Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-10

MR BRINK: Sorry, Mr Chair, I wonder in so far as sub-paragraph seven is concerned, Max Maraboela, I think there was, that was the house, if I recollect correctly, of City, City Mzuzwana.

MR VISSER: Well, that is absolutely correct, Mr Chairman, but that has nothing to do, with great respect to my learned friend, to what is written in this affidavit.  Whatever the explanation may be later and whether it is correct or incorrect, it has got nothing to do with what he supposedly told Mr Wagenaar, but thank you, Robin.

MR VISSER: What do you say about paragraph (viii).

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That paragraph, sub-paragraph is false.

MR VISSER: Is false.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I was involved here.

MR VISSER: Now, the question which I now have to ask you,  listen carefully, is did you tell Mr Wagenaar that you were, in fact, involved?  Did you tell him that?  Just yes or no.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: May you repeat your question, Sir?

MR VISSER: Did you tell Mr Wagenaar that you were involved in the attack on the house and clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela at Brandfort?  Yes or did you not tell him that?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I did not tell him.

MR VISSER: Is that whole paragraph (viii), therefore, not the truth?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: As he put it, as it is stated here, to me, this paragraph here is false.

MR VISSER: All right.  Paragraph (ix).  It is short, let me translate it for you.  In that paragraph you have stated that you have knowledge of attacks on the motor vehicles of Jani Mohapi and Elia Mohapi.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: With respect to Jani's motor vehicle, I was involved, but with respect to Elia Mohapi's vehicle, I was not involved.

MR VISSER: All right.  So, we have the first part of that sentence is not the truth.  The second part of that sentence and Elia Mohapi is, in fact - have I got it wrong now? - no, the second part as far as it refers to Elia Mohapi is correct, that is the truth.  You have no knowledge and you were not involved.  So, that is correct.  Then paragraph ... (intervention).

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Just give me a moment, please, before you continue.  Let me answer this again.  I was involved in respect of Jani Mohapi's motor vehicle, but in respect of Jani, Elia Mohapi's motor vehicle, I was not involved.  I do not know that person.  What is his name, the person seated next to him?

MR VISSER: Mr Wagenaar.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Mr Wagenaar took my name out with, in respect to Jani Mohapi and Elia Mohapi.  That is why you get Elia there.

MR VISSER: I see.  So, he was half right and half wrong.  All right.  What about paragraph (x)?  Well, in fairness to you, Mr Motsamai, I think I better put to you what is stated at bundle C, page 12 in this regard.  You see, this deals with item (c) at the bottom of page 12, I am sorry (e).

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Which documents are you referring to?

MR VISSER: Bundle C, page 12, the last paragraph on page 12 and let me just summarise it for you.  That deals with the attack, kidnapping, torture, not kidnapping, torture and eventual killing of a person to whom Mr Ngo refers to as Papie or JJ who had a UDF t-shirt on when he was found, when his body was found.  Now, dealing with that incident, in paragraph (x) of your affidavit, it is stated here that you have no knowledge of the alleged assault and murder of a member of the UDF, the one that I have just referred you to.  Is that the truth or is that false?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is true, I was not involved.  My name was excluded out of this.

MR VISSER: Okay.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I do not say I was involved here.  He excluded my name here.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, Mr Ngo, because I thought I understood your answer until you gave the last bit.

CHAIRPERSON: He is Mr Motsamai.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, I do not understand your last answer.  Will you just repeat that please?  What do you mean, I do not know, Mr Chairman, whether I missed something. I understood him to say that it is correct what is stated there.

CHAIRPERSON: That he is not involved.

MR VISSER: That he is not involved. Then he said something else which appears to suggest that he might have been involved, but ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: No, I think then he said and his name should be excluded there as far as the allegation is concerned.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Now, Mr Motsamai, your application for amnesty is a serious matter, is it not?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And is it not so that you realised full well that when you implicate someone else that is, indeed, also a very serious matter for that person?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes.  And may we assume, Mr Motsamai, that before you would have implicated a person in the serious crime, you would have thought very carefully about it and made quite sure that your memory was correct in doing so?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Let us talk, for a moment, about Mr Ngo.  Did you visit Mr Ngo while he was in prison at any stage?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Are you referring in prison?  Why do you ask me that question?  With, in regards to what did I visit Mr Ngo and I want to ask you at which prison did I visit Mr Ngo?  Explain.

CHAIRPERSON: It is a very simple question, Mr Motsamai.  Did you visit Mr Ngo when he was in prison?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I never visited Mr Ngo whilst he was in prison.

MR VISSER: Well, then, I do not understand the difficulty in your answering the question.  Did you, at any stage, discuss with Mr Ngo the merits of his application for amnesty?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is what you say.  I never did that with Mr Ngo.  That is what you are telling us.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Perhaps, you need to be advised that arguing with counsel, unnecessarily, does not necessarily help your case.  It does not, necessarily, make your case better.  You would help us a lot if you would just concentrate on answering questions and, perhaps, that may shorten your stay in that witness box.  You do not help us, you do not help proceedings by engaging in unnecessary argument with counsel.  If you know your facts, you should have no difficulties in answering simple questions.

MR VISSER: I am indebted to Justice Ngoepe.  Did you see the written application of Mr Ngo at any time?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: No.

MR VISSER: Did you give him your written application to look at or to read at any time?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: There are two questions here.

MR VISSER: Well, answer them both.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I never gave him my application to look at.

MR VISSER: Now, you see, Mr Motsamai, I may be mistaken, but I understood Mr Ngo, in his evidence, to say that you met each other here at the amnesty hearings, here in Bloemfontein, at this very hall earlier this year and that he showed you his application form and you showed him your application form.  Would that be incorrect?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I will say that is incorrect, because your meaning of when a person gives you something to look at will not be the same as you take, give him your documents to look at and read through.  To give your documents to somebody and look and comparing it to reading.  It is not different, you want to force me in believing that I, agreeing that Mr Ngo read through my statement. That is not correct.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Motsamai, and I have no doubt that your counsel attempt to argue that very point.  So, I am going to ask you the next question.  I ask you specifically, now, whether you read through the application of Mr Ngo, yes or no, at any stage?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I never did that.

MR VISSER: All right.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: No.