Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-27

ADV MEMANI: Now I put it to you that you only say that you worked in the white section because you wanted to dissociate yourself from Ngo and that becomes clear by your inability to tell us what you actually did in the white section.

MR TSOAMETSI: Sir, that is not true, Ngo knows very well.  The position he is in now is difficult, everyone would go a long way to rescue himself.

ADV MEMANI: Is it correct that Mr Ngo didn't have any differences with you?

MR TSOAMETSI: It is true there has never been a conflict between the two of us.

ADV MEMANI: And isn't it true that there is nothing wrong that you did by taking him from hospital to Mr Venter's home?

MR TSOAMETSI: I have never taken him to Mr Venter's house.  I took him from the school to the hospital where I last saw him.

ADV MEMANI: Is it also not true that thereafter you visited him to see how he was doing?

ADV DE JAGER: In the hospital or at Venter's house?

ADV MEMANI: At Venter's house Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: I just want to point out Mr Chairman, that no such evidence was ever given by Mr Ngo, either in regard to Mr Mamome or in regard to this witness.

ADV MEMANI: Now Mr Tsoametsi, isn't it true that thereafter you made visits to Mr Venter's house to see how Mr Ngo was doing?

MR TSOAMETSI: I have never been to Mr Venter's house.  I last saw Ngo at the hospital at Pilenome where I took him myself.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Did you hear Mr Visser's query?  Was that evidence, was there evidence that that happened?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman the issue was not ventilated but he did say that he was he was taken by Mr Tsoametsi to the hospital and was later conveyed by him to Venter's house.

CHAIRPERSON: But you put to Mr Mamome that he took Motsamai to Mr Venter's house.  Now you're putting that this witness took him.

ADV MEMANI: They were together Mr Chair.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Memani, the point I was trying to make was that, if there is no evidence that the witness did thereafter go and visit Mr Ngo at Venter's house you can't put it the way you put it.  You can't say: "Is it true that that you did go and and and and visit Mr Ngo at Venter's house"?   And I know that you - that I suspect that question was fed to you by your attorney but I would have expected that he would have assure assured himself as to whether there is that kind of evidence.
	What you could have done would have been to put it something like: "Did you go and see him at Venter's house"?, not: "Is it true that you did go and see him at Venter's house"? Because once you say: "Is it true that you did go and see him at Venter's house"?, it implies that and indeed he can only put it that way if there is evidence or there was evidence that the witness did that.

ADV MEMANI: I take this as something which arises after a witness has testified which you can put to a witness.  I did not at any stage suggest that it was the evidence of Mr Ngo.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Then you should please put it the way I am suggesting then you should ask him: "Did you go and see Mr Ngo at Venter's house"?

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.
	Did you go and see Mr Ngo at uh Venter's house?

MR TSOAMETSI: No, I have never been there.

ADV MEMANI: Those are my questions Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink have you already questioned this witness?

MR BRINK: No, I don't think I have but I have no questions in any event.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR VISSER: None thank you Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED

MR VISSER: I call Lieutenant Shaw.  I'm not
 not quite sure what the problem is here Mr Chairman, I think he's going to get dressed.  He probably didn't realise I was going to call him.  My attorney is also in a flurry here, perhaps I should call somebody else. Mr Ramosoeu please.   Alright Mr Shaw is now present and correct Mr Chairman.  
	I may mention that there are two affidavits of Lieutenant Shaw in Exhibit B or bundle B rather.  The first is at page 38 and the second is at page 92.

MR SHAW: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: Mr Shaw, were you attached to the South African Police?

MR SHAW: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And are you at present still in the South African Police Service or what is your position?

MR SHAW: I have left the police, I accepted a separation package and I am running my own business to-day.

MR VISSER: And with which rank did you retire from the police?

MR SHAW: Superintendent.

MR VISSER: You became aware of the fact that certain allegations regarding illegal acts were made against you?

MR SHAW: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Did you together with others go to Pretoria?

MR SHAW: That's correct.

MR VISSER: When you heard for the first time regarding allegations from the side of Ngo?

MR SHAW: That's correct.

MR VISSER: At that stage Motsamai also accompanied this group to Pretoria.

MR SHAW: That's correct.  I did not go up with them, I went up with Superintendent Erasmus.

MR VISSER: But you met them there?

MR SHAW: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: I wish to ask you as far as your knowledge goes, was there any influence exerted by any person to say anything in an affidavit or to sign an affidavit which had previously been prepared by somebody else?

MR SHAW: No, there was no influence exerted on me.

MR VISSER: You yourself made an affidavit dated 18 March 1997?

MR SHAW: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Is that sworn affidavit now in front of you?

MR SHAW: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: Do you affirm the correctness and the truth of the content thereof?

MR SHAW: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: Is it also true that you later became aware of an application by Motsamai and of the fact that you were also mentioned in that application, that you were implicated there?

MR SHAW: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you have that affidavit in front of you?

MR SHAW: Is that the one dated 13/5/97 E33 or P33, it wasn't quite clear?

MR SHAW: Yes, indeed.

MR VISSER: Well, there are actually two dates but that's not material, it appears to be the 14th of May. Be that as it may do you affirm the correctness and the truth of that affidavit?

MR SHAW: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Shaw, when did you join the South African police?

MR SHAW: 27 February 1971.

MR VISSER: And did you also become a member of the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR SHAW: Yes, that's correct, in October 1980.

MR VISSER: What was your exact task, in which section did you work during the period 1985/'86?

MR SHAW: I was under the command of Colonel Coetzee, we worked with black affairs in Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: Now can you please give us a list of the names of the people in the black section during that period?

MR SHAW: The people who worked with me was Sergeant Mamome, Constable Motsamai - its long ago Ramosoeu Hendrik Ramosoeu, Mtyhala.  Do you only wish to have the names of the black members or do you you wish to have the white names as well?  There were white members, Warrant Office Koch L.J. Koch, Cronje.

MR VISSER: How many Kochs were there?

MR SHAW: There were two Kochs, Warrant Officer P.A.C. Koch and L.D. Koch.

MR VISSER: You also said Cronje?

MR SHAW: Yes, Cronje.

MR VISSER: Erasmus?

MR SHAW: Yes, Erasmus.

MR VISSER: And yourself?

MR SHAW: There could be one or two members whose names I have forgotten, I can't remember now.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us approximately how many members in total were there in the security branch of Bloemfontein in '85/'86?

MR SHAW: Between 60 and 70 members.

MR VISSER: As far as you are implicated by Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai in the Commission of any misdemeanours or any illegal or unlawful deeds, what is your reaction to that?

MR SHAW: Well, I deny those allegations.