ON RESUMPTION - 26TH JANUARY 1998  

MR VISSER: Visser on record. Allow me Mr Chairman, to apologise for the fact that the witness who gave evidence on Friday, Petrus Miningwa is not present this morning. I knew that one of my witnesses was writing examinations, the mistake I made was not realising that it was Mr Miningwa. He will be back here today by 12 o'clock Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you may have made the mistake but someone else on your part did not, and came and spoke to me on Friday afternoon and explained to me that he was writing an examination this morning and requested whether you could continue with someone else and he could come back after the exam and I agreed to that.

MR VISSER: I was told Mr Chairman, and I just wanted to place it record, thank you Mr Chairman. May I call the witness Mmelesi, spelled: M - m - e - l - e - s - i.

There is no affidavit of that witness before you Mr Chairman.

MR MMELESI: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mmelesi.

MR MMELESI: Ja.

MR VISSER: Sorry Mr Chairman.

Mr Mmelesi, what work do you do?

MR MMELESI: I'm working at the security branch, Sir.

MR VISSER: What is your rank?

MR MMELESI: I'm a sergeant.

MR VISSER: When did you join the South African Police?

MR MMELESI: 1981, on the 22nd of January.

MR VISSER: And when did you join the security branch?

MR MMELESI: I joined the security branch in 1985.

MR VISSER: And was that here in Bloemfontein?

MR MMELESI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What section did you work in the security branch?

MR MMELESI: Investigation section, Sir. Under Mr Du Plooy.

MR VISSER: Who were the other members in that section of the security branch?

MR MMELESI: Mr Du Plooy, Lieutenant Terreblanche, Warrant Office Paul van den Berg, Sergeant Du Plesis, myself, Constable Kopi, Constable Mafisa.

MR VISSER: Do you know Mr Ngo?

MR MMELESI: The time I arrived here, I saw him at the security branch offices.

MR VISSER: And as far as your knowledge goes goes what was his position, his status, at that time in 1985?

MR MMELESI: I thought he was a member of the security branch but I learnt from others that he was a recruit.

MR VISSER: Did you ever work together with Mr Ngo?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I haven't worked with him.

MR VISSER: You also know Mr Motsamai?

MR MMELESI: I know him very well.

MR VISSER: He was in fact a member of the security branch, was he not?

MR MMELESI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And did you work with him?

MR MMELESI: No Sir. We were working all of us working at the security branch but we were working at various sections, I was not working with him in one section.

MR VISSER: In 1985 to 1986, can you give us a guesstimate of how many members worked in the security branch here in Bloemfontein?

MR MMELESI: It was investigation section and ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: I just want, I'm sorry, to interrupt you. I just want you to tell us about how many members in total worked in the security branch in Bloemfontein in 1985/86. If you can't remember, just say so.

MR MMELESI: We were many, I don't remember, I don't remember.

MR VISSER: Now, it has been alleged here by Mr Ngo that you participated in the incident which we have referred to in this case as the group of 19 people who were interrogated and detained here in Bloemfontein in 1986.

Now if it were to be suggested that you did anything wrong, that you performed any illegal or unlawful act, what would you say about that?

MR MMELESI: I did not take part. The way I had if there was something wrong which I did in that time, I did not assault any person.

MR VISSER: Did you see anybody being assaulted in your presence?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not see a person being assaulted in my presence.

MR VISSER: Did you interrogate some of the comrades?

MR MMELESI: That is correct. There were those I interrogated, I acted as an interpreter.

MR VISSER: Can you remember any of the persons today, that you interrogated at that time or that you interpreted while they were being interrogated at that time?

MR MMELESI: There were many, I don't remember their names. When I say there were many, some of them I started to see them now. I am not able to locate them to the interrogation during that incident.

MR VISSER: On how many days - can you remember on how many days you took part in the interrogation as an interpreter?

MR MMELESI: I'd say I took part in four incidents were I took part in the interrogation as an interpreter, I don't remember well.

MR VISSER: You say four incidents. Do you mean four occasions?

MR MMELESI: It is like this, Sir. When I say it's four occasions, at some days we'd do our normal work but at times when I was in the office I would help during the interrogation.

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

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr MMelesi, did you have any contact with Mr Ngo after he was transferred to Pretoria?

MR MMELESI: No Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: No contact whatsoever.

Thank you, no further questions Mr Chairperson.

MR MMELESI: We haven't met Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: By that you mean you didn't meet Ngo?

MR MMELESI: I haven't met Mr Ngo. I learnt that he was arrested and that he is in Grootvlei Prison.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mmelesi, what was the procedure that you followed during these interrogations of the group of 19 persons who were interrogated at the office of the security police?

MR MMELESI: The method we used in the interrogation we were asking them were they were going then they told us that they were skipping the country to Lesotho. Then we asked them about their contacts or contact, or who was their leader to skip the country.

MR STANDER: Were they prepared to give their co-operation throughout?

MR MMELESI: The way they answered the questions, some of them were prepared to co-operate. Even if some of them were not giving us the direct information we'll take one to give us the clear answers to the questions we asked.

MR STANDER: And if he or she did not want to give their co-operation what happened then?

MR MMELESI: We leave him or her. We take another one.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would just leave then, you wouldn't try to press them to give information, you'd just accept that they didn't want to tell you. Are you asking us to accept that?

MR MMELESI: No, we were not forcing a person to - the person should just tell us that when he or she was asked those questions we'd leave him and we'd take another one and maybe later we'd go back to that person. There's no way we forced those people.

MR STANDER: Now if you returned to the same person later and this person did not want to give his co-operation yet, what then?

MR MMELESI: I would not say is there after a long time. The way that person has been asked those questions, if you are not satisfied with those questions you'd leave that person to think well that he'd able to understand those questions, Not that he should be forced.

MR STANDER: If you've - once you've given him a good chance to think about it and you come back to that man, or to the women, and they still do not want to co-operate, what would happen then?

MR MMELESI: We'd continue with others.

MR STANDER: ...[inaudible]

MR MMELESI: No, we don't just leave that person like that. I explained that if he or she does not want to give us direct answers we'd take another one so that we'd give that person a chance think the time about the whole incident.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened if after they had time to think they still didn't want to give you answers?

MR MMELESI: We'd go back to him or her again, we would take her to the interrogation room, then we'd continue with the questioning, then he would he would answer well the way the investigator or the interrogator wants.

MR STANDER: I do not understand this. Why would a person let's say that in two occasions this person does not want to co-operate, but for arguments sake at the third stage when he's asked again he co-operates. Can you explain this to us? Or is there something else that you did in order to force him to give you those answers?

MR MMELESI: We did not force a person to explain to us what happened. For the second time when we interrogate he would he would answer those questions well, not that we forced him or her.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm afraid I don't understand why somebody who has indicated that they do not want to answer questions, would suddenly decide to answer the questions well.

MR MMELESI: It will depend on how he is being interrogated. Let me explain this way. We'd ask you questions and then you don't answer the questions, later, if you don't understand, we'd call you for a second time, then we'd take another person.

Then again you'd be asked questions and be told that the answers that we were waiting for for these questions were like this, not that we'd forced that person.

MR STANDER: I still do not understand and I do not think the Committee understands. What happened in the meantime to change that persons mind about answering the questions. Because why in the first place, would he not want to answer? And then on a later occasion when he is called in again then he answers to all your questions.

MR MMELESI: There's nothing we did to that person. I explained that if a person does not want to answer the questions, we did not force him or her or assault him, we'd leave her or him and take another person, then later would call him or her back without been assaulted, then he would answer those questions.

MR STANDER: The Chairman has also asked you and I've asked you for the third time. What led to the fact that this person now replied to your questions or can you not reply to that?

MR MMELESI: I explained Sir, that we did not force a person or maybe we did not assault that person so that he should answer those questions, it did not work like that. That person would explained us well with how its being assaulted.

MR STANDER: What is the reason for that, do you know or don't you?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not know, but there was no person who would be able to explain, those people explained what happened.

MR STANDER: Do you think there's a possibility that such a person saw what had happened to the others and as a result of the fact that he saw what had happened to the others who did not co-operate who did not co-operate, that he then decided to give some answers? Is that not possibly what could have happened?

MR MMELESI: I want you to explain to me, to say, when you say maybe he saw what happened to other people in which way can you explain to me?

MR STANDER: What I am trying to say is that he saw how the others were assaulted because they did not want to co-operate and that is why at the end of the day, he then gave his or her answers.

MR STANDER: I explained Sir, that no person was assaulted in my presence or the one I saw being assaulted. Those people answered to those questions well without being forced.

MR STANDER: And did you see the rest of the group there that day as well?

MR MMELESI: You mean you mean in the office? Yes, I did.

MR STANDER: Was there anyone who gave you an indication as that they had been assaulted?

MR MMELESI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: Have you see - did you see the full group there on another occasion?

MR MMELESI: Yes, I did the time when they were just about to be taken to where they were going to be detained.

MR STANDER: Do you regard frog jumps as part of abuse of the witnesses or don't you?

MR MMELESI: I did not see people doing frog jumps the way you - the ones you telling me about.

MR STANDER: Did you have any shock apparatus?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, we didn't have those things.

MR STANDER: And a black bag which was sometimes used to cover peoples eyes or their heads?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I didn't see something like that.

MR STANDER: And the tyre?

MR MMELESI: I said that I did not see those kinds of assortments, I did not see them.

MR STANDER: Do you know a Oupa Makubalo?

MR MMELESI: Yes, I know him.

MR STANDER: Was he also part of the group that was there that had to be interrogated?

MR MMELESI: Oupa was present in that group. But where I took part, I did not take part in Oupa's interrogation.

MR STANDER: Were you involved when he had to be taken to a doctor?

MR MMELESI: If I remember, no. I dispute that.

MR STANDER: It doesn't sound as if you're being sure of the ...[indistinct]

MR MMELESI: I said I was not present then.

MR STANDER: Was he ever taken to a doctor?

MR MMELESI: I said I was not present and again I don't remember.

MR STANDER: ...[inaudible]

MR MMELESI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: What was his condition the condition on the second or the third day after you'd arrested these people?

MR MMELESI: We did not detain this group. The time when I arrived with Sergeant Du Plessis in the office after lunch, I learnt there were people who were brought here who tried to skip the country and they were arrested in Ladybrand and they were brought to our offices.

MR STANDER: The question that I asked was: did you see Oupa Makubalo on the second or the third day after he was arrested, did you see him, again?

MR MMELESI: I explained that some days I was helping with the investigation and others days we were living out for our normal duty. Myself and Mr Du Plessis would leave the whole day and if I'm present I'd help there if it is necessary. But ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Could you tell us whether you helped on the second day and whether you helped with the interrogation on the third day after they'd been arrested.

