just step out please.

And if you'll allow me to save time, Mr Chairman, a fair description of the gentleman would be, I only think in the old language, about five foot seven, five foot eight and stoutishly built. I don't know whether you will want to improve on that description? Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is his build today, what period are we talking about?

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, that is the subject of our argument because we're going to indicate to the witness just now that he has placed this incident within the year of 1984.

MR MOHAPE: No, No.

MR VISSER: While Mr Ngo has indicated that it was either 1985 or 1986. We will refer you to the relevant passages, Mr Chairman. You'll come to the question, you'll have the opportunity to give you answers, don't worry Mr Mohape.

MR MOHAPE: No, I want to correct something quickly, before you try to make something out of that. I remember yesterday I talked about dates and later when I was requested by the Judges that I should put dates correctly because yes I said, I could not remember correct those dates and I think my dates as I know them, you know, is not 1984 it was during 1984 It was the time when we were busy investigating Ngo and all that incidents that happened never happened in 1984.

So I thought then today, I would be able to come and put the dates correct as I was asked. That's why I said yesterday I will do that so that I don't have to invite unnecessary perceived contradictions by anybody else and that's exactly what I wanted to do today.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I in fact requested the witness yesterday to do so and perhaps it would expedite matters if Mr Mohape had the opportunity and if you're ready, could you kindly give us dates about incidents where you were involved?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, the incidents of my kidnapping took place during 1986. That's when I was kidnapped, the year I was kidnapped. In 1984, December, it is when we were in conference of COSAS where we started to suspect Ngo.

In 1985, conference of COSAS again, it's where Ngo came to the conference uninvited and it was when January 1986, we got the information, the list that I talked about that confirmed Ngo as an informer.

ADV DE JAGER: When did they arrest you for the first time?

MR MOHAPE: I would say my first time was arrested in 1980.

ADV DE JAGER: '80?

MR MOHAPE: Yes. The first ever detention I experienced was 1980.

ADV DE JAGER: And can you still remember the second time?

MR MOHAPE: I think beyond 1980 there were several, not detention as such, but a situation where you'll be picked up by the security branch to their offices and they put you there for hours and hours and then they ask you questions and they take you home.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, now between 1980 and 1986 when you were assaulted, this hammer assault, how, can you roughly say, how many time you've been arrested? Was it many times, six times?

MR MOHAPE: It has been many times.

ADV DE JAGER: Many times?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And who interrogated, who asked you questions during those arrests and detentions?

MR MOHAPE: At that time?

ADV DE JAGER: Before the assault.

MR MOHAPE: At that time still there was the three Prinsloos and I don't know later when Erasmus join them but what year perhaps he did join them but amongst all those you know, taking home and asking questions, he later appeared and Shaw also appeared.

CHAIRPERSON: Who?

MR MOHAPE: Shaw.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that also before 1986?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mamome, when did he appear?

MR MOHAPE: I knew Mamome, I think after 1986. I started to know Mamome when he was joining them like - I don't know where he has been, either he has been in those offices or whatever, but they was going against him, going to me and I will see him being part of them, that's how I knew Mamome. And I think that happened mainly generally after, you know, that the experience of the kidnapping.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Motsamai?

MR MOHAPE: I cannot correctly recall when did I first know Motsamai but I remember during 1986 he has also come in the picture but I don't when did I exactly knew him, from which year I've known him.

MR DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR VISSER: I've got three loose ends Mr Chairman, I'll try to remember to come back to all of them but I believe that I've now got to follow up on this. Just in regard to your reply that you got to know Mr Mamome only after your kidnapping and assault in 1986, I want to put it to you that that's an highly unlikely reply, bearing in mind that he joined the security branch already in 1980 here in Bloemfontein?

MR MOHAPE: No, I don't think that you must ask me. I think it's as clear as the time I knew him as Mamome, I knew him in 1986. To me that he joined the security branch in 1980 that is not my, it's not me to answer to that.

MR VISSER: Well I'm putting it to you that you're not telling us the truth because you're a person who had been consistently arrested, according to you evidence, since 1980.

You told us yesterday that you considered the security branch to be your enemies and you would have made quite certain to know them. Certainly Mr Mohape, do you really want to tell us that you didn't know who the members of the security branch were?

MR MOHAPE: Don't mix the issues. It doesn't mean each and every member of the security branch I will know, not all of them. And being my business to know them, I will know them. I will not make an investigation to go and spy on them and know their names and stand in the corners and check who they are.

Normally I will know them when they are harassing me when they take me to their offices, I will know who's this one. I will try to maybe get their name if I don't know the name at that time but it will not mean I had a duty to really, you know, take a book, stand in the corners and try to find out who is in the security branch offices, who are they? No, no, don't mistake that.

MR VISSER: But you took the trouble yesterday of singling out Mr Mamome as being, as the Chairman has put it today: "normally" I think you said, Mr Chairman. According to our note "who was always present" during you arrests but I may be wrong, I know it may be wrong and I suggested to you on the basis then, that, mostly he was present during all your arrests, your 20, 15 arrests?

MR MOHAPE: Correct yourself.

MR STANDER: I must object, Mr Chairman, the witness agreed clearly, after 1986 not before 1986. After 1986 Mamome was then on a continuous basis present.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I make a suggestion to progress with this matter, it's already clear that there is no way in which we will finish by next Friday, we'll ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: If we continue like this Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: No, it's obvious Mr Chairman, that we're not going to finish. We'll have to obtain a record anyway. I'm going to step off these points and leave it for argument on the record after we've obtained it, Mr Chairman, because it's quite, my submission to you - and I don't want to enter into an argument now, he never made that qualification which is now relied upon by my learned friend Mr Stander but I want to go forward.

CHAIRPERSON: I read the thing that he said apparently it was after Ngo that he started seeing Mamome there. That is the qualification, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Is that a - today is the qualification, certainly, but not yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Yesterday - I read it in my notes, that he said: "after Ngo was working for Erasmus".

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, well that's why I say rather leave it for the record because I can't remember.

At all events, I'm suggesting to you that you would have know pretty well who the members of the security branch, were given the activities in which you were involved ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser can't you please qualify your answer, that he would have known the members of the security branch engaged in investigating COSAS. There were members of the security branch doing all sorts of other things and you have continually been suggesting to him that he would have known all the members of the security branch.

MR VISSER: I take your point and I stand corrected Mr Chairman. Let me put it more crisply to you. I would suggest to you, given the activities in which you were involved, you would have known Mr Mamome long before 1986, isn't that so Mr Mohape?

MR MOHAPE: Well that's your assumption.

MR VISSER: You disagree with that?

MR MOHAPE: I disagree with that.

MR VISSER: Alright. How did you now establish since yesterday until this morning, the dates that you have just given us?

MR MOHAPE: I think I was clear to say I need to sit down and recollect the events and the dates and the years and I've done that, I've consulted with my lawyer and I've done that.

MR VISSER: Didn't you consult with Mr Ngo?

MR MOHAPE: No man, I'm not going to answer that.

MR VISSER: You're free not to answer it. Were you talking to Mr Ngo here this morning?

MR MOHAPE: I have been talking to him, greeting him every day like everybody else.

MR VISSER: Thank you. You see at page 222 of the record - Mr Chairman, at the bottom of the page, there are some questions put by Mr Stander to Mr Ngo. He says, now according to Mr Mohape, that's you, he was and then he breaks off and then he says:

as you've testified here.

which is the same evidence as you've given here today. Ngo's then asked by Mr Stander

Ngo say at page 223:

Then he goes down the page, at page 223, approximately in the middle Mr Chairman:

and then he goes on. Then the third line from the bottom:

"Yes we all assaulted him"

etc. Now, in the record when Mr Ngo himself gives evidence - I though that page 222 Mr Chairman, may I just check on that, it is in the bundle of evidence which you refer to as A2.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you want to put a question to the witness in this regard? Well I think then you should break it up because it's no use reading the whole bundle of evidence and then start questioning him.

