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

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

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

Right, have we got any more victims this morning.

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

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

MR STANDER: He does.

Mr Molefe.


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

SERAME MOLEFE: (Duly sworn in, states).

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


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

MR MOLEFE: The Pan Africanist Congress of Azania.

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

MR MOLEFE: Robben Island.

MR STANDER: Were you in prison there?


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

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

MR STANDER: What happened after you were employed there?

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

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

MR STANDER: What happened eventually?

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

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

MR MOLEFE: Well, yes.

MR STANDER: Where did you go then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MOLEFE: The special branch, the special branch.

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

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

MR STANDER: Were you dismissed later?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR STANDER: When were you arrested again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MOLEFE: Khanya.

MR STANDER: Can you spell it for us please?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR STANDER: That is true.

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

MR STANDER: That is correct.

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

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

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

MR STANDER: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not the same thing.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to consult with your client?

MR STANDER: That is indeed so.

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

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

MR MOLEFE: Okay, so long, Sir.

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

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

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

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




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


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

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

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR STANDER: Thank you very much.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Well, gentlemen, have you reached agreement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: It is 6.15.

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

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

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

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

We persist in the objection, Mr Chairman, we cannot

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

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

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

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

"He is a member of the Pan Africanist Congress, he had knowledge about the task force which was, which is a unit of Apla, he was problematic or troublesome. We were not able to identify his movements, he use to walk on foot, he did not meet people even when he went to Lesotho, he was always alone. It was in the morning when we were able to find him. Jantjie was present and then they had information from Lesotho about him. When I speak of Jantjie, I speak of a certain person in Ladybrand who is a Warrant Officer Jantjie.

They found information from Lesotho that this person has knowledge about Apla in Lesotho. We took him, it was in the morning, we assaulted and he was screaming. When I opened the door, he was wrapped in a blanket, I did not want to see who were responsible for the assault, because he was quiet and he wrapped with a blanket and lying on the floor would explain very well that we were responsible for his assault."

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

MR MEMANI: (...Indistinct) Motsamai.

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

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

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

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: The pre-trial ...

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: But the ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

"And the next incident is the incident relating

to the assault and torture of detained or

arrested political activists."

Then you,

"Are you able to tell the Committee about this incident?",

and he said

"Yes, I am ready. Where did the torture take place ..." (end of tape 1A).

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: And you dealt with all of them?

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


MR MEMANI: He is Mos Mogamesi.

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

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


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

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

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

"We took him ...",

and that is why there was not cross-examination about this. "We took him, it was in the morning, he was assaulted and he was screaming. When I opened the door he was wrapped in a blanket. I did not want to see who were responsible for the assault, because he was quiet and he wrapped with a blanket and lying on the floor. He would explain very well that who were responsible for his assault."

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

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

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

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

"Is it true that this person ...",

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

"Is it true that this person also was

constantly kept under constant

observation by the security police.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: That he had been arrested

numerous timesand assaulted.

MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Due to his political



at 781,

"MR MOTSAMAI: That is correct, he

was a member of the PAC and Apla and

Task Force.",

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

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

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

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

MR MOLEFE: Sorry for ...

CHAIRPERSON: ... investigation.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR MOLEFE: Thanks.

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

"It is true he appeared on the fourth floor and that unit he was assaulted by whom, I do not know who took part in the assault, but when he left the office, came to our office he was swollen.",

and so he goes on.

"Some people ...".

He says,

"We made him do frog jumps, we made him do push-ups. These are things we did to harass people."

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

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

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

MR MEMANI: That is correct, my Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and he has not applied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There was a discussion, where I have, you are applying for amnesty in respect of assaults on them so could you keep, please keep to that, please.".

Then Mr,

"I will do so, that, Sir, this Yekila, he is also the same as those of task force, together with Molefe, together with Serame Molefe, he was assaulted by the askaris. Before that he was taken by us and then we tortured or assaulted him so that he succumbed to be our informer, so that we would be able to get information about APLA and task force, but we failed, because he did not co-operate. All these excluding the Pan Africanist Congress and the task force together with Yekila and Serami, we put them on 26 above all of them."


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

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


"Let us go to 26, I do not know how they can be identified, they were members of the task force who were residing in Ficksburg".

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

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

ADV DE JAGER: Page one hundred ...

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


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

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

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

"Let us go to item 26. I do not know how they can be identified, they were members of the task, the task force were, who were, were residing in Ficksburg. They hid somewhere in Ficksburg. They were arrested together with Tshekela and Ekosi. I did not list these names there."

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

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

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

"ADV DE JAGER: Yes, okay, but you are applying for amnesty in respect of assaults on them, so could you keep to that please."

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

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

"You are applying for amnesty in respect of assaults on them so you could (...indistinct). I will do that, Sir, this Yekila, he is also the same as those of the task force together with Molefe, together with Serami Molefe. He was assaulted by the askaris, but now before that, before he has been a member of the Ficksburg group, as I understand it, before that he was taken by us and then we tortured or assaulted him so that he succumbed to be our informer, so that we would be able to get information about APLA."

MR VISSER: Yes, referring to Jekila, clearly.

ADV DE JAGER: And Serami.

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

ADV DE JAGER: Jekila and, Jekila and Molefe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR MEMANI: Yes, your ...

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

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

"I have also been involved in assault and torture of detainee or of detained and/or arrested political activities as it is written here."

CHAIRPERSON: Read the next, yes, read on.

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

the offices of Internal Security Unit, fifth floor, Fountain Street, Bloemfontein."

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

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


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

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

"That is Serame Lefe, not Molefe as it is written. It is I F at the end. He is a member of the African National Congress. He had knowledge about the task force which is a unit of Apla. He was troublesome, problematic and troublesome. It was in the morning when we were able to find him. Jantjie was present and then they had information from Lesotho about him. When I speak of Jantjie I speak of a certain person in Ladybrand who is a Warrant Officer Jantjie. They found information from Lesotho that this person has knowledge about Apla in Lesotho.

We took him. It was in the morning. He was assaulted and he was screaming. When I opened the door he was wrapped in a blanket. I did not want to see who were responsible for the assault, because he was quiet and he wrapped with a blanket and lying on the floor. He would explain very well that who were responsible for his assault.",

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

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

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

"We took him. He was assaulted and he was screaming. When I opened the door he was wrapped in a blanket. I did not want to see who was, who were responsible for the assault ..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR MEMANI: That is correct, Mr Chair.


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

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

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

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

MR STANDER: That is correct. May I continue?

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

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


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

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: You can sit down.


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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: That is what she was doing.

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Where were you arrested?

MS LEKITLANE: We were at Ladybrand.

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

MS LEKITLANE: We went to Ramkraal.

MR STANDER: What happened there?

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Did Park way receive you?

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

MR STANDER: Where were you taken?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken to Fountain.

MR STANDER: What happened at Fountain Street?

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: Mr Motsamai.

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

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

MR STANDER: Where were you taken?

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

MR STANDER: Who took you out the first time?

INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not hear the question.

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken by Mr Motsamai.

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

MS LEKITLANE: And my brother.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that Mathepelo?

MS LEKITLANE: That is Mathapelo and Don Letsigo.

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR STANDER: What happened after this?

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

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

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

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

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

MR STANDER: Where were you taken that evening?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken to Glen.

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

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

MR STANDER: Were you assaulted on the second day?

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: He was not present on that day.

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, we were released.

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

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

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


JUDGE NGOEPE: (...Indistinct).

MS LEKITLANE: That is Mr Mamome.

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

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

How did he assault you?

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Just her brother.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Don Letsigo, is it your brother?

MS LEKITLANE: She is a girl.

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: Don, Mildred and Daureen.

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


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


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

MS LEKITLANE: She comes after me.

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


JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions.


MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

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

MS LEKITLANE: Mathapelo is Daureen.

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, that is Don.

MR VISSER: Is she here today?

MS LEKITLANE: No, she is not here.

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

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


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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, he was insulting us.

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

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

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, that is so.

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


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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Did not take part in the assault.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: May you please repeat your question?

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

MS LEKITLANE: The audio instrument does not work well.

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

MS LEKITLANE: I can now hear, Sir.

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, I do know him.

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

MS LEKITLANE: That Molefe was called Davu?

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

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, that is a different person.

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: I saw him.

MR VISSER: Those are my questions, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, have you got any questions?

MR MEMANI: No questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: No. No further questions. Very well.

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct, they were there.

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


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

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


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

MS LEKITLANE: Three months, Sir.

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

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

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.


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



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

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you know him?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, I do know him.


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




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

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

ADV DE JAGER: You will switch it on.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct, I was present.

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

MS LEKITLANE: Nineteen eighty six, Sir.

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

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

MR STANDER: What happened at Fountain Street?

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

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

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

MR STANDER: How did Motsamai assault you?

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: Where? You mean in the kitchen?

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

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

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

MR STANDER: Who were your two sisters?

MS LEKITLANE: That is Mildred and Don.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR STANDER: Where were you taken?

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken to Glen.

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

MS LEKITLANE: No, there were no female police.

MR STANDER: What happened on the second day?

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

MR STANDER: What did Mr Mamome do to you?

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

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

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

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

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

MR STANDER: Were any other police officers present.

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

MR STANDER: Can you remember who they were?

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

MR STANDER: Were any Whites present there?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Do you know who they were?

MS LEKITLANE: The one I remember is Erasmus.

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

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

MR STANDER: How did he assault you?

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: We were taken back to the kitchen.

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

MS LEKITLANE: We were interrogated three consecutive days.

MR STANDER: Where were you taken then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: Myco, that Manung Youth Congress.

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


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

MS LEKITLANE: That is Motsamai.

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

MS LEKITLANE: He assaulted us.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did this take place?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTERPRETER: Thank you, Chairperson.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.


MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: That was in a room?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: We were three when they assaulted me.

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

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, on the third day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: We were three.

MR VISSER: Okay, who were they.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: From where do I know him then?

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: I saw him present.

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

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, I heard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR VISSER: Where did this happen?

MS LEKITLANE: At Fountain in Violent Street.


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

MR VISSER: ... tell them about this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: You did not ask her about them.

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

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, the statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

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

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


MS LEKITLANE: Nobody asked me that.


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

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

MR STANDER: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did she say that, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: She said so.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Were you compelled to do push-ups?

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

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

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

MR VISSER: Where on your body?

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

MR VISSER: On your behind and on your head?

MS LEKITLANE: (Not translated).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: I have never seen them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: I do not remember.

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

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: Molefe and Mmelesi are two different people.

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

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

MR VISSER: And who reminded you of his name?

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

MR VISSER: Yes. Where did you see him?

MS LEKITLANE: I saw him here.

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

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

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


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

MS LEKITLANE: Right there.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is he also known as Molefe?

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

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

Is your name Molefe? The answer is negative.

Now, ... (intervention).

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

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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: Are you talking to me, Sir?

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

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

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


MR STANDER: We have no questions, Mr Chairman.


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


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

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

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

MS LEKITLANE: I do not know, but he is identical to Molefe.

MR VISSER: For the record, Mr Chairman, Mr Morakile has just signalled to me across the room that he is, in fact, known as Davu.

MR MEMANI: It follows, therefore, that you identified the right person, is it not?


MR VISSER: Surely, Mr Chairman, that must be argument. How does she know, I mean that is the whole point.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we have had it put and, presumably, evidence will be led and can be led that he was not there at the time. So, I do not see how you can put it that she has identified the right person.

MR MEMANI: I will deal with that in due course, my Lord.

Now, at the time when you were arrested, did you know that Ngo was a member of the security branch?

MS LEKITLANE: When I was arrested I realised that he was a member, he was a security branch, because we attended meetings together.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, do you mean that you realised it after your arrest or before you were arrested did you know he was a member of the security branch, because you were attending meetings together?

MS LEKITLANE: After I was arrested I discovered that he was a security branch.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that in your evidence you have referred to Kopi as one of the persons who were present at the police station?

MS LEKITLANE: He was present at Fountain in the kitchen.

MR MEMANI: Did you see him in any particular office?

MS LEKITLANE: I do not remember well, you know.

MR MEMANI: There were many of you at the police station on that day, is it not?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, we were 19, the people who were arrested.

MR MEMANI: And you were made to do frog-jumps along Violent Street?


MR MEMANI: And there were offices adjacent, along the passage?


MR MEMANI: And you saw Erasmus in the vicinity of Violent Street?

MS LEKITLANE: There were many in Violent Street.

MR MEMANI: Now, any policeman who was present would have been aware that people were being assaulted in the police station on that day?

MS LEKITLANE: All of them realised that people were assaulted on that day, because there were cries and there was blood on the walls.

MR MEMANI: It is impossible that any person who was present at the police station would not have been aware that people were being assaulted.