MR MMELESI: That is why I said I don't remember later as whethere I did. At times, some days we'd leave but if I'm around I'd be able to help with the the interrogation. At times I'd be there, at times I'd not be there. As whether it was the second day or the third day, I do not remember.

MR STANDER: Did you see him again, Oupa Makubalo, after the first day?

MR MMELESI: I explained that I do not remember as to whether it is the second or the third day because usually would leave together with Mr Du Plessis. I'm not sure as to whether I was in the office or not.

MR STANDER: Did you not see him at all? That is the simple question.

MR MMELESI: I say I don't know as to whether the second day I was in the office or I was not in the office.

MR STANDER: I would like to put it to you Sir, that indeed after the second or third day you took Mr Oupa Makubalo to the doctor because of the fact that he had been assaulted to such an extent that his life was actually in danger at that stage. Do you deny that or not?

MR MMESELI: I dispute that. As I explained that on the first day I saw Oupa Makubalo in the office. On second day as whether I was in office or not and again on the third day I do not know as whether I'm in the office or not but I I saw him in the office. But its either on the second day or the third day I was in the office, I'm not sure. That's the way I have explained.

CHAIRPERSON: Have these records been made available?

MR STANDER: Mr Chair, I am doing my best to get hold of them but I have not been able to do so. I will see if I could do so soon and place this before the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: If he was taken from the Fountain Street offices, one would expect documentary evidence to that effect to be available.

It seems a little suprising that the, as far as one can gather, because it hasn't been available to us, that no records were kept at Fountain Street and who was taken there for interrogation, when they were sent away and matters of that nature. Police are usually fairly careful about these things,

I raised this question last week about whether there was documentary evidence available and none appears to be forthcoming. Does this mean that the dockets and other documents no longer exists, if they have been done away with?

MR STANDER: Mr Chair I cannot answer to this. I will do my best by means of the hospital where he had been treated, to see whether any documentation is available.

I would like to stat to you Mr Mmelesi, that you not only acted as a so called interpreter but that you actively participated in this interrogation of the persons and also the assault of on these persons.

MR MMELESI: I have answered.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry Mr Chairman, may I come in here? Would my learned friend please assist all of us by telling us who it is alleged that this witness assaulted because he hasn't put that.

MR STANDER: Just a moment Mr Chair.

Mr Oliphant do you know him, the person who is known as Chine?

MR MMELESI: Yes, I know him.

MR STANDER: He also alleges that you assaulted him.

MR MMELESI: He's lying Sir, I did not assault him and I did not assault any person.

MR STANDER: Did you also participate in the interrogation of any of the women present there?

MR MMELESI: Yes, I took part in the interrogation, there may be two or three. As I explained that the base which I was in office, I took part.

MR STANDER: Am I correct if I also say that there were no female interrogators when the females or women where interrogated? Is that correct?

MR MMELESI: That is correct, Sir. Let me explain, Sir, the interrogation room was the person who the interrogator it might be a male and then myself and the person who has been interrogated.

MR STANDER: Was there a special interrogation room then?

MR MMELESI: No, there was the - there were no people in those offices who would use - in their offices as interrogation rooms as interrogation rooms, then that person would sit there, then I would sit on the other side, then the interrogator would sit on the other side.

MR STANDER: Please tell me, where you present when Oupa Makubalo at a later stage, was arrested and shots were fired in his direction?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I was not present.

MR STANDER: Where you on duty on that day?

MR MMELESI: I was always on duty all the time but I did not take part in that incident.

MR STANDER: Did you know that he was arrested on the day and that they returned him to Fountain Street?

MR MMELESI: I did not know.

MR STANDER: Is it possible that you could have been with them and that you just can't remember this?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I said I was not there.

MR STANDER: Sir, I would like to put it to you that you indeed were in the vehicle which went to arrest him when the shots were fired in his direction.

MR MMELESI: Sir, I said I was not present there. Understand well, I was not there.

MR STANDER: Do know who were all the people who were present?

MR MMELESI: I know nothing, I was not present.

MR STANDER: Did you see when he was brought in?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not see him.

MR STANDER: Can you tell me where your office is in the security branch?

MR MMELESI: When you enter the 5th floor, it was first one on the left side.

MR STANDER: Did you office look out on the so called Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: The this thing of Violent Street suprises me because that is a passage which goes at the back like when Mr Erasmus - the direction of his - from the door you got the toilet and the toilets for females who are on the left and for male are on the right. Our offices are facing the direction which I'm looking and the passage go across.

MR STANDER: Why was it called this so called Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, it was a sticker which was put on the wall which was written Violent Street.

MR STANDER: So the passage wasn't known as Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: Maybe there are people who call it that but I say the the poster was put there written Violent Street. The passage was long and it was on those offices in 5th floor.

MR STANDER: Because one after the other witness had referred to that passage on the 5th floor as so called Violent Street and some of the police officers who have testified here admitted that. Now I don't understand why you ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just wait a minute. I understood the evidence we have heard, we have heard - I can't remember what policeman now, of a passage that his office is in and which then joins another passage which was the one he said was called Violent Street. Is that not the position? There's more than one passage on that floor?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I gained the impression that there was only one passage but perhaps we could ascertain that I may be wrong.

Could you explain to us the layout of the passages on the 5th floor?

MR MMELESI: You must listen very carefully Sir. This is a passage, it goes back and here where I'm pointing its a door, then it turns to the left to those two doors, then that is the toilet, then you turn on the left there's a kitchen.

MR STANDER: Which of these two passages which you told us about now was known as the so-called Violent Street?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know perhaps your the best one to tell us Mr Stander, I gather the security police no longer occupy this. The building is there, who are occupies is now?

MR STANDER: Mr Chair I can't tell you, I don't know the answer to that question. As far as I know there are still members of the police force in there but I don't whom exactly but its not far away from here, its approximately a block away.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it be possible, rather than have this confusion and have witnesses trying to persuade, - trying to tell us, for us to adjourn at some stage and walk that block and see what the floor looks like?

MR STANDER: Yes Sir.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may come in here, Visser on record. This very thought has occurred to us already last week and we have asked Colonel Erasmus to attempt to make arrangements so that we - we wanted to know first of all whether we'd have access to the building before we approached you with it.

At, at this stage there is a problem with the 5th floor, apparently there's legislation declaring an off limits area to to the public. I'm not sure in what or some such, its got something to do with National Intelligence, Mr Chairman.

We are attempting, I think Mr Chairman, I am speaking under correction, but we are attempting to obtain permission to enter the 5th floor, that's the one thing, but in any event, what we are attempting to do is to obtain floor plans of each and every floor and to give that at least to you.

But we are working on getting us into the building there's just a problem with the 5th floor as I understand the position to be at the moment but we're working on that very issue Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The 5th floor is really the only one we want to see, we don't want to get into the building as such but if we could do that perhaps cross-examination as to the details of the geography of the floor could stand over until we know whether we can see it ourselves or get a proper floor plan.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chair. Before I step down from this aspect, let us then call this passage with the board Violent Street and ask the question whether your office actually faced on this passage.

MR MMELESI: The door of the office we were occupying faced the passage and this passage proceeded ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: What did you call that passage? Did it have a name, for instance: Peace Street or whatever?

MR MMELESI: This passage did not have a name, Sir. The only thing that was there was a sticker put on the wall and I do not know who put that sticker there. I call it a passage, it did not have a name. The sticker was called Violent Street but that was not the name of that passage.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the sticker in your passage or did it point towards the other passage?

MR MMELESI: That is correct, Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: It can't be correct because I've asked you was the sticker in your passage or did it point towards the other passage?

MR MMELESI: Sir, I explained that there were two passages, there's a door, there's a passage going to the right and the other one going to the left.

ADV DE JAGER: The sticker, was it pointing to the passage going to the right?

MR MMELESI: The passage to the left when you were going to the kitchen.

MR STANDER: Did you ever enquire about this sticker on the door on the wall?

MR MMELESI: No Sir. I tried to ask what was happening with that sticker but no-one gave me a clear indication of why the sticker was put on the wall. All the members could see that, I do not know whether the sticker is still there or not.

MR STANDER: You didn't go to any trouble to remove it because according to your testimony it had no meaning whatsoever. Do I understand you correctly?

MR MMELESI: I do not know, Sir, but I just saw it as a sticker that was put on the wall.

MR STANDER: Could you have removed it yourself, had you so wished?

MR MMELESI: The problem was I did not know who was the person who put it there. And I did not take that into consideration.

MR STANDER: You also didn't go to any trouble to enquire about it?

MR MMELESI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: I would like to state it to you Sir, that that sticker had been placed on that wall because people were continuously assaulted and tortured in that passage and that is why it was known as Violent Street. Could you reply to that?

MR MMELESI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: Do you deny it or don't you?

MR MMELESI: I dispute that, I never seen anyone assaulted in that passage.

MR STANDER: No further questions to the witness.

MR MEMANI: Mr Mmelesi, as of 6th of April 1986, was your floor on the 5th floor or was it on the 4th floor?

MR MMELESI: We were on the 5th floor, Sir.

MR MEMANI: I meant you office.

MR MMELESI: We were in the 5th floor.

MR MEMANI: And on that day you worked with Terreblanche

and Du Plooy, didn't you?

MR MMELESI: When I arrived at the security branch I worked with those people you just mentioned.

MR MEMANI: But on the 6th of April 1996 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you could tell him what the 6th of April was. I can't remember what the 6th of April 1986 was.

MR MEMANI: This is the day when the 19 people were ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well tell him.

MR MEMANI: I thought its common cause Mr Chair.

And this is the day on which the 19 people were detained. Do you remember that now?

MR MMELESI: Sir, I do not remember when it comes to dates but I remember that there were people brought to the offices.

MR MEMANI: Now, on that day, when these people were detained, did you assist the officers on the 4th floor?

MR MMELESI: I helped in the investigation department to ask those people questions.

MR MEMANI: Where did you help the investigation department?

MR MMESELI: On the 4th floor, that is where the investigation was done, we were in the 5th floor.

MR MEMANI: And who - which white officer were you working with?

MR MMESELI: Its a long time Sir, I do not remember but the person I was working with very well was Sergeant Du Plessis but he was not involved in the interrogation section.

MR MEMANI: Now, I'm talking about this particular day. Who did you work with on that particular day?

MR MMELESI: Sir, I said I do not remember well because this happened long time ago.

MR MEMANI: How many people did you interrogate on that day?

MR MMELESI: On that day, i think two, if not four.

