Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-29

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I don't think one could say the shouting was so soft that it could not be heard outside the building, all that I can say is that the people, the other occupants of the building probably became used to this type of activity, and because of that no action was taken. I've tried to think of a solution to this problem and I could draw no other inference than that.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the inference what my brother said to you, that there wasn't this loud shouting and screaming. Apart from anything else, as well as the chaplain, you had the commissioner, didn't you, on the third floor? The rest of the building, I think we were told, were occupied by his offices.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, yes, it is like that, but my learned friend just brought it to my attention that on 6 April 1986 was a public holiday at that stage, it was Van Riebeeck Day.
In other words, the rest of the building could have been empty.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Stander, if your neighbour beats up his child in the bathroom and the child cries, you do not always hear the child, do you? It depends on how loud the child cries. Isn't that so?

MR STANDER: That is so, Mr Chairman. Moreoever, there was the suggestion that some of these offices could have been soundproof. I know it was never indicated in evidence, but it is a possibility. I mean therefore, Mr Chairman, that there was shouting...[intervention].

MRADV DE JAGER: Or perhaps the assaults were of such a nature that although they had taken place, there was not such an amount of shouting that it could be heard outside.

MR STANDER: That could be a possibility, yes. I think one can take it even further by saying that some of these members, for example the identified leaders, had become used to that treatment. You must remember that some of those members, some of the victims testified that their heads were covered by some or other object and therefore their shouting was not so audible. I think that could be an explanation.
	Mr Chairman, I don't want to refer to Mr Memani's argument but it is very strange that Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai would apply for amnesty for something which had not happened at all. Why would Ngo and Motsamai try to incriminate themselves and expose themselves and then for the application to be refused for something they had not done?

MRADV DE JAGER: It is my duty to bring it to your attention that they were not accepted by their community. They were people from the community who were working for the Security Police. They were rejected by their communities and now, by coming to the fore, they perhaps would be accepted by their communities.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, with the greatest respect, Mr Ngo is in prison. This incident about which I am arguing will not assist to be released from prison. It possibly be true in respect of Mr Motsamai, but how would you take this in consideration regarding Mr Ngo? It would not assist him whatsoever.

MRADV DE JAGER: But if he could be released from jail, how would he be accepted in his community?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, with the greatest respect, he was already exposed as an informer.

MRADV DE JAGER: Yes, but now he is compensating by telling the truth. I am not saying he is not telling the truth.

MR STANDER: I hear what you are saying. The community has already rejected him but one day when he comes back into the community, by that stage they might have forgotten it already. These incidents, these matters has a way of being covered by dust in people's memories.

MRADV DE JAGER: Do you think he is not going to get amnesty?

MR STANDER: That is not what I am saying. I hear what you say but there is a difference between the amnesty which he will get regarding this incident and the amnesty for the Venter incident. If he is not going to get amnesty for the Venter incident he is going to remain in prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Stander, isn't your contention stronger? It appears very strange. They might have invented this incident, but it appears that they should talk about assaults in Fountain Street if they had never seen an assault there in all these months they had worked there. That is precisely what all the other policemen say; they say there was never an assault there. Isn't it perhaps surprising that these two should invent something that never happened at all?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I can't put this better than what you have done. It is very strange that only two members of the Security Branch said that assaults had taken place and all the others say it never took place. All these victims testified here in that regard. They told us that it had happened. They had nothing to prove here. It was not necessary for them to get amnesty for anything they had done. They are coming to tell you: 'We were assaulted, we were hit; we were tortured'. I can't take this argument any further, at least regarding the victims. It's very certain that they ...[indistinct]

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ...[inaudible] until only now when they make applications for amnesty. Apart from the case of the gentleman who was shot and maybe also the assault of Mr Mohape, is there any indication to the fact that your clients did make this known. Did they complain between then and now? Did they complain to anybody in Sohawu?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, we heard no evidence that they instituted charges. I am not trying to say what they had done, but I am trying to tell you why they did not institute any charges.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I would understand why they did not go to the police. Most tell you that they did not have the confidence in the police. You can be assaulted by a policeman; they report on other policemen. You know, there was that kind of attitude. But I am not restricting it to that. It is a pity that this issue was not raised during evidence, but I am talking of not just the police but of non-governmental organisations; people of influence in the areas, and so on.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I think that this incident is clearly - was mentioned in the political organisations; it was talked about. If it was not like that this group would not have been planning to skip the country. Mr Mbawana testified Makubalo said that he was tired of being detained and assaulted, that is why he wanted to skip the country.
	But regarding Mr Makubalo, that was his evidence why he was going to skip the country. And then also, Mr Chairman, we have the evidence of Mr Mohape who said that he did lay a charge but nothing happened after that, nobody was charged afterwards, etc. What I am trying to say is precisely what Commissioner Ngoepe just said. There was no trust in the Police Force because the police officials assaulted them. They investigated those matters and therefore they had not trust in the Police Force. I can't take this argument any further than that.
	Mr Chairman, I make haste to say or to ask the Committee to, in terms of s 22 of the Act, refer all these victims to the Rehabilitation Committee. I want to refer to s 22.

MRADV DE JAGER: I don't know about the rest of the Committee members, but I don't think it is necessary that you mention this any further.

MR STANDER: As it pleases you. There is just one other aspect which should be mentioned, and that is the other victims who did not bring or give evidence here. Their evidence or their sworn statements cannot be ignored. I don't want to say - what I am trying to say, it is a pity that they were not here to give their version of the stories. You know, you have their sworn statements.

MRADV DE JAGER: Did you send their sworn statements to other Committees?

MR STANDER: No, I can't answer that. I don't know whether their statements were sent to other Truth Commission Committees.

MRADV DE JAGER: But in any case, you must keep that in mind. If there are relevant statements we should give that to the other Committees; they should evaluate them.