Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-10

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: From page 29 of bundle B, from page 29 up till to the page where I signed this affidavit, it should be page 31, there is nothing of the truth contained in here.  The truth, the whole truth is what I stated here.

MR VISSER: I see.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Motsamai, the first paragraph three, sub-paragraph one,
"During 1986 I was at the security branch in Bloemfontein".
Are you now telling me that is not the truth?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: This person here is playing with words here.  Seemingly he is a good writer.  At that time I was there, I was in Bloemfontein.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Motsamai, is that correct  ... (intervention).

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is because ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: ... or is it not correct?  Is it the truth or not the truth?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, why did you tell us just now nothing is the truth?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I do not know how many times must I repeat this.  This person is intelligent and he expresses it on paper.  He wants to force upon me, I agree that there are some facts that are correct here, when I started joining the police force.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, could you kindly tell us which facts are correct and which facts are not correct and do not start playing with words like they did.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I will pick them one by one.  The very first one on paragraph three.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You see, Mr Motsamai, for my part I perfectly understand why you say. You seem to look at this affidavit and the whole of it within the context of allegations against Mr Ngo and you just should, from the point of view, that you disagree with whatever stands on page 29 to 31.  I think you must read sentence by sentence if you are asked whether you agree, for example, with what stands on page 29.  For a minute just forget about your troubles with allegations relating to Ngo.  Just look at what you are being asked and is written in Afrikaans.  If you do not understand a particular paragraph, you must ask for interpretation.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I understand, Sir.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Paragraph one.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Paragraph two.  Read it and tell us whether there was, there is any truth in it.  Is that the truth?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct, Sir.  That is the truth.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Paragraph three.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think three you must do by sub-paragraphs, because three is over a page long.  Paragraph three, the first sentence, is that true?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: No, Sir, at the very top, the very first sentence of paragraph three.  That ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: The one that says you studied the application, you have told us that is not correct already.  Do you still say that is not correct, that you did not, yourself, study the application and reasons which follow, deny the allegations where you are implicated?  Is that not, is that correct or not correct?  Had you, yourself, studied Ngo's application?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Yes, I did.  I did read it.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Visser, would you not, because the, a problem always arises when, and I am not blaming you, because the witness also made a global statement, a problem always arises when a witness is asked what is, typically referred to as a pregnant question, in relation to a document and say, well, does this book contain the truth, and if there are a few pages involved and the witness says, well, it does contain the truth or it does not contain the truth, usually problems arise.  Of course, the best way to deal with it would be to take sentence by sentence.  It is laborious, but sometimes, particularly, when the contents of an affidavit are in dispute, it is the safest way to deal with it.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may we say, with respect, that we are in full agreement with Justice Ngoepe.  You, we are asking you, please, to understand that we are attempting to save time and, I think, in the process, perhaps, I am wasting more time than saving time.  Please bear with me, Mr Chairman, we did intend to go through it sentence by sentence and it seems that that would be the only reasonable way to do it.  The Chair just asked you about whether you studied the application of Mr Ngo and you said you did read it.  The next question is did you tell Mr Wagenaar that you deny the allegations of Mr Ngo in so far as he implicates you in his application?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Okay.  I never said that I deny those allegations.  Hence, I posed a question that why can we not come before the TRC.  Every one of us must come here and account.  That is how I stated it.

MR VISSER: You then went on to tell us, just a moment ago, that paragraphs (i) and (ii) are correct.  Did I understand you correctly?  Those facts are true?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Right, that is correct, but at, in the paragraph right at the top there,
"... ontken ek die beveerings waar ek geintereseer word en openeer ek die aansoek ..."
Right.  
"... ontken ek die beveerings ...",
It was supposed to have been 3.1 corresponding with that I deny what is stated in here.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I do not think we understand what you are saying.  Maybe if Mr Visser understands you better, but I will tell you what.  I think what we are doing now is simply to ask you whether, Mr Visser, are you, is the question whether what stands there came from him or whether it is the truth?

MR VISSER: The last question was simply this.  He has already told us that paragraphs three, (i) and (ii) are the correct facts.  That is all I asked him.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Asking him is whether what we are reading is the truth?

MR VISSER: Yes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You see, if, as far as possible, just try to be brief and just tell us whether what is being read to you is true or not true.  Forget about the grammatical arrangements of paragraphs or otherwise or sentences.  I think they are going to read you sentence by sentence.  All we want to know from you, very briefly, is whether that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I come in here?  I think, from what I heard said, and I do not think it was all interpreted, that you were saying, Mr Motsamai, that you did not say that you opposed the application. that that is not true.  Did you say that a few minutes ago?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Which application are you referring to?  This one?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that you did not say that you opposed Ngo's application.  You told us what you said is why can we not all come before the TRC.  Did I mishear you?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct, that is what I stated.

MR VISSER: All right, Mr Ngo, can we turn to page two please, page 30, top of the page.

ADV DE JAGER: Paragraph three, sub-paragraph two.

CHAIRPERSON: He said he has agreed.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay.

MR VISSER: If we can go to page 30, paragraph (iii).  Do you understand Afrikaans well enough to read it for yourself and tell us whether it is correct or wrong?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: All right.  Are you saying that the contents of paragraph (iii) is correct?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you.  The next paragraph, (iv).

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: It is a bit wrong.  Let me say that is incorrect.  Where it is correct is where the years are stated.

MR VISSER: Well, perhaps, just tell us what the correct facts are.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That he joined the SAP. I knew him from 1985 to 1988 and this other one is correct.  That I met him, I do not agree.  Well, I will explain later as we continue.  That is correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what you are telling us.  What is not correct here?