MR VISSER: But Mr Chairman, I can put the question. Mr Ngo says that there were five blacks and one white present the evening when you were assaulted - Mr Ngo, did I say Motsamai? Let me tell you who says they were - Mamome, Tsoametsi, Motsamai, Ngo, Mtyhala and he later in his evidence added Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: Do have any comment on that Mr Mohape.

MR MOHAPE: No I think my comment is going to be simple, if you can read to the statement of Ngo, there was a question mark about Motsamai and if you want to to ...[intervention] ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you have any comment on that Mr Mohape?

MR MOHAPE: I think my comment is going to be simple. If you can read to the statement of Ngo, there was a questions mark about Motsamai and if you want to ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Please Mr Mohape, the statement is there was five blacks and one white, do you agree with that or don't you agree?

MR MOHAPE: No, I don't agree with that.

ADV DE JAGER: Thanks.

MR VISSER: What has now appeared from your reply, however, is that you studies the application from Mr Ngo.

MR MOHAPE: Ag man you know, statements are here with my lawyer and I read what I can read in any statement and there's nothing wrong with that.

MR VISSER: I'm not suggesting to you there is something wrong with that, just placing the matter, the fact, on record Mr Mohape.

Page 30, Mr Chairman, it's the middle of the page. Page 30 of the bundle which is marked A2 according to the Honourable Chairman:

asks my learned friend Mr Memani. Mr Ngo say

which was later corrected to mean, intend to mean Tsoametsi.

A moment Mr Chairman. - And he qualifies the attackers at page 34, in fairness to this witness, page 34 of that same bundle, where he simply says this:

That left five, five black persons on the assault. What do you say about that evidence? Do you disagree with that because you say there were four.

MR MOHAPE: I say people who attacked me were four. To say there were five I cannot say, I could have not checked if how many there were is one was in the car or whatever but the people who attacked me at that time were four.

MR VISSER: While they were attacking you, were they talking, were they shouting, saying anything?

MR MOHAPE: So many things were said, they were swearing at me.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Ngo here at page 30, that you've just referred us to, saying there were four people who attacked you?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I can give you all the evidence, it's quite clear ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm asking you about page 30 Mr Visser, the passage you've just referred to is there, saying there were four people who attacked him.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON:

Then he takes Cronje out, so he was reducing them to four at that stage.

MR VISSER: Yes, except, Mr Chairman, and I will refer you to that evidence in due course, that it is quite clear that what he said was that Motsamai was there as well. And you will remember the evidence of Mr Motsamai, he said Mr Ngo was mistaken and in fact that also appears from his application as well.

CHAIRPERSON: So he says he wasn't there, Motsamai?

MR VISSER: Motsamai says he wasn't there, Ngo says he was there, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you asking us to accept Ngo's version?

MR VISSER: I'm just putting it to the witness for his comment.

CHAIRPERSON: His comment? Can we now get on with something else, you say you're just asking for comment.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman. If you want a reference, that's C, page 12, bundle C page 12 where that incident is referred to by Mr Ngo.

Now you are now assaulted, and you told us yesterday, with crowbars and hammers. Am I correct?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: The issue with the crowbars, was that something which you picked up from Mr Ngo or was that something that you knew at the time?

MR MOHAPE: No, it was what happened to me.

MR VISSER: Okay. Your estimation of the duration of that attack, you said yesterday twenty to thirty minutes. Is that fairly accurate or that is just an guestimate?

MR MOHAPE: It is an estimate of what I believe they took, the time, it may be lesser than that or more than that but that is the estimate.

MR VISSER: But as it felt to you, thinking back today, would it have been at least fifteen minutes? Would that be a fair assessment of the duration or what?

MR MOHAPE: Probably.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, your second name - I'm just waiting for - here I've got it, is your name also Mosoeunyane?

MR MOHAPE: Mosoeunyane?

MR VISSER: Yes. M-o-s-o-e-u-n-y-a-n-e.

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you speak to any of the investigators of the investigation unit of the TRC in regards to this kidnapping and assault on you?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I remember I met Pula Zwane and I explained to him and he was asking me questions about my kidnapping, yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, yesterday - in regard to Mr Motsamai, you referred me to the fact that his part of the investigation report, that bundle was E1. I'm not certain whether the part concerning Mr Ngo is also E1 or whether it has a different identification.

CHAIRPERSON: Bundle E1 is Ngo, Bundle E2 is Motsamai.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will then refer you Mr Chairman, to the bundle E1 concerning Mr Nelson Ngo - and unfortunately these papers are not paginated but the page I wish to refer you to, the previous page to that, is marked 1.1 and it appears to be a telefax transmission and the telefax numbering at the top of the page is page 03 and it is dated 18 August 1997.

It is a document, Mr Chairman, which says: "Document Details", the heading, and it has columns on the page. I don't know whether you can see this far, Mr Chairman, I can hold it up for you to try and identify. Let me explain, Mr Chairman, there's and introduction, a typed introduction, it runs up to page 19. Now if you just look after page 19, the very first document after that.

CHAIRPERSON: Is 1.1, which is a whole lot of document details.

it says:

Now do you recall that you spoke to an investigator of the TRC about this incident?

MR MOHAPE: I think I've explained even yesterday, that yes, Motsamai has been involved in other instances where I frog-jumped at Fountain, and to me that was severe assault to me.

MR VISSER: Well I don't know why we have to make it so involved. Did you discuss the incident where you kidnapped and severely assaulted with an investigator from the TRC?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I have.

MR VISSER: Thank you. And did you tell him that the details were that you were beaten by a hammer and fists and by guns?

MR MOHAPE: I think I've explained that. Everything was used on me including what I said was a tyre lever, that you can call it a crowbar whatever, but a weapon was used and if perhaps the investigating officer could have not by that time picked on that, maybe it is something else but yes, everything was used on me.

MR VISSER: Alright, I have certain submissions which I'll make about that reply, we'll go on. The outcome, says this document details, is that you sustained injuries:

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: After being assaulted with crowbars and hammers and guns for at least fifteen minutes by four people, is that likely?

MR MOHAPE: You know if you could get the medical examination of Dr Magoni about the back sore, my body, then you'll understand what I said was feasible, the scars that I had when I was forced to jump the fence but in that, my body was sore and in Dr Magoni's medical record he can point out what I'm talking about.

MR VISSER: I'm suggesting to you Mr Mohape that in normal human experience, if a person is continuously assaulted all over his body with a hammer and a crowbar for more than 15 minutes, you would at least have been incapacitated if not dead.

MR MOHAPE: You see Mr Visser, you're unfortunate not to really understand the situation as it was and of course I expect that of you to try to sway the information as much as possible to your side. But the fact of the reality chief, is that I was beaten, I got injuries and those scars I will never forget, say whatever you may say.

But I'm saying to run naked at night with your pants, you don't think that is a nice thing to do Mr Visser, you cannot expect me to say I was not hurt, I had no pain that day, you cannot expect that from me. I will land up saying you are representing people who are not interested in telling the truth.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, are you going to intervene in this. There is a personal attack on an officer of the TRC, I'm here to act as an officer, to assist the TRC Mr Chairman, I'm subjected continuously to personal abuse and personal attacks by the witnesses, Mr Chairman. With great respect, I ask your protection.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think you need protection from these people Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: In any event Mr Mohape, I'm putting to you what the TRC investigator is telling us you told him, It's nothing that I'm saying, I'm not saying a word about it.

MR MOHAPE: Mr Visser yes, those are the things that I said, but they were not enough. If I am allowed time to explain in details how I was beaten, perhaps you'll understand me better.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think we need to be a little bit more careful with the facts here Mr Visser, actually you are not putting to him what the TRC said. What you are saying is, you put it to him, which is not contained in the papers, you are saying to him: "If a person would have been assaulted with a hammer, with hammer ...[indistinct] it's ...[indistinct] of that time, you would have been incapacitated or died".

