Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-29

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I have nothing to add to this, except if you want to ask me some questions.

CHAIRPERSON: There is one point I would like to ask you about, and that is connected with what was said by my brother Judge Ngoepe a moment ago. The Botshabelo incident involved what - 40 people, we were told. How many people complained about that one?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I did not have any client regarding the Botshabelo incident. You will remember...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The only information I think we had is that one of the persons named was interviewed by investigators and they were told she was not assaulted.

MR STANDER: I want to assist the Committee further regarding that group. There was a request via Radio South Sotho - I think that is the name of the radio station - to broadcast a news item to invite those people to come to the fore, but nothing happened afterwards. They are not my clients, I cannot give and answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there such a broadcast? And there was no response?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I can't say whether there was a broadcast. There was a request that such an item should be broadcast over the radio; whether it was done I unfortunately cannot say.

CHAIRPERSON: You had no response from them?

MR STANDER: No reaction.

CHAIRPERSON: I am informed that it was done.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: They might have possibly gone to the other Committee.

MR STANDER: The Rehabilitation Committee?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I was just thinking aloud that there could be a possibility that they might have gone to the Truth Commission.

MR STANDER: It is indeed so, Mr Chairman. I cannot take this aspect any further. I do not know if there is anything else you want to refer to. This is what I have to say.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I wanted to ask you what do you make - or it's not so important, but what do you make of the sign 'Violent Street'?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, you have asked me. This aspect I wanted to leave to my learned colleagues.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: If you still would like to leave it to your colleagues, you can leave it.

MR STANDER: Just allow me, because you have pertinently asked me - I am going to haste to say that it is highly improbable that there was a so-called sticker on that wall while we have had evidence here referring to the attempts by police officers not to propagate assaults or allow it, and that the members of the executive team of the police officers saw that notice on a daily basis and did not do anything about it. You will also find that there is an indication that this type of action took place on a daily basis, and the sticker was left there because there was nothing strange about it.

CHAIRPERSON: And what is the excuse this time, Mr Memani?

ADV MEMANI: My Lord, one of the problems is that when we adjourned you just said we are taking a short adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Which is 15 minutes, the normal short adjournment. Or have you not had experience of that, Mr Memani? Aren't you aware of that, that is what a short adjournment consists of?

ADV MEMANI: I know, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But you ignore it. Will you now carry on with your argument?

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, before Mr Memani continues - I do not want to interrupt you - Judge Ngoepe asked me whether there are any members of the Group of 40 in Botshabelo who came to the fore. During the adjournment I was informed that Mr Mfazwe - I hope that is the correct spelling - did appear before the Human Rights Violation Committee regarding this incident. That is the only information I can provide.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I proceed? As the Chair pleases.
	Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to an issue which you raised with Mr Stander about the fact that the offices of the Security Branch are near the Supreme Court. My instructions
are that at the time the Supreme Court was not situated where it is today, and this new Court started operating in 1997 as the Supreme Court.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the extension of the building. The Supreme Court has been where it is for a long time. They have extended the building up towards Aliwal Street, haven't they?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, can I assist you? I think that extension has been there for about a year or two. There was a little building which was demolished and then the Supreme Court was extended. This just happened during the past two years, I am not sure about the date.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, a remark was also made about the fact that people might apply for amnesty purely because they want to be accepted by their communities. That in itself suggests that the people had done something wrong. The thing that is wrong that they have is what they are applying amnesty for, and there is nothing wrong with people applying for amnesty to be accepted by their communities because it is the very object of the Act that we should be reconciled. So I would see nothing wrong if people are motivated by a desire to be accepted by their communities.
	What is of importance, Mr Chairman, is that on (inaudible) of the facts, is it probable that they did commit these acts?
	Mr Chairman, I will then proceed to deal with the application of Mr Motsamai because his evidence is still fresh in our minds. Mr Motsamai was a member of the Security Branch at all times and in respect of all the incidents for which he has applied for amnesty, Mr Motsamai has given an account which is logical and complete. The account which he gives in each instance is not fraught with improbability. It finds corroboration from victims and in the case of George Musi from an inquest report.
	In giving his evidence, Mr Motsamai at no stage has appeared to be minimising his role in the commission of his offences. In fact, in all the confessions he appears to have been the key player. He is the one who manufactured petrol bombs; he is the one who throws them; he is the one who shot at Musi while Mamome was present, and Mamome had at all times had the gun. In the case of Maguwalhu he does admit that "I also shot". 	His commission of these offences, Mr Chairman, was obviously not for personal gain but was motivated by ...[intervention]

MRADV DE JAGER: Could I just ask you about Oupa's - Mr Makubalo's arrest? If there was common purpose for an attempt to murder, where was that common purpose formed? At the office, in the kombi, or after they had arrived at the scene?

ADV MEMANI: If we are to determine that question, my answer, Mr Chairman, is at that at the time unknown they formed a common purpose to shoot.

MRADV DE JAGER: Would you say all the people had a common purpose, the one standing next to the kombi?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, they might not even have had a common purpose, but perhaps it could be properly described as joining in matter, that when it started with Mamome shooting and the others deciding to shoot too.

MRADV DE JAGER: Or may have had the purpose to murder? In the end they arrested the man, he was close to him, he could have shot him. Can we say it was an attempt to murder or was it only an assault?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, if you fire a gun - it is not assault if you shoot at someone, it is attempted murder. The evidence was that they fired shot and the missed. Three, Mr Motsamai told us that when they went there, they went there to kill or arrest, whichever occurred first, and what occurred first was to arrest him, and they had indeed tried to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: Weren't the shots fired during the course of an attempted arrest to stop him escaping?

ADV MEMANI: The evidence is that they were fired whilst he was standing there.

CHAIRPERSON: It depends on which evidence you listened to.