MR MEMANI: And who were the persons?

MR MMELESI: I do not remember them, Sir.

MR MEMANI: Did you get any information from these people?

MR MMELESI: The way the interrogator proceeded he was satisfied with the answers.

MR MEMANI: Was he satisfied with all of them as and when he started interrogating each of them?

MR MMELESI: On that day where I participated, he asked them questions and they explained to him well what happened, why they decided to leave, he was satisfied. I was an interpreter.

MR MEMANI: In short, all of them co-operated? None of them at any stage did not co-operate?

MR MMELESI: Where I took part, I said they satisfied him. No-one was stubborn, they all answered questions without being forced.

MR MEMANI: And they co-operated from the onset is what I'm putting you, why can't you say yes or no?

MR MMELESI: I said yes I've explained that if a person did not want to co-operate then but I said the time when I was there nobody was not co-operating, they answered those questions well.

MR MEMANI: You see, earlier on your evidence was that people were asked questions and those who did not co-operate was taken upstairs and then they would be called for the second time.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry, I have to object Mr Chairman, the questions which he answered, and I attempted to listen very carefully, were put to him on the hypothesis that if somebody refused to answer questions, what would you then do? And he said the answer which my learned friend has now given, he has not been asked by anybody until right now, whether the people did in fact co-operate. There's a difference, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection is he said he was asked what sort of [End of tape 1, side A - no follow on sound] I aske him who their leaders and contacts were, some were prepared to co-operate, others were not, we would just leave them. We would just leave them.

Let me later go back to these people ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: That, with respect, is my note Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I do think it's fair to say though, that his answers were all speculative always if, if, if. I don't think that he in that portion of evidence said that they did in fact do this, this is what they would have done.

MR MEMANI: My...

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is I think, what I tried to convey.

MR MEMANI: My understanding Mr Chair, was that the context in which the words if and would were used were not used in a speculative sense but they were used to explain what what would occur as what occurred in fact on that day.

It was not only hypothesis. It was what did you do what would you do if people did not co-operate on that day? They were specific to what would happen on that day.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, I don't want to waste time. Let him put the question to the witness and let the witness field for himself.

MR MEMANI: In any event it has emerged that you told us that some people did not co-operate on that day and that is contrary to what you just put that none of them did not co-operate.

MR MMELESI: I did not say they were not co-operating. You asked me, saying: "If people did not answer questions what did they do"?, I answered and said: "Those who did not want to ask questions would just leave them and ask others. And later would bring them back and interrogate them and they would answer those questions well".

MR MEMANI: Now mister, - I'll leave the rest of the things for argument. The next that I wanted to ask you is where - in which office where you on that day?

MR MMELESI: We were on the 4th floor the time when we were interrogating these people. This thing happened a long time ago, I don't know whose office - I don't remember whose office was that.

MR MEMANI: And who was present with you? You say you don't recall that as well.

MR MMELESI: I did not - I don't remember as to whether whom I was assisting in the interrogation.

MR MEMANI: You don't recall who was with you, you don't recall in which office you were and you don't recall who you interrogated on that day?

MR MMELESI: I explained that it happened a long time ago, I don't remember. I would not say it's this person or that person because there were many.

MR MEMANI: You don't recall whether people co-operated immediately or not?

MR MMELESI: You asked me a question as to - the first person asked me as to whether those people were co-operating or not. I'd say were I was they were co-operating, where a took part as an interpreter, those people were co-operative.

MR MEMANI: I find it strange, in the light of the fact that you have forgotten so many things that you can recall that you arrived in the office at 1 o'clock.

MR MMELESI: That is so because on that day I was together with Mr Du Plessis. We were going to investigate then after lunch we came back to the office. And when we arrived there Mr Du Plessis told us that the ...[inaudible]

MR MEMANI: And what time did you leave work on that day?

MR MMELESI: We'd knock off at 4 o'clock.

MR MEMANI: Did you actually knock off at 4 o'clock on that day?

MR MMELESI: I say we knock off at 4 o'clock. On that day we took them to where they were supposed to be detained.

MR MEMANI: And the evidence was that the detainees were taken to the various police stations after 5.

MR MMELESI: I explained that on that day, usually we knock off at 4 o'clock but on that day we did not knock off at 4 o'clock. We were supposed to take those people where they were supposed to be detained.

MR MEMANI: But why didn't you say that a moment ago when I asked you whether - what time did you knock off, you said - why did you not then just say we knock off at 4 o'clock?

MR MMELESI: That is like that. I say usually we knock off at 4 o'clock but on that day we were supposed to - we did not go home, we were supposed to take those people to where they were supposed to be locked.

CHAIRPERSON: Counsel asked you specifically how do you remember you remember you arrived there at 1 o'clock, and you told us you'd been working with DuPlessis and when you arrived back after lunch you were told about this. Counsel then said what time did you knock off that day and you said 4 o'clock.

MR MMELESI: Let me clear it off. We usually knock off at 4 o'clock, but at on that day we did not knock off at 4 o'clock, we were supposed to take those people were they were detained.

MR MEMANI: Now, where did you take them?

MR MMELESI: We took them to Glen, if I remember well.

MR MEMANI: With whom did you go to Glen?

MR MMELESI: I don't remember because we were many, we took them with cars and Kombis. I don't know which Kombis because some of them were not more in use.

MR MEMANI: And you don't recall the other person who was present when you took the persons except yourself.

MR MMELESI: We went with Kopi, Mafisa and Lieutenant Terreblanche, Warrant Officer Swanapoel. I explained that with whom I was working during that time.

MR MEMANI: But the question Mr ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: The question is: "On that day, can you remember with whom did you - did you go with a Kombi yourself? Who was driving the Kombi? Where you guarding the detainees? What was your function in that Kombi or motor car or whatever you've been in? You yourself.

MR MMELESI: I said I did not - I don't remember as to who was driving and where was I sitting but what I know is that we took these people to where they were detained.

MR MEMANI: With whom were you?

MR MMELESI: I don't remember with whom I was within that group.

MR MEMANI: Thank you Mr Chair.

Do you remember if Mr Motsamai was there?

MR MMELESI: Sir, I said we were many I do not remember as whether other people from various sections helped or not.

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that the only people you took prisoners were yourself, Kopi and Motsamai. ...[inaudible] can you because you can't remember?

MR MMELESI: I said its like that but I do not remember. The we were those people were many.

MR MEMANI: The detainees were many?

MR MMELESI: There were 19 all in all. I do not remember who was there on that day and who was not there on that day.

MR MEMANI: There were only three policemen, yourself, Kopi and Motsamai.

MR MMELESI: I said I do not remember whether other members from various sections helped to take these people to where they were supposed to be detained. I don't remember well.

ADV DE JAGER: And Mr Memanie, were they all travelling together in one vehicle, all 19 detainees and the three policemen?

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that it was not all 19 that were travelling in the same vehicle that Motsamai, Mmelesi and Kopi were.

Now, Mr Mmelesi, for how long did you see Mr Ngo at security branch?

MR MMELESI: I don't remember, but I'd say it may be a month or two, I don't remember.

MR MEMANI: ...[inaudible] period, a lengthy period, longer than two months.

MR MMELESI: No it might not be more that two months.

MR MEMANI: And at that stage you believed that he was a member of the security branch?

MR MMELESI: The time when I arrived in the office he was there, I just took it that he was a member of the security branch but when I enquired they told be that he is a recruit.

MR MEMANI: And he worked there regularly.

MR MMELESI: Yes, he was working as if he's a permanent staff member, that is why I regarded him as a member.

MR MEMANI: And I want us to go back to the passage. I I got the impression that the 5th floor forms an L. Is that correct?

MR MMELESI: That is correct. As I've explained that this passage would go this way, and here is a door and then it would go towards the main entrance.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So you mean capital letter?

MR MEMANI: And Kopi described the area beyond the door as Violent Street. Did you hear him say that?

MR MMELESI: I heard but I said myself it is a sticker which has been put on the wall. It's a sticker, it's not the name of the passage which is Violent Street.

MR MEMANI: But it is suprising that detainees would be there occasionally knew that the police called that passage Violent Street and you who was working on that passage did not know that your colleagues referred to that passage as Violent Street.

MR MMELESI: I dispute that. I say when you enter the door you see the sticker first, then you'd just regard that that is a Violent Street but not that the name of that passage is Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible] by one of your colleagues that there was a sticker there and on one occasion, a detainee when he was brought onto the 5th floor, because of that sticker referred to it as Violent Street and from that time onwards the passage was known as Violent Street - actually it was Mr Kopi.

MR MMELESI: I would not dispute what he said but I said I knew only that as a passage then I saw that sticker, then I was not present him that from today that passage would be known as Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is you evidence that a you have never at all yourself came to know that that passage was commonly referred to as Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: I explained that there was a sticker which has been put there written Violent Street. Nobody told me that you should know as from today that this passage is now known as Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, sorry, I'm not asking you whether somebody did tell you that this is Violent Street. I'm only asking you, did you not come to know, just as other people came to know, that that passage was commonly known as Violent Street? You never knew that?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I dispute that. That what was only there was a sticker written Violent Street.

MR MEMANI: Are you hearing today for the first time, that that passage for whatever reason was commonly known as Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: No. I don't dispute what you're saying, I - everybody would call that Violent Street because of the sticker which has been put there.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Oh, you do know that everybody called that passage Violent Street because of the sticker? You know that?

MR MMELESI: Not that I know but that I don't dispute. the reason is that when you open the door, the sticker has been put on the hall which has been written Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You know you keep on repeating to every question I'm putting to you. You keep repeatedly coming back to stating that the sticker was put on the door. We know that, there's no problem about that.

What I want to know from you is, you mister Mmelesi, at the time when you were working on the 5th floor, did you ever know that that passage, for whatever reason, was commonly referred to as Violent Street, or did you not know? Either you knew or you didn't know.

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not know.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Are you hearing, for the first time during this proceedings that that passage was commonly known as Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, that is not so. I'm saying the people who entered there saw the sticker on the wall, you'd even see it there yourself. Nobody told me that you must know that this passage is called Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You're going to realise that I'm going to expect you to answer my question, the way you want. I'm asking you, are you hearing for the first time during these proceedings that that passage was known as Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: No, I explained that it is not the first time. Everybody who entered there would see that that sticker and would call that passage Violent Street but nobody specifically said this is Violent Street, this is not my first time.

CHAIRPERSON: But why, have you said repeatedly to my brother: "I did not know it was commonly called Violent Street"?

