Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-29

ADV MEMANI: That is correct, Mr Chairman. He gave an account of how Mr Musi was shot. He told us that he fired one shot at the head of the deceased. That is corroborated by the inquest, the post mortem report. There is an injury in substantially the area where Mr Motsamai alleges that he would have aimed at when shooting Mr Musi.
	The question then that arises is, why would Motsamai fabricate his involvement in this incident? Mr Chairman, there does not seem to be any logical reason why he would fabricate this incident and be correct in his description of the incident. Besides the inquest report, the post mortem report, he is corroborated by Etito who suggests that he was playing top in the home opposite and he heard screams, and he saw a person run away and thereafter saw flames. That accords with the evidence of Mr Motsamai that he was there with Mamome, he shot at the person and he, Motsamai, poured petrol and Mamome set the corpse alight.
	Mr Chairman, we have to draw an adverse inference against Mamome because he denies working ...[intervention]

MR STANDER: But Tito said there was only one person.

ADV MEMANI: Tito said he saw a person; he did not say there was only one person, and he does not know why he did not see the second person.
	Mr Chairman, I also want to then say that it is improbable that a policeman would have been sent out alone to go and kill someone. What Mamome has said must not be believed. First he denies every working with Motsamai; he denies belonging to any club with Motsamai, and at the same time he says he has no differences with Motsamai. And Motsamai himself is not motivated by any malice in implicating Mamome.
	Mr Chairman, the probability that he would have been instructed by Coetzee is strong. Oliphant is in detention when Mr Musi is killed, but whilst he is in detention members of the Security Branch approach him and say, 'yes, you killed your uncle'. Later on he is released from detention, he is ten ostracised by him family because it is believed that he killed his uncle.
	The killing of George Musi occurs after people who were using his house as a safe house, are detained, attempting to skip the country.
	Mr Chairman, I then wish to deal with the application regarding Nicos. All the policemen who testified here, testified that they knew Nicos; they used to go to his night-club just to enjoy drinks. They never had anything to do with him that was work related. On the other hand, Mr Chairman, Mr Motsamai tells us that, 'no, amongst other things I and harassed Nicos'. Perhaps a better word would have been 'to monitor'. At the same time he says that, 'I harassed Serame Molefe'. 	There is a connection between Molefe and Nicos. Serame Molefi was employed by Nicos after he had been to Robben Island. Mr Chairman, it is common knowledge that the police monitored people who had just been released from prison for politically related offences. Therefore, it is probable that they would have followed Molefi and too they would have wanted to know what it is that they shared with Nicos that would have made Nicos employ Serame. Serame told us - I am sorry that I keep on referring to him by his first name - Mr Molefi told us that he was followed; every time when he got employment the police went there and spoiled things, and every time he was dismissed.
	There was no attempt at all when evidence was led to deny that these things did happen to Mr Molefi and therefore his evidence stands. Insofar as Nicos is concerned, Mr Molefi tells us that he decorated his shop and his house in colours that resembled the colours of the ANC and/or the PAC. The police were not too happy about that fact.
	Mr Chairman, the police have come and testified here, they have not denied these things, save to make a bad denial that they did not have anything to do with Nicos. But one would have expected them to come and say, 'we did see the painting'. This is not a submission I want to make; what I wish to make is, if Serame were fabricating they would have come and said, 'look, his house was not painted in such a way', and would have had nothing to do with it. They would also come to say, 'look, even if the house had been painted in ANC or PAC colours, it would not have mattered to us; this man is lying'. So his evidence, in my submission, on that aspect stands.
	He further told us that Nicos used to help comrades - that is now Motsamai, Mr Chairman. He used to help comrades at their funeral.

MR STANDER: But he also gave a room to a Security policeman.

ADV MEMANI: That is indeed so, Mr Chairman, but that does not mean that he did not help comrades.

MR STANDER: I would find it strange that with the Security policeman on the premises, comrades would feel safe at his house.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, you will recall that we were told that we were told that he was a courier, he was a person operating underground. We were told, again Mr Motsamai, that such people were not overtly associating with political activists, and the police had difficulty dealing with them.
	Now it might have been again part of the misleading of the police to allow a member of the Security police to live with him. In any event, we do not know why the policeman lived there and how Mr Nicos felt about it. But the fact of the matter is that evidence was further led that he assisted in bringing Chris Hani into the country when he came in 1990.
Now, Mr Chairman, it is not material that it was after 1990, what is material is that it shows you that Nicos was someone who cooperated with the ANC, and there would have been a reason for the police to have something to do with Nicos, and that would have provided a motive for the instruction that his shop should be bombed.
	Mr Chairman, we must also draw an adverse inference against the policemen insofar as their denial of knowing about this incident is concerned, for the fact that despite that there are also these indications that the Security Branch could have had an interest in Nicos, they have denied that they had an interest in Nicos. Too, they tried to explain the Nicos incident by suggesting to their counsel that Nicos's shop was bombed because of the death of the child. None of them came and led that evidence, Mr Chairman, not a single one, and it did not become clear where Mr Visser got those instructions, but it is obvious, Mr Visser doesn't live here, he is a lawyer and we have confidence in him. He must have got these things from his clients.
	When it was put to Mamome that the incident regarding the child was not pursued because it appeared that the child had been killed by another child, he conceded that.
	Mr Chairman, I now wish to address you on the Bloemfontein 19 incident; this is the incident of 6 April 1986. All I wish to say here is that the probability is that there were assaults which took place; those assaults took place with the knowledge and under the instruction of superiors and all the persons implicated by both Ngo and Motsamai. These persons all participated in the manner described by Motsamai and Ngo.
	I now wish to deal with the following matters all at once: the shooting of Mzuzwana when he was cleaning Winnie's house ...[intervention]

MR STANDER: That is item 6.8, the numbers?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct.

MR STANDER: Will you kindly read out the numbers you are dealing with?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I was not following the pre hearing and it is going to be a kind of waste of time if I go back to it now ...[intervention]

MR STANDER: The trouble is, Mr Memani, I have requested you to do so, that is why a copy was made for you to assist us. But if you consider it a waste of time, please continue your way.