MS LEKITLANE: All the policemen who were present realised that there were assaults in Violent Street, because people were kicked while we were doing frog-jumps in Violent Street.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did these offices open off Violent Street? You have told us you were taken to certain offices. Did they open off the passage that was known as Violent Street?

MS LEKITLANE: Yes, because the door would be closed after you entered the office. It is a long passage and there are doors. They just call you, you get into an office, they close the door.

MR MEMANI: I have no further questions, my Lord.


CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR STANDER: No re-examination, thank you, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: When you were asked as to whether you did see Erasmus on the passage during the frog-jumps your answer was there were many policemen there. So, I do not know whether you are saying you did not see him, because there were many


MS LEKITLANE: I saw him ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

MS LEKITLANE: ... in the passage.

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

CHAIRPERSON: At what stage was that, that you saw

him in the passage?

MS LEKITLANE: It was during the frog-jumps. The first time I saw him, but I did not know that he was Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, two issues have arisen as a result of questions after I concluded cross-examination. Could I be allowed to address those two questions briefly, please, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: What are they?

MR VISSER: The first issue is the question of Mr Ngo being a security policeman and the second stems from the question which has been asked by Mr, my, by Justice Ngoepe which is now a slightly different reply to the evidence upon which I cross-examined regarding Mr Erasmus. I want to just clarify those two points, Mr Chairman, with your leave.



MR VISSER: Why do you say that Mr Ngo was a member of the security branch here in Bloemfontein?

MS LEKITLANE: He was among a group of security branch at the time when we were arrested. He was among them and I became aware that this person is a security branch member.

MR VISSER: How did you become aware of that? I can understand if you say you saw him among them and you took it for granted or you drew an inference, but you say you also became aware of it. What do you mean by that?

MS LEKITLANE: It was one team of security branch.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, I did not hear (...indistinct)

MS LEKITLANE: It was one team, I know as you are sitting there you are representing different people, now you are one group. So, they also were one group. He was in that group of security branch members.

MR VISSER: And you drew that inference from that fact, not so?


MR VISSER: Well, I just want to put it to you that Mr Ngo was never a member of the security branch as a policeman in Bloemfontein at any time.

MS LEKITLANE: What did he want among them, Sir?

MR VISSER: The next question that I want to ask you is this. When Justice Ngoepe asked you about Erasmus you said that you did not know him and you became aware of his name, I think, later. Is that what you said?

MS LEKITLANE: During the frog-jumps I did not know that he was Erasmus, but when he took us for photos I knew, I already knew that he was Erasmus.

MR VISSER: I see. So, at that stage already. Did somebody tell you that his name was Erasmus?

MS LEKITLANE: They were calling each other and I heard.

MR VISSER: So, you say that it was Erasmus who assaulted you when the photos were taken, because you heard other people call him Erasmus? Is that what you are saying? Do you have a reply to that?

MS LEKITLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Well, thank you.

Who were the other people that called him Erasmus?

MS LEKITLANE: The policemen who were present there.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.



MR BRINK: May I have an opportunity, Mr Chairman?



MR BRINK: Were you here yesterday during the proceedings?

MS LEKITLANE: I was not here.

MR BRINK: Thank you.



MR STANDER: May I have a moment?


MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, at this stage I have no further evidence from prejudiced people to offer.

ADV DE JAGER: Are you closing your case for prejudiced people?

MR STANDER: I did not know that I had a case which I had to close. If there are any further prejudiced people who appear then I will have no choice but to request the Committee to offer their evidence. At this stage I have none of them here to place that evidence before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position that you do not have any more prospective witnesses that, persons whom you intend to call?

MR STANDER: There is a possibility that I will call further people. Unfortunately, they are not here at the moment. I cannot say whether they will appear at a later stage or what the position is.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are they and why are they not here today? We have been sitting here, point of you leading witnesses from Monday. How has it come about now that you say there are others, but they are not here today?

MR STANDER: Just before the adjournment for tea there was a Mr White Mohape. He told me that he could possibly be back at two o' clock this afternoon. It is a possibility. I do not know whether he is going to appear. The other persons whom I am appearing for, I have not seen since the previous occasion. I can give you no indication as to where they find themselves or why they have not appeared.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think it appears to be quite clear that the others have abandoned any interest since the previous occasion, they no longer consider they are represented by you, because they have not communicated with you, but my recollection is, and I would like counsel to refresh my memory here, that this man White Mohape might be a fairly relevant witness, might he not. In those circumstances I would suggest that we take the adjournment early today till two o' clock. If he has said he may be back here we will be in a position to call him then and dispose of him rather than ask Mr Visser to start with someone and then have to adjourn to interpose.

MR VISSER: Yes, there was also another person, the blind person, Thandi, that has not been recalled. I am not sure whether she is here, I have not looked around. That is the only other outstanding issue. Not that it is terribly important, Mr Chairman, I think by this stage, by this time you know exactly what we are saying, so it is not really necessary for me to call her back to put it to her.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not think that she has been back since then and I can well understand someone with her disability having problems coming to a place like this and, well, not wanting to prejudge anything, I do not think there is anything in her evidence that demands possible cross- examination.

MR VISSER: I am pleased, Mr Chairman, because we are not insensitive to her condition and we will certainly not insist that she comes back.


MR STANDER: From my side I would just like to tell you that yesterday we tried by means of members of the Commission to get her here. We sent a vehicle to go and fetch her, but as a result of the fact that the schools opened yesterday, I was informed that she had to take care of children at school. Where she is today I cannot say, but apparently it is a problem with transport.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think we can let her, let that matter rest and we will take the adjournment now, be back (...indistinct).

MR STANDER: As it pleases you.



WHITE MOHAPE: (Duly sworn in, states).

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, Mr White Mohape is already in the witness stand. May I proceed, Mr Chairman?

Mr Mohape, what school did you attend when you were still a scholar?

MR MOHAPE: Can I (...indistinct) if I can speak English?

MR STANDER: You can speak English if you want to.

MR MOHAPE: I was a student at Lereko High School.

MR STANDER: Were you a member of Cosas?

MR MOHAPE: I will ask that the interpreter interpret Afrikaans, you know, like translate it into English, because I am not well perfect in Afrikaans.

Can you repeat your question?

MR STANDER: Were you a member of Cosas?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I was a member of Cosas in Bloemfontein. I was also elected into the national executive of Cosas, first as their Administrative Secretary as later as their Vice-President of Cosas.

MR STANDER: Tell me, Mr Nelson Ngo, did you know him at all?

MR MOHAPE: I knew Mr Ngo at school, also as a fellow student, as a fellow activist, as a member of Cosas.

MR STANDER: Before I proceed, what were the objectives of Cosas?

MR MOHAPE: Well, still now, still that time student, Cosas represented students interests. They dealt with student problems in terms of lack of school books, lack of facilities at school, overcrowding and a better education. In actual fact, one of the objectives of Cosas was that we were striving for the change of education from apartheid education to a better education that is affordable to all students.

MR STANDER: Were they affiliated by any other political organisation?

MR MOHAPE: At that time, yes, Cosas affiliated to United Democratic Front.

MR STANDER: What was the position of Mr Nelson Ngo in this organisation known as Cosas?

MR MOHAPE: Well, at that time at school Ngo was one of the executive members of Cosas. That time he was elected we, in actual fact, one time deliberately elected him as a secretary of Cosas, but he has been in the executive of Cosas.

MR STANDER: Why do you say that you deliberately elected him? Were you, did you want to nominate him as a member of the executive committee?

MR MOHAPE: I think that will be explained later by, you know, activities that took place that involved Ngo himself.

MR STANDER: Later it was discovered or let me state it differently. Did you discover at one stage that Mr Ngo was not actually a member of your organisation as you thought him to be?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, we, there is one thing that I would want to explain about Ngo. Ngo was a well-known student amongst, you know, amongst the community of students and, as I said, he was one of the executive members, he was, you know, in a position of influence, but then we realised, you know, out of all the work that he was doing in Cosas, that there were certain things that were wrong that we could pick up from his own behaviour and his own activities and one of those was when we started to realise that some of our documentation was disappearing and there are instances, and I will explain those instances, where documents of Cosas disappeared and, also, where new members, you know, students who joined Cosas, were picked up by the security branch and one other phenomenon was that Ngo was starting to live, you know, another life, you know, like, it is clear for us. We knew that Ngo was from the outskirts of Bloemfontein and as such we know when you talk about the outskirts of Bloemfontein, you are talking about this, you know, small dorpies, you know, where, in terms of living standards, people cannot really live the way, you know, people will live in the big cities like Bloemfontein, but, you know, with Ngo starting to wear expensive clothes, when we will argue that maybe he is wearing that because the brother or the cousin, wherever in Bloemfontein he could buy that, but, you know, those were some of the things, but I think I will put them into detail.

MR STANDER: What happened then, after you realised that he was not such a trustworthy member of the executive committee?

MR MOHAPE: What we had to do, we had to ensure that we expose him to students, but it was difficult to just go to student and out of the blue and say, no, no, look at Ngo, he is wearing expensive clothes, therefore he is an informer. In actual fact, at that time students will beat me up, because they will think either I am jealous of, you know, Ngo, but we had to be sure of what we were doing and one instance was when he was driving Toyota Corolla and we were wondering how, where does he get Toyota Corolla from and when we asked him he told us that that Toyota Corolla is his sisters and when we ask him where does the sister work, he said, no, the sister is a domestic worker.

Now, you could, you know, read from in between if a domestic worker in 1985 could buy, you know, a Toyota Corolla and then later he will say, no, that Toyota Corolla comes from his brother and that sequence of information, you know, was merely making us more to suspect him. The other information that we also had to, you know, get from him is when you were going to conference in Durban, we went to two conferences of Cosas and the first conference when you arrived there, at the end of the conference we were informed that all documentation of Cosas must remain, because in the Free State I was responsible for all documentation of Cosas and we were also informed that we must be aware that there might be roadblocks along the way and if we are in possession of any documentation that might, you know, incriminate us with the, it leave it behind and one thing was that when we were there Ngo saw a diary, that diary was distributed by the ANC, I think, at that time, it was the Freedom Charter and Freedom Charter at that time was banned document.

I talked to him and said to him are you aware that this document can, you know, take you to five years imprisonment and then he said to me, no, no, I, do not tell me about the policemen, I am not afraid of them, but then it was a question mark to me. How come a man who has (...indistinct) a document that can take him to five years is able to say, no, I am not afraid of the police.

MR STANDER: Was this after you returned to Bloemfontein, after the conference had been completed?

MR MOHAPE: (...Indistinct) it was in Durban before we came to Bloemfontein and when we came to Bloemfontein, as he promised me that he will leave it there, when I came to Bloemfontein I was, I went to his house (end of tape 2B)

at (...indistinct) where he was staying. He was renting a room somewhere near Sayso Street and when I went there and enquire about him a woman who was in that room said to me, no, no, Ngo is not around, but he has left documentation and then I got interest to get that documentation. I said, okay, can you give me that documentation and see it and then she brought that diary, you know, of the Freedom Charter and she also brought the minutes of the conference, that in actual fact, I thought all that documentation was left in Durban, but here it was in Ngo's hands and I said to that woman, give me a paraffin and she did that and I burned the diary of the ANC and I said to that woman, you tell Ngo that when he comes I took this documentation, minutes and if he want them he must come and fetch them, but you must also tell him that I burned the Freedom Charter, because I knew one of the strategies of the security branch would be that by myself having that documentation, they would then go to me and arrest me and charge me for possession of that documentation. That is why I had to burn it.

MR STANDER: And then?

MR MOHAPE: And then that was not enough, because, yes. That was not enough still to say Ngo is an informer, you know, we could not be able still to convince students that, I mean, this man is an informer, but we had to follow him in various instances. We, in actual fact, asked one student who was his own classmate and who he will normally leave his own books by that student's house and then we said to that student you check, because there was one thing funny that was also happening. Ngo was one, you know, he was, in actual fact, the first student in Bloemfontein to carry, you know, this briefcases, the new, you know, the one that you see today with numbers, you know, and it was very funny, because at school at that time no student could afford to buy that briefcase, but, yes, Ngo had it and we to say, but maybe there is some information that can lead us to know exactly what are the activities of this chap.