MR MMELESI: Sir, I said nobody told me that it was Violent Street, it was a sticker that was put there. If you entered there you'd even tell yourself, oh well this is Violent Street by just seeing the sticker.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I'm going to put this question for the last time and if you don't answer it, I'm going to leave it. You knew that that passage, whether as a result of the sticker being put there or not, you knew, even at a time when you were still a member of the security branch, that that passage was commonly referred to as Violent Street. Did you know that?

MR MMELESI: Sir, people who entered that passage called it Violent Street. I'm saying I just saw that sticker there, It doesn't mean I knew it was Violent Street. Whether I called it Violent Street or not, the people called it Violent Street, I did not know it was Violent Street.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I told you it was for the last time I'm going to ask you that question I'm going to leave it there.

MR MEMANI: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Mmelesi, the people that were taken to to Glen we've been told had injuries. Did you see that people had been injured, that you conveyed to Glen?

MR MMELESI: I said that there was no person who has been assaulted in my prescience.

MR MEMANI: I'm not saying to you that the persons were assaulted in your presence. I'm saying that when you conveyed them, the people had been injured already.

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I don't agree.

MR MEMANI: And, subject to correction, Oupa Makubalo had had lost his tooth as a result of being assaulted on that day.

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not hear that that somebody lost a tooth.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Just one question, Mr Chairman. Did you ever see blood stains on the wall, one of the walls, or both walls of Violent Street?

MR MMELESI: No Sir, I did not see blood stains.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Just one question, Mr Chairman.

Mr MMelesi, you were asked about what would happen if you asked a witness questions which he refused to answer. And you said that you would leave him and perhaps come back to him later. What was the purpose of the interrogation as far as you were concerned on that day? What did you want to do with the questions that the white person was asking them, what was the purpose?

MR MMELESI: They wanted to know as to where were those people going and their names and who were their contacts in Lesotho and that who was their leader. If I answer your question well.

MR VISSER: And if you got all that information, for example from a particular person, what would then have happened?

MR MMELESI: Then later WE would take that report to Mr Du Plooy.

MR VISSER: Chairman before - I have no further questions. But what has come to hand are the floor plans of the 4th and the 5th floor which I beg leave to hand up to you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: These are the only two that I've got, the only two floors that I've got Mr Chairman. I've got a few copies here.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think the other floors have been mentioned at all. Have they?

MR VISSER: There are three copies Mr Chairman, and some for our learned friends as well.

CHAIRPERSON: We're obliged to you, Mr Visser, and to those instructing you.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speakers mike is not activated.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you help us and tell us which passage was known as Violent Street?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the evidence was that it's the passage that leads to the kitchen and if you look at the top of the page: 510 appears to have been the kitchen so that would mean - I haven't discussed this with my witnesses, I just got this to hand, that would mean that that would probably be the passage which is Violent Street. If one takes the top of the page as North for purposes of argument, it would be the South North/North South passage then.

ADV DE JAGER: Are you all at idem? Your witnesses, are they saying the same about this?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I've just said I haven't discussed the plans with ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: But kindly find out Mr Visser, he's sitting next to you, so that we don't need to come back to this again.

MR VISSER: Colonel Erasmus explains to me Mr Chairman, that looking at the floor plan, the passage running from South to North, if North is the top of the page, was Violent Street. That is the one running in the direction of the kitchen marked 510 and apparently there's a staircase or whatever and their are toilets on the right hand top side which does not appear on your - only a part of which appears on the page.

If you look down at the bottom, if I may say the Southern end of the passage on the left hand side, you see there's a circle and a cross, whatever that is supposed to indicate I don't know but it was in that vicinity that the sticker was attached to the wall.

In other words on the left hand side as you walked into the passage, next to room 511, on the left hand wall that is where the sticker, according to Colonel Erasmus's recollection, was put on the wall.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears from the other plan that next to the circle and cross are the letters BR or BK, I think that it's BR. What that means, I don't know.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we don't know at the moment, but we will try to establish whether there's any - whether we can find out what the letters are and what they stand for.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, on the plans, on the 5th floor you've got a partition in the foyer and on the 4th floor its an open space leading to the two passages, I don't know whether that was the position at the time or not.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, my instructions from Lieutenant Shaw and Colonel Erasmus is that, looking at the floor plan of the 5th floor, the marks made there represent a trellace, 'n traaliwerk, with a door, a security door and it was exactly at the time in 1986 there was a similar trellace on the 4th floor.

So both the floors had at the same security entrance as it were, from the lift well. Shall we, perhaps, give this an exhibit number, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it necessary for just the floor plan, it's the only floor plan?

MR VISSER: Yes, we can just call it, just refer to it as the floor plan. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: While we've got this witness here, could we perhaps ask him to look at the plan and whether he understands the plan of the 5th floor.

Do you understand this plan?

MR MMELESI: I'm still looking at the plan Sir. Yes, I see the plan, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you indicate on that plan, which is the office that you worked in?

MR MMELESI: If I'm not mistaken, they don't have numbers here, Sir. They are not numbered.

If I'm not mistaken, it's office 409.

CHAIRPERSON: The 5th floor we are supposed to be looking at.

MR MMELESI: Pardon me?

I think it's 5029, this is the number.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that office is not marked with a number unfortunately it was marked: "stoor" beforehand and apparently later on certain walls were put up, he's referring ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just office on the corner.

MR VISSER: Not the one on the corner, he's referring to 5029 as I understand it. If he could just perhaps with a pencil mark, mark it Mr Chairman, it might be the easiest.

MR MMELESI: Sir, I remember the first one, it was a store room, this is the office number. I think it was 22.49 if I'm not mistaken. It's 508. Sir, it's 508.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the office number written in the doorway?

MR MMELESI: Yes, the number is written on the door, it's 509.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Mmelesi.

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The next witness.

The next witness is Mr Tsoametsi, which is spelt t - s - o - a - m - e - t - s - i.

Mr Chairman, there is an affidavit by Mr Tsoametsi. I'm sorry, I've just lost the page, I'll give you the page reference.

MR BRINK: Bundle B, 29 to 31.

MR VISSER: My learned friend says bundle B, page forty one to forty three Mr Chairman and he's correct. My thanks to my learned friend.

MR TSOAMETSI: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: Mr Tsoametsi, is it correct that you are a retired warrant officer.

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And is it correct that you were a member of the security branch in Bloemfontein in 1986?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: When did you join the police?

MR TSOAMETSI: On the 1st of December 1965.

MR VISSER: And when did you join the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR TSOAMETSI: In 1973, in May.

MR VISSER: And which section did you work in the security branch?

MR TSOAMETSI: I was in the white section.

MR VISSER: And who was your commanding officer in that section?

MR TSOAMETSI: It was Rudie Crouse.

MR VISSER: Were there other members in that section apart from you and Rudie Crouse?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR VISSER: Will you just mention the names of the other people.

MR TSOAMETSI: Warrant Officer Piet Naude, Warrant Officer Leon Kalitz and Sergeant Joseph Lichaba, L - i - c - h - a - b - a.

MR VISSER: Did you know Mr Ngo?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you tell the Committee when you remember today, since when you became aware of Mr Ngo and what did you think was he doing?

MR TSOAMETSI: If I remember very well, I say Ngo at our offices on the 5th floor. It was somewhere around 1983, but I could not speak to him because the rule was to look at the person and pass. But I remember one day it happened that I asked him who's son he was, where was he born, and he said to me he was Ngo from Pietersberg and I said: "Oh well, I know the place. I was once a student there, I went to school with Kaffir Ngo.

And he said: "That was that is my uncle" and that was it.

MR VISSER: Are you aware that in 1986, Mr Ngo became a recruit constable, a student constable?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR VISSER: In the period from March 1986 until July 1986, did you work with Mr Ngo while you were executing your duties in the white section?

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly repeat the period Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it is from March 1986 to July 1986.

MR TSOAMETSI: I was not working with him.

MR VISSER: Were you working with Mr Motsamai?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Can you remember today, in 1986 more or less, how many members were there in the security branch, in 1985/1986 here in Bloemfontein?

MR TSOAMETSI: It is difficult to remember, Sir.

MR VISSER: Right. Mr Tsoametsi, you filed an affidavit, I'm sorry, signed an affidavit is that correct?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that an affidavit in which you went to Pretoria to see Mr Wagner about?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR VISSER: On that occasion, did Mr Motsamai accompany the group who went to Pretoria?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did anybody force you to go to Pretoria to see Mr Wagner?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Did anybody at any stage prescribe to you, told you what to say or what to write in the affidavit?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the truthfulness and correctness of the contents of your affidavit?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR VISSER: In your affidavit you deny that you made yourself a party to any illegal or unlawful act, is that correct?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now Mr Ngo, has alleged that you took part in the kidnapping and assault of Mr White Mohapi during 1986. First of all did you take part of Mr White Mohape?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Did you assault him at any stage?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: It is alleged that orders were given by Lieutenant Shaw and Lieutenant Erasmus that you and Mamome had to go to the Bayswater police station to pick up White Mohape. Well, actually it's not the Bayswater Police Station, it is alleged that you had to the Hilton Police Station so that you could follow White Mohape after his release. Did that happen?

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, that did not happen. Let me shortly explain. It was not possible for Shaw and Erasmus to give me instructions without first going to Rudi Crouse.

MR VISSER: And are you saying - did Mr Crouse give you any such instructions to follow White Mohapi and to kidnap him?

MR TSOAMETSI: No. We were working in the white section.

MR VISSER: And Mr Ngo went on to say - page 25 of the application, Mr Chairman, went on to say that you and Mamome kidnapped Mr White Mohape and that you radioed the information to Ngo, Motsamai and Mthyala, spelt M-t-y-h-a-l-e. Did that happen?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I do not want to unnecessarily delay these proceedings. My recollection is that Mr Ngo was in the company of the white policeman. I think it was Cronje, the evidence was.

MR VISSER: Well then, my learned friend can put it to the witness Mr Chairman. I'm putting to the witness as I read the application.

At any event that Mr White Mhopi was taken to an open field between Bloemfontein - Bloemspruit rather, Bloemspruit and Shannon, where he was beaten up. Do you know anything about that?

MR TSOAMETSI: I did not know that, Sir.

MR VISSER: You are ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that Ngo was with Cronje, Mtyhala and Mamome in a vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MEMANI: No, earlier on I said my recollection was that Mr Ngo was with Cronje and I'm saying that Mr Ngo has corrected me and he says that he was with Cronje, Mtyhala and Mamome as well.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, I would like to see where it is at page 24 or 25 because a don't read the word Cronje there.

I'm not saying that he didn't say that he didn't say so in his evidence, that's not at all what I'm saying.

MR MEMANI: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I put it wrongly again. It's Mtyhala, Cronje and the applicant and Mamome was not there.

