Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-22

SERAME MOLEFE: Correct.

ADV MEMANI: Is it correct that they associated that with the African National Congress?

SERAME MOLEFE: The revolution in general.  Let me say something to you Sir, which is not a secret in South Africa.  When you match the colours, you don't have to use alongside green and yellow, you don't have to put red or you don't have to put red ...[indistinct], green, black and yellow together.  So Nichos had stepped, you know, stepped over.  He were using the colours that were not accepted in the country ...[indistinct]

ADV MEMANI: And, is it also correct that at his house he used decoration of - he used African art to decorate is house?

SERAME MOLEFE: That's correct.

ADV MEMANI: And the police interpreted that as something pointing out to his revolutionary tendency?

SERAME MOLEFE: Of course yes, as you see I'm having a bid here that will ...[indistinct] some of the things we show our leanings.  So I mean, it's just like that, if you used some African things you fall within the category of those people who having special aspirations.

ADV MEMANI: Did you become aware of the fact that he was courier of the ANC?

SERAME MOLEFE: No, I only know that later on when Chris Hani came to Bloemfontein, I think for the first time, his car was used to fetch him from somewhere into Bloemfontein.  So, I mean, that he was a courier is something you couldn't - it's a secretive thing that must be kept or had to be kept like that.  But like I'm saying now, later on it came to my attention that he had been of assistance in making to it that Hani bypassed the patrols unhindered.

ADV MEMANI: Those are my questions M'Lord.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

MR VISSER: I'm afraid Mr Chairman, I'm going to have to take instructions on this issue now.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR VISSER: I'm hoping that I can do it quickly but - no, Erasmus is now implicated here ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: That he would go to his shop?

MR VISSER: Yes, and intimidate him.  There's a question of colours and he was regarded as revolutionary etc., etc.  Could I have a few minutes just to discuss ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he was quoting Erasmus as saying that.  I don't understand him to have said anything against
...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Memani was putting this evidence to him and he was agreeing Mr Chairman, as we understand it anyway.

UNKNOWN: But, there was a later bombing of the house of Nichos.  There's no evidence given by this witness that Erasmus for instance, was participating in the bombing.

MR VISSER: While that is correct, it is also quite clear that an atmosphere is built up here now.

UNKNOWN: But he's applying for amnesty for the bombing, he's not applying for amnesty for harassment of Nichos at his shop.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if you view it that way, I'm happy with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: I'm very happy with that.  And I would simply submit, may I just ask one question of Mr Erasmus to establish a fact and I'll put that to him.
	Well, it turned out simpler than I thought it might be.  
	I put it to you that Erasmus has never been in the shop of Mr Nichos in his life.

SERAME MOLEFE: Well, it's not a fact a thinking, it's feeling and I'm not going to stand in your way, you're to think whatever you want to.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR STANDER: I have no re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER

SERAME MOLEFE: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED

MR STANDER: At this stage I have no further victims as evidence I can offer.  I do not want to say that there might not be any other victims for whom I will apply at a later stage to hear the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] at the moment, as I understand the position, the victims have not been in touch with you for the last four months and I don't think we should anticipate their sudden arrival.  If they do arrive we can deal with that question then.

MR STANDER: As you please.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, before Mr Visser proceeds, I've studies the evidence of Mr Motsamai insofar as the application on behalf of Mr Molefe, concerning the torture of Mr Molefe is concerned and I have found there might be a need to supplement that evidence M'Lord.  And I'm asking for leave to recall him to supplement that evidence M'Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: I would suggest that if you're going to apply to recall Mr Ngo to supplement evidence, it would be more advisable to wait until we've heard the evidence of Mr Visser's clients and any other witnesses they call.  We're not going to constantly have these people recalled and there may well be other matters that arise.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree Mr Visser?  That if he's to be recalled every time something develops we'll be here forever.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Clearly your thinking is correct Mr Chairman, barring one problem which does occur to me.  If it is now a concession, an agreement that there is no application in regard to Molefe, then perhaps in that particular confined area it may better for him to lead the evidence so that at least we know what to answer.  But I'm leaving it...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't understand that it was concession there was none, they want to supplement it and that's a very different word.

MR VISSER: On whatever basis ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that we can deal with later, that's what I'm saying.

MR VISSER: If that's your ruling, I accept it.

UNKNOWN: Mr Memani, in dealing therewith, we've had the evidence now and he said he was psychologically assaulted but not physically.  Is that a gross violation of human rights?

ADV MEMANI: I'm sorry for interrupting your mike Mr Chairman, but the difficulty when I look at this, at Mr Motsamai's evidence, is that it is lacking in the sense that it doesn't disclose what he witnessed and how this person assaulted in his presence.  And somehow the witness has ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What page is it?

ADV MEMANI: The witness has referred to the issue that, you know, he was present when he was being assaulted and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, you said you've Motsamai's evidence.

ADV MEMANI: Yes M'Lord, I'm looking at my notes now to see if I can quickly find the relevant spot.

UNKNOWN: Page 714.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I believe it's 715 at the bottom of the page, there's nothing on 714.

UNKNOWN: On 714 you started to lead evidence ...[inaudible] number 26?

MR VISSER: Yes, in the middle of the page.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Memani, I wonder why you contemplate doing that.  Isn't this what Mr Visser said right at the beginning, that at the commencement of these proceedings it was never contemplated that Mr Motsamai was or would be making an application in respect of this witness.  Doesn't that explain the reason why now you find that your client did not put in such detail?    Did you at the time seriously think that you were in fact leading your client in respect of the assault of this particular witness or this matter just coming in through the back door?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, it's not coming in through the back door.  If one looks, you know when we were leading him on these incidents he tended to be very brief with the people who were occupied in the list and it was due to oversight that sufficient detail was not given with regard to Serami Molefe.  We then ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Molefe says he's not been assaulted by him.

ADV MEMANI: Yes, but he says that he was present when assaults took place on - he says that Motsamai was present when Molefe was assaulted and that is a matter that would require application for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?  He's a very junior officer in the presence of senior officer who are committing offences.