Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — UNKNOWN

MR COETZEE: I don't have any knowledge of that Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: I put it to you Mr Coetzee, that Mr Motsamai has correctly implicated you in all these matters.

MR COETZEE: I deny everything Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: And I put it to you that Mr Motsamai has no reason at all to falsely implicate you in these matters.

MR COETZEE: He must have a reason, I don't have any knowledge about that.

ADV MEMANI: And you on the other hand have every motive to lie about your involvement in these things because to admit them would land you in prison.

MR COETZEE: I have no reason to lie Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: Are you still a policeman?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, in the beginning I said that I retired in 1995.

ADV MEMANI: Now, let us talk about Ngo.  You said that you did not like Ngo.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, let me put it in this light, I liked the other members more.

ADV MEMANI: And you merely tolerated Ngo.

MR COETZEE: Yes, I tolerated him Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: And you tolerate a person only if you don't like a person.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, no, tolerate means he received certain instructions which I gave to Colonel Erasmus to give to him, certain identifications and other tasks he had to do.  I tolerated him to such a degree that certain tasks were given to him.  I did not fully trust him.

ADV MEMANI: Isn't that quite different from what your evidence in chief was?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, the words may differ but the context is the same.

ADV MEMANI: In your evidence in chief, you shifted him to Motsamai and Mamome and you said he worked with Motsamai and Mamome primarily because you wouldn't take him into your confidence and you did not like his presence in the office and you merely tolerated his presence there.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, Motsamai and Mamome I trusted wholeheartedly and together with them he did certain small tasks.

ADV MEMANI: And Mr Coetzee, I put it to you that you, because you don't like Mr Ngo, would not associate yourself with anything that would assist Ngo, such as testifying to an effect that would lead to him getting amnesty.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, I don't have a problem with his amnesty application but as long as he implicates me in his offences, I'm objecting to that.

ADV MEMANI: And you also have a difficulty admitting because if you admitted the things that he says about you, you would again land in prison.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, I have nothing to hide.

ADV MEMANI: Those are my questions Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Brigadier, that passage in which you found those two - I think you said: "two women sitting", was that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Three people sitting of which one may have been a woman.

MR BRINK: Oh, I beg your pardon, three people.  Was that passage commonly known as Violent Street?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, this Violent Street incident, I he0ard this during the first or second session.  I've never heard of Violent Street before.

MR BRINK: So you've never heard of Violent Street until you attended these hearings?

MR COETZEE: That is correct Mr Chair.

MR BRINK: And you never saw a sticker on the wall of that passage, marked Violent Street?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, it could have been there but I can't remember that, I wasn't interested in that.

MR BRINK: Did you yourself use that passage frequently?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, it happened seldom.  We were situated on the 4th floor and the people who came to see me visited me on the 4th floor.

MR BRINK: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

MR VISSER: No questions in re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: It seems to me that this sticker was quite conspicuous.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, there was a sticker in the passage but I can't remember what was written on it, I can't remember it.  If this was the one near the toilet in the passage, it could have been the one, but I can't remember.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You don't remember a sticker with the words Violen Street?

MR COETZEE: No, Mr Chairman.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: What would your attitude have been, had you noticed this?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, it depends on the interpretation you attach to it.  For me it wouldn't have meant anything except if the interpretation was given that it had to do with an offence or an assault or something like that, otherwise it wouldn't have meant anything.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Well, the word: "violent" simply means violent and would you know have been curious to find out: "But what has violent, the word: "violent", what has that got to do here with our passage, our peaceful non-violent passage"?  "What does this sticker want here"?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, if we refer to Violent Street, it did not play any role at all if I interpret that.  If that was the interpretation, it never impressed me.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: I don't know much about bioscopes, but do you know whether there was a film called: "Violent Street"?

MR COETZEE: I think during one of the sessions one person's evidence was led that there was a film called: "Violent Street," but I'm not sure, I'm not up to date with films.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence of the implicated person, thank  you Mr Chairman.
IMPLICATED PERSONS EVIDENCE CONCLUDED

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I mentioned earlier that the proposed witness, I've preconised him more fully since I've had the opportunity.  I don't propose calling him as he does not directly involve any of two - either of the two applicants although he was one of the 19 but he doesn't involve the two applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: If that concludes the evidence we now come to the question of argument.  As we indicated we would like oral argument from you, but we understand that you will not be able to start now.  What we propose, is that we take the adjournment now until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
	We would also like to explain - I would like to explain that we do not expect you to deliver detailed argument.  We would welcome later written argument making references to pages, to passages and matters of that nature. What we wish to hear argument on is the broad approach to be adopted, the matters of the principals involved, the probabilities and other such matters.  	
	We do not expect you now to give us a detailed reference to the evidence that was led, that you can do later.  We would welcome such assistance from you, where you can refer us to specific passages that you want us to - tomorrow and thereafter we would just like to hear a general argument to give us a chance to debate with you the approach to certain evidence and matters of that nature.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that's an eminently sensible approach, speaking for ourselves.  Could we just ask you to perhaps give an indication of the order of argument.  We imagine that Mr Memani will start, followed by Mr Stander, so that we can ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Follow up?

MR VISSER: As it were.  Mr Chairman, there's one outstanding issue and that is now the question of these documents from this docket.  What are we going to do about that?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that we consider it necessary to hear this further evidence, you have told us what it is.  As I indicated earlier, this is primarily as it sees, and I - to clear the names of your clients, it is the credibility of one of the victims that's in issue.  It does effect obviously by inference, the credibility of Ngo but I don't think we consider it necessary to hear any further evidence on that aspect.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that being so, I take it that it would be improper for me then in argument to refer to it at all.  Thank you Mr Chairman.