Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-27

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Bester.
WITNESS EXCUSED
	Mr Chairman, there's now 25 minutes left.  Would it be convenient to deal with the matter concerning Mr White Mohapi.  I wouldn't like to keep him here unnecessarily if we can dispose of the issue.  You will recall that this morning I told you that we have discovered the docket relating to a charge which he laid and that docket has been, copies of the docket have been provided to Mr Stander.  Perhaps he can place on record what his viewpoints are in that regard.

MR STANDER: I have been given the docket and during the first adjournment I discussed the docket with Mr White Mohapi.  I must say that the only aspect which is very clear from that docket, and which I have instructions to place on record, is that the date of the incident was the 13th of April - if you'll just give me a moment, it is the 13th day of April 1984 when he was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Which date is that?

MR STANDER: That is date on which he was arrested in terms of Section 50 of the former legislation and the date on which he was released was the 27th of April '84.  It has also been mentioned that an amount of R60,00 has been mentioned in his statement which he had in his possession and which was taken away from him.
	There are a number statements of different police officers and other people as well.  I pertinently asked Mr Mohapi whether he knew anything about that information because it places the incident in a totally different light and I'm afraid I cannot acknowledge that and I have instructions not to do so.  
	I cannot take the aspect any further than this.  Mr White Mohapi is present in the audience and with great respect, I feel that if we recall him new aspects will be added again from other police officers and the process which is relevant here will be lengthened to such an extent that it won't be in the interest of justice to deal with it on that basis.  
	I feel that it was important to place this date in front of you and that is why this has been done.  I cannot take the aspect any further than that.

MR VISSER: If I may make a short reply.  Mr Chairman, you and your Honourable Members of this Committee are here to seek the truth, we know that.  Mr White Mohapi has implicated various people and today again Bester had been implicated by Mr White Mohapi.  His credibility must be of some concern to you.  He has told you a version here, which my learned friend has now conceded, is a materially different story from what appears from the docket.  That is what my learned friend has conceded to you now.  We believe that you should have a look at this docket.  Let us give you the copies, you can read through it.  I just thought this morning, with respect Mr Chairman, that Mr White Mohapi should be given the opportunity to put his version or give any explanation which he can but I'm quite willing and happy to leave it in your hands Mr Chairman, but at this stage we have been asked to trace dockets and papers and pocket books.  We've traced the docket Mr Chairman and I wish now to hand in the docket to you together with copies made of the docket for you.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: It is not my view that the docket be handed in and if this matter has to be discussed in chambers, if it would be necessary that it be discussed in chambers, it may have to be discussed in chambers but I am of the firm view as of now provisional though it may be, that that docket should not be given to us now so that we read the statements in there.
	Mr Visser, from the point of view in particular of your clients, all they have to do here for the reason for them to be here is to come and deny that, with regard to the matter in question, that they took part in the assault of Mr Mohapi.
	And I believe that a reasonable platform has been given to them to state their cases.  And I'm considering this aspect, I'm not giving reasons, I'm just debating the issue with you.  Of the 18 months that initially the Truth Commission was given to dispose of applications for amnesty and a few other months thereafter as well, we have spent on this matter alone among thousands of applications, we have spent two months already.  
	This week it will be two months on this matter alone.  And I feel that somewhere along the way a line must be drawn.  And at this rate, the rate at which we are about to go now we are going to find ourselves bringing in Mr Mohapi to deny certain things contained in the docket and we will not be able to resolve the matter of credibility in the light that you're saying until we would have also have heard from the policemen who allegedly paint a different picture which reflects adversely on Mr Mohapi's credibility.  Where are we going to end with this?

CHAIRPERSON: Can I add something?  We are not here to investigate the allegations made about police officers by other witnesses.  It's not an applicant who's saying this, it's one of the witnesses who has seen fit to say things about some policemen.
	And I agree entirely with what my brother says that if we're starting to devote time to collateral matters of this nature we will not complete the matter in the time we have left to us.  It is not a matter that we are here to make findings on.  
	I think that we should stress that our function is not to make credibility findings about police officers, our function is to decide whether the applicants have made out a case in terms of the Act for amnesty.  And their credibility may be in issue but I do not think it's necessary to reopen matters of this nature which are very much collateral.

MR VISSER: If I may just reply Mr Chairman.  Mr Ngo applies for amnesty in regard to this very incident.  The amnesty application is based on the evidence of Mr Ngo that is was members of the security branch who perpetrated this deed.  That has been supported by Mr White Mohapi Mr Chairman.  We are not concerned with Mr White Mohapi's credibility, we are concerned with Mr Ngo's credibility.  Because Mr Chairman, with respect, this docket is material to Mr Ngo's credibility because if you read the docket you would immediately see why Mr Chairman.  And with great respect, Commissioner Ngoepe has quite rightly pointed out how long this matter has taken.  We must say Mr Chairman that, with all due respect, that we may have contributed somewhat to the delay or to the fact that it hasn't been completed.  But really, if you want to draw a line Mr Chairman, why must it be drawn when my clients are trying to put evidence before you?  With great respect ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Because your clients had the opportunity to do that when Mr Ngo and Mr White Mohapi gave evidence.  They had not prepared the matter at that stage and they have now, this weekend, seen fit to go and do some research, they are asking for an indulgence.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I suggest that if anyone wants to make any application to recall, let that be shelved until we have finished all the witnesses who are entitled as right now to testify.  I also wish to recall some people but I think it's not proper at this stage to interrupt these proceedings.  Let us proceed and you'll determine our applications when that moment comes.

MR STANDER: If I can perhaps just add something.  Mr Visser is asking you leave to hand in the docket.  I am sorry I cannot allow this, I have serious objections to this.  This will mean that untested evidence is placed before you, something which none of has the right to cross-examine.  We have already heard ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand Mr Visser, he wants to hand us up the document to persuade us to allow him to put in and call those witnesses.  I don't understand that he wants us to take a docket and wants us to read it and place credence on the evidence of witnesses who have not given evidence.