ADV DE JAGER: Not the applicant, the witness.

MR MEMAME: The applicant, Mr Ngo, Mr Chair.

ADV DE JAGER: Repeat the names, who was in this car?

MR MEMANI: In the vehicle it was Mtyhala, Cronje, Ngo, in one vehicle.

MR VISSER: So my learned friend is making it absolutely clear that he’s instructions now are that Mr Motsomi wasn’t present. Is that what I must understand from what he’s putting, Mr Chairman?

MR MEMANI: I don’t think you want to be taken seriously, we are talking about what you’ve just put. About the names that you have just used now. I’m telling you that in the vehicle in which Ngo was there were Cronje and Mtyhala and that’s different from what you put. That’s what I’m ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But what he is putting is what appears in the application, he is reading from the application. He is not varying it he is reading the application which was made.

MR MEMANI: I’m not sure now, Mr Chairman, whether the application says that in the vehicle that Ngo was travelling there was anybody else except Mtyhala and Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you should read the application and so see that Mr Visser is correctly reading it.

MR MEMANI: He hasn’t referred us, where is he referring to, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: The application, pages 24 and 25.

MR VISSER: It’s right at the foot of the page.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Chairman, you will recall that there was evidence. The evidence that was lead specifically about the car, was that Cronje was Cronje was the person who was there.

CHAIRPERSON: He is not talking about the evidence that was lead Mr Memane, he is talking about the application and that is what he is putting to the witness.

MR MEMANI: But, Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He is not alleged, not made any reference evidence that was led.

MR MEMANI: But then also then, if you go by what you say, there’s no specific reference to a vehicle in this passage.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t understand what you are talking about, Mr Memane. Mr Visser is asking this witness - is putting to this witness what appears in the amnesty application lodged by Mr Ngo and asking him to comment on it.

MR MEMANI: But when he does so Mr Chairman he must put the entire version correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: He has put, as far as I know. What has he not put?

MR MEMANI: Maybe I made a mistake. What is it that being put, exactly, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: What has he not put? What are you objecting to that you say he has not what appears in the application?

MR MEMANI: You see my understanding Mr Chairman, is that this kidnapping was was conducted by people, different people who were in different vehicles and at different times joined together - but were later jointed together at a later stage.

And what I’m saying is that at material times Ngo would say that he was with Mtyhala and Cronje in a vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Visser has not asked this witness about being in a vehicle with them? He hasn’t mentioned that has he?

MR MEMANI: Presumably, Mr Chairman, he’s saying - My understanding is that he’s saying that the ...[inaudible] with the witness, prior to them arriving at the veld where Mr Mohape was being beaten up.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, am I wrong? Have you not just been reading what appears in the application?

MR VISSER: Nothing more and nothing less, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The precise words. What is your objection Mr Memane?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, if he’s just reading the application for the sake of reading then that’s fine.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Carry on.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Well, I’m not quite sure what the last question was, but let me try to pick it up like this Mr Tsoametsi.

The allegation is that yourself and Mr Mamome took Mr White Mohape to a veld between Bloemspruit and Shannon and that there they were joined by Motsamai, Mtyhala and Ngo, where all five of you beat up Mr White Mohape. Hammers and crowbars, now what do you say of that evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, not ...[intervention]

MR TSOAMETSI: That is not true, it is a lie what Ngo is saying. I know nothing about hammers and crowbars and the kidnapping of Mohape.

MR VISSER: Mr Tsoametsi, last week you were requested, while you here in the Commission hall, to stand up so that the commission could look at you and I think you were described as stoutish person. How would you describe yourself, your body build?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is true, I am stout.

MR VISSER: And, since when did it happen that you became stout? Sorry, for how long has your body build been the same as it is today?

MR TSOAMETSI: Since long time ago I’ve been stout, Sir, I’ve never been thin.

MR VISSER: Mr Tsoametsi, we can then go on to - page 27 Mr Chairman, of bundle A.

It is suggested, alleged that at the time when the 19 comrades were brought to Bloemfontein, we know it was the 6th of April 1986, it is alleged that you and Warrant Officer Ramosoeu, - page 29, Mr Chairman, told Mtyhala and Ngo that they should drink two and a half litres of water to force the comrades to drink, two bottles each.

Now, first of all, is that true?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is not true, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything to do with the 19 comrades who were transferred from Ladybrand to Bloemfontein in 1986, Mr Tsoametsi?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, no contact at all.

MR VISSER: If anybody said that you had anything to do with their torture and assault, what would you say about that?

MR TSOAMETSI: That person would be lying, Sir.

MR VISSER: Reference to page 31, Mr Chairman.

It is furthermore alleged that there was a group of people, a large group of 40 or more comrades who were students who were arrested at Botshabelo and the security branch members from Bloemfontein were involved in that. And at page 34 of Mr Ngo’s application, he alleges that members of the security branch Bloemfontein who participated personally and physically in the beating and torturing of all these comrades are - and your name is number four on that list. He says you personally and physically beat and tortured those comrades. What do you say about that?

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, that is not true because I explained that I was working in the white section, now, I’ve never worked once in Botshabelo.

MR VISSER: Lastly, if it’s alleged that you had anything to do with the assault on the home of Citi Mzuzwana, what would you say about that?

MR TSOAMETSI: I would say it’s a lie.

MR VISSER: In short Mr Tsoametsi, if it is alleged by any of the applicants that you committed any illegal or unlawful act, what do you say about that.

MR TSOAMETSI: I would say he is lying.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I’m just going to refer you to D, The Offence, D at page 25 and particularly at page 26, ja page 26.

CHAIRPERSON: Of what?

MR VISSER: Of bundle A. And I’m not going to lead any evidence Mr Chairman, because frankly I don’t quite understand whether this witness is being implicated. I will leave him now for cross-examination.

Perhaps just one last question. Do you know that Mr Ngo left to Hamanskraal Police college in July of 1986?

MR TSOAMETSI: I not remember the month but I know he disappeared.

MR VISSER: After he left Bloemfontein, did you ever have anything else to do with him?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the house of Max Makuba?

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, you will recall that when Mr Ngo gave evidence, he said that he went with Motsamai to attack the house. Thought it was the house of Max Makubalo but he now realises that it was the house of Citi Mzuzwana's parents or Citi. We’ll make some submissions about that, we’re not entirely certain whether he refers to the parental home or of Citi himself. That is why I asked on both legs, whether this witness knew about the bombing of the house of Citi Mzuzwana Mr Chairman, it's based on that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just referring to your affidavits.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Well at the time, of course, the evidence hadn’t been lead, so and in the application, Ngo made mention only of Max Makubalo and that is why that is in the affidavit as it is Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: I’ll find it for you immediately, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, if you - bundle A, and I’m just finding a page for you quickly, a typewritten page. Sorry, yes, it is at page, bundle C page 12, my attorney just pointed out. And this is what what we had at the time or what Mr Wagner and the witness had at the time when the affidavit was signed. And it is the item marked (b) little (b), just below the middle of the page:

Now that was changed, Mr Chairman. If you need the reference to the record I can find that and give it to you but I won’t be able to do that immediately.

If you give me two seconds, I’m probably going to find it straight away, Mr Chairman. I have a note here of around page 300 of the record but it may be the wrong reference, I think it may.

Sorry, Mr Chairman it’s around 300, but I’ll find it and give it to you. Is it a convenient time now perhaps to take the tea adjournment, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you.

MR TSOAMETSI: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: ...[inaudible] this witness. Warrant Officer Tsoametsi, having worked in the so called white section of security branch, does that mean that you investigated or monitored white persons whom you regarded, I repeat, as activists?

Just switch on your microphone before you speak.

MR TSOAMETSI: Repeat your question, Sir.

MR VISSER: I’m sorry, I didn’t have my earphones on.

MR TSOAMETSI: Can you kindly repeat your question Sir.

MR VISSER: Yes. You told us that you worked the white section, Mr Tsoametsi.

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that the section which investigated or monitored white people who were regarded as activists?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: To your knowledge or recollection, did you ever investigate a person by the name of P.A. Venter?

P.D. Venter I think it was Mr Chairman.

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: The gentleman I’m referring to, just to perhaps jog your memory, was the person in regard to which Mr Ngo has made an application for amnesty for the murder and robbery of that person. Do you know whom I’m speaking about?

CHAIRPERSON: His dealt with this in his affidavit hasn’t he, so I presume he knows who you’re talking about.

MR VISSER: Thank you for pointing that out, Mr Chairman.

As far as you know, did you have a file on that person in the white section, that you investigated?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR VISSER: Do you know whether he was an informant of the security branch?

MR TSOAMETSI: I do not know.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on, there’s a matter which I need to raise and I’m afraid I overlooked it earlier. And that is to try and get an estimate of how long we will be able to continue today so arrangements can be made.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, we will obviously as we’ve done in the past fall in with any arrangements which you make, bearing in mind that there are consultations which I have to do in the evenings of course. So frankly, we would prefer not to sit too late but we’re absolutely in your hands, speaking for my team Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: There are other matters which I would like to discuss with counsel after we’ve adjourned but I think 5 o’clock, having started at nine would be as late as we could expect people to work here.

MR VISSER: That would be emanently suitable Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I’ve had agreement from the people behind me who do work all the time. Very well, carry on.

MR VISSER: Yes, I’ve completed the evidence in chief, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Tsoametsi, do I understand it correctly that you’ve already

retired?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: When did you retire?

MR TSOAMETSI: 1993 in March.

MR DU PLESSIS: And up to that date did you work as a member of the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You testified that you became aware of the fact that Mr Ngo not was working at Bloemfontein security branch at one stage, is that correct?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you after that date have any contact with him again?

MR TSOAMETSI: I saw him at the court before the Judges, it was in respect of this murder of Venter.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you have any other form of contact with him before that court case?

MR TSOAMETSI: I saw him when he was assaulted by the students.

MR DU PLESSIS: Am I correct if I say that this was while he was still working in Bloemfontein?

MR TSOAMETSI: He was still a student at that time, he was not yet in the police and that was when he was attacked by the school kids.

MR DU PLESSIS: I just want to put my question clearly. From the time that he left Bloemfontein, from that date until the date you saw him at court, did you see him or speak to him in the interim?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Tsoametsi, where you also part of the group of security policemen who interrogated the 19 people who were arrested at Ladybrand.

MR TSOAMETSI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: Where you at that stage part of the security police here in Bloemfontein? That is the sixth of March 1986?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Can you tell us why you say that you did not participate in the interrogation or were you not on duty that day or what is the position?

