About this site

This resource is hosted by the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory, but was compiled and authored by Padraig O’Malley. It is the product of almost two decades of research and includes analyses, chronologies, historical documents, and interviews from the apartheid and post-apartheid eras.

Name: Florence Molete - Witness

19-05-1999: Day 13

Matter: Boipatong Massacre

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, I understand that there was a problem this morning with the bus that transports the victims. Would you investigate what was the cause of the problem and would you just let us know so that we can see what must be done to make sure that they are picked up in time, alright?

MR BERGER: I will, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete, may I remind you that you are still under oath.

FLORENCE MOLETE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, before my learned starts, might I hand in to you three bundles. They are the documents which were filled out and submitted to the Reparations Committee. They have been divided into:

- Deceased persons;

- Injured persons and;

- Damage to property.

I'm not handing it in as an exhibit, but I'm handing it in for your assistance. That should have the relevant details for each of the victims.

Chairperson, the other point that I just wished to raise before my learned friend continues with his cross-examination, relates to what was put yesterday by my learned friend, Mr Lowies, in relation to the criminal trial and the calling in of certain witnesses, including Miriam Molete and Florence Molete and in relation to their apparent refusal to speak to Mr Strydom and the other counsel, on instructions from the ANC.

I've read the relevant section of the record and in particular it's pages 3208 through to 3215, 3-2-1-5. And with respect to my learned friend, I don't believe that he put the position fairly to the witness. At page 3210, Mr Botha is asked, Adv Botha is asked by the court whether he spoke with all the people concerned and he's asked; is it - I'm translating from the Afrikaans:

"Is it everyone's attitude that they have instructions from the ANC, not to speak to anyone besides the ANC?"

And Adv Botha says:

"M'Lord, I was not able to speak to any of the witnesses other than two, Abudnega Mabusa and Simon Moloi, who informed me that they were conveying the attitude of the other persons."

There's then a debate and the judge says:

"Tell them that I am busy with a trial arising from the attack on Boipatong on the 17th of June. I've been informed by one of the advocates who acts for the accused, that they have summoned you here to give possible evidence after they've consulted with you. And I've been further informed that you tell the advocates that you are not prepared to consult with them because you've been instructed by representatives of the ANC, that you should not speak to anyone about the case other than the ANC, is that so?"

And then there's - no-one speaks, the record simply reflects:

"All the witness indicate that it is so."

... but no-one speaks. Then the judge says:

"All of them are satisfied, is that so?"

And then again no-one speaks and it's:

"All the witnesses answer in the affirmative."

And immediately after that the judge says:

"As a result of the "mededeling" (as a result of this intimation) I've been informed that they say that they are now afraid to speak to the advocates because they have been told to do so, or prohibited to do so by the ANC, is that so?"

And then the interpreter says:

"No, M'Lord"

And then the court says:

"Why will you not speak with the advocates?"

And the interpreter says:

"They are not our advocates, M'Lord. Mr Abudnega Mabusa wants to speak, M'Lord."

And then the court says:

"Yes"

And then Mr Mabusa says:

"We don't know these advocates. This is the first time that we come into contact with them. It would have been better if the previous advocates, if it was the previous advocates who had called us. At this stage it is not a question of fear, we don't have trust."

And then the court says:

"Who is the advocate that you consulted with previously?"

Mr Mabusa says:

"There they sit."

And the interpreter says:

"He is pointing to the State advocates."

Then the court says:

"Who at the ANC offices said that, or said to them that they should not speak to anyone about the case other than the ANC."

And then Mr Mabusa says:

"Concerning the ANC, they are not at issue here, we are talking about the advocates currently before the court."

I'm not going to go through everything in detail, but then two described as "women witness", "vroue getuie" not identified, are asked:

"Is this the position, that you have been instructed by the ANC not to talk to anyone?"

And they say:

"No, it is not so, M'Lord."

Both of them say. And then the second one says:

"We are amazed that we have been called by strange people, not those who usually call us."

And then ultimately the court asks, this is at 3213 in the middle:

"Are there any of them who say that they were told by the ANC not to speak to anyone other than the ANC?"

And the interpreter says:

"Skud die kop ontkennend" (They shake their heads in the negative, M'Lord)

The whole debate is from the witnesses saying; we trust the State advocates, we don't know who these people are and we don't want to speak to them for that reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't it indicate though that what was asked of them was that they had received these instructions from the ANC, and what was conveyed back to the judge was that they had been and as the further debate then, then Mabusa comes in ...?

MR BERGER: He'd only spoken to two, Mabusa and Moloi.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I mean at the beginning.

MR BERGER: Well the point I'm making is that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Of course that doesn't apply to Miriam because she denies that she ever went to court. So that doesn't apply to her.

MR BERGER: No, but what I'm saying is, other than the note to say the witnesses agree that this is so, when someone speaks for the first time, which is the very next line, they say no, that's not the position. And we've seen what happens or what has happened in these proceedings. As you know, misinterpretations get put forward ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well it is vague but what should have been done you know is simply that - because the part that you are referring to is also obvious from the record, what should have happened was that the other portion in which there was an indication that what appears to be the issue is not so much what the ANC said, ...(indistinct) it has to do with we don't know these people would prefer the advocates ...