Now, towards the end of 1984 we went to a conference again to Durban and when we went there we deliberately decided that we are going to leave Ngo behind, because we could not trust him and then we went to Durban. Upon our arrival in Durban, the conference was on, within a day Ngo was in Durban and there he came to join us and, well, when I was asked by then President of Cosas Lulu Johnson, because he is the one who met Ngo. He asked me if I know this man. I said, no, I know him, he is our comrade and then he came and join us and then I went to show him to the rooms where he could sleep, but that was a question mark to say one, we have decided to leave him behind and why does he come here, what is that that he is doing and during the conference he started to have funny attitudes, you know, amongst people, you know. He would say this Xhosas, and mind you he is a Xhosa himself, but he will say Xhosas from Eastern Cape wants to bully him around and he can not take that nonsense, but I could ask myself why, you know, why this attitude, you know, and then beyond that we had to go from the conference when it is finished, go to Johannesburg and leave everybody. Now, in Cosas in that year there was introduction of a folder and that folder had a banner of Cosas on top and the same regulation when we left Durban, we have to leave everything behind. I was responsible for everything, but at that time we, when we arrived in Johannesburg we told other students, because we took a bus of the Johannesburg students, delegates and we went to Johannesburg and they had to board a train the following day, and then in that they left with Ngo to Bloemfontein, but, surprisingly, when we, when I arrived in Bloemfontein after few days, because I had to consult with other national executive members, I was told that a student saw a folder at security branch offices.

Now, I quickly consulted with others who went to the conference and they said, no, when they arrived in Bloemfontein Ngo told them that they must get, they must give him his, you know, their folders so that because he came late into the conference, he will want to make up his own minutes and all that, because he must also (...indistinct) and they did that. Those students at that time did not know that we are suspecting Ngo and then they gave him and then one student who was not part of the delegation was picked up by the security branch and then he saw the folder at Fountain and it was one of those things to say, yes, but it is clear that Ngo, really, is working for the security branch.

The last one of the briefcase. It is when after we have set up this student to, you know, check in his briefcase, because he had a tendency of leaving his briefcase by that student's house and then that student got a list of students, because what happened is the early January of 1985, we went around, recruited new students into Cosas and then when this student got the list, it was after a week we have recruited those students, and then in that list they were ticked up student by pen and then those who were ticked up by pencil, they had already been picked up by the security branch on Saturday and Sunday of the last weekend before we got the list and that in itself told us that there is no way that we can no longer say Ngo is not an informer, because the list that is hand written by himself, we students who are ticked and others who are still following it really shows that, honestly, this man is a security branch informer and we had to take that information and ensure that we expose him to students, but then we called several meetings that he did not come.

Then when he had a confrontation with the very same student who got the list from I then, I was in the classroom, I went out and then I said to them, no, no, there is no reason to fight, but Ngo, why you did not come in to meetings that we called you. He said, no, he was busy. I said, no, but you are lying, you know that we have got a list, your handwritten list of students who have been picked up by the security branch and it means you are an informer and he knew that we are going to expose you. He said, no, we are lying and he said if then it is like that, he is going to wear the uniform of the security branch, he is going to join them, he is going to carry a gun and he was furious and then he left school.

MR STANDER: Did he return to school at one stage?

MR MOHAPE: That incident was on Monday. On Tuesday he did not come to school, Wednesday he did not come, Thursday he did not come. He came on Friday and when he came on Friday I was in the classroom. One student, who is my classmate, he came to me and said, no, I am from the toilet and I saw Ngo in the toilet and he is having a gun, like he is concealing something like a gun, you know, and then I had to, you know, make one plus one and say, man, if this man comes into the classroom it means I am dead, because he has said that he is going to, you know, to wear the uniform and he will come back and here he comes and then I was, you know, confused, but I had to decide that I go out. When I went out of the classroom I, you know, I found two other students, the one who got the list who is his own classmate and the other one who is Billy Morgan. They were also talking about the very same problem, seeing Ngo into the classroom with a gun and we had to organise ourselves and then finally we planned to disarm him and when we disarmed him, you know, it was because students did not know. You know, I do not want to get into deeper details of how we did that, but students did not know, but, you know, it was a commotion and in that commotion I tried to grab the gun from Ngo and the other teacher was trying to pull me off. Ultimately I ran with the gun.

Ngo went to the Administration Block. He hid himself there and some students followed him into the Administration Block and then we talked to some teachers and they said we must explain this to students and we called them into an assembly. Whilst I was busy explaining this to students, Ngo, you know, moved out of, you know, the Administration Block and he went straight, because outside the school already there was a black Lauren that was waiting there of the security branch. He went straight into it. He jumped the fence and went straight into it. That is how we exposed Ngo at that time as a security policeman informer.

MR STANDER: What happened after you exposed Ngo in this manner?

MR MOHAPE: What happened is that few days after that some students were arrested and the police were looking for me. They could not get hold of me. I went into hiding and after some time I was arrested by one guy, squad member, I will recall his name. He took me to Bayswater police, no, no, to Park Road where he was on the way calling security branch members and telling him, telling them that he got me, he arrested me and then when I arrived at the Park Road I was taken by Major Ben and others, there were two of them. They took me to Bloemspruit Police Station where I was beaten up by them, but then I went to, after, they refused me a bail for some time and then I went to court and I was acquitted in that case.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what his surname is, Mr Burn, Ben, Mr Ben?

MR MOHAPE: No. Ben, ja. I only knew him as Major Ben, you know. I did not know exactly.

MR STANDER: Who is the other person who also took part in the assaults at Bloemspruit?

MR MOHAPE: It was also, the other one was van Dyk and the other one who later, I just forgot his name also, he later joined the security branch. He is a short guy, I think Erasmus knows him, he is his best friend.

MR STANDER: Did I understand you correctly? Who is van Dyk, is that Major Ben Van Dyk, is that what you are saying?

MR MOHAPE: No, I am saying these chaps were three. It was Major Ben, it was this van Dyk that I cannot remember his first names and it was this other one who I am saying I just forgot his name.

MR STANDER: What happened after you had been detained and assaulted?

MR MOHAPE: I stayed at Ramkraal, the prison Ramkraal, for the duration of a month or two when they were still refusing to give me a bail and then I subsequently went to court and it is where, out of the statement that was, you know, said by Ngo, was shown to be a lie and then I was acquitted in that case.

MR STANDER: Were you released after this?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I was released immediately after being acquitted.

MR STANDER: Were you arrested on any occasion thereafter again?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, let me explain this thing. You see, there has been many a times of arrest, many a times of detention. Even before I think, before I was arrested for Ngo's case, I has been detained at one point or another, but, you know, my problem is that maybe I will forget the dates and, you know, the months, but it happened, but in terms of specific activities I can recall years.

MR STANDER: I would like you to move over to the incident or the occasion where you were assaulted by, among others, Mr Ngo after you were released from a certain police station.

MR MOHAPE: I was detained again, but before I was detained, yes, I was shot at by the police at Vulamasango High School.

MR STANDER: Just tell us briefly about that.

MR MOHAPE: What happened on that day, the students of Vulamasango had a problem that they were trying to resolve and I was called to come and help to solving that problem. When I arrived in that school, whilst I was busy consulting with students, the police came and they went to the principal, from the principal they came to me and then the principal pointed at me and then there was a commotion there and then the principal said shot or who ever said shot him and I was shot at when I was trying to run away.

MR STANDER: Who shot at you?

MR MOHAPE: I could not exactly recall the policeman who shot at me, because there were, you know, there were, at, you know, like, from the Administration Block of the school and at the time of the, you know, shooting I was, you know, running away, so I could not, you know, specifically see, you know, amongst the policemen who were there, who shot at me.

MR STANDER: Let us move on to the incident at Bayswater Police Station.

MR MOHAPE: In a situation of Bayswater Police Station what happened is that I was detained by, under, in actual fact, Lieutenant Horn, but the person who picked me up in the street was Mr Motsamai and then when he picked me up I was taken to the security branch offices and when I arrived there I got them sitting and they told me that they are detaining me under Section 29. Then I said to them, okay, if you are detaining me under Section 29 I do not have a problem, I will go and stay there. Then I was taken to Bayswater Police Station and at Bayswater Police Station I stayed there for about 14 days.

Now, there was one thing that I realised later, that they were making a mock out of me. When Lieutenant Horn told me that he is detaining me under Section 29, in my mind I prepared myself for 90 days under Section 29, but I was not aware that, in actual fact, it is not Section 29, it is under Section 50 that allows 14 days and in that 14 days he was coming to the police station time to time and then he will say to me, you must work with us, we want you as an informer. I said, no, but I cannot do that and that was Lieutenant Horn.

Ja, I think Mr Visser you must ask so that I hear, because I overheard that.

MR VISSER: Yes, no, I do appreciate that, I did not want to interrupt you, but thank you for repeating it. I am slightly deaf and this does not help me, but thank you very much.

MR MOHAPE: All right and then I would say even prior to him coming to, you know, to the police station Erasmus, Lieutenant Shaw, they would say to me, work with us, be our informer. I will say to them, no, no, I cannot do that and I, you know, I explained one situation to Erasmus and said to him, you know, it is very easy for a person to be your informer, because I am in the leadership of Cosas, yes, I am having first hand information about our activities, I can come to you and give you the information and you can give me money, but a day will come when, you know, students around will realise that all along I have been an informer, what are you going to say on that day? Then Erasmus said to me, no, no do not worry, that thing will not happen. I said you are lying and I made an example of one student leader or student activist who was an informer and then he was exposed and then he subsequently joined them. That was Zeva and he knows him.

I said you know what happened to Zeva. Zeva was one of those student leaders and he sold out, but then he was uncovered and what happened to him? I do not want to go the same route and then after that I was then locked up at Bayswater. Days after days Horn will come to me and ... (intervention).



ADV DE JAGER: Ag, sorry to interrupt you, you know what, you know what happened to Zeva and some of the other people, but please tell the Committee was he killed or what happened to him?

MR MOHAPE: Okay, Zeva was a student, as I am saying, a student leader. He was exposed by student, it was during 1980's and when he was exposed he had to run for his life, you know, because at that time when people could have got him at the right time when they got him he could have been dead and then he joined them, you know. He joined them and he went to what ever schools of theirs, you know, but he joined the security branch.

MR STANDER: You may continue, you may continue to say what Lieutenant Horn, what he said when he tried to recruit you to become an informant.

MR MOHAPE: What is happening is that during my stay at Bayswater Police Station, Lieutenant Horn came with Mr Erasmus and on that day he came with a note, you know, it was a typed-written, you know, half-page note that was written in Afrikaans and then he said to me, that was Mr Erasmus, he said to me, no, no, White, we are here for you, because you do not want to co-operate with us, do not worry, we are trying to get you out of the prison, police station, we will still consult you outside, we will do everything that you work for us. I said to him, no, I will still not do that even if you release me now.

They said, no, no, write down, sign this piece of paper. I said to them what is written in this piece of paper and then Horn said to me, no, it says that you will be released. I said, no, you see I want to read this thing, do me a favour, get me a Black policeman who can come and read this thing for me and translate it, so that I understand what is written in this piece of paper, because you are aware that I can read Afrikaans, but I cannot make, you know, a mead out of it and then they said, no, oh do not worry man, it just says we are going to release you, we even, we are still talking to our, to Coetzee, what is it, Brigadier Coetzee or whatever position is Coetzee.

We are talking to him even if, you know, you do not want to co-operate with us right now, but we will ensure that you are out. So, of course, I said to them, no, you can do what ever you like, I am not going to, I am not going to co-operate with you and then on the last day of my release, Erasmus came with Horn again on the morning of the day I was going to be released. They said to me, you know, even if you have refused to co-operate with us, we are releasing you and when we go out we are going to ensure that we meet you. Then I said, okay, it is up to you, I mean, whatever you decide it is up to you and then on that day they left.

On that day I was taken out of my cell. It was at about past six to seven in the evening and when I got out of the cell I was called into the charge office and then I was given everything that was taken from me when I was detained. I had money, about R160,00, that I was suppose to have paid a hall for a meeting and then, but the process of ensuring that I get everything and people sign, you know, I sign wherever I am suppose to sign, it took from I think to seven until half past ten at night, because I was told to sit there.

Then when I was, you know, when I waited there, I was told I think at about half past ten or to 11 o' clock, but no you can go out, you can go and, of course, it was at night. Now, what I knew and what I expected is that when you are detained and at a time of your release you will be, you know, either taken home, you know, because they, like is what happened when I was detained at Grootvlei, you know, they took me from Grootvlei to security branch offices and then they took me home. So, I expected that procedure to happen, but on that day, it, I do not know how it happened, maybe it happened another way round. I was told to move out of the prison, that police station, I went out and when I was just in the vicinity outside the police station, a Bakkie stopped next to me and when that Bakkie stopped one Black guy came out of the Bakkie and said to me,are you White Mohape. I said, no, I am. He said, yes, we are here to pick you up, we are security branch, we are taking you home. I said, well, it is okay, because I thought, you know, that is the normal procedure.

I got into the Bakkie and then they drove, then along the way they were asking me, there were two of them, they were asking me, because I was sitting in the middle. They were asking me are you, is Cosas, you know, affiliated to UDF? I said yes. Is Cosas ANC? I said no, you know, we are dealing with student activities here and you, when they were going towards the township I expected them to take the turn off to your right, you know, entering Botshobelo, but instead of entering Botshobelo, the guy who was sitting in my left and, you know, he grab me at the back of my head and push me underneath the dashboard and ... (intervention).

