Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-29

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, that is like that. We can draw an inference from his evidence that that was usually done at that stage and that he had been arrested before. I can't take it any further, and I want to tell you that was what was usually done according to him.
	It is also clear that because of this incident, he sustained serious injuries and, according to his evidence, he was later treated, I think by Dr Makome. I stand to be corrected, but I think it was Dr Makone. He also identified the marks on his legs. Important is, the fact that he is blind in his one eye does not have anything to do with this incident.
	He also gave evidence of an incident where here in Fontein Street he was detained and there, according to him, Mr Erasmus told him to look out of the window and, according to him, a bag or some other object was pulled over his head and then broomsticks and other objects were used to hit him. I think we can put this under item 2.15. No, I'm sorry, item 6.15.
	Mr Chairman, it is important to note that also Mr Mohape, according to me, stuck to his version of the story except for the problem regarding the dates. But I think one can accept that this had happened so long ago and can accept it in this regard. 	In various instances he was arrested by the police that it is not reasonable to expect from him that he should remember the precise dates. I think that his evidence could be accepted as such.
	Also important is the fact that he was the chairman at that stage of Cosas who, according to him, was affiliated to the UDF.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he Chairman of Cosas in 1984 when he was in std 8? I find that hard to accept.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, he was on the Executive of Cosas at that stage, at least a member then. I can't say whether he was the chairman or the vice chairman in 1984, but he was definitely a member, and as a result of that the Security Police was very interested in his activities. That we can accept as a fact. In other words, his actions would have been important.

CHAIRPERSON: He must have been a very junior member.

MR STANDER: It could be, Mr Chairman. I can't take it any further, there is no direct evidence that he was on the Executive in 1984 already.

MRADV DE JAGER: I think there was evidence that when he was in std. 9 he was on the Executive.

MR STANDER: That is indeed so. Thank you, Mr De Jager. When he was the vice chairman, that is correct, when he was the vice chairman of Mico and when he went to Durban.
	Very important, Mr Chairman, is that at stage he was politically active and therefore his activities were monitored by the Security Police because of his politically inspired activities.

MRADV DE JAGER: How would you describe the relationship between him and Mr Ngo during their school years?

MR STANDER: He told us in his evidence that there was a good relationship between and Mr Ngo. He also said that initially he could not believe that Mr Ngo was a police informer. After he started believing that, he was extremely disappointed and tried everything to expose this person in public. According to me one cannot describe as there being a hate relationship between the two of them.

MRADV DE JAGER: What was the attitude regarding informers in general?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I am sorry. It is well known that the persons were regarded - the people did not like those people and the papers were full of stories about these people who were killed by necklacing. I don't think there was a friendly relationship between them. At least one can say that they did not accept this relationship; these people were not accepted. But I think history has proved itself and at least among some people there were feelings of hate.
	Regarding Mr Matthews Mzuzwana, it is item 6.8, the so-called attempted murder of Mzuzwana. Mr Chairman, I also think that he can be regarded as a victim. He explained his political activities as a member of Mico, the youth congregation, and he tells us in detail how on that day, after having attended a sermon, police officers shot at them. 
	During cross-examination regarding Mzuzwana's evidence, there was once dispute regarding the involvement of Mr Ngo, and there was a difference of opinion regarding what was mentioned in a civil action and here. What is important is that his face is enough evidence of what had happened to them. There could be no doubt that he was shot with a stopper gun, and as Mr Motsamai said in his application, he was present when he was shot with a stopper gun. The fact that there was a dispute about the people who was involved is irrelevant and should be negated be the Committee.

MRADV DE JAGER: Who was the perpetrator? Who should get amnesty in this regard?

MR STANDER: Mr Motsamai applied for amnesty because he was part of this group or who had the specific purpose of eliminating him. Mr Chairman, I can't take it any further.
	There was a so-called common purpose, at least with Mr Motsamai, when this incident took place.
	Mr Chairman, I told you that I would later come back to some of these members. Mr Makubalo, I think - I just want to find the place - he was a member of the Mico, this is the so-called Mangu Youth Congregation who was affiliated to the UDF. The Group of 19 were all members of the same organisation, namely Mico. Mr Mohape was a member of Cosas, Mr Molefe, a member of the PAC, Mr Matthews Mzuzwana was also a member of Mico. What I am trying to say is that all the members of the prejudiced people or all these victims had a political affiliation and therefore, I think, they meet that requirement.
	Mr Chairman, this brings me back to the improbabilities that you should be taken in consideration regarding the evidence of the police. I am not going to refer to specific officials, but I am going to refer in general to eh police evidence without referring to some specific person. What could be said of one could be said of everybody.
	Mr Chairman, we have heard here about, as a monotonous 
way of denying all the evidence. Every time the matter when it was mentioned, he denied that he had been there or he denied that he was involved in whatever way, or he just said in general that he denied it. What is important is the fact that the Security Branch in Bloemfontein at no stage did any assaults, tolerate it, or allowed it, despite the fact that not this Committee, but also other Committees knew that in other centres people were readily assaulted and maltreated.
	This Security Branch said this never happened here. What is very important is, when these police officers were asked, but if Mr Motsamai and Ngo referred to that, they were branded as the only people who could have been part of those incidents, the probabilities just point to the opposite.
	The aspect of the Group of 19. Nobody heard any shouting; nobody saw anything. It is a large group of 19 who were assaulted there; nobody knew anything about that except Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai. It is highly improbable and at least, Mr Chairman, it is a blatant lie.

MRADV DE JAGER: Can you explain to me: this was a building flanking on two streets; it is a building where there were other people also, for example the chaplain. It is near the High Court, Supreme Court; it is near the Attorney-General. For three days, if there was a shouting and screaming and assaulting for three days, is it not probable that it would have been heard outside the building?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I wondered about the same thing.

MRADV DE JAGER: Was the screaming and the shouting so soft that it could not be heard outside the building?