Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1991-09-08

ADV MEMANI: You see Mr Chairman, the instructions on the evidence in chief was that they should bring him to the police station and if he runs away, they should kill him.  This is how I understood the evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: You see there's a difference and this is what is causing the confusion between instruction that they should kill him, or that they should shoot him in order to affect an arrest.  Now quite clearly the instructions given originally or your client's belief was that the intention was to kill him, not to affect an arrest otherwise he would not be asking for amnesty for attempted murder.  If the shooting took place while attempting to affect an arrest it wouldn't be an attempted murder, would it?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct and furthermore, if one looks at the tenor of the instruction it is: "shoot, bring him here - arrest him and bring him here and if you can't arrest him and bring him here, shoot him".  That is where the ...[inaudible] that he had to be killed.  It may not have come out clearly from the evidence but the shooting was the alternative to being able to detain him.

MR STANDER: It is a fact that the witness had already confirmed this in answer to a question you put to him.  The intention of my question is to see what the instruction was because if it was simply to injure the person so that he could be arrested, then it would have been a completely different intention than to kill him.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Motsamai, what were the instructions?  You said Mr Mamome came in hurriedly at about 12 o'clock in the morning and then he said that - in the afternoon, I'm sorry - 17 hour yes, he came in hurriedly and said that you people should go and bring Makhubalo etc.   I don't want to go on reading my notes to you because I want you to be original on this aspect.  What were the instructions?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: The instructions was that Oupa Makhubalo should be brought to the office so that he should be tortured there under that case or he must be shot - there was a reason.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: What did you understand - yes, that's what - you exactly used that word in your evidence in chief, that he'd be shot but what did you understand by being shot?  Can you tell us because here we're not sure as regards the purposes of shooting him?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: There was no full evidence as to whether he'll be related to the case of the murder of a certain boy who was killed - that he was an informer.  Oupa Makhubalo was the Chairperson in that meeting which was held when that person was murdered.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Can I ask you in this way, were you to shoot him for the purpose of affecting the arrest, in other words to injure him so that you should arrest him or in shooting him were you to actually kill him - shoot him for the purpose of killing him?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: It was with the intention to shoot to kill.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: There you are Mr Stander.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Just tell me why was it so urgent?  I understand from the evidence that Mr Mamome came to you in some haste.  Why was it so urgent to do this quickly?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That was the instruction from Shaw because the informer have already phoned to them and he was called so that he must know that person was in a certain area, that is why he had to hurry to our place.

CHAIRPERSON: When was this young man killed, how long before?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: It's a very long time ago, around the '80's.

CHAIRPERSON: No, how long was it, was it on the same day or the day before the shooting of - you were ordered to go and find Oupa Makhubalo?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is days after that incident when we were at Makhubalo's place.

CHAIRPERSON: That was days after the shooting of the informer - I think his name was Kozi.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: He was killed by the students who were members of COSAS.

ADV MEMANI: I think the witness added that she was not shot at.

MR STANDER: Do you know anyone called Jim - Geoffrey Mabulo?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Jeff?

MR STANDER: Jeff?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Yes, I know him.

MR STANDER: Unfortunately, and I apologize for this, item 13 on my list is spelt as Jeff Malulo, it should be Jeff Mabulo.
	Is it correct that this person was also connected with Mr George Musi for whom an application had been made?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Yes, but I only heard that afterwards or later on.

MR STANDER: So you agree that it is the case?  I'm asking you just to establish the fact that he was also a victim.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: In what sense was he a victim?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: He was threatened in most cases that he's having a relationship with comrades - they were trained to recruit him.

MR STANDER: Is it also true that he never agreed to this?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is true.

MR STANDER: One last aspect, was Mr Shadrack Oliphant ever a police informer?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: No, Sir.

MR STANDER: Thank you, no further questions regarding this evidence.  I want to put it on record that there might be further instructions and I will ask the Committee's permission to put a further two or three questions if I should be so instructed.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Stander, this last person that you mentioned Jeff Mabulo, on which grounds must we recommend him as a victim?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman with respect, if I can refer you to the Act.

ADV DE JAGER: If he was a dependent and his father was murdered, then one could understand that he would be a victim but the fact of my uncle being murdered or my cousin or niece may be related to each other but I'm not a victim in the sense that the Act intends.

MR STANDER: If you'll just grant me a moment so I can inform myself.

ADV DE JAGER: If you have further evidence that this person had suffered loss in some way or another ...[intervention]

MR STANDER: On page - volume B, page 116, there is a statement by Geoffrey Mabulo.  It was taken down in the investigation - in the inquest into the death of Mr Mabulo.  I think the witness also added that this person had been detained and attempts had been made to persuade him to become an informer, a so-called informer.   Is it necessary to address you anymore about this?

ADV DE JAGER: For me, I'm not convinced there is evidence in front of us that I can recommend him as a victim.

MR STANDER: I will try by means of evidence to indicate - perhaps you can give an opportunity ...[intervention[

ADV DE JAGER: The easiest would be if he would fill in a form and send it to the Reparations Committee so that they could consider it on the basis of the facts and they would have more facts.  And there's also the other way of being declared a victim, we can make recommendations and they will consider it anew.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, isn't it perhaps that you expect him to be a victim insofar as the house of George Musi is concerned and you are forgetting the evidence that he was harassed or threatened by the police because of his association with comrades, wouldn't that make him a victim?

ADV DE JAGER: But I think in this case you should follow the other route.  I don't think this is the forum for dealing with his case.

STANDER: May I just put one or two questions to this witness which may be of some help to us?  May I continue?
	Mr Motsamai, Mr Mabulo - tell us what you know about this person, if he'd been intimidated, you must also please indicate it to us.