Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-29

ADV MEMANI: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I heard the Chairman yesterday to be saying we should not bother with references and so on. It is Winnie's house, Situ Mzuzwana's parental home, Bobby Sebotsa's brother's house, Janie Mohape's car, Tawhata's car, Bolasha's hous ...[intervention].

MRADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I'm afraid you will have to start all over again, Mr Memani. I am trying to write them down as you speak.

ADV MEMANI: I started with Queenie's clinic, with Mzuzwana and then Queenie's clinic, Winnie's house, Situ Mzuzwana's parental home, Bobby Sebotsa's brother's house, Janie Mohape's car, Tawhata's car, Bolasha's house, Kuzi's house, Sekgopi Malebo, the mission house in Botshabelo.
	Mr Chairman, my attorney indicates that these are matters 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6 to 6.14.
	In all these incidents again Mr Motsamai had no political ..rather no personal conflict at all with the victims. All these people were political activists, and Mr Motsamai has been described as a good policeman by his colleagues. There has been no suggestion that he was motivated by misconduct in attacking these people. If he was a good policeman he would have been a policeman who carried out his instructions, and he carried out the instructions.
	Mr Chairman, the Police have no version about these incidents. They have denied knowing about the incidents and we had the somewhat surprising position taken by Bester, for instance, when he dealt with Winnie Mandela's bombing that he regarded it as an unrest thing, that he would leave it there.
He says the thought had not occurred to him that he might - that the Security Branch or certain members of the Security Branch might have been behind the bombing. Mr Chairman, that simply cannot be true. He did not follow it up because he knew he was responsible for it and it was himself - the incident that he did not direct his attention towards the Security Branch.
	Mr Chairman, the only reasonable explanation for the denials is that these policemen were responsible, and to admit that they were responsible would lead to their prosecution probably. They have also not applied for amnesty for these incidents.	
	On occasions these policemen attempted to discredit Mr Motsamai. They attempted to discredit him by saying, suggesting things like Nicosi's house was bombed as a result of a ritual murder. These things were just not followed up. No evidence was led, no-one claimed that he ever gave those instructions, and my submission is that an adverse inference
should be drawn against them for having made these suggestions and no evidence having been led about them.
	Mr Chairman, in conclusion I humbly submit that Mr Motsamai is entitled to be granted amnesty in respect of all the offences for which he has applied for amnesty.

PERSON 2: Mr Memani, by the way, is Mr Motsamai still a member of the Police Services?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, he resigned around May, I think, last year, after the mediation hearings. You will remember we were here, I think, around May last year. I think he resigned after those sittings.
	Mr Chairman, this brings us to the application of Mr Nelson Ngo. I would like first to deal with the kidnap of Mr Mohape. Although Mr Ngo says that the incident took place during 1986, it appears that at page 23 of, I think it is bundle A, He says in his first sentence, at page 23: "During 1986 while I was a member of Cosas and at the same time working with the Security Police, I took part in the arrangements made by the Security Branch members to kidnap the regional secretary of Cosas, Mr White Mohape". Mr Chairman, that makes it clear that Mr Ngo was still a student at the time when this kidnap took place; it therefore follows that he is wrong in respect of the date and that he is correct - the correct date then would be 1984, because we know that in 1986 he was no longer a student.

MR STANDER: Mohape made the same mistake, isn't that so?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, we are talking about things which occurred 13 years ago.

MR STANDER: (Inaudible)

ADV MEMANI: Of saying what?

MR STANDER: He also said it was 1986, and it has been conceded now by everybody, it was 1984.

ADV MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chairman, if there is anything that would arise from that error, I do not see the reason why there would have been a conspiracy between Ngo and Motsamai - rather an Mr Mohape about the wrong date. It is clear, in the first place, on the part of Mr Ngo it is a somewhat reckless mistake. He was a policeman in 1986 but he says during 1986 he was a student and members of Cosas. I don't see a reason why a victim would lie about when he was injured, and I also don't see a reason why a person who seeks amnesty would lie
about when he did something.
	Of importance is that Mr Ngo describes the incident and paints a logical and complete picture of how the thing occurred. He provides names of people who participated in an incident which is described by Mr Mohape which occurred whilst he was not present. If I may repeat, Mr Chairman. What I want to say is that Ngo tells us that two people were instructed to go and kidnap Mohape. He knows those people. He corroborates Mohape who says,'near Bayswater police station I was attacked by two unknown policemen'. He further says that the instruction was that they would drive him to a certain veld, and he says that they later joined the group that had abducted Mr Mohape. That is corroborated by Mr Mohape himself. Mr Mohape says that it was four people who attacked him. He does say that he, Ngo, was with Umhjala and Cronje, and in his description of the incident he says that Cronje did not participate in the beating up.
	Mr Chairman, insofar Ngo would have implicated Mr Motsamai he explained, firstly, that he had a tendency to confuse Mr Motsamai's name with Mr Mtyhala's name. Two, one has to bear in mind that Mr Ngo was describing incidents which occurred many years ago.

PERSON 3: Sorry, Mr Memani, just on that point. I can't help bringing in this point - maybe I should have raised it when you argued with Mr Motsamai. Twice you have already said with regard to Mr Ngo that he was talking about incidents which happened a long time ago. It may be that no doubt Mr Visser will argue this point, but how important is it for the granting of your client's application for us to believe that the people that he names, that he implicates were in fact there. Secondly, how certain are you or your client can be having been involved in so many incidents that he might not on one or two occasions bring in by mistake the names of people who were not there? How do you exclude that danger?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, there is a danger that Mr Ngo has implicated others that were not in fact involved, and the first question I would answer by saying it appears to me that what is important is - let me say, the approach should be that it is clear that if he is believed on the description of the incident, it is clear that an incident took place and that he probably participated in that incident, but he could be erring about the names of other persons involved. I do not think that it is essential for the finding that there should be certainty about the correctness of the names furnished in all material respects. It seems to me that even in cases where a person says, 'I went to kill someone; when I left I was with Tame and when we arrived there we were joined by John or Tholi. I am not sure whether it was John or Tholi whom we found there. And we killed the person, the three of us'. It seems to me that you would give amnesty despite the fact there is uncertainty about the third or fourth person who was involved.