MR STANDER: Excuse me.

MR MOHAPE: All right.

MR STANDER: Did you know any, either of those two people who picked you up?

MR MOHAPE: At that time I did not know who were these people, because when they came to me and said they are taking me home and introduced themselves as security branch members, I took into, you know, that confidence that, yes, they are doing their job, I must just accept what they are saying and I did not know them.

MR STANDER: I just want to make sure. Do you hear, can you hear what has been happening here?

MR MOHAPE: Myself?

MR STANDER: I am talking to you, Sir.

MR MOHAPE: Ja, no, because I was changing this thing, you know, it just broke off, but I ... (intervention).

MR STANDER: When they grabbed you by the neck?

MR MOHAPE: Come again. Maybe there is something to correct?

MR STANDER: The person on the left hand-side, when they grabbed you by the neck, what happened then?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, like, you know, he, like, he put his hand at, like here, you know, by the head or neck, but pushed me underneath the dashboard and then immediately the driver was holding a gun, you know, he was beating me with the back of his gun, you know and ... (intervention).

MR STANDER: Where did he hit you?

MR MOHAPE: I was beaten all over the body because, you know, I was laying like this and this other one was holding a hammer, you know, and that thing proceeded until towards the (...indistinct) Road where at one point, you know, they stopped and then when they stopped there they took plus or minus 20 to 30 minutes beating me up there and they were joined by other people, because at that stage, you know, what happened, I want to explain this thing so that it becomes more clearer to anyone who will, might ask questions later.

At a time when, you know, I got into the Bakkie these chaps were wearing balaclavas, but at that time those balaclavas were not yet put, you know, over the face. They were just, you know, you can, you could see maybe it is a hat or something, you know, but when that thing started of beating me in the car, you know, and not turning and going to (...indistinct) Road direction, I think at that time they had already, they had put their balaclavas, you know, into their faces and then when I was beaten there, they took some time and they were joined by others, you know, because they moved from the car, beating me inside the car, and they undressed me. They said I must take off all my clothes, of which I did, and they said to me I must even give them that R160,00 that I had and then, you know, I had to take it out and give it to them.

MR STANDER: Just a minute, could you see what was happening around you?


MR STANDER: At the stage where the assault was taking place after the vehicle stopped?

MR MOHAPE: No, I could not see what was happening behind me, because when I started sitting in the car, being beaten up, and I am taken out of the car and I have still beaten up and other people joined, you know, I will not, I could not even say who is who, you know, who is this person who is doing that, who is that who is doing what, but, you know, it was a group of people who were beating me, you know.

MR STANDER: What was used to hit you with?

MR MOHAPE: They used the hammer. There was this thing, the tyre lever, you call it whatever the (...indistinct) or whatever it is, you know, but it was weapons that were used. They were using fist, they were kicking me.

MR STANDER: Could you identify any of the people there who assaulted you in this way?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, I think I could not, more especially, when people have put on balaclavas, you know. Maybe it will have been more clearer when they did not put their balaclavas, when they are busy beating me I would then maybe recognise one or two, but because they have all, at that time already balaclava are on, you could never make in a sense out of a person and identify this person who is, you know, who is beating you.

MR STANDER: Where were you beaten on the body by these objects, the hammers, etcetera?

MR MOHAPE: You see, at time I had to protect my face and when I was protecting my face, yes, everybody was beating me all over and, you know, when I am talking all over I am saying the whole body.

MR STANDER: Were you in any condition to be able to say how many people were involved in these attacks after the vehicle stopped?

MR MOHAPE: You see, that is why I am saying I am able to say, you see, after those two people who were busy beating me, they were joined by another two, you know, and they were four of them who were beating me there. You see, what is important is you are able to see these are four people around you, you know, and when they do that, they do what ever they like with you.

MR STANDER: What happened after this?

MR MOHAPE: And then I think after some few minutes one of them told me to jump a fence, because you must be aware that at that time I was naked, I was only left with my pants, like underwear, you know. One, he started me to jump with that fence. Now, what is happening in that, it is a fence and just, you know, after that fence is a row of trees and they told me to run in those trees and I had to do that. I ran into those trees and somebody shot at me. Now, lucky enough, for I do not know, that person missed me and then I just heard cars, you know, moving away.

MR STANDER: Do you know if any of the people of one of the two applicants were amongst those that assaulted you there?

MR MOHAPE: In that situation or at that time, I will not exactly, as I explained, that the two applicants right now I can honestly point them, you know, to say it is you, but there were people who beat me up, but they have been involved in other activities where I have been, you know, beaten or jumped at the security branch offices.

MR STANDER: Good. While, after you were shot or they shot at you what happened after that?

MR MOHAPE: I had to walk back, you know, to the township and when I went there I got into a nearby house, you know, of a classmate of mine. It is a woman and at that time, I think, the time was perhaps half past 11 or I cannot remember what time it was, but it was very late or to 12 and then I knocked at her door and when she opened she was damn surprised to see me in the condition I was and then she woke up everybody in the house and then they took care of me, organised transport to take me home, and when I arrived at home, yes, at home they were surprised to see me in that situation I was in and when I, you know, when I was getting out of the car that brought me at home, one car of the security branch, driven by a White guy, passed the house.

My brother even remarked and to say, it means they are coming to check if they are finished, you know, or they have completed what they intended to do, because even, he even mentioned that person's name but, unfortunately, I cannot recall. He might be in a position, perhaps, to recall that person who was passing at the house at that time alone, a White man.

MR STANDER: Very well. Were you detained after this at all?

MR MOHAPE: You know, that is why I am saying yes. There are sequences, but I will try to be as brief as I can and be specific to certain events. I was, after that I was arrested, detained and when I was detained I was picked up by Motsamai and when I was detained I was made frog-jumps there at security branch Offices and ... (intervention).

MR STANDER: Was Motsamai the person who gave the orders? Who was the person that told you to do the frog jumps?

MR MOHAPE: When I arrived there I was, for instance, with, I was taken with a group of students, but they were taken to other rooms and then I was taken to the kitchen and when I was taken to that kitchen, it was Mamome and Motsamai who were there and Mamome, you know, forced me to make frog- jumps and of which, you know, I had to comply with that, because they were, you know, they were big, like, somebody, it was Mamome himself, in actual fact, he was kicking me at the back and then from there I was taken to another room.

When I was in that room, I stayed for a while in the room and Lieutenant Horn came in, Prinsloo came in, Erasmus came in, Shaw came in and Motsamai, Mamome and, you know, they were coming in and out, in and out, but there was one second that something happened to me. That second is when Erasmus was saying I must look out of the window. When I turned to look out of the window, looking outside, somebody within seconds put a black bag over my head and I was pulled down forcefully and within those seconds a whole lot of kicks and broom sticks around me was all over my body and, fortunately enough, I do not know, I grabbed one, you know, broom stick and when I grabbed it people just ran out.

I took out that black bag and I sat there being angry and then later on, you know, Erasmus came to me and said to me, White, what happened? You know, it was damn frustrating and damn hurting, people knowing that what they have just done to you now and, of course, you know somebody comes, you know, ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, now you were speaking very quickly. Could you tell me again who came into this room? You gave a whole list of people?

MR MOHAPE: All right. I am saying, you know, at that time a whole shoot of them came in, like they were coming in and out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well who were they.

MR MOHAPE: But then at that time, with the four seconds I was, you know, held down, before those seconds happened it was Erasmus, it was Prinsloo, because this Prinsloo is a (...indistinct), I just forgot their first names, it was Shaw, you know, ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... it was Mamome, you know, and it was, you know, others who were there, because that thing happened within seconds when Erasmus said I must look through the window.

MR STANDER: Ja, you say ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, while there is an interruption in your concentration or in the line of evidence, I find myself compelled again to mention what I did mention this morning, Mr Chairman. How is this related to any particular incident which is serving before you for an application for amnesty by any person? We cannot go on like this, Mr Chairman. I find the evidence of the witness fascinating, but we cannot just go on with matters hanging in the air.

CHAIRPERSON: He can go on telling us that he is from time to time. The other bit that do not merely, are fill-ins, as to what Ngo and Motsamai did, how they treated him, if they have not disclosed that, that is effect, may well affect their applications. As you know they are under an obligation to make a full disclosure. If this witness gives evidence of incidents that have not been disclosed and we accept the liabilities it effects their applications.

MR VISSER: I do appreciate that aspect, Mr Chairman. The matter which concerns me more than anything else, is the question as to whether I am going to be expected to cross- examine this witness on all the new evidence which is not coming to light, whereas it is quite clear that ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: This happens frequently at trials, Mr Visser, that evidence is led which you have to cross-examine on.

MR VISSER: All Right, Mr Chairman, as long as you understand my predicament.


MR STANDER: You said it was frustrating when somebody came in and asked you about an incident that has just happened. What happened then?

MR MOHAPE: Then, after that I stayed there and they did nothing and I was later released, I went home.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, where is there, you say you stayed there?

MR MOHAPE: No, I am saying it is at Fountain Police Station or Fountain Security Branch Offices.

MR STANDER: Is there anything else which you would like to add to your testimony with regard to the applications of Messrs Ngo and Motsamai?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, what happened is that later on after being released, I think it was some time, I was called, I came after school, I went home and then when I arrived at home Ngo phoned me and when he phoned me at home he said to me he wants to talk to me, he wants to see me secretly, because there are things that he wants to, you know, talk to me about and then I said to him, no, I cannot do that, you know. You are a police informer, you are working for the system, how then do I see myself having a secret meeting with you and I refused to meet him.

MR STANDER: Are you able to tell us today, how many times, more or less, you were arrested?

MR MOHAPE: I am not certain in terms of the numbers, but I am saying it is plus or minus ten to 15 times and in instances that I have been detained, when after, for instance, let me take the ones when Ngo was then already working for Erasmus. He has been part of those people who were coming to my house and take me. In every, also, in every instance, also, Mamome has been part of that. He has been coming to me when they cross-question me in their offices he will be with them. So, it is many instances that Ngo and Mamome has been present when Erasmus and Shaw will either question me or themselves, because there is one other instance after one student was killed at Zenzela Hall.

Mamome, when I was at security branch offices after I was advised by my advocate, it was not long after the case of Ngo when he was, when I was charged for that and then I was advised by advocate to go to the security branch offices and find out what do they want me for and when I went there I found Erasmus and Shaw, Ngo was there, Mamome was there, Motsamai was there and then they, Motsamai, Mamome was asking me what has happened, why did I had to kill that student? I said, I told him that I did not do that. I, in actual fact, I was part of those people who were trying to protect that, the informer at that time when he was attacked and then when they took me to their car, when we were in the car, it was driven by Motsamai, they were going to check one other boy who was also alleged to be an informer and then already at that time the first one had already died and Motsamai, Momome said to me how do you feel?

He mention that boy by the name. He said that, I just forgot that chaps name, he said this person has died, how do you feel about that? I said to him what do you mean how do I feel? Do you expect me to say I am angry or you expect me to say I am happy? He said, yes, there is nothing that we expect from you and he was furious. He could see, you know, if he had anything he could do anything he wanted, because he was furious about that.

MR STANDER: Tell me, do you have any ... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, sorry, did you say there, you started on this, but that after Ngo was working for Erasmus?


CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean by that?

MR MOHAPE: I mean after we have exposed him as an informer, you know, he was now working for them full time.

CHAIRPERSON: As an informer?

MR MOHAPE: No, I think as a policeman, because he had his own gun. I remember at one time when I was there at the security branch offices he was carrying his gun, he was, you know, he was their policeman, you know.

MR STANDER: At that stage, what standard had you reached at school?

MR MOHAPE: I think at that time I was in standard nine or standard ten, yes, I was in standard ten. Let me correctly get this thing clear. I was doing my standard nine at the time when we were, you know, exposing him and getting information and then he was doing standard ten, Ngo, yes, and then we had to expose him, because we said at that time, the danger is that if we do not expose him, he is going to finish his studies, he will join them officially and the students are going to reflect on Cosas, but members of Cosas then join security branch offices.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any scars left from the attacks, assaults on you?

MR MOHAPE: I, if, on my left leg I had scars. There are some small, you know, a patch that you can see, are the results of the wire that I was forced to jump on, you know, when I was kidnapped. I think the other scars at that time, I can see right now, they have, some of them have disappeared, but I had them. I think a medical record from Doctor Mkgoni, that he kept on that, because I went to him after that incident.

MR STANDER: Just a minute Mr Chairman. Those are the questions that I wish to ask the witness, Mr Chairman.



MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I can tell you now that I could never complete a cross-examination of this witness this afternoon. There are many aspects which I will have to take up and which I will have to do research on, but I will go as far as I can, with your leave, Mr Chairman.