Now that is not contained in those papers and at any rate what you're putting to the witness, if this needs to be stated is factually incorrect. It would depend on the intensity of the assault, the intention of the people. If they did not want to kill him but just to torture him, they would know where to hit him with the hammer, maybe three four times with intervals.

You make a very sweeping statement that he would have been killed. It's not necessarily correct, it depends on so many factors but anyway the witness has answered.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, let's leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: The witnesses version is quite clearly that this was intended to be a prolonged torture, not to do him injury. You will probably know that if you go on patting the person on one place, with fairly gentle blows, it causes great pain and you put, as my brother put to you, you specifically put something different which has not arisen from the TRC report.

MR VISSER: Yes. Mr Chairman, indeed I was putting an inference that I'm going to ask you to draw because if you want to torture a person for a prolonged period of time, you don't use a crowbar. When you use a crowbar and a hammer ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He explained yesterday in his evidence when he used the word crowbar that this was a tyre lever, didn't he, a nice flat piece of metal.

MR VISSER: With whatever, Mr Chairman, but this is a question for argument, with due respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's get on and don't go on putting things like that to him if it's a question of argument.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, you were asked by Mr Stander whether you sustained injuries which left any marks on your body. Do you remember that?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And please tell me if I'm wrong, was my impression correct that what you have retained is a small mark on your left leg. Is that what you said?

MR MOHAPE: I had a scratch in my left leg. I had a wound and in the course of time, that scratch disappeared but there is a spot where I can point that wound and I'm saying if you can take, if you can understand, that a scratch at one point or another disappears. And probably I'll also want to correct one thing because I think I sustained on two sides of the feet and I wanted to check this scratch that I talked about, it's on my right hand leg were also with the wound on the left hand side, I need to ascertain that because it's something that happened over a period of time and I said I had those scratches and some of them disappeared and I think possibly one is visible if it is still....

MR VISSER: And the scratch mark, you told us yesterday, was caused by you jumping over the fence.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, as I understand the situation, if Mr Mohape sustained injuries and those injuries were severe, it is bad for my application and on the other hand whether or not Mr Mohape suffered injuries, it does not matter to Mr Visser because they're saying that his clients were not involved in this thing and it does not seem to me what the relevance of this line of questions is in the light of the nature of his appearance and his clients' position in these proceedings.

MR VISSER: May I reply very briefly, Mr Chairman? There are two aspects. One is of course the evidence of the applicants but it's also our duty to point out to you, if we can, probabilities or improbabilities which point to the fact that the witnesses are not telling the truth and is simply on that basis of credibility, Mr Chairman. May I continue Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Continue with what you consider to be relevant, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The question was, the scratch that told you yesterday that left a mark was caused by you jumping the fence, is that correct?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you. It is recorded here in this document I'm reading from, apparently from information obtained from you, that the date and the place was 1984 at De Wet’s Dorp. Now I know you said yesterday that it was near the De Wet’s Dorp Road. Is that what you told them in brief?

MR MOHAPE: You see that's why I'm saying, you know when you look at dates, this thing happened some time ago. But a time where I - if I remember that I will say this was the date and probably the year may not have been the same or the same you know year, as I'm saying. The road is De Wet's Dorp Road, not De Wet's Dorp because De Wet's Dorp is about 110 kilometres from Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: But you were never assaulted with a hammer at De Wet's Dorp that we know?

MR MOHAPE: No, not at De Wet's Dorp.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you and to make it absolutely clear, have you been assaulted by, as you allege, members of the security branch with a hammer on only this occasion or on other occasions as well?

MR MOHAPE: No, on this occasion of the kidnapping.

MR VISSER: Alright. ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: The fact that it happened at De Wet's Dorp, it's wrongly stated?

MR MOHAPE: No, it's wrongly stated.

ADV DE JAGER: And there's a date stated, 1984, is that a correct date or is it a wrong date?

MR MOHAPE: No, I think it is the wrong date.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. Now there's a column on this page and it deals with perpetrators. Now did you tell the investigator who spoke to you that the perpetrator's were the following people: Bester: S.A.P.?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, let me correct you in that. Bester is one, the one - in actual fact yesterday I was saying Erasmus knows best, the one involved in the beating after or when I was arrested for stabbing Ngo. It's where Bester, Major Ben and Van Dyk were involved. So I will tell you when I explained to the investigating officer I was telling him that those people had been involved in my beating at Bloomspruit Police Station where I was stripped naked by them and beaten with a hosepipe.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, let there be no doubt about the incident that I'm talking about. It's the incident, the one occasion and the one and only occasion when you were assaulted with a hammer.

MR MOHAPE: Bester was not involved there.

MR VISSER: Did you tell the investigator ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the paper you have read to him, you started off reading Perpetrator Motsamai at the top of the page and then you said it referred to the incident below. You are now coming to a lot more perpetrators and there is an incident on the next page about his incarceration in contravention Sections 29 and 50. Are those perpetrators not relating to that incident? Isn't that the way - how this form is filled in?

MR VISSER: May I just consider that because you may very well be right, Mr Chairman. Now starting from the previous page, Mr Chairman, if one can try to understand how the, what the procedure is here, it starts off with the victim and his particulars and then it seems to start with victim again and the perpetrator so first it's victim and then perpetrator. So there's one on the first page then it goes to the second one also marked 27.

They're all marked the same numbers, White Mohape and then 84 Bloemfontein Vulamasango School and then perpetrator Motsamai. So it would seem almost in connection with the previous one and then it would seem that it starts with the third one as victim White Mohape, beaten with hammer and fists and that the perpetrators are then the ones that follow until we come to the next page, Mr Chairman. So then my question would be fair if that interpretation is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: If it is I don't think it is.

MR VISSER: I have no idea Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So I don't think you can put it to him if you have no idea, you can't put to him something that you don't know to be correct. If you will look at the bottom of the page after those perpetrators there are witnesses set out.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Chairman, I have kept quiet thus far as a result of the line of cross-examination that's being followed. I mean that one thing is very clear here. This document from which my learned friend is doing his cross-examination was not compiled by him, I'm now referring to the witness.

We are not even sure if all the information included in that has been conveyed by this witness to that person. There is a misunderstanding about which people are being implicated where and I mean, that it is totally unfair for this witness to have to reply to that if we do not even know whether this is the information that has been given by him.

ADV DE JAGER: I think Mr Visser, let us put it clearly, you are doing your cross-examination out of a document from the Commission, a TRC document and I think you're entitled to do that, it's been provided to you, it's not a document that you compiled yourself but I think that in all fairness, if one looks at the document it seems as if it's a summary of all the events regarding this witness and not only the hammer event or incident. So if the evidence of this witness regarding the incident in which he was involved where he was assaulted by four persons and he doesn't know who those four are, that is all evidence that he is giving us. It is true that evidence, the applicants' evidence that there are some differences in their evidence.

Is it not a question of further argument what deductions the Committee must make out of it or not and can we not on that basis, if we look at the evidence before you, can the proceedings not be shortened on that basis? Can we go any further by doing cross-examination which is not already on record or can be argued?

MR VISSER: Commissioner de Jager you are correct, but I would just like to say in my own defence it's not that I continued with something after this argument was raised but at the moment when the Chairman mentioned it to me, I conceded that there could be a possible problem with the interpretation.

What I do want to propose is that I leave this document. I might just add that we went to look for documents because the Chairman reminded us yesterday that there was a document which involved Mr White Mohape and he couldn't remember what it was.

And last night when we were working on this case, we thought that these were the documents and that is why we are placing it in front of you today.

CHAIRPERSON: What I think it makes the cross-examination even more unfair Mr Visser is, you will recollect the witness said that he spoke to a member of, a TRC investigator, Pula Zwane, it's the only one he spoke to. This document that you are relying on appears, I can say no more than appears, to be signed by P Maharaj. His name appears at the bottom of each page. I don't think ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I make - in order to attempt to step off this matter, may I make the suggestion that we establish through Mr Brink or otherwise precisely how the investigation unit make their notes, what is meant with this document and if necessary Mr Chairman, we can come back to you and we might then lead the witness or ask Mr Brink to present that witness to you who did the interview with Mr Mohape and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any point in wasting more time on this, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We are here to decide on the applications of Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai, that is the purpose of this hearing.

