Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-10

CHAIRPERSON: Does the applicant agree with that?  Was Kabuza staying there at the time of the attack?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I am not quite sure.  Even though he stayed there our instructions was to attack Nicos' house.  The extent of the damage was something we did not know.  Whether his belongings would burn, the insurance would pay and security branch operation would be concealed until today as I am saying here now.

MR VISSER: Would you agree that Constable Kabuza was a member of the security branch, not just a policeman?  That he was also a member of the security branch.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: He worked with us, he was a member of the security branch.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, the room in which he lived, was it attached to the main house or was it a separate room?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: It was attached to the main house.  However, it was far at the back to where we attacked.  Even though the house would start burning, he would have the chance to remove all his belongings.

MR VISSER: If I may proceed to item five at page 146 of bundle A.  This deals with the burning of a motor vehicle belonging to Jani Mohapi.  I want to ask you this.  You told us that he was a very troublesome person to the security branch. Is that not correct.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And Coetzee attempted to convince him to become an informer, to recruit him as an informer and he refused.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And he was also the Chairperson of Mico?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Am I correct in your, in understanding your evidence, that you then said that it was because he refused to become an informer that Coetzee and Shaw said that he must be assaulted?  Do you remember that evidence?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: May you repeat, Sir?  Are you saying he was to be assaulted or his house assaulted?

MR VISSER: I can do only, as best I can, to read what I have here as your evidence and what I am putting to you is my note of your evidence and what you said in your evidence, according to my note, is this.
"Because he refused ..."
I am adding "to become an informer" of the security branch,
"... Coetzee and Shaw said he must be assaulted ..."

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: My note, though, Mr Visser, combines the two of them.  The reason for the assault would be because he refused to be recruited and also because he was Chairman of Mico which covered many places or something to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON: My note goes a little further even.  He said he was Chairman of Mico, which had jurisdiction of, over a large area of the Orange Free State and he recruited many people to join Mico.  He said Coetzee and Shaw emphasised he must be assaulted.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Having listened to the evidence, Mr Chairman, I got a different impression, but not much turns on this.  The point about this is that, apparently, you were instructed to assault him.  Was that your evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, my note goes on, and I should have cleared it up at the time.  Sorry.  Coetzee and Shaw emphasised he must be assaulted.  The first assault or harassment was to burn his car, as a start.  So, I do not think assault was, necessarily, a physical assault, it was an attack on his, him or his property.

MR VISSER: Yes, perhaps, Mr Chairman, it would be more fair to put the whole thing.  I just did not want to make the question too long, but, perhaps, I should.  As I understand your evidence, Mr Motsamai, Coetzee and Shaw thought that Jani Mohapi had to be assaulted and, for a start, they instructed or commanded that his motor vehicle had to be burnt.  Am I putting that correctly?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Let me say, when I meant he should be tortured, that is my Sesotho I used.  He should be harassed in that manner, that his car be burnt down.

MR VISSER: All right.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Visser, I think I am going to read my note in regard to that, to yesterdays interpretation.  The word "assault" was used by the interpreter and my note says in brackets, this is probably misinterpreted due to some ambiguity in the witnesses language.  The witness is, spoke of, he said something like (not interpreted) and the interpreter interpreted that to mean assault, but it could have and it did, in fact, mean harassment.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  I, actually I was not going to make a big point out of this.  I am just leading up to something, but thank you for pointing that out.  I am going to ask you this.  With this huge influence that Jani Mohapi had, you in your own mind, would you have thought that he is a good candidate to be eliminated?
MR MEMANI OBJECTS

ADV MEMANI: What is the relevance of this question?

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai is applying for amnesty here, Mr Chairman.  With great respect, in many instances I am assisting him in giving you the full facts and the full version of what happened.  If my learned friend wants to object to it, I will withdraw that question, I will go on to something else.  I have got no problem with that.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I think it is relevant, Mr Memani, to, as to why the witness, as to whether or not the witness could have seen any political purpose being possibly served by targeting this particular person.  If he says that we attacked him because he was a hawker, then, well, that would be relevant, but in a negative way, but your client is not applying for amnesty for killing people because they are hawkers.  He is supposed to show that what they did to, well, the victims or the assault or whatever, was associated with a political objective and that must impact on the activities of the victims.

ADV MEMANI: What causes the objection is the use of the word "elimination" whilst there was no instruction to eliminate him or there has not been any evidence of such an instruction.  It is said, he is asked to reply on whether he would have been a candidate for elimination.  The question, as you phrase it, would be perfect.

MR VISSER: May I respond, Mr Chairman?  I am not here to waste time.  May I just say this?  May I just say this?  I am not going to ask these questions, but I am placing it on record right now that in very many of Mr Ngo's applications we are going to argue that he failed not only to make a full disclosure, but that he failed, dismally, in complying with the requirements of the Act, Mr Chairman.  So, I will skip those questions entirely, because it is not necessary to make, for me to put them.
	I think Mr, Commissioner de Jager wanted to say something.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, you said Mr Ngo, and I think you referred to Mr Motsamai's application.

MR VISSER: I am sorry if I did.  I was referring to Mr Motsamai's application, Mr Chairman.  Thank you.
	Now, you say late that afternoon Mamome, I take it, because you refer to "he", came in a car and he was in the company of Mr Nelson Ngo and you pointed out Mr Ngo sitting in front here.  Do you remember that evidence?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And I have got a note here, and I want to ask you about that, because I found this strange.  I wrote down here that you said that,
"I did not know where he got him from ..."
Have I got my note correct?  Is that what you ... (intervention).

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Now, what did you mean by that?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I meant when we received the command, Ngo was not present.  How he came with him and where he got him, I do not know.

MR VISSER: Mr ... (intervention).

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: And his explanation, when I asked him, he said Ngo must watch over the car.  I do not know how he thought this out.