Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-10

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ... and my impression so far has been that, I may be wrong, but my impression so far has been that that is not being done, because there were instances where I would have thought that the attorney would have drawn your attention to that.

ADV MEMANI: As your Lordship pleases.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, it, thank you, Mr Chairman.  For somebody who is not conversant in the Black language, it is a relief to know that there is somebody that is checking the evidence.  So, well, let us go on, Mr Motsamai, and try to finish this year.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: While you are, why would you have killed anybody you found in the house?  I mean, I am referring to the third person.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That would be to stop he, that person giving evidence against us.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I want you to listen carefully.  Are you saying that if somebody saw you there at that house, you were instructed to shoot him to prevent such person from identifying you?  Is that the evidence or is it something different that you are saying?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is not the evidence there and that is also not the command we received, but I knew that they would stand by our side if we would find a third person there, the very one we were not commanded to kill.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Motsamai, I just wanted to clear up the fact that you never got such an instruction and you have cleared that up.  Let us just emphasise one fact here.  Is it correct to say that in not one single one of the incidents for which you apply for amnesty, you apply on a basis that you acted with a political objective, the basis of your applications being that you were instructed to do so and, as a member of the police, you had to obey orders.  Am I correct?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Yes, I was supposed to receive commands from my officers.

MR VISSER: Is it also your evidence that you when you were given a command, you were told by either Coetzee or Shaw or Shaw or whoever, what the background was as to why this command was given to you.  Do I understand your evidence correctly?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I would be given a command only.  I can make an example here.

MR VISSER: Would you like to give the example?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: This was an instruction I received from the office to go to Ladybrand. When I arrived there I found Jantjie who received an instructions that we must go to Lesotho, there is a person who we are going to shoot there.  We went to Lesotho.  Luckily that MK man escaped before we reached him.  That was the instruction.  There are a lot of instructions I received.

MR VISSER: So, why are you telling us this, Mr Motsamai?  Are you telling us this because you want to tell the Committee that you are also, you were also involved in an attempted murder on somebody in Lesotho?  Is that ... (intervention).
MR MEMANI OBJECTS

ADV MEMANI: Objection, Mr Chairman, the witness is answering the question.  He is saying that I was not told reasons.  For instance, I was sent to Lesotho, I went there without knowing the reason.

CHAIRPERSON: He said we had to go there and shoot someone.

ADV MEMANI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood his evidence, he said Jantjies said we had instructions to go to Lesotho to shoot someone and we went there, but luckily he had left before we got there.  Is that not what he said?

ADV MEMANI: That is what he said, but what I am objecting to is the insinuation that he is not answering the question.  He is saying I did go to Lesotho without giving, without being told what I was, what the reason for the instruction was.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and what Mr Visser was putting to him is are you now saying that it was an attempted murder.  You are now telling us that you had committed an attempted murder there and that is when you objected.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, what Mr, what I am objecting to is Mr Visser insinuating that the answer is not justified and I am saying that the answer that the witness is giving is justified.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, what were you saying?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, he was giving an example and I was saying to him is the relevance of this evidence to tell the Committee that you were also involved in another incident of attempted murder, because otherwise than that I fail to see the relevance, Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: And I am saying that it is relevant.  It is an answer to the question.  He is giving an example.  That it happens that is an MK person who was sought to be killed, does not detract from the fact that he is answering the question.

MR VISSER: And that is a matter for argument and I am not taking it any further, Mr Chairman.  My learned friend might be right at the end of your day, in your opinion, or I might be right, but it is not the time and the place to argue about that.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, when you asked me about interpretation I should have made this important qualification that I am not listening the interpretation from English into the witnesses language, because it is virtually impossible to, I am listening from the witnesses answer into English and it is impossible to do both and, perhaps, that could be an important linkage as well, but I just wanted to mention that for the record.

MR VISSER: Well, that is very upsetting to hear, Mr Chairman, because one would like to be fair to everybody, especially the witness, and, perhaps, one might suggest that if his attorney or and/or counsel wishes to, wish to help him or assist him that they might do the other part, as I think you suggested earlier, because I am afraid I cannot be of any assistance in that regard.  Well, Mr Motsamai, if you hear a question that does not make sense to you, would you please alert it to us, as to it so that we can repeat the question?
	May I now, quickly, try to come, before teatime, to the actual event.  You arrive at this house, you go in through the little gate, that is the front gate, is it not?  Am I right so far?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You go around to the back door where you knock on the door?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And eventually the door is opened by George Musi?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Mamome then grabs him around his neck and they, apparently, move inside the house.  Am I correct?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: No, there is one fact that you omitted.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Where he grabbed him by the hand and pulled him.

MR VISSER: Where did he pull him to?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That old man opened the door.  He grabbed him by the hand and pulled him outside.  I explained that yesterday.

MR VISSER: Did he pull him outside the house?  Did Mamome pull the ... (intervention).

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: He wanted to pull him outside.  The old man grabbed by the door as he pressed him by the door.

MR VISSER: All right.  And where did you then shoot him?  Outside the house or inside the house?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Inside the house.

MR VISSER: All right.  Was the old man shouting for help when he realised that he is being attacked?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I stated that.

MR VISSER: Just answer the questions, Mr Motsamai.  Was  ... (intervention).
MR MEMANI OBJECTS

ADV MEMANI: The question has been answered, I stated that.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that is not a reply to the question and my learned friend ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Does it not mean that is what I said, that he shouted for help.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, all right, I am not going to argue about that, but that is typical of an evasive witness, but let us continue.  Was he shouting in a loud voice?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Were you concerned that the neighbours might hear him?