MR VISSER: And this witness Mr Chairman, let us make no mistake about that, has been tendered to you to support the evidence of Mr Ngo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and you have put to him that he is being untruthful you have put to him that your witnesses will contradict what he said, right.

MR VISSER: Yes. But Mr Chairman, may I just reply to your question, Mr Chairman? I have to just reply and that is just to say this. On the way in which we read the document, which may be wrong, if it turns out at the end of the day that he gave entirely different perpetrators, it is a relevant point for you to know Mr Chairman and I take it no further than that and that is what I've been trying to bring to your attention. You've now corrected me and said that I may be wrong ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It is surely something that must be put to Mr Ngo if that is the position?

MR VISSER: Alright Mr Chairman, let's step off this thing.

Mr Mohape, I spoke to Colonel Erasmus about your allegations and I'm going to put to you what he says and you can respond it you wish. He says that he was never involved in the fabrication of any evidence, in any court case including the one of Mr Ngo, as far your allegation in that regard is concerned.

MR MOHAPE: I don't expect him to accept that.

MR VISSER: Okay. He was in fact Mr Ngo's handler, together with Lieutenant Shaw.

MR MOHAPE: Yes, because every time I will see them in his office, yes that one is true.

MR VISSER: And the same denial is made by Lieutenant Shaw and you say you expected that?

MR MOHAPE: Saying that they were not handlers of Ngo?

MR VISSER: No, no, that he denies that he ever tampers with evidence before a Court of Law.

MR MOHAPE: It is the same I will expect.

MR VISSER: He also denies - I'm sorry I'm talking about Mr Erasmus, he also denies that he attempted to obtain your services as an informer.

MR MOHAPE: I expect that.

MR VISSER: Yes, I have not been able to verify that as far as the other person, I think it was Mr Horn that you spoke about, I haven't got the note in front of me, I can't put any evidence in that regard to you.

Mr Erasmus tells me that he has no recollection at all about this typed note in Afrikaans or the discussion which you testify to around this note. If you could give us a little closer information, it might be that one could juggle his memory but you'll have to tell us what was in the note. Surely you can read Afrikaans?

MR MOHAPE: No.

MR VISSER: You can't?

MR MOHAPE: I can read Afrikaans, but I cannot understand what I'm reading.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you remember he asked for a black constable to interpret it?

MR VISSER: No, no Mr Chairman.

But you were at school?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you receive tuition in Afrikaans?

MR MOHAPE: Oh, Mr Visser, you know let me tell you, I had ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mohape, let's not have a discussion about it, yes or no.

MR MOHAPE: Okay. What was I saying to you ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Let's keep it short.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry what are you saying?

MR MOHAPE: What are you saying, what is your question?

MR VISSER: I'm just asked if you received tuition in a subject Afrikaans when you were at school?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: Tsoametsi will tell the Commission ...[intervention]

MR MOHAPE: Can we please Mr Visser finish with Erasmus?

MR VISSER: Alright.

MR MOHAPE: Because I was going to say, if Erasmus says he cannot recollect that, let him also say he cannot recollect a letter that was written in his office by one of his typists that was supposed to have come from Sakau and that letter, his receptionist brought it in whilst I was in his office and when the receptionist told him that he has finished - she was not aware he's with somebody else, he tried to tell that person to go away because I've already seen the letter of Sakau where a letter was typed and that woman said to him he has finished the typing that letter. If he cannot recollect that, then it means, honestly, he will never recollect all the things that he has done to all of us.

MR VISSER: We'll deal on merit with your reply later, Mr Mohape. I'm not going to take you up on your challenge. I want to ask you this. The incident where, which you spoke about, where you were assaulted in the office where Erasmus was present and he told you to look out of the window and a black hood was drawn over you head and you were assaulted with broomsticks. Remember that, that incident?

MR MOHAPE: And kicks.

MR VISSER: Right, and kicks and you got hold of a broomstick and they all ran away? That's the incident that I'm referring to. My first question to you is this, was that the only time that you were assaulted with broomsticks and after a hood of some kind had been drawn over your head, a sack or a hood or whatever you want to call it, was that the one occasion or were there other occasions as well that the same thing happened in Erasmus' room?

MR MOHAPE: No, I said that is what happened in that office.

CHAIRPERSON: Erasmus'room?

MR MOHAPE: I don't know if that - that one was not Erasmus' room.

MR VISSER: Alright. Can I then rephrase the question just to identify this particular incident where Erasmus was present in a room with others?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. Do you have a defective eye?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Which is the defective eye?

MR MOHAPE: The left one.

MR VISSER: The left one. You see Mr Mohape, Mr Motsamai gave evidence about that issue at page 708 of the record. And I think in fairness to you, I'm going to read the evidence it's just about a page. It starts in the middle of the page at page 708. It starts with the heading "White Mohapi" and I'm going to suggest that it refers to you.

That's Motsamai speaking.

Then Lieutenant Shaw:

Sorry, Mr Chairman, am I going too quickly, have you found the passage? Middle of the page 708:

May I ask the interpreters, am I going too quickly?

and obviously you. Listen very carefully to what I'm reading to you now.

it says here - it clearly means head, Mr Chairman, we will submit

The last paragraph says:

referring to Calitz and probably Mamome as well because he does also refer to "they were"

it continues to say that you were screaming and he didn't want people to hear your screaming so that they could not find out what was going on. Now, which incident is this?

MR MOHAPE: It's this incident.

MR VISSER: The very same one?

MR MOHAPE: Same one.

MR VISSER: However, your evidence, your recollection, is that the people who were present were Horn, correct?

MR MOHAPE: No, you are lying.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you say?

MR MOHAPE: I said yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: No I am asking Mr Visser, what ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Horn - H-o-r-n Mr Chairman. It's the note under the sentence which starts:

That was the evidence. And then he said who was present. It would be helpful if you could find your note Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] got present Erasmus, Prinsloo, Shaw and others.

MR VISSER: He was very specific Mr Chairman, he mentioned Horn, he mentioned Mamome and he mentioned Motsamai.

MR MOHAPE: Mr Visser, let me help you. I said to you yesterday when I was in that office they were coming in and out and at the second when something was put over my head, it was after Erasmus said I must look over the window and in that second when I looked through the window, somebody put that hood on me, you understand?

MR VISSER: I don't understand because I just do not understand why Mr Motsamai was applying for amnesty in regard to this incident wouldn't have told this Committee that Mr Erasmus was present. I just don't understand that, if that in fact happened. And that leads me to the statement to you that Mr Erasmus will say that you're telling a lie, that he was never present.

MR MOHAPE: It's up to him.

MR VISSER: When you were assaulted, if at all.

MR MOHAPE: It's up to him.

MR VISSER: Alright. What do you say about the evidence of Mr Motsamai that it was Calitz who assaulted you with Mamome holding you?

MR MOHAPE: No, I don't have a problem with that because I'm saying there were other people, maybe I did not know coloureds by the name but I mentioned yesterday that there were other people in that office. And in that second when Erasmus said I must look over the window, somebody put the hood, this thing back over my head and it is correct if Motsamai comes and say it was coloureds, then he knows them yes, because he worked with them.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, I'm trying to wrap this up for so far as there may be confusion or uncertainty about it, were you part of the group of 19 people who tried to skip the country?

MR MOHAPE: No, no.

MR VISSER: Thank you. The person that you referred to vaguely in your evidence that was protected by you, was that a person by the name of Khoze?

MR MOHAPE: Correct yes.

MR VISSER: How do you spell that?

MR MOHAPE: It's K-h-o-z-e, something of that sort.

MR VISSER: Se or Ze whatever. But that was the person who was suspected of being an informant of Mr Motsamai, have I got this right or not?

