Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-10

CHAIRPERSON: But they are going to say as I understand it, that they know nothing about these things, they have nothing to do with them and they gave no instructions.
	They are not going to say anything about these incidents, as I understand it.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, he has given you affidavits of each and every witness.  I presume they will stick to their affidavits.

ADV MEMANI: That is not necessarily so.  For instance we've heard about sisters-in-law who are going to say they attacked them.  We've heard about Gosi's ritual murder and so on.

ADV DE JAGER: I think it is not disputed some of those, and as far as it is not disputed, your client agreed with it, so why should we hear further evidence about it if it is common cause?

ADV MEMANI: I am not inviting further evidence on these things, what I am saying is if  Mamome is going to say for instance that I was in Durban on leave on a particular day, that type of thing must be put and but if however, he is only going to say I was not involved, then that is the end of it and we are not entitled to more.  This is what I just seek to have clarified.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Unless I am missing something, it sounds a little bit more like Mr Memani you would prefer Mr Visser presented his case in a certain way and don't you think it should be left to him to present his case the way that he wants to do. If he does it in such a way that we are likely not to believe what his clients are saying, that should be his problem.
	I don't quite understand what this problem is all about.

ADV MEMANI: What I was saying Mr Chairman, is that if I wanted to understand whether we should expect people to come and say more than has been put to Mr Motsamai or is it what he is saying that the people are only going to deny their involvement and no more and in that case, I am saying that we have a bad denial type of situation.
	They won't be entitled to say more than I was not there and if he wishes to say more than, if he anticipates that they are going to say more than I was not there, then he must put that to Mr Motsamai.

CHAIRPERSON: Why must he put it to him, if the witness is going to come and say I was in Switzerland at the time, here is my passport, why must it be put to this witness?

ADV MEMANI: This witness must be given the opportunity to say you are lying, this is a falsification.  I was with you and produce a ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He mustn't, you get the opportunity to cross-examine the man when he does it.  That is your function.  It is for you to put to the man that it is a falsification.  You can get instructions from your client, but you don't have to put everything to your client.

ADV MEMANI: But surely Mr Chairman, I am giving examples, I am not saying that you know, he must do it, but if that is going to happen, if they are going to give more evidence than has been put to the witness, then you know, the problem ... (intervention)

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Memani, sorry, sorry Mr Chairman, this is what I have been saying.  What happens in a case where somebody fails to put his version to a witness and then later he calls that witness, you would not be able to stop that person.  All that you could do would be to say to that witness, you would be saying to Mr Visser's witness, why was this not put to the applicant?
	By so doing, you would be causing us to doubt the (indistinct) of that evidence, but you would be entitled to say but why was this not put to my client and that is the risk which Mr Visser would be running at worst, and if he wants to run that risk, then so be it.
	You can't say that we must force him to put certain things to us.  If he doesn't want to put them, he doesn't want to.  Maybe it is because he is quite satisfied that he has put what he has got to put fully what he has got to put.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, this is becoming a matter which, with great respect, should best be dealt with in chambers.  Can I suggest we take a short adjournment so that - can we go on Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we continue.  The objection was overruled.  It is not an objection, he cannot call on you to put questions.  It may be of great advantage to his client that Mr Memani can argue at the end this was never put to the applicant.  He might well have been (indistinct) with it.
	If you elect not to put things, on your head be it, carry on.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  But perhaps in a collegial spirit Mr Chairman, the issue that concerns my learned friend, Mr Memani, about whether my clients could have been present on account of they may have been on another place, has only one application, in fact two.
	The one was Erasmus in the Venter case, who said I was on leave in February.  There is one more thing, and I may as well put it right now and get it behind us, because it is a very short statement, it is out of context where I am at the moment, but it is a short statement.
	You remember that you gave evidence that Mr Morakile was present and participated in the attack on - what was it now - I am sorry Mr Chairman, I don't find it in that page 146, could I just perhaps quickly take instructions and get this behind us Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at B, page 10, it says that he  has implicated by Motsamai in a petrol bomb attack on the house of Bholosha, petrol bomb on the house of Nicos and on the parish church.

MR VISSER: I am indebted to you Mr Chairman.  The only point I wish to make and put to you as a fact in regard to Mr Morakile, is that he was in fact up to 1989 not part of the Security Branch in Bloemfontein, but was in fact a member of the anti-theft, the Stop Theft Unit at Wepener.  Do you have any comment on that?  I am sorry, until June 1986, I am sorry my date was wrong.  Until June 1986 and then he joined the Security Branch in Bloemfontein.  For what that is worth, I am putting it to you.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I would not have the knowledge  about his transfer from Stop Theft, I explained that he was present and he came with Sergeant Mamome.  Then about when Nicos' house was bombed, I don't remember well.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you, I rather suspected that would be your answer.  Let's get back then to the matter in hand.  Now, I am not going to ask you any questions about Sehope as well as Bholosha, let's move on to the parish house.
	You gave evidence yesterday about something very interesting.  You said that Mamome wrote a letter to the priest and you went at night with Mamome, to deliver it to the priest, do you remember that?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What was that about, do you know?  What was in the letter?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I don't know the contents of that letter.  I explained that I did not know the contents of that letter, but I was with him when he handed over the letter to the minister.

MR VISSER: Yes, you see Mr Mamome also knows nothing about this, that is why I am asking you.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: He must say that and all of them must say that because he himself was the one who was writing pamphlets, then they would be typed and then we would go at night and when we discredited the political organisations like COSAS and others, then we would distribute them in the townships.

CHAIRPERSON: This is somewhat different from pamphlets in the townships, this was a letter addressed to and apparently on your evidence, handed to the priest by you and Mamome.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will take it no further, that is the obvious answer.

ADV MEMANI: Just in case it may be important My Lord, it was not actually handed to him, it was pushed under the door.

MR VISSER: Who says that Mr Chairman, does Mr Memani give evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Has that appeared in the evidence?

ADV MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chairman.