Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-10

MR VISSER: With respect Mr Chairman, I am putting to him what is stated at page 12 of Bundle C, no more and no less.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Well, then that solves the problem.  I think what Mr Visser is saying is as he says no more, no less.  He is not saying that that was actually the evidence as given by Mr Ngo when he was in the witness box.	He is referring to what is stated in the papers of Mr Ngo, am I right Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Yes, that is so Mr Chairman, obviously if the record bears out the evidence which is stated at page 12, that will be a different matter.  I am just putting to this witness what is stated at page 12.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Memani, it seems that Mr Visser is not referring to the evidence, the oral evidence as given by Mr Ngo.

MR VISSER: No, but the problem is this Mr Chairman, my learned friend says I can't do that because in his evidence he might have changed it and if, but he is not certain, and if that is so, then it is an unfair question to put this to him, that is what he is saying.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: But I am saying really what I am saying is that to the extent that we know what stands in the paper, we can see what stands in the paper, I see no difficulty if the question is restricted to what we can see and what we can verify Mr Memani.

ADV MEMANI: That I don't have any difficulty with My Lord.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  What do you say of the fact that Mr Ngo implicates two further people in this attack, Tsoametsi and Mtyala?  I think you already told us that he is wrong, am I correct?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is so.

MR VISSER: Yes.  You see Mr Motsamai, the question is isn't it you that is incorrect?  Maybe he is right and you are wrong?  How would we know?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I am the one who is telling the truth.

MR VISSER: Yes, why should we take your word for it Mr Motsamai?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I give evidence.

MR VISSER: Is that the only reason.

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: And again, the way Nelson put it, that is the way he put it, but my truth is there and that is the truth that I am the one who went there together with Nelson Ngo, but he remained in the car.

MR VISSER: And is it correct that when you reported the next day, conveniently Mr Ngo was not present?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Yes, he was not present.

MR VISSER: And therefore he would not have known at that time, that you actually bombed Citi Mzuzwana's house, would he?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: He was not present, he would not know.

MR VISSER: Yes.  And just to round it off, on a question of the Honourable Chairman, you also never told him that at any time at this, on these grounds while we were busy with the application, the amnesty application of Mr Ngo, you never told him that, that the house was in fact the house of Citi Mzuzwana, is that your evidence?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: I said I never talked to Ngo about this.  Not at all, that I said.  I don't know why you repeat again, because I explained to you and the whole house that I never talked to Ngo about my applications for amnesty and I never showed him my application.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Mr Motsamai.  Would you bear a moment with me, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, if I may explain my hesitation of a moment ago, I am attempting to cut out as many possible questions as possible, perhaps this is a convenient time for me to place something on record Mr Chairman.
	It is clear and I am certain that the Committee understands this, that my clients deny all allegations of their involvement, whether it is by instructions or by participation claiming or covering up or whatever.  It makes little sense again as it was in the case with Mr Ngo for me to put every single allegation, to controvert every single allegation and I am certain you will also appreciate that that would save a lot of time.
	In the case of Mr Motsamai, it goes a little further.  We will argue at the end of the day, that he has not made out a case in very many of these instances.  We can, if you require us to do so, we can lift the deficiencies out for you, but with respect, it is not really the duty of the cross-examiner to allow him to build up his case in cross-examination and therefore we do not intend for example, he would say such and such a person was assaulted by us. 
	So what, unless of course he implicates somebody by name, that would elicit a reaction but otherwise not.  I hope that you would understand that Mr Chairman, because it is all in the interest of perhaps saving time and that is why I am going fairly quickly over the incidents right now.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not quite sure that I understand what you said there.  You said that if he said I assaulted somebody by name, it is not necessary to deal with it?

MR VISSER: No, I am sorry Mr Chairman, perhaps I misunderstood.  I am saying that if a vague statement is made that I clapped this person in the car, I am not going to cross-examine him, unless he says well, Mamome also did that, or whatever.  Unless he identifies one of my clients by name, I am not going to cross-examine him on that.

CHAIRPERSON: But if he says Mamome was in the car?

MR VISSER: Well of course that would ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: More particularly, he has and I have no desire to provoke cross-examination (indistinct), he has spoken of a whole series of assaults on the fifth floor of this building.  It is for you to decide whether it is necessary to deal with it or not.

MR VISSER: I hear what you say Mr Chairman, it is a difficult decision.  The proposition which I have just made was that unless there are circumstantial facts, circumstances or direct evidence implicating one of my clients, we were not intending to embark on cross-examination on that issue, but Mr Chairman, if it would be of assistance to you, we would gladly ask a few questions by way of clarification.  That certainly we are quite happy to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I could ask one or two questions which may perhaps settle the issue more.  You've told us about this building, a great deal about the building that you worked in.  Is that so?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And I understand that you had offices on the fifth floor?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: You have spoken about offices of another Unit on the fourth floor, the Unit responsible for the ANC and Umkhonto?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, where was the kitchen that you go and have tea in frequently?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: It was on the fifth floor.

CHAIRPERSON: And where were Major Coetzee and Lieutenant Shaw's offices?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: They were on the fourth floor.

CHAIRPERSON: How big are the passages, can you tell us?  I think you have indicated the one passage was about 25 paces long?  Was that about the length of the passages in the building?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: That was the fifth floor passage.  It will start from that wall up to that wall on the other side.

CHAIRPERSON: And is that the only passage on the fifth floor?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: No.  It had a seventh shape, then there is again another short passage, which will start here to the curtains there on the other side.

CHAIRPERSON: About 15 paces?  And are there lifts or staircases in the building?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Yes there are steps and lifts.

CHAIRPERSON: So can you hear what is going on on the floor above and the floor below you?

MOHONAETSE STEPHEN MOTSAMAI: Yes, you would hear.  If you are in one room, if somebody was in another room and had been assaulted or tortured, you would hear him or her.  Not if you are in the passage.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean not in the passage?