Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — UNKNOWN

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I make something clear here, and that is something that we would have rather left for the Amnesty Hearings of both these applicants.  Col Loots did in the one application for amnesty, refer to Capt Bokaba as having been present, subsequently, and that will be the evidence that subsequently he spoke to Capt Bokaba. Capt Bokaba told him that he was not present at that incident. Col Loots wasn't hundred per cent sure if Bokaba was present at the incident, and the intention is, when Col Loots gives evidence about that specific incident that that was the case.  And in all probability Capt Bokaba was not present and that he will accept the explanation from Capt Bokaba that he was not present, and that the reference in his application to Capt Bokaba was a mistaken reference.  Now Mr Chairman, clearly this creates a lot of difficulties to go into these proceedings now. We would rather have left that for the amnesty applications of Capt Bokaba and Col Loots, and to explain that to you. I am trying to put that as shortly as possible, and I would request the Committee, Mr Chairman, that we don't go into too much detail about the amnesty application for these two people.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think the question is based, as I understood Col Loots' evidence, that he did implicate Bokaba.  He didn't give the explanation which you have just given, that he may have been mistaken.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, he said - the question was that he implicate him and he said in his application he did implicate him, Mr Chairman. Obviously it was not necessary for him to go into detail of explaining that he discussed it with Bokaba and that Bokaba said that he wasn't present and that he will give evidence at the hearing, et cetera, et cetera. And Mr Chairman, this indicates the problems that can occur with going into details of amnesty applicants' applications, because this may reflect now at the end of the day upon Col Loots and it is utterly unfair.

CHAIRPERSON: It indicates also the difficulty in trying to get at the truth as to what happened, and counsel is now trying to find out just how much, how active this witness was and how much he knew about what was going on, as I understand the purpose of the questioning.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I don't have a problem with that, Mr Chairman. I had to now explain to you now what the situation is.  So that I can place that on record, because there is that specific problem which we didn't want to go into at this hearing, but I have to make it clear at this stage, because the question that was put to Capt Bokaba was obviously in the light of that is a difficult question to answer.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MR BRINK: I don't see Mr Memani here, I am sorry about that.  I spoke to him earlier but I haven't seen him since the Committee adjourned.

CHAIRPERSON: We took the short adjournment at 11:15, this is now 22 minutes to 12.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may we presume that the cross-examination is finished?
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: What have you got to say for yourself, Mr Memani?

ADV MEMANI: I beg your pardon, M'Lord?

CHAIRPERSON: What have you got to say for yourself?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I was taking instructions and I overlooked time. I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't have the courtesy to tell us you were taking instructions, to request that we delay starting?  You just ignored the fact that we were taking a short adjournment and we are coming back, because you were taking instructions. Is that what you have to say?

ADV MEMANI: No, I just, it was just by oversight that I didn't intend to exceed the break.

CHAIRPERSON: I trust you don't do it again.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

CAPT BOKABA: (Still under oath).

ADV MEMANI: (cont)
	Now Mr Bokaba, I was saying to you that you worked with Loots and you told us that you worked under his direct command, and you must therefore have had a vague knowledge of what he was doing at work.  Do you want to disagree with me on that?

CAPT BOKABA: I request you to explain for me what you mean when you say I had a direct or rather a vague knowledge of Loots' activities? I ask this very humbly.

ADV MEMANI: Look here, if you work with a person, you will be able to tell us that you know what he used to do at work.

CAPT BOKABA: Let me explain to you this way. I would always see him in his office.  Mostly he would do administrative duties, attending meetings, that is what I know about him.

ADV MEMANI: Now why did we have to take 10 minutes to get that answer?

CAPT BOKABA: You were asking about the incidents in KwaNdebele.  Now how was I supposed to respond to that?

ADV MEMANI: No, you brought KwaNdebele in. I told you, I said to you that you must have known, you must have a big idea of the activities of Loots.

CAPT BOKABA: It is you who referred to KwaNdebele. I didn't do that, with respect.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I had understood that Mr Memani had put it that way.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay.  Could we carry on, could you ask the next question instead of arguing about the answers now, and perhaps we could make progress if we get back to the real issues.

ADV MEMANI: And you must have known that he attended certain meetings at Mamelodi, if he did attend meetings at Mamelodi?

CAPT BOKABA: I know nothing of meetings held in Mamelodi.

ADV MEMANI: Now if Capt Loots, or you said he was a colonel. If Col Loots had been attending meetings at Mamelodi during that time, you would have known about those meetings?

CAPT BOKABA: It was not a must that I know of this meetings.

ADV MEMANI: But you were the persons who worked in Mamelodi in the main.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood it they worked in Mamelodi, getting information from informers.  Talking to people in the township.  Gathering information.  Is that not as you understand the evidence, was that not the evidence of your client?

ADV MEMANI: That is exactly what ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Why would they then know what was happening at meetings at offices?  They were in the field, they were field workers, weren't they?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, what I am saying is that we have known that Loots was attending meetings at Mamelodi.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would they, if they were out in the field gathering information, why would they know if Loots had come there to a meeting?

ADV MEMANI: Because Loots would have to get information from them and he would have to give them certain instructions out of events that took place at meetings. They were the people operating there.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Maybe, Mr Memani, what you wanted to say, was to find out from the witness whether he would have known if Col Loots attended GOS meetings.

ADV MEMANI: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: At least in that regard be specific, instead of saying meetings, because once you say whether Loots attended meetings, in Mamelodi, it could be all sorts of meetings in Mamelodi, it is quite broad.  Perhaps be specific in that regard.

CAPT BOKABA: As the Member pleases. Now Mr Bokaba, if Loots attended meetings, GOS meetings at Mamelodi, you would have known that he was attending such meetings.

CAPT BOKABA: I was not supposed to know such meetings and I would not know of such meetings.  Let me explain this to the Committee.  I would come in the morning at about seven o'clock.  We go for a conference.  Then - with Col Loots.  At half-past seven we are finished.  Then each one of us takes a vehicle in the location. After you have finished your administrative duties, you go to your own respective field, you see and contact your sources.  It was not necessary that Col Loots would explain to us that he is going to Mamelodi or he is going to a meeting.  We would not know.

ADV MEMANI: But you and Selahla were the persons who by virtue of your colour did the most work of gathering information for Loots in the township.