Mr Mohape, perhaps I am slow to understand. I would like to start from the beginning again and get some clarity so that we can all understand what you have come to ... (end of tape 3A) high school and I understand, as you have told us, please stop me if anything I say is wrong, that Nelson Ngo was a fellow student at that school?

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR VISSER: But he was a year ahead of you, as I understand?


MR VISSER: He was a year ahead of you?


MR VISSER: One year?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, one year.

MR VISSER: One year. And it is true, to come more specifically to the question of the incidents for which they applied for amnesty for, it is true that he became an informer of the security branch, but the evidence is, and I am putting this to you so that you can make a comment if you wish, that this happened after he was attacked by fellow students at this high school. Now, that is the evidence so far.


MR VISSER: Is that basically correct, that he was attacked ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't the evidence that he was attacked because he was an informer?

MR VISSER: Oh, I am sorry, what am I talking about, you are absolutely right, Mr Chairman, sorry. I am terribly sorry. He was, let us just stay with this for the moment, he was attacked, as the Chairman correctly points out, because you discovered that he or you suspected, strongly suspected, that he was an informer? Yes. Now, is it true that you were, in fact, together with others arrested and charged with the assault or the attack on Mr Ngo? Would that be correct?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, after that incident I was ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... I was charged.

MR VISSER: I think, if I remember correctly, he complained that he was stabbed?


MR VISSER: And how many accused persons were there?

MR MOHAPE: If I can recall correctly, I think we were about six.



MR VISSER: I thought it was four.

MR MOHAPE: I cannot remember well, but ... (intervention). MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MOHAPE: ... I remember, I think we were about six.

MR VISSER: Yes, it is not terribly important. One of them was Billy, was it?

MR MOHAPE: Morgan, yes.

MR VISSER: Billy Morgan. First of all, I do not want to take you through all the evidence, but there was a suggestion on the one hand that you were the one that had stabbed him, that Mr Ngo gave evidence before you say anything about that. Mr Ngo gave evidence and he actually said that you did not stab him, you just held him. At the end of the day you were acquitted, all of you.


MR VISSER: My question to you is, did Mr Ngo give evidence at that trial?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, he did.

MR VISSER: Did he actually say that you stabbed him in his evidence?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, I remember what he said in that, in, during the court case he was saying it was, he was trying to say amongst the six of us, because the sequence was so neurotic, to say, because he was saying when he was talking to me, somebody stabbed him at the back.


MR MOHAPE: When he turned to look at that person, then somebody was stabbing him from this side.


MR MOHAPE: When he also turned to look at this side, somebody also stabbed him at that side.


MR MOHAPE: And then he pointed to people to say this one and that one and that one, but then later on he said, but I cannot correct, recollect that, but he said he was not sure either it was myself or the other person who gave the last stab. I think it is like that, but ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: All right.

MR MOHAPE: ... I am not certain ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... to that effect unless we check records.

MR VISSER: With respect, I do not blame you if you are not certain about Mr Ngo's evidence, but the one point which I want to ask you is this, did he give evidence at that trial that you, White Mohape, held him while somebody else stabbed him?

MR MOHAPE: You know why?

MR VISSER: Did he ever say that?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, you know why? Because also there were witnesses to that, that were, in actual fact, told by the security branch to come and collaborate statements of Ngo and one woman who was a witness into that case refused to testify.

MR VISSER: No, I think that, perhaps, you misunderstand my question.

MR MOHAPE: All right.

MR VISSER: My question is simply this. I want to know whether Mr Ngo told the trial court that you held him while somebody else stabbed him?

MR MOHAPE: Well, I may not recall, recollect that.

MR VISSER: All right, that is fair enough.

Now, do you actually know who did stab him? How many times was he stabbed? Wasn't he stabbed only once?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, according to records, medical records, it was about five or six times.

MR VISSER: Five or six times?

MR MOHAPE: I think so.

MR VISSER: Oh, I see, so more than one person must have stabbed him?

MR MOHAPE: That is why we were all implicated into that.

MR VISSER: Oh, all right.

I do not know whether I did ask you, but perhaps if I did not, perhaps I should put it this way. Do you have any personal knowledge of who had stabbed Mr Ngo?

MR MOHAPE: You see, it is a ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: And I am sorry. May I explain myself?

MR MOHAPE: All right.

MR VISSER: I am not cross-examining you with a view of charging you ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: No, no, no.

MR VISSER: ... or anything like that. I am comparing your evidence to that of Mr Ngo's.

MR MOHAPE: Ja, you see, in a situation where there is a commotion, where Ngo is on the floor and I am on top of him, I am struggling to take the gun away from him, a teacher is pulling me at the back, there are a lot of students from the class, you know, who are coming and meet. Then the ones that we planned this to disarmament of Ngo with them, they are kicked all around. I am also kicked, you know, when I am around, you know, because, you know, I am trying to grab the gun, he stand out, you know. I will not certainly know who stabbed him.

MR VISSER: Yes. I think we can establish that, but perhaps you can remember the date when this happened? Which standard were you then?

MR MOHAPE: I was doing standard nine.

MR VISSER: Standard nine. Would that have been in 1986?

MR MOHAPE: Let me try, that is why I am saying ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: When did you complete your matric, what year?

MR MOHAPE: No, it is, I did not complete it.

MR VISSER: Oh, you did not.

MR MOHAPE: It, In 1986 there was State of Emergency and ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: All right.

MR MOHAPE: ... I was one of the students, you know, I had to run away, in actual fact, at that time, because a lot of students have been, a lot of leaders have been picked up.

MR VISSER: Yes. Okay, perhaps you can remember then, just to give us some ideas of the dates, because ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: No, no, I ...

MR VISSER: ... it is becoming very confusing with all the incidents that we are dealing with and we are going to try to fix some sort of dates to incidents and how I am trying to help you now to remember is to say, is to ask you did you run away, as you just told us, while you were in standard nine or while you were beginning with standard ten?

MR MOHAPE: Mr Visser, you know, I ran away a lot of times and I had to come back to school, you know.


MR MOHAPE: What I can do, maybe for the Commission, is to have some time, recollect, you know, those dates and the years so that you are in a better position, because, as I am saying, so many things happened to me and it is not a mistake to say I may not, at one point, recollect a certain date, you know.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, could I ask you a personal favour?

MR MOHAPE: All right.

MR VISSER: We will not be able to finish with you today.


MR VISSER: That you, perhaps, let your mind go tonight and if you will, on the incidents that you have given evidence about, try to place dates ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: All right.

MR VISSER: ... in relation only to Mr Ngo, obviously, because we are not interested in anything else, in relationship to Mr Ngo. Place dates on incidents.

MR MOHAPE: I will do that.

MR VISSER: What will be very important is for you, if you can remember at all, the date upon which you were abducted, as it were, with the white Bakkie, (...indistinct), ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: Oh, all right.

MR VISSER: ... by the two gentlemen and taken to the veld and you were told to jump, assaulted and told to jump the fence and ran to the trees. That date. It would be very useful if you could possibly try to establish it for us.

Now, during, seeing that you have just mentioned it, let us just stay still there for a moment. During this commotion, Ngo was at school and somebody informed you that he might be in possession of a firearm, a gun, as you called it, and at a certain point in time you try to take the gun away from him. You remember that?


MR VISSER: Did he, in fact, have a gun upon him?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, he had a gun.

MR VISSER: Would you, did you get hold of the gun?

MR MOHAPE: I got hold of the gun.

MR VISSER: Well, could you describe it for us? Was it a long gun?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, it was, what do they call it, a pistol, the one with the running magazine.

MR VISSER: Oh, the running magazine?


MR VISSER: That is a revolver.


MR VISSER: Because, the reason for that is, it is a revolving magazine, so it is a revolver ... (intervention).


MR VISSER: ... not a pistol.

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR VISSER: Okay. I believe it is proper for me to tell you that the evidence that has been suggested so far is that Ngo became an informer of the security branch in 1983, in 1983. So, your suspicions were correct ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

MR VISSER: for one thing and that he was then assaulted and that he was then compelled to leave that high school, the Lereko High School. How do you spell Lereko? Is it ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: L E ... (intervention).





MR VISSER: And he was then compelled to leave the Lereko High School and continue with his studies elsewhere, it does not matter where. He then expressed a desire to join the South African Police and he was, what is called in police circles, attested. It means he was appointed as a student Constable on the 11th of March 1986. He was then placed at Batho and, Mr Mohape, if I am saying a lot of things and you are wondering how it is relevant to you ... (intervention).


MR VISSER: ... I am simply doing it for the sake of being of assistance to the Committee, if I can.

MR MOHAPE: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: He was placed at?

MR VISSER: He was placed at Batho, B A T H U, Police Station. I am told it is B A?


MR VISSER: T H O, not U, but he was ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, can you just tell us where this is in the vicinity of Bloemfontein or where in the world is Batho.

MR STANDER: I can possibly tell you. It is a police station in the Black townships in Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: And by way of a service arrangement or whatever you call it, he was immediately placed with the security branch, because of the fact that he had been an informer and the intention was to use him to point people out who the security branch of the time had considered to be activists or people that they ought to be interested in. That is background. If you want to make any comment, you can make any comment, but the point here is that he was attested on the 11th of March 1986.

Prior to that, you see, he could not have been formally issued with an official firearm. Prior to that, also, it is highly unlikely, unless he, there is some sinister way of, the way he got hold of it, that he could ever have worn a uniform.

Incidentally, did you ever see him, if you can try to recall, before March 1986, Ngo? Had you ever seen Ngo in an uniform, let me put it that way, or can you not remember?

MR MOHAPE: No, I want to answer your two questions and I see how they are coming. I will deal with them. The first one, yes, it is a, it was a sinister situation to see Ngo having a gun, according to you, when he was not officially inaugurated as a policeman.


MR MOHAPE: Yes and I will tell you how it was sinister, because when Ngo was already a police informer, you know, he did their work, and he immediately after we exposed him, he was working hand-in-hand with Erasmus. In many instances when I was taking (...indistinct) to security branch offices, Ngo, he will come with Erasmus at home, they will pick me up, I will go into his office, Erasmus, where Ngo will sit there and he will, you know, question me, you know, and at that time it was after we have long exposed him as an informer ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... and at that time he was already carrying his own gun.

MR VISSER: Would you allow me a moment, Mr Chairman?

Yes, I have just taken instructions, Mr Mohape, from Colonel Erasmus. He differs from you in two respects. He says, first of all, Nelson Ngo, as far as he is concerned, could not properly have been issued with an official firearm before he became a policeman and, as far as Mr ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: I am sorry, Mr Visser, I understand that he could not have been issued properly with a firearm before he became a policeman, but could he have had one illegally?

MR VISSER: Yes, he could have stolen one.

ADV DE JAGER: According to this, he went out to arrest people or to bring them in. Were the instructions that Colonel Erasmus never knew that he had a firearm?

MR MOHAPE: That is correct. If he had been in possession of a firearm, then it was without the knowledge of Colonel Erasmus and I was trying to make the second point. The second point is that Colonel Erasmus says that he never participated in any arrests before he became a policeman and nor did he participate in any interrogations as the witness has just indicated.

Did you catch the translations, Mr Mohape?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I got the translation, yes.

MR VISSER: Okay. So, in other words, there is a difference of opinion or rather of evidence between you and Colonel Erasmus on that point. Fact of the matter is I just want to ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, could I, I am getting totally confused here. As I understood your evidence, Ngo was at school with you still and you decided that you would have to expose him, it was shortly after January 1985 when this list became exposed. Is that so?

MR MOHAPE: Ja, I am saying it is that so, because in terms of conferences that we held in Cosas ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You have given us the details, ... (intervention).


CHAIRPERSON: ... we do not need them again, but you said it was about the beginning of 85 ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and you told him, you spoke to him outside the meetings, he did not come to the meetings and you told him that he was an informer and he denied it, said he would wear the uniform of the security branch and carry a gun. That was on the Monday and ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ... he then left.


CHAIRPERSON: And he was away, this is at school we are talking about now, is it? He left school and he was away ... (intervention).


CHAIRPERSON: ... from school ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: For the whole ...

CHAIRPERSON: .. for four days. He returned to school on Friday and he had a gun on that Friday?


CHAIRPERSON: And that gun you took away from him?


CHAIRPERSON: Right. So, that is one gun?


CHAIRPERSON: Then you spoke later, as I understood your evidence, you said he had a gun, you saw it on him, you saw it, as I understood, you said you saw it at Fountain or the police ...?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, at Fountain, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So, this is later and this is a second gun?


CHAIRPERSON: So, we are now talking about the first gun that you took away and that at some stage later, and I do not think you have given us a date for the later event, that may have been after 1980, after March 1986, you saw a second gun. Is that the position?