MR MOHAPE: It's what was said.

MR VISSER: Yes. And this happened in the hall, the students' hall?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And there were chairs thrown about etc. and I think you said yesterday you were in fact one of the people who tried to protect you from being attacked or didn't you say that?

MR MOHAPE: You see I think it will be correct if I was allowed to correctly put that you know, in sequence, so that you know how it happened. Can I do that?

MR VISSER: You see, I don't want to cut you short in any way, but it's not a terribly relevant point, with great respect, I'm not going to rely on it. The only reason why I'm putting the question to you is just to allow the Committee Members to place matters in perspective with the evidence of Oupa Makubalo who also gave evidence about this and Mr Motsamai who told this Committee that he was listening over the earphones about what was going on in the hall.

That was that incident and the only reasons for the question through you was just to place the Committee to remind them that it is that situation. Nothing else turns on it.

MR MOHAPE: Alright.

MR VISSER: You are, are you a blood relationship of Jannie Mohape?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Jannie Mohape was charged and found guilty and imprisoned?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Who was the investigating officer in that case?

MR MOHAPE: I don't know.

MR VISSER: You don't know?

MR MOHAPE: Because that time I also ran away because they wanted to charge me also in that case.

MR VISSER: You were never told that it was Mr Erasmus, this Mr Erasmus sitting next to me, that was the investigating officer?

MR MOHAPE: No, nobody told me that.

MR VISSER: How did you feel about Mr Ngo? What was your personal feelings about him? Was it one of friendliness, one of less friendliness?

MR MOHAPE: During which period?

MR VISSER: Well, you were at school together, you're both on COSAS, there's some sort of a leadership competition it seems between you and Mr Ngo, am I right?

MR MOHAPE: No, you are wrong, you are saying we were in competition.

MR VISSER: He never stood a chance of being elected to the executive for example?

MR MOHAPE: No, don't screw the facts. When I was at school with Ngo, Ngo was in the executive of COSAS and when you are in that executive you don't compete for positions.

MR VISSER: Even though one of the two people who might be eligible to become the Chairman, the one is more popular with the students than the other? You say that's not a problem?

MR MOHAPE: Those were not politics of students, to compete for positions.

MR VISSER: I see, alright. But you certainly didn't feel so friendly disposed to him?

MR MOHAPE: I don't understand what you're saying.

MR VISSER: I say, I'm putting to you that you certainly couldn't have felt friendly disposed to him when you established as a fact in your own mind that he was an informer?

MR MOHAPE: No, don't confuse issues. When Ngo was at a point when we were gathering information about him, it was very clear to us or to me in particular, that I will not show any antagonism to him because by doing that I will then allow him to suspect that we were suspecting him. But I had to be friendly with him and work with him and not raise any eyebrows with him, him being involved with us in COSAS doing everything because we were investigating him.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood the question, you weren't being asked about what your public behaviour was, you were being asked what your personal feelings were and speaking for myself, I would have been extremely antagonistic towards somebody who was on the executive of one of an organisation that I belonged to but at the same time was acting as a police informer against that organisation.

MR MOHAPE: I won't be and I will tell you why. You can't be antagonistic to a person that you suspect before you are able to gather information that can expose him as an informer. You will work with that person close, monitor that person but deep down know that this person you don't trust.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's the point.

MR VISSER: Yes, point taken. But let's go one step further. You now found out he's a police informer, you've established that in your own mind, he's assaulted and you are charged with murder. How do you feel now about Ngo? - attempted murder I'm sorry.

MR MOHAPE: You know, at that time, yes, when I was charged for that, I was surely angry.

MR VISSER: Thank you. And just on this issue, the last aspect, is it correct that the sister of your brother, Jannie Mohape I think - please stop me if I'm wrong, I don't have the family tree, is a person named Selena and she's married to one of the Mzuzwana's is that right or is it the other way round?

MR MOHAPE: It's the other way round.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry, just put that on, place that on record for us please. Selena is a sister to?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, there was no Selena involved. There is Nontsokolo Mzuzwana who is married to my brother Jannie.

MR VISSER: Jannie Mohape during the mid 1980's, 84, 85, 86, did he have a motor vehicle that he at his disposal that he was driving either as his property or whatever?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, he had.

MR VISSER: What car was that or what vehicle was that?

MR MOHAPE: It was a Ford.

MR VISSER: Cortina?

MR MOHAPE: Cortina, light green.

MR VISSER: And - light green?

MR MOHAPE: Light green if I can remember.

MR VISSER: And would that have been a sedan car or a LDV?

MR MOHAPE: No, it was a sedan.

MR VISSER: And Eliaha Mohape, is he also a brother to you?

MR MOHAPE: He was my uncle.

MR VISSER: Your uncle. And did he have a minibus?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: As far as your own knowledge goes, was there an attack on either of these two vehicles?

MR MOHAPE: There has been an attack.

MR VISSER: On which or on both?

MR MOHAPE: On both cars.

MR VISSER: On both. Let's just quickly take the Cortina, was that vehicle destroyed or was it just burnt and repaired and used again?

MR MOHAPE: I cannot recall beyond that what happened to it.

MR VISSER: Okay and as far as the minibus was concerned I think our information was completely destroyed, was it? No, no I'm sorry, I withdraw that. Do you know what happened to the minibus? Was that completely destroyed or could it be used again after the attack?

MR MOHAPE: I think it was used later for some time.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I do believe that's the end of my questions, may I just make quite certain Mr Chairman, whether the isn't another note? Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you I have no further questions. I did put to you Mr Mohape that all allegations of assault, kidnapping, any unlawful conduct which you have addressed to any of the persons that I appear for will be denied. Do you understand that?

MR MOHAPE: I expected that.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, only one or two questions. Mr Mohape, you were charged with attempted murder is that right?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And together with some of your fellow students at COSAS is that right?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The attempted murder of who was that?

MR MOHAPE: Of Ngo.

MR DU PLESSIS: Of Ngo. And did Ngo testify at that trial.

MR MOHAPE: Yes, he testified.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what was the result of the trial?

MR MOHAPE: I was acquitted.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were acquitted?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now can you remember Mr Mohape, if in the Judgement any finding was made in relation to Mr Ngo's testimony?

MR MOHAPE: I cannot recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember if he was found a credible witness or not?

MR MOHAPE: I cannot recall that. What happened is that I only remember the time when the Judge was giving and we were acquitted to that, to say the evidence led was not sufficient and then we were acquitted on those grounds I think.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, thank you. May I just ask one last question? Is there anybody else here who was involved in that trial who may be able to enlighten on this question if Mr Ngo's credibility, if there was a credibility finding in respect of Mr Ngo?

MR MOHAPE: No, I don't ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Even if there was, could we sort of rely on that?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I will be able to address you in argument if I'm requested to argue later on, that that may be relevant under these circumstances and I will refer you to the relevant Law on that, that's the only reason why I want to establish that. And then one last question. When did you go to the Western Cape?

MR MOHAPE: I went to Western Cape in 1989.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

MR STANDER: I don't have any re-examination Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you could help me with one thing Mr Mohape. You were telling us ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, I'm sorry, I don't know whether you forgot about me?

CHAIRPERSON: I took it you had none when counsel said he had no re-examination, he's sitting next to you. I assumed that you had indicated to him you were not going to question.

MR MEMANI: I am sorry my lord he spoke prematurely. CHAIRPERSON: Very well, carry on.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Thank you my lord. Yesterday you told us about Ngo at the conference saying that the COSAS from the Eastern Cape wanted to bully him.

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that in those circumstances Ngo was deliberately fermenting feelings of ...[indistinct] and originalism?

And that he was doing that with the object of dividing the membership of COSAS?

MR MOHAPE: That was intended to.

MR MEMANI: And that was an indicator that he was working

for the police?

