Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 2011-01-21

MR STANDER: I think we could possibly adjourn, Mr Chairman, possibly it will solve the problem for us, if we could adjourn for a while.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to consult with your client?

MR STANDER: That is indeed so.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Before you do that, I feel that it behoves us to explain to ignorant people, like the applicant, in as clear a manner and frankly and accommodative manner as possible to make him understand what the process is all about.  I am addressing myself, Mr Molefe, in particular to you.  Mr Molefe, I am addressing myself in particular to you, because many people come here without understanding what is happening and when we make certain rulings they feel as though they are being denied the opportunity to tell about their sufferings in the past when, in fact, it is not the case.  We are not here to suppress anything.  It is just that it is a procedure with which we have got to follow.
	In your case it should have been explained to you from the beginning that this hearing is the amnesty hearing, is not the right platform for you.  The right platform for you was not the Amnesty Committee but the Committee on the Violation of Human Rights.  That is where you should have been advised from the beginning that you should go there and give evidence there.  There are different committees within the Commission.  The Commission consist of a number of committees.  Now for you, the evidence that you are giving now does not belong here, it belongs to the committee which listens to people who want to tell us, to tell the country, to tell the nation about their mistreatment by others in the past.  This is simple a wrong place, they sent you to a wrong place and you must please understand that.

MR MOLEFE: Okay, so long, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Because looking at the affidavit filed it relates apparently to the act of the applicant in his application for amnesty.

MR STANDER: That is true, Mr Chairman, as I argued with you on strength of that, that Mr Motsamai at various stages has said that other people were also assaulted and that is why I thought it was relevant.  It obviously seems not to be the case and therefore could you perhaps give us the adjournment, give me the adjournment so that I can consult with the witness and then we can possibly solve the problem.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, it might be persistence to go through the cross-examination of Mr Motsamai.  My instructions are that during cross examination by Mr Stander, the issue of the assault on this victim was raised and it was ventilated.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will take a short adjournment now.
HEARING ADJOURNS

SERAME S MOLEFE: (s.u.o)

MR VISSER: At page 141 of bundle A, it would seem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: It has just been pointed out to me that this particular person at the same page is number 22, point 21, so it may not refer to that.  Molefe is also referred to at that very same page as item 21, so the item 26 may not be what I suggest that it might mean.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, further I took Mr Motsamai under cross-examination, you will find this in bundle number three of the last record on page 779, under the headline "Further cross-examination by Mr Stander".

CHAIRPERSON: (...Indistinct).

MR STANDER: Thank you very much.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps, Mr (...indistinct), whether you (...indistinct) consider whether he is falling under which item in the pre-trail conference where we agreed that this is the incidence for (...indistinct) amnesty is being asked. (...Indistinct) trying to see whether you could (...indistinct).

MR STANDER: I will indeed.  I did not, unfortunately, attend those pre-trial conferences, I will have to look at that, if one of my colleagues can just make that available to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, gentlemen, have you reached agreement?

MR STANDER: It seems that Mr Visser's attitude is that no decision has been made by the Committee, so unfortunately I cannot take the matter further than this apart from saying that this witness was, as Mr Memani has said, raised by me during the previous hearing and in the parts which you will find on page 779 and further on.  I think that it goes up to 781, in bundle three of the previous record.  You will also see on page 780, there is a reference to Judge Ngoepe when he referred to page 141.  Unfortunately I cannot remember what bundle he referred to, but also number 21.  I am grateful to my colleague.  He refers me to the fact that it is the list of victims which you will find on page 141 under item 21.
	I was asked just before the adjournment to indicate on basis, what basis this evidence is being offered in terms of the pre-hearing discussions.  You will find it under item 615, on page 5 of the minutes which were compiled, namely the "Assaults and Torture at police offices in Bloemfontein".

CHAIRPERSON: Did this take place in the offices of Bloemfontein?

MR STANDER: That is true, I was leading up to that.  Unfortunately, I first had to give a background.  I could not just start there.  As a result of that I led this witness in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Because so far we have had no mention made of the officers of Bloemfontein.

MR STANDER: That is true Mr Chairman, but if we give the witness the opportunity to go further then he will eventually get to that part which will fall under paragraph 6.15.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, do I ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: If it does not take too long for us to get there, if you can do it as soon as possible.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, can you ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: But I understood Mr Visser's objection to being evidence led of incidents that were not part of what happened at the office in Bloemfontein and was therefore not relevant to the present application.  That was your objection was it not?

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, but just a short reply to what is now being advanced to you.  The notes in the minutes at 6.5 refers very specifically to annexure A attached to Mr Motsamai's application for amnesty, item 13.  It does not refer to anything else.  It refers to the group of persons of approximately 19 who were arrested, and who you have heard evidence about, that were brought to Fountain Street where they were allegedly assaulted.  It was restricted to that.  There is no way in the world that it can ever be argued that the members that participated in that pre-trial conference had in mind that a victim or an alleged victim, who gave evidence, wanted to come and give evidence as if before the Humans Rights Commission about other issues, were included in 6.5 of that minute, Mr Chairman.  That argument cannot go up.

CHAIRPERSON: It is 6.15.

MR VISSER: 6.15, whichever.  The fact is, Mr Chairman, my submission is a crisp one.  Where we spoke and where you spoke to me in the beginning on the record regarding assaults by Mr Motsamai, it was always intended and so understood, to be restricted to the incident relating to the sixth of April 1986 when a group of 19 people were brought to Fountain Street, nothing else.

ADV DE JAGER: Paragraph 13 of the application does not restrict it to persons, to the 19 persons, it does not mention the 19 persons, there is no reference to the 19 persons.