Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-08-28

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: The situations which prevailed at that time it was a normal situation at that time, during that incident. But I would explain is that the way the situation was we wanted the situation to be like that because when we did those things we applied a tactic of ambush which is SSS, "surprise, silence and speed".  If you look at the sequence of events this person was surprised.  He didn't know that we will be there.  That is why this has happened.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: You know your answer - okay I am not going to analyse it.  But what you are trying to tell us is that it was so calm that the calmness made you to kill, is that the cause?  Is that what made it necessary to kill?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: It doesn't give that ideas.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: You know if you could learn just to answer the question then you will get yourself disentangled from all this language of yours.

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: It doesn't give that idea that the calm situation has resulted in the killing.  The decision has already been taken.  We couldn't regress from that decision, that had to happen no matter the situation, we had to kill.

SISI KHAMPEPE: May I interpose Mr Mpshe.  You see Mr Mohapi you have given us evidence that your instructions were to the following.  You must disarm, you must fund-raise and you must kill only if it is necessary for you to do so.  This is the evidence that you have tendered before this Committee.  Mr Mpshe wants to know why it was necessary for you to kill on this occasion, because you have said your instructions were not to kill.  It was qualified, you only had to kill if it was necessary, only if it was necessary for you to do so.  That is the evidence that you gave is it not, which is different from the evidence given by the other applicant?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: I explain that at that time it was necessary that that kind of a person should be killed because the only opportunity which we would have we would be in danger.  Maybe you will understand it if I put it that way.  Or you want things which have forced me to do that, I don't understand.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I want things which have pushed you to kill.

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: I was pressurised by the situation that I should kill.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: What was the situation?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: The situation was that in the way that if we can leave him, the situation was tense at that time, then we ended up killing him.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Do you agree with me that it is evidence that Mr Smith did nothing inasfar as the attack is concerned, you are the person yourself who stabbed him first, you agree on that part?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: Mmm, yes that is true.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: You have answered me.

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: That is why that as you said I did that, that shows that if he looked at me he could have made the situation to be tense.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I did not ask for all what you are volunteering, I didn't ask for that.  Do you agree with me that the fact that you stabbed first Mr Smith triggered the events that followed?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: What do you mean when you say "it triggered"?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Put those things you will listen to the Sotho and save us time.

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: I'd request that you should explain what you mean by "triggered".

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Do you agree with me that the stabbing by yourself of Mr Smith caused the happenings that followed?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: I agree with you.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Do you agree further that the necessity then to kill was caused by yourself?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: Yes I do.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Then we can proceed.  I want you to turn to your application and have a look at page 8 thereof, that's your annexure.

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: Page 8?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes.  The second paragraph Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, I am just going to read the first three lines of paragraph 2.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe there is no page on mine - would that be the first page of the annexure.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The first page of his annexure, it's numbered 1 by himself.  Thank you.
	Mr Mohapi I am going to read from paragraph 2, only the first three lines.  I quote:
"Actually, according to me there had been no progress or substantial changes since Mr de Klerk 2nd February 1990 statement".
What do you mean thereby?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: It's self-explanatory because it continues by saying it shows the reasons thereafter because there was no change, what kind of change since Mr de Klerk made his statement in 1990, it is self-explanatory after that sentence.  I don't know whatever I have explained that as well it shows changes that our people were killed, that's how I explain.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: This date, the 2nd February 1990, what does  it remind you of?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: The 2nd February reminds of de Klerk when he proposed that he should release Mr Mandela from prison.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: When was Mr Mandela released Sir?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: It was on the 11th Sir, if I remember well.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Is it not on the 2nd the very same date you are referring to?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: I can't remember that.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: You remember that political organisations were unbanned by Mr de Klerk, when was that done?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: I can't remember.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Now if I put it to you that this statement of yours is incorrect because certain things did happen like the ones I have just mentioned to you, would you agree with me?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: I mean according to your own perspective, yes, but I didn't see them the same way, I didn't see them as changes, it was the way of deceiving our people.

CHAIRPERSON: The unbanning of the organisations was designed to deceive the people?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: You won't say people have been unbanned when you harass them and again you orchestrate law on the other side.  I don't know as whether we would call that unbanning whilst other people were detained and others were arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: I am talking about the organisations which were previously unbanned and couldn't work openly, now the fact that that law was taken away and the organisations could now work openly, you don't regard that as a change?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: That's why I explained that if that law was repealed it shows that those people who were arrested,  they could have been harassed after and those who were supported could not have been harassed. That is why they tried that they should harass the people.  I don't know if you would call that, that was complete liberation while people were detained and harassed and there were hit squads ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We are not talking about complete liberation,  I mean don't confuse the issues. We are not talking about - we are talking about the organisations that were unbanned, previously they couldn't work legally now they were unbanned, you don't regard that as a change?  That's the question.

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: May you please repeat your question Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I have asked you, this is the third time.  Organisations had been banned and could not work openly, they are now unbanned, they can work openly, you don't regard that as a change?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: I say to you Sir that yes, verbally they were unbanned, but in practice if you look closely so I would not regard that as change because people were not doing their political work freely.

ADV SANDI: The unbanning of those organisations was it not an important step in the direction of where we are today?

PETRUS TAPELO MOHAPI: That is why I say it could have been that that was the best step to take us to where we are now if it was the only thing which has made us to be here.  That is why I say it's not only act, there are many things which we have done which has brought us to where we are now.