MR MOHAPI: Yes you see, very quickly if I can explain this. You see in our mind it was clear. In many strategies of the security branch to ensure that there is disharmony within a student organisation, they will either ensure that some of their informers cause ethnicity where people are not going to see themselves as you know, comrades in one organisation but where they are going to see themselves as you know, Xhosas, Sothos and all that and that was one of their strategies, yes.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that this morning you told us that at the time when you were abducted and assaulted in the veld you already knew Ngo?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that it was dark?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: And the people that you - were attacking you were wearing balaclavas?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR MEMANI: And even if you had known someone before you would not be able to recognise him at that stage?

MR MOHAPE: Yes because most of the time when people were beating me I was closing my head, I was protecting my face.

MR MEMANI: And it is for that reason that you are unable to identify Ngo at that stage?

MR MOHAPE: Exactly.

ADV DE JAGER: And you couldn't identify his voice either? You don't know whether he was one of those screaming and shouting and swearing?

MR MOHAPE: Ja, because in that commotion honestly, I could not try to get anybody's voice, you know.

MR MEMANI: You didn't suspect that Ngo was present, did you?

MR MOHAPE: Well, with the security branch operators I honestly did not perhaps either suspect or did not suspect that it was him. In my mind I never perhaps thought that he was part of them.

MR MEMANI: Now you believe that the evidence that was led in the case against Ngo was cooked?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Because they brought a toy gun to court?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it also correct that what you were charged with was a purely criminal case of attempted murder?

MR MOHAPE: Exactly.

MR MEMANI: You'd normally not have expected Horn, Erasmus, Major Burn and other members of the security branch to have been present when you were being, when the matter was being investigated?

MR MOHAPE: No, I will also not expect them to be with witnesses, you know, those witnesses who were supposed to give evidence against me. I will not expect them to see them going down with them, down the stairs to the lower part of the court.

MR MEMANI: And that indicated clearly to you that security branch were influencing because of the case?

MR MOHAPE: Exactly.

MR MEMANI: Did I understand your evidence correctly when I made my note, a note which said that they were also present when you were accompanied to make certain pointings out?

MR MOHAPE: Come again?

MR MEMANI: Did I understand your evidence correctly when I made a note that they also accompanied you when you went to point certain things out?

MR MOHAPE: Where, where?

MR MEMANI: May I take instructions, Chairperson.

MR MOHAPE: I think I get what you wanted to ask me, let me answer it. Yes, at the time when I was at Bloemspruit after being arrested, there was Major Burn, Bester, Van Dyk. They took me from Bloomspruit Police Station, took me to Batho Police Station and when they arrived there, there were a lot of security branch members.

All of them they were there, waiting and there was a motorcade that went towards Lereko High School and that car - I don't know what was the purpose to take me to towards Lereko High School, but in my mind I understood, either they wanted to push me to point other students that they were looking for or in actual fact they were trying to say to students: "Here we have arrested him and here perhaps his pointing you out" Because I know that has been one of their strategies and I was surprised when charged under criminal procedure then the security branch come in and be part of those investigations.

MR MEMANI: Is it also correct that you were not given a fair opportunity to identify the policemen who were involved?

MR MOHAPE: No, deliberately so I was not given that, for the fact that I went with my lawyer to ...[indistinct] and I was told that all security branch members they are under examination of some sort or whatever, so another parade will be organised. And since that time, the investigating officer, Kruger, never called me to go into another parade to go and point whoever perhaps I could, I could then could have perhaps identified.

MR MEMANI: And wasn't it an indicator that the police were not intent on prosecuting properly, that Mr Kruger took you to the scene after dark so that you should not be able to point out things properly.

MR MEMANI: That was a deliberate ploy as I could look at it.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you say it was five o'clock in the afternoon?

MR MOHAPE: I'm saying the time I was taken - when I went to his office, I arrived there as early as, I think it was four o'clock when he said I must be there but I waited in his office until past five and I think at that time it was .[indistinct] if I'm not mistaken and when it was late he took his friend, he was giving his friend a lift to his flat and after giving his friend a lift to his flat then we went, proceeded to that place.

I was with my brother, in that instance Jannie and when we arrived to the area where you know, that thing happened it was a bit, you know it was going to be a bit dark, I don't know how can I call it but it was already sunset and it was difficult for me when he said we must look for a cartridge.

I could not see anything, you know it was no longer visible, you could not see anything on the ground if you are looking for anything expect if perhaps you could have been having a torch around you.

ADV DE JAGER: How long after the incident was that?

MR MOHAPE: I think it was, if I'm not mistaken, it was about two weeks, it was after two weeks if I'm not mistaken.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you hear any shooting at - while you were assaulted?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: How many shots?

MR MOHAPE: When they said I must jump a fence and I jumped that fence, somebody shot towards my direction because I was running and then they got into the car.

ADV DE JAGER: How many shots, I've asked you how many shots?

MR MOHAPE: One.

ADV DE JAGER: Thanks.

MR MEMANI: Did Mr Kruger ever suggest that you should get back to the scene during the day when you could see?

MR MOHAPE: No, he never suggested anything.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions, Mr Chairman.

MR BRINK: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You told us about Mr Ngo and his behaviour as a student and said he was driving a Toyota Corolla?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What colour car was that?

MR MOHAPE: It was a beige one.

CHAIRPERSON: Beige Toyota?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's while he was still at school?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: You also gave evidence that once you visited the place where he was staying and you found those documents there.

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: After he had been exposed and everyone knew he was a informer now, January round about 1986 I believe?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: According to your evidence, because that was after the '85 COSAS Congress?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did he stay then, do you know?

MR MOHAPE: Beyond ...[intervention].

ADV DE JAGER: Ja.

MR MOHAPE: No, I did not because ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: After you've burned the documents.

MR MOHAPE: Now let me put it this way, you know we are confusing two things here. At the time when I got the documents it was December 1985 when I went there to his house and found that woman and that woman gave me the document. I'm trying to you know put it that these dates correct because you see, the conference of '84 and '85 it's, similar things happened but they're different and I would say that they are different in this fashion in '84 because I am mistaken by saying it's '85.

In '84 it is when '83 December when we went to the first conference when we were telling him that he cannot, let me get the dates correct, I'm sorry to confuse dates a bit but I want to put them clear. The first conference that we had was December, let me see, let me see, it is December '83/'84, yes it is '83 December when we got the documents whilst he was staying at Pahameng then in '84 December it is when we were going to the conference, the second conference and then in that one it is when he took documentation from other students.

ADV DE JAGER: I just want to point out this difference from your statement this morning because this morning you told me:

MR MOHAPE: I know, that's why I was saying I wanted to put those dates clear it's not that there is a confusion in that. It's just that I'm missing, you know, this years that's why I'm trying to put them into perspective. And I think the correct perspective is that one of 1984 the first conference that we attended, the second conference is the one of 1985 December that those are the correct dates. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, those are the correct dates yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now after you exposed him as being an informer and you exposed him because you found the documents there, in December.

MR MOHAPE: No, we got ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: They got the list.

MR MOHAPE: It was a list, that one. The first documents we got them after the conference of 1984. The one that I burnt, the diary of the Freedom Charter and got some notes that was written and then in 1985, it is when we got the list.

CHAIRPERSON: In 1985?

MR MOHAPE: '85 December, yes. Is when we got the list where he has written names of students because I'm saying '85, I'm saying it in this fashion, that December '85 it was the Conference of COSAS when we went to the conference in Durban and when we were there those documentation that I said was a folder of COSAS with an emblem of COSAS, that was later found at security branch in January '86 by a student who was picked up by the security branch and then '86 that January we were involved in a campaign to recruit new students for COSAS and in that '86 January, it is when then we found the list in his case.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know where he was staying at that time?

MR MOHAPE: No at that time he was no longer staying at Pahameng,I did not know where he was staying.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you see him - but he was still around, you saw him?

MR MOHAPE: He was around, he was, Ja.

ADV DE JAGER: And in December 1985 when he attended the Congress uninvited in Durban was he still at the same school?