MR MOHAPE: You see, that is why I said earlier on, you know, in terms of specific dates I will do Mr Visser a favour to have to ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: ... have, to, you know, to have them written down so that we are not confused in terms of the dates ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... and there is no unnecessary contradiction into the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but I just do not want there to be any misunderstanding. There are two separate guns ... (intervention). MR MOHAPE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ... we are talking about.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, that accords with my understanding of the evidence. I am first, I got stuck with the first gun, I will be moving on to the second gun in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understand it, there is no suggestion, or so far from this witness, that the first gun necessarily came from any particular policeman or anything else, he just ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: That is quite correct. That, in fairness to the witness, that is quite correct, Mr Chairman.

Now, what happened to this first gun that you spoke about that you wrestled with Ngo ... (intervention).


MR VISSER: ... during that commotion at school? What happened to that gun?

MR MOHAPE: We, like, when I ran downstairs I was called by a teacher on, when the other time he thought I am the one who is going to be shooting students around, and he begged that, you know, I speak to him and then we went to the library. I explained to him that we are having, you know, this gun and then ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: I am sorry. So, you had the gun in your possession, in fact?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, in my hand and then we, I explained everything to him and then he requested, you know, passionately that, you know, I give that to him and we wait for the police to come and it is exactly what I did and ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: All right. And were the police then called?

MR MOHAPE: The police were called, yes, uniformed SAP.

MR VISSER: And did they arrive at the school or what?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, they arrived at school. I think they arrived after 30 minutes after that incident.

MR VISSER: Okay and was the gun handed over to them?

MR MOHAPE: Well, at that time when the gun was handed to the police I was not present ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... because what happened is that when they were there, I was then requested by the principal to explain to students, because a lot of kids were outside, were confused and then I was requested to explain to the kids what has happened and it is in that, you know, minute when I was explaining to student, you know, perhaps the gun was given to the police, I ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... and then simultaneously Ngo was able to escape.

MR VISSER: Did you ever hear anything about that gun again?

MR MOHAPE: In the court, if I can recollect, there was an argument later in court that that was not a proper gun.


MR MOHAPE: There was also an argument that that was not in Ngo's hip, it was a plastic gun that had other towels in a plastic and Ngo was taking those things to his parents, you know, and it was very odd to hear that kind of statement coming from the State, you know.

MR VISSER: In other words, was it, in fact, Mr Ngo's evidence or version that it was not a real gun, it was a play, plastic, play gun? Is that what you are telling us?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, it was, what it was put on record if I can recall.

MR VISSER: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, what trial was this?

MR VISSER: This was the ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: When I was, subsequent to the attack when I was charged.

CHAIRPERSON: So, this attack, when you took the gun from Ngo that is when Ngo was stabbed?


CHAIRPERSON: Several times.


CHAIRPERSON: But you say it, obviously, could not have been very serious, because he managed to escape?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, I cannot say it was, I could not determine if he had serious wounds, you know, ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: No, but did you not say ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: ... but he ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: ... he escaped?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, he ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: While you were addressing the students Ngo managed to escape.

MR MOHAPE: Let me correct that quickly so that you, we do not confuse the two. When I took the gun, like, you see, he was on the floor, I was on top of him, wrestling to take the gun away from him and I managed to do that. There were kicks, like I said, I even myself was kicked, you know. You know, during that small commotion on the ground I managed to stand up and ran away as that teacher was pulling me at the back and when I ran, because we were in the first floor, when I ran, I ran downstairs and, apparently, Ngo also stood up and ran in the same direction I was running into and he was being chased, you know. So, I could not know what happened the minute I stood up and ran away with the gun, I could not certain, you know, that the type of wounds that was sustained by Ngo, if they were serious or not, but he got stabbed, because it was said in the court those wounds that he got was during that commotion. It is why I fully agreed with that and then he ran to the Administration Block where he barricaded himself in one office and students barricaded the whole entrance, but then at that moment it was the time when I was asked by the teachers and principal to explain to student in the assembly what has happened and when I was busy explaining to student then Ngo managed to escape from the administration and ran to security branch car that was waiting outside the yard of the school.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is what I meant, he had not suffered injuries that incapacitated him, ... (intervention).


CHAIRPERSON: ... he was able to get up and run away.

MR MOHAPE: You are right.

MR VISSER: And was this gun, this revolver, was that an exhibit in the court case?

MR MOHAPE: That is why I am saying to you in court, if I can recollect, it was no longer a normal gun that I saw.

MR VISSER: Oh, I see.

MR MOHAPE: It was said it was a toy and that toy had some towels in a plastic and Ngo was taking those things for his sister's son, something of that sort. It was very ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Was it the same gun as the one that you took ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: No, it was, that, the one that was presented was a toy.

CHAIRPERSON: That was not the gun you had taken away from him ... (intervention).


CHAIRPERSON: ... and given to the teacher?


JUDGE NGOEPE: Knowing that Ngo was, in fact, working in collaboration with security branch, that strange set-up, I am sure, did not surprise you?

MR MOHAPE: No, it did not, it really did not.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, is it being suggested to the witness that it should be taken for granted that because Ngo worked for the security branch, that the security branch would have arranged for exhibits to be tampered with? Is that the suggestion?

JUDGE NGOEPE: The suggestion is that he was not surprised, Mr Visser. If you want to read anything further into it, you can do so.

MR MOHAPE: Can I say something, perhaps? Can I say something please?


MR MOHAPE: I am saying this thing, because in the same evidence of Ngo in court it showed that the State, the evidence that was put was a cooked evidence and that was done by some people and I will say, yes, his handlers they did that, because even when I was detained, when I was arrested for that incident, when I was at Bloemspruit I was fetched from Bloemspruit by van Dyk, Ben and others and they took me to Bhato Police Station where a group of them, Erasmus, Coetzee and the rest were there and, yes, they had a relationship with the investigating officers and I will say also why I am saying this thing. At the time when I was told to go and point the place where I was, you know, where they were beating me up, that Major, he was the investigating officer on this thing of the kidnapping, he was Major Kriel or Kruger, something of that sort, he took me at Folks Way, I went to meet him at Folks Way. I want to show you how people are.

I went to Folks Way, he said to me he is going to arrange a parade where I can point those policemen if I happen to see them. The day when I went there at Folks Way he, I came with my lawyer. He then said to me, no, no, I cannot do that today, because all security branch members today are under examination of some sort, our inspection, therefore you cannot be able to go and identify them. You will then, maybe we will then arrange some time for you to do that. Later on he said I must go and show him the spot where they were beating me up, but he took me there, to that spot, at past five and past five at that time it was going, it was already, you know, going to the evening.

I went to that spot, I could not see a thing, because he wanted, he was asking me if I can see the cartridge of the gun they used and I could not see it, because it was already at evening at the time when he took me to that spot. That is why I am saying, yes, the court case at that time, it has been a crooked, everything that was done in that case.

MR VISSER: What precise evidence was crooked?

MR MOHAPE: I think the evidence of Ngo saying I stabbed him and the neurotic sequence of the stabbing. A person standing in the middle being stabbed at the back, turning to look at who is stabbing him, somebody stabbing him this side, turning to look who is stabbing him this side, somebody stabbing him, you know, it was a crooked evidence, because it was merely showing that it was meant to, you know, for me to be charged and found guilty out of evidence that was crooked and if they are honest, this, all the security branch who have been involved in those things, they will honestly say, yes, those things happened and, perhaps, we can talk otherwise.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, I have asked you know in, what evidence was crooked and what you are referring to is ... (intervention).


MR VISSER: ... the evidence which Ngo gave.


MR VISSER: But you also added just now, having been prompted from the Committee, that this was cooked by his handlers.

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I believe so.

MR VISSER: Why do you say that?

MR MOHAPE: Because I know what they have been doing at that time.

MR VISSER: No, but give us concrete evidence, an example of why you say so, not just speculation. Why do you say so?

MR MOHAPE: You know why I think they said so? Ngo, at that time when he was, after he has been stabbed, he was still working with them and working with Erasmus, they were able to prepare him for that case. That is why I am saying, yes.

MR VISSER: So it is speculation?

MR MOHAPE: Perhaps, you may take it, like, that way.

MR VISSER: Is there any other reason upon which you base your opinion that the handlers of Ngo cooked the case against you?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, because they have for a long time wanted to get rid of me. They have so many times arrested me and that in itself, it really showed me that they had everything in their power that they wanted to do to get rid of me.

MR VISSER: Did you lay a charge after you were, let us call it, abducted?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I laid a charge.

MR VISSER: Can you remember who the investigating officer was in that case?

MR MOHAPE: After I laid a charge I had to go to school, I went to Western Cape.

MR VISSER: No, no, no that is not the question.

MR MOHAPE: No, no, I want to tell you. At that time when I laid, I laid a charge at the police station saying, Bayswater Police Station and before I went to Cape Town no policeman, or what is his name, investigating officer, came to me and said to me, let me not mistake this one. The person who investigated that is the one that I am saying Kruger, the one who was coming to me and say I must go and show him the places and it is the one who was investigating that case ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Was the ...

MR MOHAPE: ... and after that I went to Cape Town.

MR VISSER: Was the investigating officer not a person by the name of Terreblanche? Sorry, I withdraw that, I am told I am wrong, Mr Chairman. May I just ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: You will always be wrong.

MR VISSER: May I just check on the record, I think there is a reference on the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Which record are you referring to?

MR VISSER: I am referring to our record, Mr Chairman. In fact, the evidence of that abduction, I was just going to refer you to it, is in, Mr Ngo's evidence and it commences at page 68 of the record. It then continues up to page 84, actually 83. So, for your information, Mr Chairman, from page 68 of the record to page 83 you will find the evidence of Mr Ngo in cross-examination on this whole issue of Mr White Mohape.

I do not want to waste your time, I will check it tonight, Mr Chairman. I have the investigating officer's name somewhere.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the only bit? I had a recollection and this is maybe what I have read, that I had read something further about this stabbing of Mr Ngo by White and I wondered whether we, have we got amongst all the other papers we have got, any extract from the court proceedings.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I was busy checking it in the lunch time, but, unfortunately, I ran out of time. It took too long. I will, my attorney and myself will, I promise you, go tonight and find all the relevant references.

There was, of course, the evidence in-chief of Mr Ngo ... (intervention).


MR VISSER: ... and there was a very brief reference to Mr White Mohape in relationship to this particular incident in the evidence of Mr Motsamai, because you will remember that Mr Ngo implicated Motsamai as having been part of the attack whilst Motsamai denied it. So, the real evidence is to be found in Ngo's evidence and, as you stated, Mr Chairman, there are other bundles, loose bundles, which we will have to go through.

I may tell you, Mr Chairman, also that we have attempted to obtain a record of the proceedings of that trial and we have not been successful. We have attempted to obtain the docket. Somehow I thought it was a Mr Terreblanche, but anyway, I will check the name, the docket, but the person who was the investigating officer has become deceased and, unfortunately, we have not been able to trace the docket either. We were very keen to have an affidavit which was in the docket of Mr Mohape, but we have not been able to track it down.


MR VISSER: In fact, our information is the docket has been destroyed. We cannot find it.

If you were interested, Mr Chairman, in the evidence in-chief, of Mr Ngo concerning Mr White Mohape, I can give you that reference as well. It is in the evidence, in the little bundle which we call the evidence of the 14th of May. There are so many A's and B's now, that it is totally confusing, Mr Chairman, but there is a thin, little bundle of evidence which is headed "The evidence dated the 14th of May 1997". Now, if you would make a note in that bundle ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR VISSER: Yes, I can, in fact, among us I have got the only copy available, Mr Chairman, so I will have to reproduce it before I lose it, but I will hand it to you so that you can at least just look at it to be able to identify it. Here it is. It is ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR VISSER: No, no, no, the 14th of May. Then, if I may refresh your memory, Mr Chairman, we came back the second time and you will remember we wrote letters to say that we have not received copies of the record and then at the time when we arrived there was a fresh record and that started with part of the evidence which was given before and there was a duplication and I cannot give you the page on the old record, but you will remember that you asked me to go and sort it out and I did and I came back and I informed you, Mr Chairman, that it works like this, it works with the record of 14 May 1997 from page one to page 37 and then in bundle A, it runs again from page 128 ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) A2.



MR VISSER: Well, I will mark it bundle A2, Mr Chairman. A2, all right. Then in bundle A the evidence ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) page 128.

MR VISSER: From 128. You have got to ignore ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR VISSER: ... the evidence that comes before that, because that is a duplication and it is not entirely the same as what you will find in bundle A2.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the evidence before that is the evidence led (...indistinct).

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

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR VISSER: ... I just remember that there was a duplication. The, at page 128, there is the, it is the evidence of the 15th of May. That is what you ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: What they have done (...indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What they have done, they have left bundle A2 out of bundle A.


CHAIRPERSON: A2 ought to be page 128 and they have for some reason omitted it.

