Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 2011-01-21

MR VISSER: In fact, our information is the docket has been destroyed.  We cannot find it.
	If you were interested, Mr Chairman, in the evidence in-chief, of Mr Ngo concerning Mr White Mohape, I can give you that reference as well.  It is in the evidence, in the little bundle which we call the evidence of the 14th of May.  There are so many A's and B's now, that it is totally confusing, Mr Chairman, but there is a thin, little bundle of evidence which is headed "The evidence dated the 14th of May 1997".  Now, if you would make a note in that bundle ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR VISSER: Yes, I can, in fact, among us I have got the only copy available, Mr Chairman, so I will have to reproduce it before I lose it, but I will hand it to you so that you can at least just look at it to be able to identify it.  Here it is.  It is ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR VISSER: No, no, no, the 14th of May.  Then, if I may refresh your memory, Mr Chairman, we came back the second time and you will remember we wrote letters to say that we have not received copies of the record and then at the time when we arrived there was a fresh record and that started with part of the evidence which was given before and there was a duplication and I cannot give you the page on the old record, but you will remember that you asked me to go and sort it out and I did and I came back and I informed you, Mr Chairman, that it works like this, it works with the record of 14 May 1997 from page one to page 37 and then in bundle A, it runs again from page 128 ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) A2.

MR VISSER: A2?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Well, I will mark it bundle A2, Mr Chairman.  A2, all right.  Then in bundle A the evidence ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) page 128.

MR VISSER: From 128.  You have got to ignore ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR VISSER: ... the evidence that comes before that, because that is a duplication and it is not entirely the same as what you will find in bundle A2.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the evidence before that is the evidence led (...indistinct).

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR VISSER: ... I just remember that there was a duplication.  The, at page 128, there is the, it is the evidence of the 15th of May.  That is what you ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: What they have done (...indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What they have done, they have left bundle A2 out of bundle A.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: A2 ought to be page 128 and they have for some reason omitted it.

MR VISSER: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: But otherwise all the evidence is in bundle A or the earlier evidence.

MR VISSER: Yes, you may be, yes, Mr Chairman, as far as the March evidence is concerned, I am not, I cannot help you, because I was under the impression that portion of the evidence is a duplication, but I may be wrong.  It does not matter really.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR VISSER: But we will check up on, because there are certain in that, in those bundles and I am going to give you the reference now, to bundle A2.  In bundle A2, Mr Chairman, the reference is from page 29 to 37 concerning Mr White Mohape and in bundle A ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: The reference, please, again.

MR VISSER: Sorry, I am sorry.

ADV DE JAGER: Pages?

MR VISSER: One, pages 29 to 37.  Two nine to three seven and I have only got a reference of page 128 in bundle A.  I am not sure whether it continues after that.  It probably does, I have not got the last page.  So, broadly speaking, those are the references and then after that, Mr Chairman, as I said to you earlier, we have the latest record starting at page 60, if you like, but really, a little later and running up to page 84.  Sixty to 84.
	Okay, where I was now.  Oh, yes.  If I may continue, Mr Chairman, as far as I can go, in your charge which you laid ... (intervention).

ADV MEMANI: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, I missed the point which led to us being referred to these passages.  If Mr Visser could repeat it for me please.

MR VISSER: I was asked by the Chairman where it appears on the record, Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: What appears?

MR VISSER: The evidence relating to Mr White Mohape, that is what I understood.

CHAIRPERSON: My question was whether apart from the evidence at the transcript, there was other evidence about White Mohape and about this incident and Mr Visser then gave me the references to where it appears at the transcript and said that he would tonight look up the other files to see if there are any other records of the proceedings, but in the light of what he has recently told us about the fact that the docket is not obtainable and that the trial record is not available, it seems improbable and what I was referring to must have been one of these earlier transcripts when I said I had read something about this incident.

ADV MEMANI: I am indebted to the Chair.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, there is another aspect and that is namely Mr Visser referred for, asked the witness if Terreblanche was the investigating officer and that meant that we had to refer to the different bundles.

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct) recall that and said he would look it up overnight.  He could, he thought it was Terreblanche, but he was not putting it.

MR STANDER: I just wanted to confirm that.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, because I was not sure of the name.  In fact, I am told that I am wrong again.
	Mr Mohape, in the charge which you laid, did you tell or did you say or describe the vehicle in which you were abducted?

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes, I think I described it.  I said it was a white Isuzu, Bakkie.

MR VISSER: Bakkie?

WHITE MOHAPE: Ja.

MR VISSER: Yes, you see, that accords with my information and did you also say it had an OKE registration?

WHITE MOHAPE: No, no, no.

MR VISSER: No.

WHITE MOHAPE: No.  I said I could not see the registration.

MR VISSER: Yes and there were two gentlemen?

WHITE MOHAPE: In that Bakkie, yes.

MR VISSER: One of them got out, came to you?

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: He had a balaclava on his head?

WHITE MOHAPE: Ja.

MR VISSER: But it was not covering his face?

WHITE MOHAPE: Ja.

MR VISSER: You cannot tell us who it was?

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes, I could not tell, but this person who is this person, because the security branch had a tendency of sending every time new people to go and fetch us or to go and detain us.

MR VISSER: By that, is it implied in what you have just said, that, first of all, you knew the members of the security branch of Bloemfontein and it was not one of them?  Is that the implication?

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes, I am saying I knew some of the police, security branch Black police and, of which I knew that Motsamai, I knew Motsamai.

MR VISSER: Yes.

WHITE MOHAPE: You know, so ...

MR VISSER: All right, perhaps, in fairness I should rephrase the question.

WHITE MOHAPE: All right.

MR VISSER: As a person who was involved in politics, on the executive body of Cosas, may I suggest to you that it is logical that you would have made it your business to identify who the members of the security branch were, because they would have been your enemies, is that not correct?

WHITE MOHAPE: Let me explain, you see, you are correct, but I will also tell you that security branch, time to time was able to bring new people that you do not even know ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Yes, yes, yes.

WHITE MOHAPE: ... and you will only know them ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Yes.

WHITE MOHAPE: Wait.  You will only know them at a time when you are at Fountain and that they are, you know, they are questioning you, whatever, then it is when I will start to establish who is this person.