Amnesty Hearings — Vanderbijlpark — 1999-05-18

MR LOWIES: Diamond Latha; L-A-T-H-A and then Joshua Mahlango, Simon Moloi.  And then the court checked whether you were there.  He even called Abudnego Mabuza closer.  That you see at page 3210.  Can you recall such an incident?

MS M MOLETE: I do not remember us being called into court.

MR LOWIES: And then the judge instructed the interpreter as follows
"Tell them that I'm busy hearing a matter which emanates as a result of an attack at Boipatong on 17 June 1992."
It goes on, that's the judge.  He says:
"I am informed by one of the advocates for the defence that they were summonsed to appear here and to possibly give evidence after being consulted ..."
...(intervention)

MS M MOLETE: I object to that, I have never been called into court.

MR LOWIES: Well the record reflects you were there.  And then the judge went on to state
"I'm further informed that some of you told the advocate that you are not prepared to consult with him because you were instructed by representatives of the ANC not to talk to anybody about the case."
And then he said:
"Is that so?"
The record reads that everybody, including yourself, replied that:
"This is correct."

MS M MOLETE: I have never met with the representatives of the ANC.  I have always been a person who was not involved in such organisations.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, you see what you're being asked here is what transpired inside court.  What counsel is - he is reading he tells us, from a record of the proceedings in court, which indicates that you were called into court and the questions that he's just mentioned were put to you and those whose names he has mentioned.  Do you deny that it happened?

MS M MOLETE: Yes, I deny that fact.

MR LOWIES: Then the judge went further.
"Is everybody satisfied that this is so?"
And the record reads:
"All the witness (which includes yourself) reply in the affirmative."

MS M MOLETE: I do not know of such facts, Sir.

MR LOWIES: Now to be fair to you, at a later stage there was a dissent amongst people and one or two of them raised this fact that they did not agree.  But the point is, at a stage the record reflects that this happened and you were instructed, according to what you informed the judge, not to talk with the defence lawyers.  My question now is, did you ever refuse to talk to either Mr Strydom or Advocate Botha or any other lawyer acting for the applicants?

MS M MOLETE: The person that I talked to, we talked to was Mr Strydom.  I have never refused to do that.  And the police that I have talked to was Kekana.

MR LOWIES: Did Mr Strydom talk to you personally, you?

MS M MOLETE: He never talked to me alone, we were all in a group of people that I have mentioned.  I still remember that.

MR LOWIES: And did he ask you whether you know, and I'm talking about the group, you member of the group, whether you know of any police complicity or white people who took part in the attack in Boipatong?

MS M MOLETE: I said he talked to us harshly and looked through our statements as he talked back to us.  He himself and then he continued, stated that, starting talking to us.

MR LOWIES: Did he talk to you about the police being involved and white people being involved?  That is the question.

MS M MOLETE: I said he stated that his people told him that white people and the police were involved, but today they are left alone.

MR LOWIES: And did you say to him you know that police were involved?

MS M MOLETE: I did not talk to him about the police.

MR LOWIES: Because the law as it was in 1993, did not allow Mr Strydom to have access to your statement and it is denied that anybody had access to your statement during the criminal trial.

MS M MOLETE: He had books in his possession and he came out to talk to us, asking us our names, telling us about our statements.

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Lowies, are you - just I'm thinking about it myself as you're putting it: "the law said that ...", are you quite sure that the law didn't allow accused access to statements at that stage?  I'm pretty sure it did, but there were a number of decisions that opened that issue round about that time.  I don't have the specifics in my head, but ...

MR LOWIES: ...(indistinct).  My instructions are clear.  I'll argue this later I think ...(intervention)

MR LAX: No problem, I just wanted to make sure that you were sure in your own mind, that's all.

MR LOWIES: I have not a shadow of doubt, Sir.  ...(no microphone).  Sorry, Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Well Chairperson, I was going to say that when witnesses - my understanding was, when witness were made available by the State to the defence, then the State had a discretion whether or not to give the defence copies of the witnesses' statements.

CHAIRPERSON: But they were not as a matter of right, entitled to those statements?

MR BERGER: Not as a matter of course, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MR LOWIES: And therefore I would like to put the following to you, and it's also my case, Mr Strydom definitely did not have a statement of any of the potential witnesses in his possession.  Can you dispute this?  And if I say Strydom, I'm talking about him and all the other defence advocates, not only him.  Can you dispute this?

MS M MOLETE: I dispute that because it was him who came in possession of these documents.

MR LOWIES: Can you describe this document, how do you know it was a statement, how do you know it was not just a pad like this, a writing pad?

MS M MOLETE: He had a bag and those papers in his hands, these brown bags with folios and then he would close it.  I still remember that bag.

MR LOWIES: Yes, but how do you know your statement was in there, or did you just assume because he had this bag and he had papers, this must be your statement?

MS M MOLETE: I said to you, Sir, he asked us each our names and I did not say he had all the statements of us, he had a bag and papers that he had in his hand.

MR LOWIES: And I would like to put the following to you;  the whole purpose why Advocate Botha, and this clear from the record, why Advocate Botha raised this aspect with the judge in Pretoria, was they wanted to get somebody who could tell them that there was police involvement.

MS M MOLETE: I do not know, Sir.

MR LOWIES: Your version however, is the following;  you said he paid you money to deny police involvement.

MS M MOLETE: I never mentioned police, I mentioned white people and those who stood at the door.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete, let me explain to you in this manner.  You've told us, amongst other things, that you were paid this R150 so that you could not testify.  At some point you said that, although at some point you also told us that you didn't know why you were given this money.  Now what Mr Lowies is putting to you is this; the reason why the group of people were called into court, which included yourself, we know you've denied that, was to get someone from that group to come and give evidence to the effect that there were either policemen or white people during the attack.  And the import of this is to suggest to you that it cannot possibly be true that you were paid so that you should not give evidence to the effect that there were white men who weren't police officers, during the attack.  Do you understand that?

MS M MOLETE: It is now that I understand, Sir.  I do not have knowledge on that point.

MR LOWIES: Can I summarise?  Mr Strydom never wanted you to deny that there were white people involved in Boipatong.

MS M MOLETE: I do not know, Sir.

MR LOWIES: If you do not know, you cannot say that he wanted to deny that there were white people, correct?

MS M MOLETE: The manner in which he stated it, he said to us his people have been left in the dark.  He said that the police and the white people were involved, now his people are left alone.  That is why he said we must deny that.

MR LOWIES: So he said you must deny that, is that your version?