MR VISSER: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: But otherwise all the evidence is in bundle A or the earlier evidence.

MR VISSER: Yes, you may be, yes, Mr Chairman, as far as the March evidence is concerned, I am not, I cannot help you, because I was under the impression that portion of the evidence is a duplication, but I may be wrong. It does not matter really.


MR VISSER: But we will check up on, because there are certain in that, in those bundles and I am going to give you the reference now, to bundle A2. In bundle A2, Mr Chairman, the reference is from page 29 to 37 concerning Mr White Mohape and in bundle A ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: The reference, please, again.

MR VISSER: Sorry, I am sorry.


MR VISSER: One, pages 29 to 37. Two nine to three seven and I have only got a reference of page 128 in bundle A. I am not sure whether it continues after that. It probably does, I have not got the last page. So, broadly speaking, those are the references and then after that, Mr Chairman, as I said to you earlier, we have the latest record starting at page 60, if you like, but really, a little later and running up to page 84. Sixty to 84.

Okay, where I was now. Oh, yes. If I may continue, Mr Chairman, as far as I can go, in your charge which you laid ... (intervention).

MR MEMANI: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, I missed the point which led to us being referred to these passages. If Mr Visser could repeat it for me please.

MR VISSER: I was asked by the Chairman where it appears on the record, Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: What appears?

MR VISSER: The evidence relating to Mr White Mohape, that is what I understood.

CHAIRPERSON: My question was whether apart from the evidence at the transcript, there was other evidence about White Mohape and about this incident and Mr Visser then gave me the references to where it appears at the transcript and said that he would tonight look up the other files to see if there are any other records of the proceedings, but in the light of what he has recently told us about the fact that the docket is not obtainable and that the trial record is not available, it seems improbable and what I was referring to must have been one of these earlier transcripts when I said I had read something about this incident.

MR MEMANI: I am indebted to the Chair.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, there is another aspect and that is namely Mr Visser referred for, asked the witness if Terreblanche was the investigating officer and that meant that we had to refer to the different bundles.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) recall that and said he would look it up overnight. He could, he thought it was Terreblanche, but he was not putting it.

MR STANDER: I just wanted to confirm that.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, because I was not sure of the name. In fact, I am told that I am wrong again.

Mr Mohape, in the charge which you laid, did you tell or did you say or describe the vehicle in which you were abducted?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I think I described it. I said it was a white Isuzu, Bakkie.

MR VISSER: Bakkie?


MR VISSER: Yes, you see, that accords with my information and did you also say it had an OKE registration?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, no.


MR MOHAPE: No. I said I could not see the registration.

MR VISSER: Yes and there were two gentlemen?

MR MOHAPE: In that Bakkie, yes.

MR VISSER: One of them got out, came to you?


MR VISSER: He had a balaclava on his head?


MR VISSER: But it was not covering his face?


MR VISSER: You cannot tell us who it was?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I could not tell, but this person who is this person, because the security branch had a tendency of sending every time new people to go and fetch us or to go and detain us.

MR VISSER: By that, is it implied in what you have just said, that, first of all, you knew the members of the security branch of Bloemfontein and it was not one of them? Is that the implication?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, I am saying I knew some of the police, security branch Black police and, of which I knew that Motsamai, I knew Motsamai.


MR MOHAPE: You know, so ...

MR VISSER: All right, perhaps, in fairness I should rephrase the question.

MR MOHAPE: All right.

MR VISSER: As a person who was involved in politics, on the executive body of Cosas, may I suggest to you that it is logical that you would have made it your business to identify who the members of the security branch were, because they would have been your enemies, is that not correct?

MR MOHAPE: Let me explain, you see, you are correct, but I will also tell you that security branch, time to time was able to bring new people that you do not even know ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Yes, yes, yes.

MR MOHAPE: ... and you will only know them ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: Wait. You will only know them at a time when you are at Fountain and that they are, you know, they are questioning you, whatever, then it is when I will start to establish who is this person.

MR VISSER: Yes and you will see new faces there every time you get arrested and you will realise that they have brought in new people again.

MR MOHAPE: With some of the old, you know, being there.

MR VISSER: But fact of the matter is, the person, at least, who got out of the car was certainly not one of the known members of the security branch of Bloemfontein to you at the time, you have said that already?


MR VISSER: Yes. Now, the, oh yes, the other person, he remained behind the steering wheel?


MR VISSER: And you told us what this man said and you went with him and you got in first between the two of them and he got in, closed the door. Did you look at the man on your right-hand side?

MR MOHAPE: No, you see, it was dark, you know, like when you are in a car?


MR MOHAPE: You can see at a person for the first time in darkness ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... you may not know who is this person, you understand, and from there when they were talking, you know, my mind was that I am going home ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... you know, and when they were busy asking me questions about Cosas and UDF I was excited that, yes, at last, they are taking me home, but for me, at that time, you know, to scrutinise one's face, that never came into my mind at that stage.

MR VISSER: Yes, but let us try to run through this quickly. We can start of by accepting you also did not recognise that person as a member of the security branch of Bloemfontein?

MR MOHAPE: No, because they introduced themselves as members of the security branch.

MR VISSER: No, no, no, that is not the question. You did not recognise him as a person whom you knew ... (intervention).


MR VISSER: ... to be a member of the security branch of Bloemfontein?

MR MOHAPE: You are correct.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is the point. So, two strange people ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Well, sorry, let us take this a bit further. You (end of tape 3B) say you could not see them and I accept that, it is a dark night, but there was a lot of conversation in the vehicle, was there not?

MR MOHAPE: Yes, there was.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did not recognise the voices of either of these two men either?

MR MOHAPE: You see, the situation is when you are put in into a car, somebody comes in and say we are security branch of, members, we are coming to fetch you and I take it for that, granted, yes, they are, because they have been sent to come and pick me up and I get into the car. You see, to me it will never come until after I realise what happened. It could have never come immediately to either sense somebodies voice to say, but let me put the voice of this person at the back or let me put the face of this person so that I recall ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I am not suggesting that, it is merely if it is a voice that you know well, you would have said, oh, ... (intervention).


CHAIRPERSON: ... this is so and so.

MR MOHAPE: You are correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the point I am making. It was not somebody whose voice you knew well ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: ... because you would have recognised it.


MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

You walk out of the police station and ... (intervention).


MR VISSER: ... it is at night, it is around ten, 11 o' clock?


MR VISSER: There are no street lights, nothing, ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: No, no.

MR VISSER: ... is that what you are saying? Is it dark there?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, do not try to confuse the situation.

MR VISSER: I am, Mr, please, I am not trying to confuse anything.

MR MOHAPE: What are you trying to do?

MR VISSER: I am trying to find out what your evidence is. Was it dark or were there lights outside that police station?

MR MOHAPE: Why are you getting set up, you know, why are you becoming ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Because you are ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: upset?

MR VISSER: ... personal, you are being personal by saying I am trying to confuse things.


MR VISSER: Answer the questions.

MR MOHAPE: I am saying when you get into a car and the car it is outside, it is a normal course you see this lights, the streets light, yes, they are there, but it does not mean if there is a street light at that point I will then know that I am under this street light that can maybe light this person at the face. You understand? If something happens that you do not expect, you do not think you can ready yourself to read people's faces, you know, so that you recall them, because, if, like, you see, it is a situation when I am walking out of the police station. When I am walking, because I am, to me I am excited that, well, I am going home, but at the same time I am saying it is a long distance from the police station to the taxi rank.

A Bakkie stands next to me and somebody comes out and say are you White Mohape, I said yes, he said, no, we are the security branch and they never even mentioned their names, we are here to take you home. It will not come into my mind to really, you know, put the face of that person into my memory, because it never, it was something that day I never thought it, maybe it will happen to that stage where I will then have thought I could have maybe, you know, memorised faces of people. Yes, it was not like that.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mohape, then, could, am I correct in understanding you, you did not recognise them and, notwithstanding the fact that as Chairman of Cosas, you made it your business to come to know the security police, at that stage you did not not think it necessary to try and identify these policemen?

MR MOHAPE: No, no, no. I think this thing, honestly, people must understand it in the context it is, the situation it was and I will want to repeat it for you again. Yes, it was my duty to know a lot of these other security branch members, but always you will never know them all and it happened that that night the ones who came to me I did not know them and ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... and for that reason, for the fact that I was excited that I am going home and they are giving me their willingness, they introduced themselves as security branch members, you know, ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... I got into the bakkie, but have I knew that I was, I am going to be kidnapped, maybe at that moment I will have, you know, looked at them and memorised them ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... because this thing happened ... (intervention). ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR MOHAPE: ... you know.

ADV DE JAGER: So, I want to summarise your evidence in this respect.

MR MOHAPE: All right.

ADV DE JAGER: Except for the fact that they told you that they were security policemen and, I want to add, except for the further fact that they were later joined by two other people, who demanded money from you ... (intervention).


ADV DE JAGER: ... the R160,00 ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: ... there is nothing you could add to your evidence in order to convince us that they were security people of Bloemfontein or not?

MR MOHAPE: I, let me answer this one in this fashion. When a security branch member comes to you and then he introduce himself as a security branch member sent to come and collect you, that in itself, it is, it give me the latitude to say, yes, they are security branch members.

Let me take a scenario where, for instance, there were tsotsis. Who the hell the tsotsi will know that I have been detained at Bayswater Police Station, who a tsotsi will know that when I was detained I had R160,00 in my pocket, who a tsotsi will then say to me we are coming to you, we have been sent by the security ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... branch to come and fetch you? That in itself, to me, confirmed that these people, yes, they have been sent by the security branch to pick me up. That is why it was easy for me to just get into the car and for them to take me home.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Also, is it not so that on the way they asked you about your political activities ... (intervention).


JUDGE NGOEPE: ... about Cosas and its ... (intervention).


JUDGE NGOEPE: ... affiliation to the UDF?

MR MOHAPE: Exactly, because I am saying if a tsotsi will want to rob me, he will just, he could have just robbed me in, right inside town or inside the car and say take out your money, we want your money and all that, but for the fact that they were able to ask me about my involvement in Cosas, they were able to ask me about, you know, the relationship of Cosas and UDF and UDF and ANC, that in itself.

ADV DE JAGER: That is exactly why I referred to the R160,00.



MR VISSER: May I continue Mr Chairman?

Yes, I have listened carefully to what you say, there is merit in what you say, Mr Mohape, but let me put a concern to you. I was given to understand, perhaps incorrectly, that you were arrested by the police apart from the fact, apart from the time when Mr Ngo was injured, you were arrested for your political activities.

MR MOHAPE: Many a times, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, because of the fact that you were on the executive of Cosas?


MR VISSER: And, perhaps, your association with the UDF, I do not know ... (intervention).


MR VISSER: ... whatever. And when they arrested you and detained you was that the kind of question they would ask you, are you a member of Cosas, are you on the executive of Cosas ... (intervention).


MR VISSER: ... is Cosas affiliated to the UDF? Is that the kind of questions they would ask you?

MR MOHAPE: There are a lot of questions that they will ask more than that.


MR MOHAPE: They will ask me specifically about my involvement with the ANC, they will ask me about being their informer and promising me heaven and earth. These were the kinds of things that they were capable to do and is, they were doing them, because they had all the manpower to do whatever they wanted to do at that time.

MR VISSER: Yes. At ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: There is only one further thing I want to ask you about these four people in the inn.

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Your conversation in the vehicle ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: Correct.

ADV DE JAGER: ... was it in English, in a, in Sotho or what was the langauge used?

MR MOHAPE: Well, well, you see, when you meet people and when they talk to you they use, you know, Sotho or English. It is very unfortunate. You know these things when they, when that happened, it is unfortunate, but I will say, yes, they mixed the language, they spoke Sotho, they spoke English, you know, and I think the other one on the left-hand side, the left-hand, was also speaking Tswana, you know. They mixed, because ... (intervention).


MR MOHAPE: ... that is the kind ...

ADV DE JAGER: Could you tell us the two people, were they Black people or White people?

MR MOHAPE: They were Black.

ADV DE JAGER: And they were joined by other people?


ADV DE JAGER: Could you say whether those were Black or White?

MR MOHAPE: Those who joined them, they were also Black, because, you see, when a person is having a balaclava, you give, you can, in between the (...indistinct) see his eyes and the flesh, you see, this one is Black or White. Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

And, let me just ask you this, when you were arrested and you would ask, you would be asked by the security branch members questions, as we have just discussed, what was your stand on that? Would you give them the information or would you refuse to co-operate? Is, what was your stand, because I will tell you why I am asking you. We have heard witness after witness after witness who came into the witness box and said they were asked to identify people from photographs, they were asked questions about their activities and they refused to co-operate. Now I want to know what was your stand?