MR TSOAMETSI: I was on duty. As I’ve explained earlier on, I was in the black section, I was in the white section. Now there was nothing binding me and Crouse to go to the black section.

I did not ask them whether they needed my help even though I would have been in a position to help them.

MR STANDER: Please tell me, was a person by the name of Terreblanche busy with the interrogation of these people on that day?

MR TSOAMETSI: I would not give evidence to that effect, I do not know.

MR STANDER: Do you know Mr Terreblanche?

MR TSOAMETSI: I know him.

MR STANDER: Is it true that he was a security policeman who was employed there?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: A group of 19 people who have to be interrogated, do you agree if I say that it’s a large group of people and that many people had to be involved in the interrogation?

MR TSOAMETSI: I would not give evidence again Sir, to that effect.

MR STANDER: I do not understand you, what are you telling us? Is it not true that it was a large group of people who had to be interrogated at the same time?

MR TSOAMETSI: You see you don’t interrogate people simultaneously, you’d ask questions one by one.

MR STANDER: And you say that you had no part in this interrogation of this group of 19?

MR TSOAMETSI: Not at all, I did not take part at all.

MR STANDER: Later that day when the people were taken to the different police stations, did you participate in that at all?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR STANDER: Did you see any of this group of people there that day?

MR TSOAMETSI: I do not remember you see, because they were still young at that time. They might have shifted from their appearances when they were still young.

MR STANDER: I’m afraid I do not understand you. Can not you even remember that this group of 19 people were interrogated there that day?

MR TSOAMETSI: I’m saying Mr Chairman, even if they were interrogated I would not give evidence to that effect, I was not part.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speakers mike is not activated.

ADV DE JAGER: I don’t know but isn’t he trying to convey: "They were young at the time and I didn’t recognise their faces now, they have changed", something to that effect. I don’t know whether that’s what he’s trying to convey.

MR STANDER: I hear what you are saying and I am grateful, possibly I can ask him if that’s true.

Can you remember, of the group of 19 who were interrogated on the sixth of March 1986 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure of that date?

MR STANDER: I am sorry, it’s the sixth of April, thank you very much.

MR TSOAMETSI: What is your question, Sir?

MR STANDER: Can you remember that a group of 19 people were interrogated on the sixth of April 1986?

MR TSOAMETSI: I saw them, they were at the office.

MR STANDER: How many times did you see them there on that day?

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, it is difficult because I was in and out of the building until late when we knock off.

MR STANDER: What time did you go off duty on that day?

MR TSOAMETSI: The usual knock off time was 4 o’clock.

MR STANDER: I hear what you are saying, but what time did you knock off?

MR TSOAMETSI: I do not remember. I only know that we used to knock off at four o’clock with the white person Crouse whom I was working with.

MR STANDER: Did you also sometimes interpret for the white security police officers?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Did you also interpret for Mr Terreblanche at times?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, only Crouse and Naudè.

MR STANDER: Never for Terreblanche?

MR TSOAMETSI: Not at all.

MR STANDER: Is it possible that you can recall each and every person for whom you interpreted after a period of approximately 13 years?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, Sir, those white people had their own black workers, I would not leave my white person and go to them.

MR STANDER: Why I’m putting this question to you is that I have been instructed that on that specific day you acted as interpreter for Mr Terreblanche when Mr Oupa Makubalo was assaulted among others with a cricket bat ...[intervention]

MR TSOAMETSI: That is not true, no.

MR STANDER: Which procedure did you follow in the interrogation? Let us take the situation of a person who is brought in for interrogation and this person does not co-operate, what did you do then?

MR TSOAMETSI: Would detain him.

MR STANDER: If it was important information that you knew him to have and he still did not want to give it to you?

MR TSOAMETSI: We would put such a person in the cells.

MR STANDER: Was the information that you had to obtain not more important? Let us accept that it was information that was urgent for action that you had to take in future, then surely it would be of no use to put such a person in the cells.

MR TSOAMETSI: If the person refuses to speak we take such a person to the cells.

MR STANDER: If it is possible that this information was absolutely imperative, then surely it would be no use to put such a person in the cells. Which method would you follow then?

MR TSOAMETSI: There would be no way Sir, if he is not co-operative we would tell the officer that we still having a problem with this person, we’re taking him to the cells then we take such a person to the cells.

MR STANDER: Any other method that was used, apart from putting him in the cells? Is there any other method that you employed?

MR TSOAMETSI: When a person refuses to speak, we’ll take him to the cells so that the next day when we fetch him he would come sober minded and he would co-operate. There was no other way. There was no way of hurting this person or assaulting him or torturing him, we just took them to cells.

MR STANDER: Let us take it further, let us say for one moment that the person’s taken to the cells and he comes back and he still does not co-operate, what would you do then?

MR TSOAMETSI: We explain to this person: "Look here, you will stay here in this house until you co-operate we’re not going to release you".

MR STANDER: Are these the only methods that you used?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes.

MR STANDER: And the security police, did they in no other way than in this method the person was locked up until he co-operated?

MR TSOAMETSI: We locked him up, Sir.

MR STANDER: At any stage, was physical violence used?

MR TSOAMETSI: Not in my presence.

MR STANDER: But by other members of the security police?

MR TSOAMETSI: I told you Sir, I said not in my presence.

MR STANDER: Yes, but I’m asking you, did you know that other security police officers made use of violence to interrogate their people?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, not here in Bloemfontein. I was reading in the newspapers about such cases relating to security members what they did to people, killed people and we we only read these now lately because of the TRC, we did not know these things before.

MR STANDER: And at no stage ever that you know of, did any person or member of the security police in Bloemfontein, lift his hand to a person he was interrogating?

MR TSOAMETSI: No Sir, not between the time I started working here until I left. It might have been before my arrival or after my departure.

MR STANDER: I put it to you that it will be argued before this Commission that it is highly unlikely because it is obvious that when one needs or requires from a person information that is vital, then one will surely employ other methods in order to obtain this information.

MR TSOAMETSI: Understand Sir, if you assault a person trying to get information from him, you'd be saying to the person: "Keep quiet, keep quiet" because this person will be feeling pains. He will be thinking of his families, he’s children his future, he won’t be saying anything.

MR STANDER: Are there members of this group that you know were taken to doctors? I’m now referring to this group of 19.

MR TSOAMETSI: I do not know.

MR STANDER: Where was your office situated, was it on the 4th or the 5th floor?

MR TSOAMETSI: On the 5th floor.

MR STANDER: Did it also have an entrance which led onto Violent Street?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Can you tell us what your version is, how did Violent Street get its name?

MR TSOAMETSI: I remember one morning when we arrived we found the sticker already stuck on the wall, the sticker was written Violent Street.

MR STANDER: Did you enquire as to who stuck it on the wall?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, I did not do enquires.

MR STANDER: Is it so that from that that day onwards, the name of that passage was Violent Street?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: And it was general knowledge amongst all the police officers who were employed there?

MR TSOAMETSI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Do you think that it was a suitable name for that passage?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR STANDER: Why not?

MR TSOAMETSI: Because that passage did not have any violence.

MR STANDER: Why didn’t you take the trouble ask the officers to remove the sticker because according to you nothing happened to justify that name?

MR TSOAMETSI: My seniors even saw it, they could have removed it.

MR STANDER: Did you enjoy working in a passage which was known as Violent Street while you, according to your own information, had no part in any assaults or ever heard of anybody who had been assaulted?

MR TSOAMETSI: You see I did not really concern myself with that sticker, it did not worry me a single moment.

MR STANDER: You were working in that passage, surely its not nice to work in a passage which is known for its violence, while according to your own version you never followed that procedure in interrogations or even heard of anybody who did so.

MR TSOAMETSI: Mr Chairman, let me help you I was not working in the passage, I had an office but this is the passage I used to walk when I wanted access to my office.

ADV DE JAGER: Maybe like staying "Bloedstraat" for instance?

MR STANDER: I’m sorry I didn’t hear your question.

ADV DE JAGER: I said, it may be like staying in "Bloedstraat" for instance, Blood Street?

MR STANDER: I am grateful for that.

I want to put it to you that Violent Street was named as such as a result of most of the assaults that took place, either occurred in that passage or in the offices leading off that passage.

MR TSOAMETSI: I did not know, I was a warrant officer. As a person I would never allow people to be assaulted in my presence.

MR STANDER: Tell me, is the office that you worked in was it sound proofed at any stage?

MR TSOAMETSI: What do you mean Sir, when you say it had sound absorbers? What does that mean?

MR STANDER: What I mean is that if someone had been in the office, had been assaulted in the office had been screaming, that somebody outside the office could not have heard it. That’s what I mean by sound proof.

MR TSOAMETSI: I would hear Sir, I would be in a position to hear.

MR STANDER: The day when you were working there, did you hear any screams?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: ...[inaudible]

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes, I would see then and I would even hear the sounds.

MR STANDER: You never employed or used that method to compel the detainees to talk, did you?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, we did not force them.

MR STANDER: Do you agree that to make somebody do physical exercises does not necessarily boil down to assault?

MR TSOAMETSI: You’re right.

MR STANDER: And there is no method that it can be linked to the person who gave the instruction?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR STANDER: You say it was a method of interrogation to make people do physical exercises?

MR TSOAMETSI: No.

MR STANDER: Would it help in persuading people to co-operate?

MR TSOAMETSI: No. Only the cell.

MR STANDER: Did you know Mr White Mohape?

MR TSOAMETSI: Yes Sir.

MR STANDER: Did he have a file?

MR TSOAMETSI: I believe so.

MR STANDER: Did you see when he was brought in time and again for questioning or interrogation?

MR TSOAMETSI: When I was present I would see when he was brought in.

MR STANDER: Let me rather leave that question. I want to put it to you Mr Tsoametsi, that on that day you did participate in the assault on the group of 19 persons.

MR TSOAMETSI: That is not so.

MR STANDER: I want to put it to you further that the reason why you are denying it today is because you know that you yourself, that you can possibly incriminate yourself because you have not applied for amnesty in this regard.

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, that is not so. I’m telling you that every black man you was there worked with a white person so we’d not ask one - we’d not interrogate one person, the four of us.

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

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I have been going through the bundle A, the evidence and it appears that it does not contain the evidence in chief of Mr Ngo in this aspect and I intend relying on the record in cross examining this witness.

Now we are also generally not ready on other aspects to cross-examine this witness and we ask that his cross examination stand down until tomorrow. Hopefully by then we’ll have found a copy of Mr Ngo’s evidence in chief.

Are you looking at bundle A, Mr Chairman? You know if you look at the page 126, that is the end of Mr Venter and at page 128 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, 128 is the hearing on the 25th of May.

