Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-29

MR STANDER: I am sorry, I forgot to tell you that. He went to a mental hospital and he underwent that type of treatment because of the assault on his head. The Lekiklane women, they are also part of item 6.15. Shortly, they testified that they were assaulted physically, exercises done, they were hit with electrical wires, and they also identified Mr Motsamai, Mamome, Ngo and Erasmus and, to a lesser degree, Mr Kopi, they implicate them in their assaults. One of them said she did not do exercises because she was wearing a dress. I think that was Doreen Lekitlane. Yes, that is correct. I stand to be corrected in that respect.
	The fact of the matter is that those three ladies were seriously assaulted and in spite of the fact that they were women, I think that the members of the Security Branch did not care about their sex, etc.
	I think this matter of Annie Phalane can be associated with that. She was hit with an open hand, she saw Ngo and Motsamai there but according to her the person who do most of the torturing was Mr Du Plooy. 
	She was detained for a period and she tell us that she received no medical treatment, there as no medical treatment available after that incident where they sustained the injuries. And important, according to me, she also denies that Mr Erasmus would come to Glen police station to do a kind of inspection there.
	Mr Chairman, the matter of Mr Jwayi - he was a member of the group of 19, 6.15 - he identifies Mr Ngo and Motsamai, but he says the person who assaulted him was a certain Mr Killian. He identified particularly Mr Killian. He said that he was detained afterwards, but he also was assaulted with the fist, hit with an open hand and they swore at him. He also, I mean, is a victim of the actions of the Security Police and specifically the common action of all of them.
	Mr Chairman, Serame Molefe, you will remember that he testified how he after he had come back from Robben Island was harassed because of Mr Motsamai's actions, lost his job ...[intervention].

MRADV DE JAGER: Mr Stander, you don't have dates when he came back from Robben Island? Do you have a date?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I will get instructions from him, I can't remember it offhand. Just give me and I'll find out; he is here.

MRADV DE JAGER: I have a note saying: "During 1994 I was a member of the PAC and returned from Robben Island".

MR STANDER: That is what I remember, but I will get the precise date.
	After his return from Robben Island he first worked at a certain institution, I think it was Coca Cola, no it was Metro - that was the first place - and as the result of the information which Motsamai conveyed, they discriminated against him and he lost his job. Then he started working for Coca Cola and precisely the same thing happened, and he also lost his job there. According to him he applied for jobs at various other places but every time when a reference was made to Coca Cola or Metro he did not get the job. It was refused and he says it was based on the activities of ...[intervention]

MRADV DE JAGER: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I didn't catch which item on the pre-trial conference my learned friend is referring to.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I am indebted to my learned friend. While presenting this evidence we put it under item 13 on page 148 of bundle A, and it is based on that, that the Commission allowed that evidence. I agree that it does not resort per se under the so-called incidents in the pre-consultations but I think we can put it under item 13 on page 148 of Mr Motsamai's application.
	Mr Chairman, this brings me to Mr White Mohape. I want to start by saying that he made a very valuable contribution to these proceedings. He was very certain of all the facts, he was convincing in telling all the sorrow which he sustained, and I also think that in all respects we can believe what he told us. Mr Chairman, his matter will be found under 2.2 in the pre-trial matters. 
	According to me it is so that Mr White Mohape gave us a detailed statement on what had happened to him, from the beginning to the end. He told us that he was detained, firstly because of the fact that there was an alleged accusation against him, namely that he had tried to commit murder, you remember the knife incident that he was found not guilty and was acquitted. And then on the 27 April 1984 while he was being detained at the Bayswater police station - and immediately I want to interrupt myself by saying that Mr Mohape was not certain about the specific date when those things took place regarding the year.

MRADV DE JAGER: Can you give us the dates of the attempted murder on Mr Ngo so that we can have the precise dates of those matters?

MR STANDER: I am sorry, that date I think was somewhere in November, but I am sorry, it must have been in 1984 but I am speaking under correction. I can't remember. I can't provide those dates. I am sorry, perhaps one of my learned colleagues could assist you in that regard. It seems to me they are not assisting me, so the date we will try and determine from previous records. I think, however, that it had to be in 1984 that that happened because shortly afterwards Mr Ngo, in any case, went to Ladybrand, but I stand to be corrected. I can't give the precise dates.
	Mr Chairman, it is very clear what I was saying is namely that I agree that Mr Mohape was uncertain about his dates. I think it was one of the Committee members - I think it was you, Mr De Jager - who asked him to give us the chronological dates and then him changed them round, turned them round. After I questioned him and you questioned him, he changed those dates. At a later stage I conceded that it did happen on 27 April 1984, while I think he mentioned 1986.

MRADV DE JAGER: We are ad idem; he and Mr Ngo were still at school. I mean he said 1984 while he was arrested he was still in std. 8, at the Lerikuld High School in Bloemfontein. I am talking about Mr Mohape.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, he tells us that two unknown people assaulted him there, that they used hammers and also crowbars in attacking him, and more people joined them but he could not identify any of those. According to him those assaulters purposely tried to hide their identity by pulling balaclavas over their heads.

CHAIRPERSON: That was not when they first came - the two people first came to him, There was no attempt to hide their identity, was there?

MR STANDER: That is correct, he said, but at that stage when he was arrested, when he had the opportunity, they were wearing balaclavas, but the balaclavas were pulled up above their eyes. If I remember his evidence correctly, he did not try to identify them but accordingly to him, earlier that day he was informed that Security Police would take him to his house. As it usually happened, when he was arrested every time they took him back to his house afterwards and, based on that, he did not deem it necessary because the people were discussing things with him; the discussions were usually held by Security Police.

MRADV DE JAGER: The problem is that as far as I can remember, there is no testimony that before 1984, before he was in std. 8, that he had been arrested beforehand.