MR MOHAPE: Yes he was at school, he was a member of COSAS and it's when we took a deliberate decision to say we are excluding him from the delegation because we suspect he's an informer.

ADV DE JAGER: And after you've taken the gun from him, he never attended the school again?

MR MOHAPE: No, let me answer it, yes on the day after we disarmed him it was a Monday, he never came to school. No, no let me not mistake myself unnecessarily. On Monday when we exposed him to saying you have not attended meetings because you know ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Then he came on a Friday again with the gun. And after you've taken away the gun he never attended the school again?

MR MOHAPE: Ja.

ADV DE JAGER: But he was still around in Bloemfontein?

MR MOHAPE: Well I will not be certain if he was around Bloemfontein because at that time, it is the time when now I was

wanted for these murder charges and then when I was arrested and subsequent to that going to court, he then appeared in court as a witness.

ADV DE JAGER: I see. Can you perhaps remember when you appeared in court? Not the exact date but round about say January or June or whatever?

MR MOHAPE: Honestly, I cannot recall that.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman with your leave may I put something which I forgot to ask from the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Mohape, you've told us that you marginalised Ngo and excluded him from the conference that was going to be held at Durban in 1985?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: But he, however, appeared there?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that at that conference he was brought by Erasmus?

MR MOHAPE: You know what was strange on that day when he arrived, it was at night and it was just after all sessions you know, had finished and when I went out of the hall I found Lulu Johnson - he was the president then, with him outside and when I was approaching there was a car that was just turning away from you know, at a distance, from where they were and there was a white person in that car and of course because I was at a distance, I could not ascertain who's this white person, but it was a white person.

And what Ngo told us when we asked him how did he came to the conference, he said he took a train from Bloemfontein and when he got to the station he hitch hiked to Wentworth. Now there is a problem with that. If you look at the station, the Durban Station and you look where Wentworth is, it is not possible that a person can get a hitch hike from the centre of the town and then go to Wentworth because Wentworth it's a dominantly Indian, Indian dominated area.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Mohape, I think you're engaged in an argument to justify whatever conclusions you came to. I think the question was simply - and I don't know where Mr Memani got that from, that it was Erasmus. The question was simply, Mr Memani said "Is it correct he was brought by Erasmus?" and I think your answer is you don't know who brought him.

MR MOHAPE: Alright.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Stander?

MR STANDER: Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I received

instructions to, on behalf of Mr Molefe at this stage to apply to recall him as witness and as a victim. I'm now going to try to convince the Committee that I'm of the opinion that if one looks at the Act as it has been promulgated that in my opinion, it is correct to allow him to offer his evidence before you.

I want to refer you to the Promotion of National Reconciliation and Unity Act, that's the one that we work with and in particular the provisions of Section 19. With your permission - unfortunately I only have the Afrikaans version in front of me and in Sub Section 19.4 it's pertinently mentioned and with your permission I'm going to read it to you. If they do not deal with the application in accordance to Section 3 then (a) I'm not going to handle it because as far as I'm concerned I should possibly just read it. In a prescribed way the applicant or any victim or person involved and I want to emphasize that, someone who is involved, or has an interest in the application and in Sub-Section B the persons mentioned in paragraph A still have to be told their right to be at the hearing and secondly to give evidence.

It is my argument Mr Chairman, that in the first place, Mr Molefe was involved in the evidence here, the testimony here, I don't think we have any doubt about that. He is also a victim, not just through mention by the applicants but also of his own version and therefore my submission to you is that on strength on of the provisions of Section 24.A and B he has the right to, yesterday as well, to come and give evidence before you and therefore I apply that he comes to give testimony. Mr Chairman you may possibly ask me and I don't want to prejudge this or preempt this, what is the intention of his giving evidence? The fact of the matter is this. If he does not give evidence he cannot be determined or described as a victim and he may not receive the benefits in terms of the Act and therefore my submission to you is that he has the right and secondly it would be right and fair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he a victim in connection with acts committed by the two applicants?

MR STANDER: Yes indeed. As I said to you yesterday as it was pointed out yesterday in the pre-hearing conference where a variety of other people were assaulted, he was named specifically therefore ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand what you're saying. The pre-hearing conference, let's get that document if I can find it. Where is he mentioned?

MR STANDER: My Chairman, I'm sorry I don't have a copy of that. I'm going to ask my colleagues to bring the document to me.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I think that relates to the question which was asked yesterday as to whether he has, Mr Motsamai has made an application and I promised to revert to you this morning on the issue.

Mr Chair, if I may refer you to page 148, I think it's bundle B Mr Chair, 148.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MEMANI: It's bundle A Mr Chair, I beg your pardon. Paragraph 13 says that:

It's meant to be activists Mr Chair.

This document was typed by, from the office of the Attorney and I then issued instructions that a list of people who were detained should be made out, which was then given to me which was typed in my chamber Mr Chair. And the list I think appears at page - I don't have the page reference at this stage Mr Chair, it's at page 140 Mr Chair. It starts at page 140 and this applicant is, this victim is referred to as number 21, Serame Molefe.

CHAIRPERSON: It does not appear in the application filed with us, does it? The fact that it's on some list prepared in your chambers doesn't relate to the application that has been filed, doesn't relate to the incident that he has referred to does it?

MR MEMANI: That list Mr Chair, formed part of the pretrial conference and went into this bundle as part of the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But the pretrial conference cannot create new matters, there's a cut off date isn't there?

MR MEMANI: No, you seem not to understand Mr Chair. What was there was this application and you know, if you go by that Mr Chair, then you would have to say all the victims - he's not applied for amnesty in respect of all the victims because that doesn't give a list of names ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't have to give a list of names he's applied for amnesty in respect of incidents that took place at the 5th floor, Fountain Street Bloemfontein.

MR MEMANI: Yes, and these are the names of the people that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now did this present person, was he assaulted at the fifth floor?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, it is true that the evidence up to that stage and when the objection was raised yesterday, we had not got to Fountain Street. I was on the way there to place the evidence before you when we were stopped and prevented from giving that evidence and if you allow me, I believe that the Act is broadly placed enough - when somebody, the minute he is involved as a victim, he has a right to be hear as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] application being heard by us, is the victim somewhere else he doesn't have the right to go to every application and say: "I want to be heard". Tell us when and where the incident is, don't keep it a secret.

MR STANDER: I understand exactly what you mean Mr Chairman. What I'm trying to say to you is that when we were prevented from presenting that evidence yesterday, I was in the process of allowing the witness to give evidence on events at Fountain Street.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] now, don't talk about yesterday. He said he wanted to stop yesterday, now tell me now, when it was, what incident you are going to lead evidence on.

MR STANDER: The date I unfortunately do not have, Mr Chairman, but what he is going to say to us was that he was assaulted and he will possibly be able to give us an idea, if we can just sort out that date I can do that, but he will be able to tell us when he was taken to Fountain Street, who attacked him there, assaulted him there amongst the people who are applying here.

ADV DE JAGER: The question as to whether he's a victim or not, he still has a right to be declared a victim by giving a statement to the Human Rights Violations Committee, it will be given to them, they will declare him as victim and they will send it through to the Rehabilitation Committee.

If amnesty is not given according to what his deeds were because application was not made for such amnesty, then he doesn't lose any rights, he still has the right to approach the police and summons them for compensation. I don't want to prejudice this person but should an application now come in from somebody who has in fact been assaulted by Ngo in Kroonstad and Ngo has never applied for amnesty for that incident, then it is not relevant to Ngo's application.

And surely that evidence will not be heard hear because amnesty has not been asked for that incident but in your case, should it have relevance to application of Ngo's then of course he has a right to do it but then you must convince us in which category, where in Ngo's or Motsamai's applications, under which heading, under which of the six deeds.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I have difficulty that what has to be strained this much in order to say that Mr Motsamai's application includes an application for Molefe because this pre-hearing conference was called at the behest of the Committee and a member of the Committee chaired this pre-hearing Committee ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't to increase the scope of applications it was to try to cut down.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, because there were difficulties about exactly what the applications were about, it was then decided that there must be this predicatory hearing conference to determine these issues. It was then decided that what would be agreed at the pre-hearing conference would constitute the application. Now, these documents were submitted to the Committee as part of Motsamai's application.