MR MEMANI: Yes. There I continue saying - as the Chair please Mr Chairman, I’m indebted to the Committee for the indulgence granted to me earlier on. We are now going to proceed with the evidence of Mr Ngo.

Now, there is 127 is blank and don’t who whether it constituted the entire evidence in chief of Mr Ngo on Mohapi.

ADV DE JAGER: But at the end of 126 the Committee adjourns till 8 o’clock the next morning.

MR MEMANI: The point I’m making is that before then we are dealing with Mr Venter only and there’s nothing on Mr Mohapi.

MR VISSER: If I may assist, Mr Chairman, bundle - the record A2, which you refer to as A2 at page 29, Mr Chairman. It’s slightly below the middle of the page and it runs on to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, I don’t know how far it runs on, but that’s White Mohape.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s on the 14th of May?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I apparently there are some exhibits we do not have. If you’re looking - If it forms part of - does it form part of bundle A?

CHAIRPERSON: A2.

MR MEMANI: That’s a document which we do not have, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: How could it come about that everybody else apparently has this document and you haven’t?

MR MEMANI: It has happened quite often, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t your attorney supposed to be responsible for obtaining the documents and briefing you with them?

MR MEMANI: I think, Mr Chairman, we can get what gets passed on to us. From time to time we get suprised to find that our learned friends are referring to documents which we have not been favoured ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But this is not a document, this is a copy of the record.

MR MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why doesn’t your attorney obtain it for you?

MR MEMANI: Well, Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn’t he obtain it for you?

MR MEMANI: I don’t think he’s even aware of its existence, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I find that hard to believe. He knows that there was a record been kept of each day's proceedings.

MR MEMANI: What we have in the form of a record of proceedings Mr Chairman, is what is contained in bundle A.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think the reason why there is, is it A2 or whatever, which is supposed to be part of the record contained in bundle A, I think there was something wrong with the record as compiled in Exhibit A, particularly towards its end or from the middle.

And I think that is why that extra package was introduced. It may be that you like some of us, you remained with the imperfect bundle A, which is imperfect somewhere from the middle or towards the end.

They could not coincide, I do recall, I may be wrong, but I do recall that Visser came with a copy which was not entirely in harmony with what we had been furnished, the transcript that we had been furnished, I think that could explain the inconsistency.

But I don’t think that there were enough copies made available of the portion that was brought by Mr Visser.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you want an adjournment until tomorrow morning?

MR MEMANI: A standing down of the witness, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you carry on with someone else Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Mr Miningwa has arrived and his cross-examination can now be completed, with your leave.

Mr Tsoametsi, you’re excused. Mr Tsoametsi, you’re excused until later.

MR MEMANI: I’m indebted to the Chair.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Miningwa you’re still under oath.

MR MININGWA: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: ...[inaudible] got a note Mr Chairman, was a reference to the house of the parents of Citi Mzuzwana. It was put to the witness you knew of both Siti and his parents home and the answer was no. And then was the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it was put that there was a sub-file in the file, sub file dealing with the other burning which was put to him - that was put to him that he knew both because there was a sub-file in the file and he said no he didn’t know about it, he didn’t read about it.

Right, Mr Memani?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Now, Mr Minimgwa you worked with churches as well, isn’t it?

MR MININGWA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And that evidence was lead by Mr Motsamai spontaneously without connecting you to any incident, at page 640 of the record.

Now, you accompanied Mr Motsamai when he went to bomb the church in Boshabelo, isn’t it?

MR MININGWA: I know nothing of such an incident, Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it the church or the pastor’s house?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, when I refer to the church, I usually am referring to the parish house.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I think it may create the wrong impression with the public and people hearing that a church has been bombed so perhaps we should stick to the correct description.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, I made a summary here but there’s something wrong with the notes. May I have a moment to try and work out what I was doing here.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR VISSER: Well, let me be of assistance Mr Chairman. There’s no evidence at all before you implicating this witness in that attack.

Perhaps in the mean time, to be of assistance, - - please stop me if I’m talking too much, Mr Chairman. you can refer to the application of Mr Motsamai at page 148, paragraph 12 and you will recall that Mr Ngo did not apply for amnesty with regard to any such incident.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I was referring to the wrong part of my notes, Mr Chairman. The part which I wish to put to Mr Miningwa was that he was present when the clinic of Winnie Mandela was bombed, in fact the house.

CHAIRPERSON: You’re putting that to him on the basis of the evidence of whom?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman this is - there is a problem Mr Chairman because Mr Motsamai seems not to agree with me on this aspect and I’m trying to find the relevant passage on the record, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, please stop me if I’m not being of assistance. It is paragraph - I’ve got a reference here in Exhibit P30 which mentions the name of Mr Miningwa and it’s at page 158 of Bundle A. I’ve got a reference here first to the clinic of Winnie Mandela and that’s the only reference in regard to anything about Mrs Winnie Mandela, referring to Mr Miningwa, so it’s a reference to the clinic.

CHAIRPERSON: Where’s this, do you say?

MR VISSER: My note here in Exhibit P30 says page 158 of bundle A.

CHAIRPERSON: My bundle A finishes at page 148.

MR VISSER: Maybe a typing error, Mr Chairman, may I just check that?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, Mr Miningwa is referred to at page 655 of the evidence.

MR VISSER: Yes, indeed.

MR MEMANI: This relates to the bombing of the clinic, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Kindly repeat the page again, page?

MR MEMANI: 655.

Now Mr Miningwa, Mr Motsamai led evidence that you accompanied him to Brandfort when he went to bomb the clinic of Mrs Mandela.

MR MININGWA: I know nothing of that incident, Sir.

MR MEMANI: He told us that he was with you and Mamome.

MR MININGWA: I know nothing of that incident.

MR MEMANI: And he also told us that you were supposed to keep watch on any people who might approach the scene.

MR MININGWA: I know nothing Sir, about that incident.

MR MEMANI: He also told us that when there was an explosion he saw you nearby and you were scared.

MR MININGWA: I know nothing of this incident.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Miningwa, when you heard that Mr Motsamai was implicating you in this matter, what steps did you take to gather evidence that could escalpate you?

MR MININGWA: It was was not necessary to look for something I’d not know. Where would I look for evidence to rescue myself because I was not there.

What I can tell you about this is that I heard that such an incident took place, a house or a clinic of Winnie was burnt, not that I took part.

I know nothing and it was not necessary therefor to gather evidence to come and convince that I did not do any thing.

MR MEMANI: There are no differences between yourself and Mr Motsamai, isn’t it?

MR MININGWA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And on the other hand, you have not applied for amnesty, isn’t it?

MR MININGWA: No, I don’t remember applying.

MR MEMANI: Mr Miningwa, my experience with people who are falsely implicating others is that they are usually minimise their participation in an incident, and here Mr Motsamai attributes himself an active role and yours is relatively minor and somewhat passive.

MR MININGWA: I am suprised Sir, that my name is included, I was not working with Motsamai. The people he was working with, even the white men he was working with I do not see around here. He mentioned to me and I was far away from him, this is really suprising.

MR MEMANI: Do you, by any chance recall any incident where you were in a Kombi with Morakile and Mtyhala?

MR MININGWA: If I was not using Mr Prinsloo’s car at the time - we had one transport, it was a Kombi and all of us would get into a Kombi and be dropped off at our respective homes. I do not know which occasion you are referring to because if I was not working at night, not using Prinsloo’s car, I would get into a Kombi with my colleagues to drop me off at home.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Miningwa, I may have asked you the question, pardon me if I have, were you present on the occasion when Motsamai and others went to Pretoria to consult with an attorney?

MR MININGWA: I was not there, Sir.

MR MEMANI: And did you give a full statement on the day when you went to consult?

MR MININGWA: About the incident that I saw on that page where it is alleged that I took part, I gave evidence, full evidence. Some of them that might have cropped up there after, I do not know but those who were mentioned, and I saw them on the paper, I gave evidence to that effect.

MR MEMANI: Now, at the time you went to consult, you must have become aware that it was alleged that you were present in 19 pupils were interrogated and assaulted at Bloemfontein Fountains.

MR MININGWA: I remember well. Mzuzwana's home was mentioned, Mrs. Mandela’s clinic was mentioned Other incidents I did not see them where my name is mentioned.

If I remember well, I heard when we were sitting at the Education Center where Oupa Makubalo said I was present but on the paper I did not see them.

He said on that day I was on the 5th, 4th floor and I quoted him. It does not appear on the papers.

MR MEMANI: Did you approach your attorneys?

MR MININGWA: Sir, it was not necessary. I expected that he would ask me when I’m sitting here on the witness box because in my main evidence there are no allegations at all. It only appeared when they were asked about the incidents that took place at Fountain. I really expected you to ask me here.

MR MEMANI: I just want to make sure if Ngo does not refer to you in his list.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 30, person number eleven.

MR MEMANI: Yes. Now your name is referred to on page 30 of bundle A as being one of the people who were present when Oupa Makubalo, Baba Kuzela, Minas and others were tortured at Fountains.

MR MININGWA: It’s my first time to hear of that incident.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Miningwa, you must have seen your attorneys and they must have put it to you that you have been implicated by Ngo as a person was present during the torture which took place on the 6th of April 1986 at Fountains.

MR MININGWA: Unfortunately Sir, I did not know, I only know of two allegations. The others I heard when the applicants were testifying as I am doing now.

MR MEMANI: Did you at any stage tell your legal representatives what your version was going to be in this hearing?

MR MININGWA: No.

Can you repeat that question Sir, I didn’t catch it very well.

MR MEMANI: Did you at any stage tell your legal representatives what your version was going to be at these hearings?

MR MININGWA: I think I gave them the statement, Sir. They told me that Motsamai implicates me on this issue, then I gave them a statements and I said: "That’s Motsomi’s version, I know nothing about that incident. I think they know what I was going to say today but they don’t know exactly what I was going to say as I’m sitting here.

MR MEMANI: That cannot be true. How could it be true, that’s the way attorneys work. A client comes in and says that: "I’m not guilty" and the attorney wants to know why you say you’re not guilty of what you’re being accused of?

MR MININGWA: Sir, I do not know how are you asking me this question because I gave a statement before the attorneys. The first day when I sit here, he led evidence told me that you’ve been implicated on this and this point and now I do not know what are you actually asking me.

MR MEMANI: You see the only reason why your attorneys did not take any statement about what you’re going to say here would be that you did not have any proper instructions to give to them at that stage.

MR VISSER: I’m going to have to object here, Mr Chairman. Frankly, I don’t even follow the line of the cross examination. But with all due respect to this witness that there isn’t an affidavit before you because he didn’t give my attorney instructions, is ridiculous, with respect.