MR MOHAPE: You see, my stand was simple. I knew how the security branches, they were operating and the type of tactics they use in trying to get information amongst people and I knew, yes, I was one of those students who were leading Cosas and it was not easy for them to get whatever information they wanted except in a situation where they will beat me, but every time I was polite with them.


MR MOHAPE: But they were unable to get what they wanted from me.


MR MOHAPE: And their aim, still at that time, because I remember at one time I was shown a room and that room had, you know, all the t-shirts of UDF and all that and it have some book and I was shown a book with photos of cadres of ANC who had died and I was told if I do not co-operate with them I am going to end like them. So, everything, I was prepared always for them to do anything if they wanted to do it and that is, that was the attitude I will always, they will see me as arrogant, I do not know, but I will always not give the information they want.

MR VISSER: I think you have more than 50% answered my question, but I want to make absolutely certain that you know what I am asking you.

MR MOHAPE: What are you asking?

MR VISSER: I am asking you this question, if the security branch would ask you, Mr Mohape, do you admit that you are a member of the executive of Cosas. What would you have said to them? Would you have said ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: All right.

MR VISSER: ... yes or would you have said I am not co-operating?

MR MOHAPE: Okay. Let me quickly answer that one to you. I will say yes and I will tell you why I will say yes, because my role in Cosas was not a situation where I will hide my involvement with Cosas and in 1993 we deliberately took a decision to publicise executive members of Cosas in Bloemfontein and for one reason. For a reason that security branch will come to me and tell me that so and so said I am a Chairman and then at that time I will say, no, I am not a Chairman and then they will go that person and say, yes, why are you saying you are the secretary and then that person would say, no, White is lying and when we meet as a Cosas members we will then argue amongst ourselves to say other people are selling out, because they are telling security branch members that we are Chairpersons, whatever, but in 1993, 83 we took a decision to say we are, after the election of Cosas here, we took a decision here that we are going to publicise members of Cosas executive so that they are known. So, it is as simple as that. I will never hide my position in Cosas.

JUDGE WILSON: Now you changed your evidence in the course of the evidence. Was it 93 or 83?

MR MOHAPE: No, no it is, I mean, history will tell you that Cosas, during those time it was 1983.

JUDGE WILSON: Eighty three?

MR MOHAPE: Ja, but, not 93.

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


MR VISSER: ... very eloquently answered my question. You see, Mr Mohape, I want to put it to you as a fact that there would have been no reason for the security branch members to assault or try to compel any other person to tell them - listen, please, carefully, listen - to tell them that you were the secretary or the vice-president of Cosas. Do you agree with that, because if they had asked you you would have admitted it?

MR MOHAPE: You know, I am sorry, I will request that I am not, maybe I am not restricted in, you know, other things that has been happening, you know, like I spoke to my lawyer and he has, he told me that we must put ourselves, you know, confine ourselves to Ngo and Motsamai, but I think, you know, the questions, your questions honestly comply me or push me into broadly, you know, putting the picture, because the picture you are having, it is, those people who have briefed you they lied to you and they are dishonest to themselves. I will say to you the had a cause to achieve and their cause was that they either control student organisations or they destroy them and in any given situation of destroying these organisations they must make sure that they infiltrate informers into this organisations and, also, they will make sure that the top people in positions of Cosas, they either buy them and if, maybe I was not a threat to them, I do not think they will have bothered me to have detained me several times, because I was not a threat, according to you, I was just a mere lamp that was running around, you know, and if that is the case, it means then they lied to you, because they had an objective to achieve and if they are lying, if they are saying they have never detained me for security reasons, then I honestly tell you that let them reconsider what they are saying, because they lied to you. They had all, everything that they wanted to get rid of me or either use me as their informer and because of that they did all the things that they wanted to do.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Mohape, your reply, whatever it meant, was no reply to my question as to whether it would have been easy for them to establish the fact that you were a member of the Executive Committee of Cosas ... (intervention).


MR VISSER: Let me finish now, but what you have done is you have, and I will argue this, made it quite clear how you hate the security branch and how you believe that they would have done everything in their power to destroy you and your student organisations, we take the point.

MR MOHAPE: Can I quickly respond to what you are saying, because you are misinterpreting what I am saying? I do not hate security branch members, I hated what they did, I hated the manner in which they were treating me. That is what I hated. I do not hate Erasmus as a person, but I hated what he represented and that is why I am saying if Erasmus and the rest are really serious about reconciliation, they really want me to accept them in this society today, they will honestly come to me and talk to me and they will honestly say, you know, yes man, we picked you up, we did this thing, it is okay, let us forget about these things. I will wholeheartedly accept them, but with what they are doing through you, yes, it would make me hate them as people, anyhow I will hate them.

MR VISSER: Are you seriously suggesting that they should accept responsibility for allegations of which they are not guilty? Is that ... (intervention).

MR MOHAPE: They are, not ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: ... what you are suggesting?

MR MOHAPE: ... not what they are guilty of, but what they did. There is a difference between a person being guilty and what he did, that he can honestly talk to me and be honest for what he did.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, I am really going to attempt not to get involved in a political argument with you.


MR VISSER: We are here to consider the applications of Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai. You are involved, directly, in one of the incidents by Mr Ngo, namely the kidnapping and assault of Mr White Mohape and indirectly, perhaps, and we will find that out later, in some attacks on some of the members of your families possessions.


MR VISSER: I want to confer myself to that.

MR MOHAPE: Do that.

MR VISSER: The reason why I have asked you the questions which I have is because of the evidence which you introduced here which we again say is irrelevant.

Mr Chairman, my attorney draws my attention to the fact it is five past four, I do not know whether you, there is no hope that I would finish today or even tomorrow, for that matter.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, could I just mention something please? In the meantime it seems among my clients, as if Mrs Jacobs has arrived, she is in the audience. If I understood my learned friend correctly, he does not have many questions to ask. We have had the problem thus far that we could not get her here. She is here now, we can quickly complete her evidence if it will not be a problem to the Committee, while we will not take very long in any case, it will prevent her from returning on another occasion.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think you could switch?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, anything to co-operate with you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think that, I think if we ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: I must just find my notes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if we could ... (intervention).


CHAIRPERSON: ... make sure she does not have to come again, we should try.


CHAIRPERSON: And this witness can stand down till tomorrow.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Yes, I will certainly try my best.

CHAIRPERSON: Do not let him disappear. Nine o' clock tomorrow morning. Yes, ja.


MS JACOBS: (Still under oath).

MS JACOBS: I can hear you, thank you.


MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs Jacobs, I understand that you are an, unable to see, I just want to explain to you the set-up here. I am Adv Visser and I appear for persons who are implicated by Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai and also by the victims in illegal or unlawful activities and I am going to ask you a few questions in regard to the evidence which you gave when your attorney, Mr Stander, led you in evidence. Do you understand what this is about?

MS JACOBS: I understand.

MR VISSER: I hope not to keep you too long. I want to ask you this, first of all. Have you at any time informed the TRC that you consider yourself to be a victim of gross violations of human rights?

MS JACOBS: Yes, I did tell the Truth Commission that I am one of the victims.

MR VISSER: And I am not talking about this particular Committee, I am talking about the Human Rights Committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. You understand that?

MS JACOBS: Yes, I understand. Yes, I went to the TRC offices.

MR VISSER: But, again, Mr Chairman, I am stepping off this point I, with the reference to page 140 of that bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, in which that name does not appear.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

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

CHAIRPERSON: Does that mean anything?

MR VISSER: I am just drawing your attention to the fact, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) being shot by a policeman ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ... may well be that that is a matter that the TRC considers of importance.

MR VISSER: Yes. Well, I did not want to waste time about it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but, so let us go on.

MR VISSER: (...Indistinct) I should, I should, but I can clarify that if it is necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not consider it of any importance.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Now, your evidence, and please stop me if I am wrong, was that you were taken to the kitchen in Fountain Street, in that building, on a certain floor you were taken to the kitchen.

MS JACOBS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you were later fetched from the kitchen?

MS JACOBS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you told the Committee that the person who fetched you was Mr Tsoametsi, T S O A M E T S I?

MS JACOBS: That is so.

MR VISSER: And you told the Committee that you were taken to the office of Mr Erasmus? Have I got that right?


MR VISSER: And you then said,

"All of them in the room ...",

and you specified Mr Tsoametsi, Mr Motsamai and Mr Erasmus and yourself. You were the persons in that room. Is that correct?

MS JACOBS: That is correct. Mr Tsoametsi fetched me from the office, from the kitchen to the office, then he left.

MR VISSER: Oh. So, Tsoametsi fetched you, he left and who remained in the office with you then?

MS JACOBS: I remained with Motsamai, Erasmus and I do not remember others. I remember only these two.

MR VISSER: (...Indistinct) that there were others who and you cannot remember who they were or that there, that you cannot remember whether there were others?

MS JACOBS: They were there, but I forgot their names, because I was scared.

MR VISSER: (...Indistinct) or two or more other people?

MS JACOBS: Other than Motsamai there was somebody else that I do not remember who that person is except Motsamai and Erasmus.

CHAIRPERSON: One other person you say?

MS JACOBS: I was between Motsamai and a certain person who was on the right-hand side together with Erasmus. I do not remember others.

MR VISSER: Now, now, what you said in your evidence is, and please rectify it if I am wrong, you said you were clapped and slapped.

MS JACOBS: Yes, I was slapped.

MR VISSER: And you said, you were asked

"Who did this?",

and you said,

"All in the room".

Do you remember that?

MS JACOBS: I said I was blind-folded after I have been asked two or three questions, then thereafter I was assaulted, but the first person I remember who (...indistinct) me first is Boysi or Mr Motsamai.

MR VISSER: Well, you see, that is what I thought you meant to say, because it seems to me, with respect, that if you were blind-folded you would not know who was assaulting you and I think you said that in your evidence in-chief and that being so, I want to put a few statements to you. First of all, how can you, or put a few questions to you. If you were blind-folded how can you say that the first person who assaulted you was Mr Motsamai?

MS JACOBS: Let me explain it this way. For the first time I was given a chair, I was between Motsamai and a certain person whom I do not remember. Erasmus asked me few questions, thereafter, let me tell you the question. He said who said you should skip the country and where were you going? I told them that we were going, where you know that where we were going. They, they said who influenced me. They said who was the driver of the kombi, then I said I do not know him. Then I was slapped and they said I should not, I would not go with somebody I do not know. I only remember Boysi. Then thereafter I was blindfolded, then the assault continued.

MR VISSER: (...Indistinct) explained it now, but in other words, Motsamai, Boysi as you can call him, slapped you before you were blind-folded? Is that what you are now saying?

MS JACOBS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You were then blind-folded?

MS JACOBS: Then thereafter I was blind-folded.

MR VISSER: Incidentally, just to make it absolutely clear. At the time you could still see, because there was nothing wrong with your eyesight, apart from the fact that you then became blind-folded. Have I got this right?

MS JACOBS: Yes, I was not blind.

MR VISSER: How can you then say that, well, I think you have changed that and let me just be fair to you. So, you cannot say to this Committee, with certainty, that everybody in the room, that was with you in the room did, in fact, participate in an assault on you? You cannot say that? I think that is what you conceded today.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that not what she said in her evidence in-chief?

MR VISSER: I am not sure Mr Chairman ... (intervention). CHAIRPERSON: It is not the ...

MR VISSER: ... that is why I am asking.

CHAIRPERSON: My note is, I do not know who assaulted me.


MR STANDER: That is my recollection as well.

MR VISSER: I have learnt my lesson not to work on my own notes, I am working now on the notes of my attorney, Mr Chairman, that is why I asking the question the way I do.

Now, I want to put to you that I have just spoken to Mr Tsoametsi and he says that he cannot remember fetching you from the kitchen and taking you to the Mr Erasmus' office.

MS JACOBS: Mr Tsoametsi was present, he was insulting us through our mothers and saying where we were going and he insulted us with and even the time when people were taken individually Mr Tsoametsi said I should go to that room. I was in that room which he pointed me to go to that room. He directed me to that room which I entered in to.

MR VISSER: All right. The next point I want to put to you is that Mr Erasmus will deny that he was there, that he had anything to do with the interrogation of any of the members of that group to which you are referring.

MS JACOBS: He would not agree, I did not expect him to agree.

MR VISSER: On how many days were you taken to Fountain Street Building?

MS JACOBS: You mean after our arrest?


MS JACOBS: I do not remember. I do not remember, Sir.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.



MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I just put one question to this witness?

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR BRINK: No, but in the light of what I was going to put to a previous witness.


MR BRINK: Ms Jacobs, do you remember what Mr Erasmus looked like? Was he a tall man, a short man, a thin man or a fat man?

MS JACOBS: He is a short person, his body was just normal or average.

MR BRINK: Thank you.



CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you have got a busy night before you, so I think we had better adjourn now to let you get started with it.

MR VISSER: I would certainly appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until nine o' clock tomorrow morning.