Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-09

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: Chairperson can I please withdraw those words so that I express myself thoroughly.

CHAIRPERSON: So that you express yourself well?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you see you must be careful in using words the meaning of which you are not very sure because you would mislead us unintentionally but still you would mislead us.  Yes Mr Ameen.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman I have a bit of a problem with that.  He has used those words in relation to the evidence relating to clothing earlier on.  As I sit here I cannot recall specific examples but he definitely has used them.  Does he want to correct all that previous evidence.  I also want to put it to the witness that when he has pressed on certain matters he uses one of two techniques, either not remembering or saying that it is probable and conceding that.  Now part of the purpose of this hearing is to establish the truth and to have full disclosure from him.  These are matters I have to raise in my address but I think I should draw them to the attention of the committee and to the witness at this stage.

MR MALAN: Chair perhaps if the interpreters could help us, because on occasion there was reference to the concept of possible, now did the interpreters use different words in interpreting it or was it put in the language, in the Tswana that he's giving evidence in, in two different forms.  We need in a sense a reference to the original language of the witness.

INTERPRETER: Chairperson the witness used words, two words possibility and probability and each time he uses probability the interpretation came out as probability, each time he uses possibility the interpretation came out as possibility.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ameen I don't know, you may decide what to do but I think for my part, I'm not terribly worried or perturbed or merit to whatever meaning the witness may attach to the word probable because even to some lawyers, the concept of probable or probability is a very difficult one so I'm not very keen to tie a witness to a technical meaning of the word probable.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman I would go along with that.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say - well let me ask you this, just to clear this once and for all.  It was put to you that these people were assaulted in the kitchen.  What is your answer to that?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: When I started assaulting these people we were in the bedroom not in the kitchen, but there is a possibility that they might have been assaulted in the kitchen - let me say, if I say I do not recall having been assaulted in the kitchen, I do not dispute that, I remember what happened in the bedroom that is where I was involved.

CHAIRPERSON: So whenever you use the word probable or probability, we should understand you as conceding that it is possible, such and such a thing could have happened?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: The word that I am using now it is correct, it happened in the kitchen but I remember the details of the bedroom where I took part.

MR AMEEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Now, let us go to the burning of the house.  You've described the house as having been burnt.  Earlier today you described that it was gutted, can you tell us exactly how badly the house was burnt, if it was burnt because my clients, the two survivors, will say that on that day they did not notice any signs of burning, any signs that the house had been burnt that day.  They did hear that the house was burnt a few days after the assault, on the Tuesday following the assault?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: In the morning when I arrived at Jeff's place, after I he had informed me that his house was burned, it was not the whole house that was burned down, the bedroom, the main bedroom, was burned down, the curtains were burned down and when the house is burning there will be smoke and that is why there was smoke on the walls.  Maybe it's the reason why one of the witnesses say there was painting, but I do not recall that point clearly.

MR AMEEN: Now you've testified that you were given order to kill these youths and that the two people who gave you ... (inaudible - end of tape).  Is that true?   The two people I'm referring to are comrade Sam and comrade Tamee.

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: Comrade Sam and comrade Tamee gave me an order that these comrades from SOSCO be shot.  Now the order was issued out after sunset.  When they arrived we brief them, we told them that they were comrades from SOSCO and we gave them the information that we got from them.

MR AMEEN: Could you just bear with me Mr Chairman?

MR MALAN: While Mr Ameen is looking at his notes, who gave you the order, Sam or Tamee or did they speak simultaneously?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: They did not speak simultaneously but they gave me orders.

MR MALAN: But the order to shoot and kill somebody, you need one order from one person.  Why would two have given you the order?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: The order came out from the two of them, they were my commanders.  Can I explain further that comrade Tamee and comrade Sam were underground members of AZANLA, that is why I keep on saying that they are the two who gave me orders.

MR MALAN: No Mr Mphoreng my question is, somebody said to you go and kill these youths or go and kill Oscar or whatever your order was.  Somebody told you that.  It couldn't have been both of them speaking at the same moment.  It would probably not have been both of them giving you an order.  One of them would have said it or at least said it first.  Who said it first, can you remember?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: Comrade Tamee (?) spoke out and it was confirmed by comrade Sam who said yes, it must happen.

MR MALAN: Why is it so difficult to get that information out of you?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: Maybe I did not understand your question.

MR AMEEN: Mr Chairman if I can get some assistance from the committee.  My impression was that the evidence given by Mr Mphoreng earlier, I can't find it in my notes, was that comrade Sam and Tamee were present when the assaults took place.  Is that the understanding of the committee?
The evidence by him in particular.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure, my vague recollections have been perhaps not when the assault took place, but when the interrogation took place, I'm not sure I'll have to check on that.

MR TLOUBATLA: Perhaps I could come in slightly.  I remember asking that very same question to Mr Mphoreng.  What he mentioned specifically was that when he arrived at the house Tamee and Sam were present, but they subsequently left and came back later but in terms of when they left and when they came back I don't think I took it further than that.  But I remember, that's what I asked him.

ADV BOSMAN: If I can assist you Mr Chairman, according to my notes, the applicant said that Nani and Kabela were with him and Jeff was also present and the other three in the other room were Pitso, Khani and Joey.  This is what my notes say.  A little further on he says particularly that Sam Siema and - I missed the name - arrived later, I take that was (indistinct).

MR AMEEN: Okay.  Alright just to clarify your evidence, can you tell us when comrade Sam and comrade Tamee arrived at Jeff's house.  They had been there earlier in the morning when it was discovered that the house was burnt, they then left.  Now the youths had been brought to the house - from that time up to the time they left, can you tell us at which point comrade Tamee and Comrade Sam arrived?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: When I arrived at Jeff's place in the morning I found comrade Sam and comrade Tamee already there but they left for the day, they were not present.  They came back the second time when it was getting dark.

MR AMEEN: Did they participate in the interrogation?