Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — UNKNOWN

MR MININGWA: Unfortunately Sir, I did not know, I only know of two allegations.  The others I heard when the applicants were testifying as I am doing now.

ADV MEMANI: Did you at any stage tell your legal representatives what your version was going to be in this hearing?

MR MININGWA: No.
    Can you repeat that question Sir, I didn't catch it very well.

ADV MEMANI: Did you at any stage tell your legal representatives what your version was going to be at these hearings?

MR MININGWA: I think I gave them the statement, Sir. They told me that Motsamai implicates me on this issue, then I gave them a statements and I said: "That's Motsomi's version, I know nothing about that incident.  I think they know what I was going to say today but they don't know exactly what I was going to say as I'm sitting here.

ADV MEMANI: That cannot be true.  How could it be true, that's the way attorneys work.  A client comes in and says that: "I'm not guilty" and the attorney wants to know why you say you're not guilty of what you're being accused of?

MR MININGWA: Sir, I do not know how are you asking me this question because I gave a statement before the attorneys.  The first day when I sit here, he led evidence told me that you've been implicated on this and this point and now I do not know what are you actually asking me.

ADV MEMANI: You see the only reason why your attorneys did not take any statement about what you're going to say here would be that you did not have any proper instructions to give to them at that stage.

MR VISSER: I'm going to have to object here, Mr Chairman.  Frankly, I don't even follow the line of the cross examination.  But with all due respect to this witness that there isn't an affidavit before you because he didn't give my attorney instructions, is ridiculous, with respect.
    We've explained to you at the time that the allegations started proliferating, there were more and more pieces of would be application papers that came to light, Mr Chairman, and we said on record to you that we've now reached the point where it doesn't - make any - where there's no point at all in filing further affidavits, we will have to call all the witnesses because otherwise we would have to keep amending the affidavits all the time.
    With respect, Mr Chairman, my learned friend's questions, his statements which he's putting to the witness are unfair in the extreme.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, these allegations are contained in the application in its original form before Mr Ngo testified.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, if my learned friend is through, can I try to refresh your memory about what happened with Mr Ngo's application?
    You will recall that on the first occasion, when we arrived here Mr Chairman, there was only one incident that he had applied for amnesty for and that was murder, robbery and the illegal possession of a firearm with regard to the Venter murder.
    Thereafter there was - bundle C page eight came to light and we didn't know - bundle C page eight, Mr Chairman, and nobody knew what the status of this document was you will remember very well.   And eventually Mr Chairman this lead to a point, an item placed on the agenda of a pre-trial conference that we had to agree was what the application of Mr Ngo in the end really consisted of.
    And at that stage we conceded that you can take it for granted that page 8, 9, 10, 11, up to 14 was also part of the application.  The only point I'm making is originally there was no question about anything other than Mr Venter, that's what we came to Bloemfomntein for in the first place, Mr Chairman.
    So my learned friend's statement is factually incorrect.  And thereafter, you will recall, there was another 30 pages or whatever that came to light and we even conceded that those also would form part of the application, on the basis that Mr Ngo said to you in his evidence that he gave all these papers to the TRC. And we said well let's be fair to the man, consider it all to be part of the application.
    But it's not correct to say that originally when consultations were held with the witnesses we knew exactly what he was going to say, we knew about Venter, that's all.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the legal representatives of the people who are objecting might have raised the legal argument about whether or not the rest of the incidents formed part of the application but the factual allegations were contained in both documents that were submitted on behalf of Mr Ngo.  So these allegations were already known to Mr Visser and Mr Wagner.

ADV DE JAGER: Wasn't there a dispute about two applications, and whether the documents were included in the first application and then we all agreed in the long end that we would take both applications because it might have been mislaid, that he did send it in and it might have been mislaid?

ADV MEMANI: What I'm doing here, Mr Chairman, I'm referring you to the bundle, I'm saying look at both applications that are submitted by Mr Motsamai.  They contain facts on most of the applications that he's made and Mr Visser and Mr Wagner chose to raise a dispute about whether the rest of incidents formed part of his application.  Now that was a legal argument.
	My understanding is that a lawyer whose faced with such a situation prepares all the facts as well, Mr Motsamai was already making the allegations.  He did not make the allegations against - as far as Mr Venter only is concerned.  Throughout he spoke of the rest of the incidents which are contained again in the second, what we call the second application.
    Mr Visser cannot be heard to say that at that stage he didn't consult on the rest of the allegations because he wanted to raise, would I say a point in limine that they were not properly before this Court, before this forum.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Visser, just to enable myself to follow, the witness has not made an affidavit, is that what it's all about?

MR VISSER: No, this witness has made an affidavit. I'm not sure what the point is here but I - as much as I can gather Mr Commissioner, is that it's being put to the witness that in his original affidavit he didn't deal with all the allegations and with all the incidents which are now before you.
	You will see at page 100 of bundle D, you will find the affidavit of Mr Miningwa.  And he deals here in paragraph 2.2, were he says:
"Specifically I took note of certain allegations which implicated me".
then he goes to over to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't' the problem Mr Visser, that the affidavit you are reading there relates to amnesty application of Mr Motsamai, not to Mr Ngo?

MR VISSER: Yes, absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: And the point that Mr Memani is trying to make is that he hasn't dealt with the allegations in Ngo's application.

MR VISSER: It's not in dispute, we never gave you an affidavit for him in regard to Mr Ngo.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's the point Mr Memani is seeking to make. That is you had told your attorneys about it they would have filed an affidavit.

MR VISSER: Yes, but my learned friend can't ignore the evidence which is on record Mr Chairman, where we told you that there is a proliferation of incidents now that there's going to be no point of filing affidavits, we will give the evidence viva voce, that's exactly what we did.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV MEMANI: But that surely Mr Chairman, would have occured after Motsomi, after affidavits relating to Motsomi were filed.  When we first came here in May, or in March, the only person before the Committee was Ngo,  Motsamai came in later and there was no proliferation at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the point Mr Visser makes is that when they came here first it was first it was to oppose the application in respect of Venter, the murder of Mr Venter.