ADV DE JAGER: And you turned up without a document there, was that recorded too?

MR MEMANI: I beg your pardon Mr Chair?

ADV DE JAGER: And you turned up without a document at the pretrial hearing?

MR MEMANI: I did not have documents at the hearing these were the documents that were prepared at the hearing. But this document was prepared by my secretary, the list of victims.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you look at the pretrial conference paragraph 5. It is agreed that the applicant filed an amnesty application during 1996 case no.4031. This application has been mislaid by the Amnesty Committee, therefore the applicant was invited to complete a duplicate which is now before the Committee signed the 5th June 1997 together with an annexure A comprising of 3 pages. It is agreed by consent that the form 1 application together with annexure A be regarded as the application. I see no reference to there to a list of victims.

MR MEMANI: You can't sit on many chairs. If you say that this list doesn't form part of the application because it's not annexed the original papers that were filed then everybody from Oupa Makubalo did not have Lucas Stander to sit here. That is the difficulty you are greeting. These people have been accepted all along because it was understood that they were included in this list of victims and that this list of victims formed part of the application by Motsamai.

CHAIRPERSON: It is because they are understood to fall under the category of persons who were assaulted at five Fountain Street, the 5th floor at Fountain Street.

MR MEMANI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he doesn't have to list all the names, he didn't list all the names, that is not necessary. We are simply saying this incident must be one of those.

MR MEMANI: That is what Mr Stander has been saying all along, that he's taking you to Fountains.

CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't told us anything about Fountains he was leading evidence about other things yesterday. We are still not told what incident at Fountain or how he was assaulted there.

MR MEMANI: Well Mr Chairman in the first place you first accept that there is an application by Motsamai regarding Molefe. Then your problem with Mr Stander is why is he leading other evidence that is not related to that. That should be the problem that you should be asking him to deal with not that I should be saying to you that there is an application and you're saying there is no application when this was done ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We have heard enough from you Mr Memani at the moment.

Will you please Mr Stander tell us what incident you are talking about.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, unfortunately I do not have a copy of the document in front of me. If one of my colleagues could just please get the document to me, one of the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What document? I'm talking about - what do you want to call this man to give evidence about?

MR STANDER: I want him to come and give evidence about assault on the 5th floor of Fountain Street in Bloemfontein on strength of the fact that clause, I'm looking over my left shoulder here as far as I can, I believe it's on page 148.

CHAIRPERSON: Who by?

MR STANDER: I'm referring you to bundle A.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was the assault by? Who committed the assault, Mr Stander?

MR MEMANI: It was Mr Motsamai who was present Mr Chairman, and there were also other members of the security force present.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] Motsamai participated in an assault on him?

MR STANDER: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore it falls into the category, that incident, but we don't need a long prior history of other assaults which are not relevant to the present applications ...[no sound] appear to be concerned.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, you've got the notes which I mentioned to you yesterday, I'm not going to repeat them. The point as I understood my - as I intended by objection to be based upon, was that there was an incident in Fountains Street in 1993 as we understood the evidence and we simply said that's not part of the papers before you. Now it's been related to 13 and I just want to make this one point Mr Chairman, there was nowhere in the pretrial, on the record or anywhere else in the world where we ever agreed that Clause 13 of Motsamai's application referred to anything else but the group of 19 people who were arrested in the Ladybrand area.

There was never any agreement by us that that should mean so. If you're telling us that on a proper interpretation, you're going to interpret it that way, we will deal with in argument. But because we say can't possibly mean that otherwise Clause 13 would be tantamount to a general application for all assaults

...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What you're saying is we assaulted people there regularly, I can't remember all the names and that's the evidence he's given, isn't it, that time and again assaults took place there and he wants amnesty. I know that your version is we've never assaulted anybody here and we never heard a scream and we never knew what was going on and that, that is as I read paragraph 13. It is that he was involved in these other assaults and tortures.

[End of tape 2A, - no follow on sound].

It’s two different categories he’s talking about.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if the interpretation is that throughout the history when Motsamai was a member of the security branch, for every person that he assaulted, he’s asking for amnesty in paragraph 13, we will address you during argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, right.

MR VISSER: That’s all I’m saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I would like to call Mr Molefe back to the witness stand.

SERAME MOLEFE: (s.u.o.)

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Mr Molefe, you were telling us yesterday, when you were taken home on the night, you were taken from your home at around 2 o’clock in the morning. I would like you to tell us where you were taken after you were arrested there.

MR MOLEFE: I was taken first to Batu police station where they deposited the 16 bullets for safekeeping which they found at my premises according to them yes. Thereafter I was taken to Fountain Street. I think when we arrived at Fountain Street it was round about half past four in the morning of the 26th. The raid was supposed to have taken place on the 25th, the evening of the 5th month, ‘93. But then they arrived at my place around 2, which was on the 26th in the morning and as I’m saying at 4H30 I was taken - I was at Fountain Street.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say what month?

MR MOLEFE: The 5th, the 5th month of ‘93.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken after you went to Parkway police station?

MR MOLEFE: Where was I taken after Parkway? Did you say Parkway?

MR STANDER: Parkweg.

MR MOLEFE: I was taken I’m saying, first to Batu police station, second to Fountain.

MR STANDER: I’m sorry, that’s my mistake. After you were taken to Batu police station, you went then to?

MR MOLEFE: Fountain Street.

MR STANDER: On what Floor at Fountain Street?

MR MOLEFE: I’m not very certain, I don’t want to bind myself, it could have been 4, it could have been 5, I’m not certain.

MR STANDER: Who was present there in Fountain Street when you were taken there, whom you recognised?

MR MOLEFE: Well, Warrant Officer Jantjie. At my place I’d already learned because I asked who was everybody after Shaw had indicated his name and okay, nobody told me about Jantjie’s name but in the process I learnt that he was Jantjie. Okay, he was there and Motsamai too was there and the others I didn’t know, I was seeing them for the first time, the very Shaw himself.

MR STANDER: Were you assaulted in Fountain Street?

MR MOLEFE: Yes.

MR STANDER: Can you describe to us?

MR MOLEFE: Okay, I’ll do so. When I came there they wanted to know, the very person I say identified himself as Shaw, wanted to know more about the 16 bullets, then I said: "Okay, you have arrested me with the bullets and you know my name, you came to Serame and Xhosa I admit, that’s myself and that I am a member of the PAC".

Beyond that really there was nothing I was going to say. "Charge me with the bullets which are in front of you". Okay, then that infuriated them and their aggression against me started, you know, coming. I was clapped, you know, hit with a fist by the very man Motsamai. I regard him as a collaborator in the whole thing. I did not ...[indistinct] of his participation, I wouldn’t have been where I was because of his reports through the years. So even if he did not on that day, physically, psychologically he has played his part. And I told them then that: "Okay, according to International Law, okay, I’ve just told you that and unfortunately do whatever you want to do". Then they were saying to me: "...[no translation] with MK.

MR STANDER: Very well, you were assaulted by Motsamai, were you assaulted by anybody else? I’m speaking of that specific time.

MR STANDER: ...[inaudible] it was not just one person but two people hitted at me, you know, knocking me against - my back against the wall, actually I don’t know their names. From there I was told that I was going to "shit" and I was standing all the time. Okay, in retaliation I said I was prepared to "shit" that high. And thereafter, because they saw I was prepared, I’d made my prayers, they took me away to Bensvlei.

Then after a few hours, I think around 10, I was fetched there and formally issued with a - that is now all the things they were alleging against me, accusing me of. On the, during the process Nicholson was amongst the people. They were changing, that is now, hands on me. This was would come, everyone would come to pose his questions. Nicholson was one of them and he also clapped