Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-27

MR VISSER: He says that on the 25th of May 1993 you were present while he was assulated. Do you know anthing about this?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of this.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR DU PLESSIS: ... [No English translation]

MR SHAW: ... [No English translation]

MR DU PLESSIS: ...[No English translation] Was this in an official capacity?

MR SHAW: No, I knew that he came to the office and that we saw him there but I had no discussion with him or had anything to do with him.

MR DU PLESSIS: : Did he tell you what he was doing in Pretoria?

MR SHAW: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR STANDER: Mr Shaw, the activities of White Mohapi, were you interested in this in your official capacity?

MR SHAW: That's correct.

MR STANDER: Is it because you worked very closely with that specific section?

MR SHAW: That's correct.  The work of the section was to gather information regarding matters of unrest and school related problems in Bloemfontein.

MR STANDER: So would you describe it that if he could be eliminated that you would have made an important breakthrough?

MR SHAW: No, I wouldn't regard it as such.

MR STANDER: Why would you say that?

MR SHAW: Because I did not believe in eliminating people or getting rid of them.

MR STANDER: I do not mean that you wanted him killed or dead but that if he could not be involved in the black townships that it would have been an important breakthrough?

ADV DE JAGER: I think the word: "eliminate" has a certain meaning in certain circles and you must take this into consideration when you use this word what  meaning you attach to it.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will try to use another word.
	In order to neutralise him.
	Thank you to my learned friend.
	Would you say that to take him out of the community would have been an important breakthrough?

MR SHAW: Provision was made in the act for the detention of these persons to according to the act to detain them and in this way to remove them from the community.

MR STANDER: Did you on occasion make use of this in regard to Mr White Mohapi?

MR SHAW: Not personally no.

MR STANDER: Why did you not do this?

MR SHAW: At times we could not get hold of him and at times we were looking for him and we wanted to take action against him in accordance with the Act but he just escaped.

MR STANDER: Is it true that at one stage you were interested in obtaining his services as an informer?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of that.

MR STANDER: Would you regard it as important to obtain a prominent person such as Mr White Mohapi as an informer?

MR SHAW: Could you repeat the question please?

MR STANDER: Would you regard it as important to obtain a prominent person such as Mr White Mohapi as an informer?

MR SHAW: Personally no, I have other reasons for that.  White Mohapi is a person one would say - how should I put it, he was very politically orientated and could not easily become an informer and that is my personal position.  That's how I regard this and I did not have any interest in trying to recruit him or make any attempts to recruit him.

MR STANDER: Do you know of any attempts which were made in your department in order to obtain his services as an informer?

MR SHAW: Not that I have any knowledge of.

MR STANDER: Tell me, after or let me put it differently, do you know that in 1984 he was detained at Bayswater police station?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of him being detained in 1984.  I, if I'm not incorrect, from the 1st of April '84 until June '84 I was on an officer's course in Pretoria.

MR STANDER: So you can give us no evidence to the contrary, where he tells us that he was detained in terms of security legislation in that during that period?

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge of that.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, what what period was it when the witness was on a course in Pretoria?  Can he just repeat that?

MR SHAW: If I have my dates correct it was from the first of April '84 up to and including or somewhere in June '84.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Thank you.

MR STANDER: Tell me, Mr Molefe he had just returned from prison at Robben Island, were you interested in his activities?

MR SHAW: I do not know the Molefe you are referring to.

MR STANDER: I understand that he was a prominent member of the P.A.C. at that stage.

MR SHAW: I have no knowledge.  There are several Molefe's, I do not know about this one.  If he was a member of the PAC then he was recruited by the ANC/PAC investigative unit but I personally do not know him.

MR STANDER: Mr Shaw, I am now going on to the incident where the group of 19 persons were interrogated.  What was your personal involvement in this interrogation?

MR SHAW: I was not involved personally, I was only asked by Colonel du Plooy  to make persons available for the processing of the detention forms of these people.

MR STANDER: Can you just describe shortly what procedure you followed when interrogations were done?

MR SHAW: Do you mean when I had to interrogate somebody?  One would sit opposite one another and talk to one another and try to gain information .

MR STANDER: I asked this to the others as well but you must ...[indistinct], I have to do it again.  What do you do if a person does not want to give his co-operation?

MR SHAW: If the person was in detention then he was returned to the cells and then after a day or two we would fetch him again and have discussions with him again.

MR STANDER: And if he was not being detained?

MR SHAW: If he was not being detained we would just release him and we would see whether wo would get sufficient information regarding this matter from other sources.

MR STANDER: And if it was extremely necessary or essential information that you required, what did you do then?

MR SHAW: I would definitely not go over to violence or torture, we would have tried to convince him by just talking to him.

MR STANDER: And you did nothing else but talk to him?

MR SHAW: That's correct.

MR STANDER: I'm sure that you have heard that all the other security branches countrywide made use of other methods.

MR VISSER: That's that's putting it a bit strong Mr Chairman really.  I won't object if my learned friend says that there are reports or rumours of other people in the security branch who did it I wouldn't object to that but I mean to all the others that's a bit too much.

MR STANDER: Perhaps I'll just rephrase my question. I apologise, I did not want to give the wrong impression.   Surely you read reports in the newspapers of many other security branches where violence was used in order to obtain information, am I correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't this isn't this purely a matter for argument.  The witness has said he did not do it.  You are going to argue that it was widespread through the security police that we must assume they all did it.  Isn't that the position Mr Stander?

MR STANDER: I hear what you are saying to me.  It is true that one can argue this aspect but as I said to you yesterday I would just like to give the witness the opportunity to give his opinion.

CHAIRPERSON: He has said he would never have used violence.  We are here, may I remind you Mr Stander, to go into the application of Ngo and Motsamai.  We are not here to conduct an investigation of the security branch or matters of that nature and we do not propose to permit prolonged cross-examination on matters that are not applicable to the applications before us.

MR STANDER: : I hear what you are saying to me.  With great respect, we are dealing with the application of Mr Motsamai where he alleges that assaults did take place in the group of 19.  I am ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You are asking what he read in the newspaper about assaults in other police stations by security branch it has nothing to do with Ngo's application.