We’ve explained to you at the time that the allegations started proliferating, there were more and more pieces of would be application papers that came to light, Mr Chairman, and we said on record to you that we’ve now reached the point where it doesn’t - make any - where there’s no point at all in filing further affidavits, we will have to call all the witnesses because otherwise we would have to keep amending the affidavits all the time.

With respect, Mr Chairman, my learned friend's questions, his statements which he’s putting to the witness are unfair in the extreme.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, these allegations are contained in the application in its original form before Mr Ngo testified.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, if my learned friend is through, can I try to refresh your memory about what happened with Mr Ngo’s application?

You will recall that on the first occasion, when we arrived here Mr Chairman, there was only one incident that he had applied for amnesty for and that was murder, robbery and the illegal possession of a firearm with regard to the Venter murder.

Thereafter there was - bundle C page eight came to light and we didn’t know - bundle C page eight, Mr Chairman, and nobody knew what the status of this document was you will remember very well. And eventually Mr Chairman this lead to a point, an item placed on the agenda of a pre-trial conference that we had to agree was what the application of Mr Ngo in the end really consisted of.

And at that stage we conceded that you can take it for granted that page 8, 9, 10, 11, up to 14 was also part of the application. The only point I’m making is originally there was no question about anything other than Mr Venter, that’s what we came to Bloemfomntein for in the first place, Mr Chairman.

So my learned friend’s statement is factually incorrect. And thereafter, you will recall, there was another 30 pages or whatever that came to light and we even conceded that those also would form part of the application, on the basis that Mr Ngo said to you in his evidence that he gave all these papers to the TRC. And we said well let’s be fair to the man, consider it all to be part of the application.

But it’s not correct to say that originally when consultations were held with the witnesses we knew exactly what he was going to say, we knew about Venter, that’s all.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the legal representatives of the people who are objecting might have raised the legal argument about whether or not the rest of the incidents formed part of the application but the factual allegations were contained in both documents that were submitted on behalf of Mr Ngo. So these allegations were already known to Mr Visser and Mr Wagner.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn’t there a dispute about two applications, and whether the documents were included in the first application and then we all agreed in the long end that we would take both applications because it might have been mislaid, that he did send it in and it might have been mislaid?

MR MEMANI: What I’m doing here, Mr Chairman, I’m referring you to the bundle, I’m saying look at both applications that are submitted by Mr Motsamai. They contain facts on most of the applications that he’s made and Mr Visser and Mr Wagner chose to raise a dispute about whether the rest of incidents formed part of his application. Now that was a legal argument.

My understanding is that a lawyer whose faced with such a situation prepares all the facts as well, Mr Motsamai was already making the allegations. He did not make the allegations against - as far as Mr Venter only is concerned. Throughout he spoke of the rest of the incidents which are contained again in the second, what we call the second application.

Mr Visser cannot be heard to say that at that stage he didn’t consult on the rest of the allegations because he wanted to raise, would I say a point in limine that they were not properly before this Court, before this forum.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, just to enable myself to follow, the witness has not made an affidavit, is that what it’s all about?

MR VISSER: No, this witness has made an affidavit. I’m not sure what the point is here but I - as much as I can gather Mr Commissioner, is that it’s being put to the witness that in his original affidavit he didn’t deal with all the allegations and with all the incidents which are now before you.

You will see at page 100 of bundle D, you will find the affidavit of Mr Miningwa. And he deals here in paragraph 2.2, were he says:

then he goes to over to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t’ the problem Mr Visser, that the affidavit you are reading there relates to amnesty application of Mr Motsamai, not to Mr Ngo?

MR VISSER: Yes, absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: And the point that Mr Memani is trying to make is that he hasn’t dealt with the allegations in Ngo’s application.

MR VISSER: It’s not in dispute, we never gave you an affidavit for him in regard to Mr Ngo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that’s the point Mr Memani is seeking to make. That is you had told your attorneys about it they would have filed an affidavit.

MR VISSER: Yes, but my learned friend can’t ignore the evidence which is on record Mr Chairman, where we told you that there is a proliferation of incidents now that there’s going to be no point of filing affidavits, we will give the evidence viva voce, that’s exactly what we did.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MEMANI: But that surely Mr Chairman, would have occured after Motsomi, after affidavits relating to Motsomi were filed. When we first came here in May, or in March, the only person before the Committee was Ngo, Motsamai came in later and there was no proliferation at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the point Mr Visser makes is that when they came here first it was first it was to oppose the application in respect of Venter, the murder of Mr Venter.

MR MEMANI: What I’m saying, Mr Chairman, is that cannot be true from a working point of view because there were applications, there were factual allegations already made by Ngo at that stage. And that my understanding is that if you are sitting with a situation we you want to take a point that legally something is not before forum, you do not then not even consult with clients to deal with people who are implicated, to deal those allegations.

What was raised was something amounting to a point in limine. His name was mentioned in the application.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I would like to try to be of assistance so that we can cut this short. Could my learned friend just inform you and me in regard to which incident this cross-examination does now deal - which incident is it which he expected Mr Miningwa to have made an affidavit about in regard to Mr Ngo because we’re not certain what he’s referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you reply to that?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, at the present moment I’m dealing with what you referred to, that was at page 30 - A30:

MR VISSER: Well you see Mr Chairman, that’s the, really, with all due respect, that’s the point. That document, as you know very well, became available only later Mr Chairman, it wasn’t even part of the papers on the first occasion that came out later. On the first occasion Mr Chairman, what you had was an application form, form 1 and then there was a document, the status of which was obscure from pages 8 to 14 of bundle C.

The other pages only came later, with all due respect. And what is more Mr Chairman, is even if pages 8 to 14 should’ve or ought to have been regarded by us as an application as it stood, as an application for amnesty, Mr Miningwa is not implicated there.

And I would challenge my learned friend to tell us where he is implicated.

MR MEMANI: The problem Mr Chairman, Mr Visser can’t run away from it, the problem Mr Chairman is that he’s client says that he was never told about this incident, he only heard about it at the hearings.

And I’m saying that during consultation, he’s legal representatives would have put these passages to him.

CHAIRPERSON: They should perhaps have they may not you could comment and use that as argument. He has said it wasn’t put to him.

MR MEMANI: But at this stage I’m taking it through him and we are going by his evidence that he was not told about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he said that right you’ve got that one, let’s go on.

MR MEMANI: As the chair pleases.

Now, I’m putting it to you that the only reason why your attorneys would not take instructions - would not take your version on this issue, would be that you did not have any proper instructions to give them.

MR MININGWA: I don’t think that is a question which would direct to me. I did not know about that, it’s not my work maybe to know what I did not know. I only learnt it from here, then I set out only reply there as we were. It was spoken before the Commission, I didn’t know about it before.

It didn’t appear on the allegations. I only know about two allegations, and that’s what I’ve put on my statement. I only learnt about other allegations here. I thought that I would reply to those allegations when I appeared before this Commission.

MR MEMANI: And did you become aware that - I’ll leave this matter then.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[indaudible]

INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the speaker.

CHAIRPERSON: One can argue just as much that he should have done so. There are all sorts of technical aspects of that nature which you can mention during argument and I’m sure other people will also mention.

MR MEMANI: I’m sure, Mr Chairman, I’ll be able to distinguish Motsamai from Miningwa in this regard Mr Chairman.

If I may take instructions, Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now, you know Citi Mzuzwana,isn’t it?

MR MIMINGWA: I know him very well, I know him very well.

MR MEMANI: And you’ve already told us that he a trade unionist and you were working with trade unions.

MR MIMINGWA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And his house later got bombed, isn't it?

MR MIMINGWA: I received such a report then I went verify, then I found it to be that the big window was broken and that curtains seemed to be burned.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Motsamai has told us that you participated in that petrol bombing.

MR MIMINGWA: I’m suprised. If he would be reminded that the time when he - when he made his statement, he could have written first that I was there in that incident. It's nowhere where he said I was present he only say I was present at Mzuzwana's parent’s house.

That is why I told this Commission that I know for the first time that Mzuzwana's house was burnt. I only know of Citi Mzuzwana’s house then later I went to find out and verify as whether is it true. I learnt that from my informer.

MR MEMANI: And, by the way when I say Citi’s, when I said Citi’s, I meant Citi’s parental home.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that’s a different building, isn’t it?

MR MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chair, I’m sorry I was not precise.

Now, can we get clarity now, can we get certainty about your answer. Mr Motsamsai told us that you were present when Citi Mzuzwana's parental home was petrol bombed.

MR MIMINGWA: As I said, that I learnt here in this hearing about Citi Mzuzwana's parental home, I didn’t know about that before. When I received those allegations, I knew that Citi’s parent’s home was burned. I only learnt about Citi’s house which I went to verify, then I found that it was true, it was burnt.

MR MEMANI: Subject to correction, on Friday you told us that ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: I think Mr Memani whether you were present when Citi’s parent’s house was bombed.

MR MIMINGWA: Mr Chairperson, I replied and say I did not know, I was not present. That is why I said I found that allegation for the first time when I saw Motsamai's allegations. I said I didn’t know anything about that.

MR MEMANI: Now, if I remember correctly, on Friday you told us that you where sent to go and have a look at Citi Mtswana’s house because you worked with Citi. Isn’t it?

MR MIMINGWA: I didn’t say that, I did not say that.

MR MEMANI: What was the reason why you were sent to go and have a look at the house?

MR MIMINGWA: It may me come clearly, I don’t know as whether you talk about Citi’s parent’s house or Citi’s house. I went to see Citi’s house, not Citi’s parents house.

I went to his house after I learnt about that from my informer, then my immediate superior said when I made a report about about hearing from the informer about that incident, he said I should go and verify as whether the house was burnt. That is Citi’s house, not Citi’s parent’s house.

MR MEMANI: And I was putting it to you that my recollection is that you said your superior sent you to go and have a look because you were working with Citi, Citi was in your profile.

MR MIMINGWA: I was not working with Citi, you speak as if he was my colleague. Because he was an activist in the trade unions, I was working - he was my suspect.

MR MEMANI: I menat to say ...[Sotho - no translation] it's unfortunate that it came in a different way in Sotho to you.

CHAIRPERSON: You said he was working with Citi.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

Now, you said that your superior sent you because you were working about Citi, maybe you should use that word.

MR VISSER: No, he said it was because he was his suspect, Mr Chairman. I don’t understand "working with" either.

MR MEMANI: I don’t think it makes a difference.

MR VISSER: Well, with respect, it does Mr Chairman. He’s placing words in the