Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1999-05-26

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: What happened in the court of law, the court was taking a side even when we tried to testify, they were taking a side. Because you would remember that the previous regime used to be partial. When you testify in a court of law that you were a member of the ANC, it was hard for your evidence to be accepted. There was nothing which will prevent them to change your evidence. ... (intervention)

ADV STEENKAMP: But, my question, my question still is, your defence was that of self-defence. Am I right? That is the question, just yes or no.

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: Yes, yes. That is correct, we were protecting ourselves against our enemies.

ADV STEENKAMP: I don't want to elaborate this, belay this, Mr Chairman, but I don't understand your answer. How would a lie in the Supreme Court protect yourselves against your enemy, by lying to the Supreme Court saying you were attacked by the deceased? Can you explain that to us?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: We were in a fight. You use any other opportunity to protect yourself. You use any kind of wisdom to protect yourself.

ADV STEENKAMP: You see, my basic point is this. Would you agree with me or would you confirm with the first applicant that testified, that the reason why the, well, the basic reason at that day as I understand why the applicant was killed, was because he acted in self-defence? Would you agree with that or not?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: Yes, ... (intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, would you just repeat the question. I think I missed the question, Adv Steenkamp.

ADV STEENKAMP: Just for the record purposes, Mr Chairman, the witness has already answered the question, but I'll gladly repeat the question. My question was basically to you, sir, would you say, would you agree with me that the reason why the deceased was killed that day, the main reason was because he attacked you and you acted in self-defence. And you answered, "yes". Is that correct?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: Yes, that is correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: And would you agree with me if I say that that was actually the reason why your brother or the applicant killed the deceased?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: Yes, that is correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: There was no real political motive at that time, at the time of the incident. It was a question of self-defence. Would you agree with me?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: As I have already said earlier that during that period, the situation was not stable. No one was moving freely in Postmasburg.

ADV STEENKAMP: Okay, but, but how does that, that with all respect doesn't answer my question. My question is purely, would you agree with me at the time, that specific day of the incident, there was no real political motive or whatever. It was just because the accused attacked you. That was why he was killed your brother. Would you agree with that?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: There was political motive on that, in that incident, because there was no way where a member of the ANC would move freely without attacked by members of this gang. Even in town, members of the ANC were attacked in front of the police, or in the presence of the police.

ADV STEENKAMP: If I may ask you, Mr Chairman, if I am not permitted this question, I will gladly withdraw it. May I ask you why did you decide to withdraw your amnesty application?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: It is because of certain reasons which I am not able to explain to you now.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, may I ask, if it's permissible that the witness can maybe give us those reasons. I don't know how relevant it may be, but it can reflect, I think, directly or indirectly, on the reasons why, or maybe shed some light on the contents of statements, certain statements, either the vic - either the witnesses or the witness itself made which is in our possession. I don't exactly know why he was, it was withdrawn because, but still those, it seems to me those statements Mr Morwaeng made can be relevant to this, this hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: But how is it going to help us to adjudicate the application of Mr Gulu?

ADV STEENKAMP: I will leave it there, Mr Chairman. Mr Morwaeng, can you just maybe indicate to us, to the Committee, who exactly was at the scene at the time, at the incident. Who were all the people there, and can you name them to us please? This is not only including your group, I mean everybody there. Can you name them?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: There were three members of the gang and we were three on our side on that particular day of the incident.

ADV STEENKAMP: Your other brother, Mr Isaac ... (intervention)

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: I don't remember their names well. That is Montso, John Mfani and then Weleli.

ADV STEENKAMP: Your other brother, Mr Isaac Gulu, what exactly was his involvement, what did he do ... (intervention) Isaac, sorry, pardon. Can you tell me what exactly was his .... (intervention)

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: He did not do anything.

ADV STEENKAMP: So, so. Do I understand you correctly. Although you were, according to the applicant's testimony, you were attacked, he did nothing? Is that what you are saying?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: Isaac Gulu was busy making a phone call. He did not play a role. He did not even touch the deceased at all.

ADV STEENKAMP: Can I ask you, was it, this is what the victims are saying. It was not necessary at all to kill the deceased.

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: May you please repeat the question?

ADV STEENKAMP: The victims' view is that it was in the circumstances after hearing the first applicant, it's their view it was totally unnecessary to kill the deceased in the circumstances. Do you have any comment on that?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: As I have already stated that this people were harassing us and they were harassing members of the community, and all members of the ANC were harassed by members of this gang. And the police took their side, which means even the police were members of this gang because there is nowhere we would go for protection.

ADV STEENKAMP: I just want to put it to you, Mr Chairman, that ... (indistinct) the victim said it was totally unnecessary to kill the deceased in the circumstances and furthermore there was enough structures, political structures in the area, to deal with this specific problem, except to kill the deceased. Do you have any comment on that?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: As I have already said, we attended many meetings together with the members of this gang. We attended public meetings together with the community about their problems. They were harassing the community and they were harassing members of the ANC. There is no, there was no other alternative.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Adv Steenkamp. Are there any questions by the Panel?

ADV GCABASHE: I have just one. The community in your township, was it predominantly ANC?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: Yes, predominantly were members, they were members of the ANC.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

UNKNOWN: Mr Morwaeng, was the deceased drunk at the time of the incident? You heard your brother, what was your observation?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: Yes, he was smelling of liquor, that is to say, that means he was drunk.

UNKNOWN: All the statements of witnesses, and also the finding of the judge seems to be that all three of you were fighting with the deceased only. Fighting upstanding for quite some time, until he fell down on the ground and only then was he stabbed by the applicant. Your comment on that?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: We did not fight for a long time with the deceased. The deceased grabbed me for a while, up to a point where I was not able to fight back. After hitting him with the head, then after that point then John came and attacked him.

UNKNOWN: Do you know Patrick Ire who made this statement on page 70?

FRANS MOBIKA MORWAENG: I saw him in court.