Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-06-09

MR AMEEN: Thank you.  You say here and I read:  "In the course of the day as we were cleaning the debris a group of about fifteen people kept on singing intimidating songs and passed
intimidating remarks at us.  They were ignored because confrontation was the last thing we were looking for".  Yet that very afternoon when these youths were brought to you, according to your version, and I want to repeat this, you assaulted them and then killed them.  How does that tie in with your stated objective here that they were they were ignored because confrontation was the last thing we were looking for?  In the morning you are not seeking confrontation, in the afternoon you go all out to interrogate, abuse, assault and kill.  Explain the change in attitude that took place, that caused you to do this?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: Chairperson it was not AZAPO's programme to go around assaulting and killing people.  We were in a state of war that was between AZAPO and UDF, now the reason why these comrades were assaulted in the late afternoon and ended up being killed is that some of them were found in Orlando and they agreed that they were going to (indistinct) our homes so that they come back in the evening and attack us that is what made us change our attitude.

MR AMEEN: In the morning when your attitude was still that you were not seeking confrontation, there was still a state of war between UDF and AZAPO.  Is that correct?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: That is correct.

MR AMEEN: In the afternoon - let me just go back a bit - if your attitude was not one of confrontation it was one of reconciliation, it was one of making peace.  Is that not correct?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: When war takes place it's not easy to make a peace treaty ... (intervention)

MR AMEEN: Can I interrupt please.  Mr Mphoreng, in the morning you were not confrontational, you did not want to look for confrontation.  If I follow that through it would be correct for me to say that you were reconciliatory in your attitude, you wanted peace.  In spite of that in the broad framework there was a state of war between the two organisations.  Would you agree with me on that?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: I agree with you.

MR AMEEN: In the afternoon these youths are brought to you and you say that they gave you this information which angered you so much that they were (indistinct) and they were going to burn your houses.  You had them in you power, they were at your mercy.  Could you not have extended mercy to them and spoken peace to them and said look we've got you here, you are under our power, why don't we talk peace.  Could you not have done that.  Did that ever cross your mind?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: The situation did no allow.  During war you don't talk peace.

MR AMEEN: The point I'm trying to make is that that statement of yours in your application that they were ignored because confrontation was the last thing we were looking for is intended specifically to mislead this committee and does not reflect you true intention or you true state of mind on that morning.  I want to proceed and go further ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You must be careful with what you're saying because unless you contextualise it, it could well mean that he didn't want - there were only about four or five of them in the house and the last thing four or five people could have wanted to have that morning was a confrontation with twenty people.

MR AMEEN: I take the point Mr Chair.  I want to put it to you that as far as your state of mind about confrontation is concerned, that that is not the case.  Even though there were fifteen to twenty people, you may not have wanted to confront them, but had that been your intention of being non-confrontational, you would have carried on that attitude of being reconciliatory when the youths were brought to you in the afternoon and there were a lesser number of people to deal with.  I also not a factual inaccuracy in the second paragraph of that page.  We have been talking about six youths who were brought to the house and here, on the fifth line, you say:  "Within the vicinity of some of our homes in Orlando East the same faces were spotted but the number had been reduced to four".  Can you explain that mistake?  Second paragraph of page 16 Mr Chairman.

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: Chairperson yes I see.  This might be a detail that I have omitted.  I mentioned earlier on that this is an event that took place fifteen years back.  I cannot remember some of the things, I am saying four here instead of a certain number.  I did not clearly point out here, I have forgotten, this happened many years ago.

MR AMEEN: I want to refer you to page 11 of your application.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Ameen, I find this very difficult.  There must be a different reason, clearly when you drafted this statement you weren't under the impression that there were only four youths, clearly you must have known then - we're talking about two years ago - you recollection from the time you wrote this letter till today would not have changed from four to six.  There must be a different reason maybe it's simply a misprint, you wrote four instead of six but I don't believe for one moment that two years ago you would have written four, believing it to be four whilst now being able to tell us about the two rooms and the groups of three and three and the killing in three and three.  Was it, it might have been a glaring mistake, but not a different memory.  Chair if I may just follow up with Mr Ameen's permission ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think let's give the witness - just read that paragraph to yourself before we ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: Page 16.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: Chairperson I see the point that is being referred to.  I was recollecting the event that took place in 1986.  Yes there is a possibility that I was not accurate with numbers.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, at the time that you drafted this statement, did you know how many people had died as a result of the shooting?

MOTLANA ATASIOS MPHORENG: Yes I knew that there were four.

MR AMEEN: With the permission of the Chair.  Mr Mphoreng I refer you to page 11 of this application, point 12.c.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr - just a minute - I assume it's Mr Thandakubona, it is not desirable that you should speak to the witness while he is in the process of testifying.  I have noticed that on one or two occasions you have said something to him, you must not do that.  Neither is it in the interest of anybody, not even in the interest of the witness applicant himself, because you will just confuse him but at any rate it's undesirable of you not to do that if you were in fact doing it and you should refrain from doing that.

MR THANDAKUBONA: Sorry Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I interrupted you Mr Ameen.