Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-22

MR VISSER: Alright, I have certain submissions which I'll make about that reply, we'll go on.  The outcome, says this document details, is that you sustained injuries
"in his left foot and he was also to run naked".

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: After being assaulted with crowbars and hammers and guns for at least fifteen minutes by four people, is that likely?

MR MOHAPE: You know if you could get the medical examination of Dr Magoni about the back sore, my body, then you'll understand what I said was feasible,  the scars that I had when I was forced to jump the fence but in that, my body was sore and in Dr Magoni's medical record he can point out what I'm talking about.

MR VISSER: I'm suggesting to you Mr Mohape that in normal human experience, if a person is continuously assaulted all over his body with a hammer and a crowbar for more than 15 minutes, you would at least have been incapacitated if not dead.

MR MOHAPE: You see Mr Visser, you're unfortunate not to really understand the situation as it was and of course I expect that of you to try to sway the information as much as possible to your side.  But the fact of the reality chief, is that I was beaten, I got injuries and those scars I will never forget, say whatever you may say.
	But I'm saying to run naked at night with your pants, you don't think that is a nice thing to do Mr Visser, you cannot expect me to say I was not hurt, I had no pain that day, you cannot expect that from me. I will land up saying you are representing people who are not interested in telling the truth.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, are you going to intervene in this.  There is a personal attack on an officer of the TRC, I'm here to act as an officer, to assist the TRC Mr Chairman, I'm subjected continuously to personal abuse and personal attacks by the witnesses, Mr Chairman.  With great respect, I ask your protection.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think you need protection from these people Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: In any event Mr Mohape, I'm putting to you what the TRC investigator is telling us you told him,  It's nothing that I'm saying, I'm not saying a word about it.

MR MOHAPE: Mr Visser yes, those are the things that I said, but they were not enough.  If I am allowed time to explain in details how I was beaten, perhaps you'll understand me better.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I think we need to be a little bit more careful with the facts here Mr Visser, actually you are not putting to him what the TRC said.  What you are saying is, you put it to him, which is not contained in the papers, you are saying to him: "If a person would have been assaulted with a hammer, with hammer ...[indistinct] it's ...[indistinct] of that time, you would have been incapacitated or died".
	Now that is not contained in those papers and at any rate what you're putting to the witness, if this needs to be stated is factually incorrect.  It would depend on the intensity of the assault, the intention of the people.  If they did not want to kill him but just to torture him, they would know where to hit him with the hammer, maybe three four times with intervals.  
	You make a very sweeping statement that he would have been killed.  It's not necessarily correct, it depends on so many factors but anyway the witness has answered.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, let's leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: The witnesses version is quite clearly that this was intended to be a prolonged torture, not to do him injury.  You will probably know that if you go on patting the person on one place, with fairly gentle blows, it causes great pain and you put, as my brother put to you, you specifically put something different which has not arisen from the TRC report.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Mr Chairman, indeed I was putting an inference that I'm going to ask you to draw because if you want to torture a person for a prolonged period of time, you don't use a crowbar.  When you use a crowbar and a hammer ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He explained yesterday in his evidence when he used the word crowbar that this was a tyre lever, didn't he, a nice flat piece of metal.

MR VISSER: With whatever, Mr Chairman, but this is a question for argument, with due respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's get on and don't go on putting things like that to him if it's a question of argument.

MR VISSER: Mr Mohape, you were asked by Mr Stander whether you sustained injuries which left any marks on your body.  Do you remember that?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And please tell me if I'm wrong, was my impression correct that what you have retained is a small mark on your left leg.  Is that what you said?

MR MOHAPE: I had a scratch in my left leg.  I had a wound and in the course of time, that scratch disappeared but there is a spot where I can point that wound and I'm saying if you can take, if you can understand, that a scratch at one point or another disappears.  And probably I'll also want to correct one thing because I think I sustained on two sides of the feet and I wanted to check this scratch that I talked about, it's on my right hand leg were also with the wound on the left hand side, I need to ascertain that because it's something that happened over a period of time and I said I had those scratches and some of them disappeared and I think possibly one is visible if it is still....

MR VISSER: And the scratch mark, you told us yesterday, was caused by you jumping over the fence.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, as I understand the situation, if Mr Mohape sustained injuries and those injuries were severe, it is bad for my application and on the other hand whether or not Mr Mohape suffered injuries, it does not matter to Mr Visser because they're saying that his clients were not involved in this thing and it does not seem to me what the relevance of this line of questions is in the light of the nature of his appearance and his clients' position in these proceedings.

MR VISSER: May I reply very briefly, Mr Chairman?  There are two aspects.  One is of course the evidence of the applicants but it's also our duty to point out to you, if we can, probabilities or improbabilities which point to the fact that the witnesses are not telling the truth and is simply on that basis of credibility, Mr Chairman.  May I continue Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Continue with what you consider to be relevant, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  The question was, the scratch that told you yesterday that left a mark was caused by you jumping the fence, is that correct?

MR MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you.  It is recorded here in this document I'm reading from, apparently from information obtained from you, that the date and the place was 1984 at De Wet's Dorp.  Now I know you said yesterday that it was near the De Wet's Dorp Road.  Is that what you told them in brief?

MR MOHAPE: You see that's why I'm saying, you know when you look at dates, this thing happened some time ago.  But a time where I - if I remember that I will say this was the date and probably the year may not have been the same or the same you know year, as I'm saying.  The road is De Wet's Dorp Road, not De Wet's Dorp because De Wet's Dorp is about 110 kilometres from Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: But you were never assaulted with a hammer at De Wet's Dorp that we know?

MR MOHAPE: No, not at De Wet's Dorp.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you and to make it absolutely clear, have you been assaulted by, as you allege, members of the security branch with a hammer on only this occasion or on other occasions as well?

MR MOHAPE: No, on this occasion of the kidnapping.

MR VISSER: Alright.  ...[intervention]

UNKNOWN: The fact that it happened at De Wet's Dorp, it's wrongly stated?

MR MOHAPE: No, it's wrongly stated.

UNKNOWN: And there's a date stated, 1984, is that a correct date or is it a wrong date?

MR MOHAPE: No, I think it is the wrong date.