MR BERGER: The State advocates, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but from my reading of that portion I assume that that is covered by what Lowies said when he added, in fairness to you, there was some dissent amongst the people who were interviewed ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: Yes, I'm suggesting that it went further than dissent and that when the two women witnesses, whoever they were, were specifically asked, they said "no". Chairperson, I don't want to take it any further, all I'm saying is that if one reads from 3208 right through to 3215, one gets the full picture. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I want to enquire what the relevance of this evidence is, how does it become relevant what happened in Pretoria to these proceedings at this stage? I was not here when certain things were said yesterday, but some of that was, and I'll repeat it and my question is, I want a ruling on that, to rule on the relevance of that what happened in Pretoria at that stage.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ... recall what was the context of, but the witnesses were cross-examined at length about the statements that were made and in particular the interview which you are supposed to have had with them, okay, in Pretoria. As I understand it's an issue which at this stage it's difficult to say which way, what it would affect. It may well be that it's a matter of credibility, and the issue is whether the witnesses did testify in court or whether they were willing to testify. I have no idea what counsel will arguing at the end. It's difficult to say, to rule at this stage whether it's relevant or not relevant.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, if I could say that the context was, how it all arose, Mr Strydom wasn't here, was Mr Lowies put to Ms Molete yesterday:

"I put it to you that there were no whites or no police involved in the attack."

And her comment on that was:

"No, it's not correct, because even when we went to Pretoria, Mr Strydom said to us he accepted that there were whites and police involved."

And then went on to explain what happened. And then she was cross-examined on that whole context of what happened in Pretoria. That's how it arose, it arose as a response to a proposition which was put in cross-examination.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson, but if that was in response to the question, why was she led in-chief now, the second witness, to also state what happened in Pretoria?

MR BERGER: Okay. She was led in-chief because she was referred to by her sister, Miriam Molete, Florence Molete was also there, and I thought if I don't lead her in-chief I'm going to be criticised for, or some inference will be drawn for not leading the evidence which is apparently available to us. That was the only reason for putting it up in-chief.

MR STRYDOM: Because the same situation arose earlier on in regard to Mr Berger, that I've become a witness now. I will cross-examine this witness now on these aspects and if needs be we will have to investigate this whole issue further and then I'll have to call witnesses at a later stage, to rebut what these witnesses are saying. But just for record purposes, I must rely on my memory, I obviously deny one hundred percent that I paid them any money whatsoever and my recollection is that they did not want to speak to us, as is reflected in the record, at that stage.

MR BERGER: Well then surely that should be canvassed in cross-examination.

MR STRYDOM: But I'm in the situation that I must cross-examine a witness now, which makes an allegation towards me ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: I had to do exactly the same.

MR STRYDOM: Would that mean that I can put leading questions to this witness in that regard?

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR STRYDOM: Can I proceed with the cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: (Cont)

Yesterday I asked you about statements you made and if you testified at the Goldstone Commission. We've established now that you did testify at the Goldstone Commission. The question is, did you tell the Commission exactly what you told this Committee, as to what happened in Boipatong?

MR LAX: Just let her speak to us directly. Just explain your problem please. Please explain your problem.

MS F MOLETE: I can't hear properly.

INTERPRETER: Apparently the witness doesn't receive the message.

MR LAX ARRANGES DIFFERENT HEADSET

INTERPRETER: She can now receive. May you please repeat the question, Advocate Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: The question was; did you - the version you told to the Goldstone Commission, does it correspond with what you've stated here in front of this Committee, in relation to what happened in Boipatong on that night?

MS F MOLETE: At the Goldstone Commission I remember everything that happened, but now I have forgotten some things that took place that day.

MR STRYDOM: After the Goldstone Commission and at a later stage you've signed another statement which was taken by Lucky Samuel Kekana, the police officer, do you remember that?

MS F MOLETE: Lucky Kekana came to us and took the statements but I don't remember whether I signed that statement.

MR STRYDOM: I want you to have a look at Exhibit GG, the statement appears on pages 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, but look at page 11, the bottom of that. A portion of the signature is cut off, but can you still make out your signature on that page?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I do see.

MR STRYDOM: And also on the next page, page 12?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I do see.

MR STRYDOM: And then at the end of your statement, on page 13, there also appears the signature of Florence Molete, is that your signature?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that's mine.

CHAIRPERSON: What page is that, Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: 13, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Mr Lax, it will be 11.

MR LAX: Ja, I've got it. Not only do we work backwards, but you know ...

MR STRYDOM: When you spoke to Kekana, could you understand him?

MS F MOLETE: He was speaking in Sebedi, Northern Sotho, mixing with other languages. I speak Sesotho, but I could understand him because I do understand iSebedi.

MR STRYDOM: Which languages did he mix?

MS F MOLETE: He would mix iSebedi and seTswana. I know iSebedi.

MR STRYDOM: But did you tell him what happened on that night in Boipatong?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And did he write it down?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And after the statement was written down, did he read it to you again, translate it to you again?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR STRYDOM: When you signed the statement were you happy that what you were signing is in fact your statement?

MS F MOLETE: May you please repeat your question again.

MR STRYDOM: I'll put it differently, why did you sign the statement?

MS F MOLETE: He told me to sign the statement as he had finished writing.

MR STRYDOM: But will you only sign a statement if you're happy with the contents of it?

MS F MOLETE: I was not happy because I was still feeling pains, emotional pain as well.

MR STRYDOM: Why did you sign the statement then?

MS F MOLETE: Because he was a policeman I did sign the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you conveying, Ms Molete, are you saying that you did not want to sign the statement?

MS F MOLETE: I did sign the statement. He said to me I should tell him everything that I know. I did so, then after that he said to me I should sign and I signed the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: And as far as you are concerned, you told him everything you know of and concerning the attack?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I told him everything except my injury.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we know that. And before you were asked to sign the statement, it was not read back to you? Before you signed the statement, it was not read back to you?

MS F MOLETE: It was not read back to me, he was in a hurry.

MR STRYDOM: But the statement you gave you did so freely and voluntarily, is that right? You were not forced to do it.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I did it voluntarily.

MR STRYDOM: You testified yesterday that the one injury to your private parts is something you kept for yourself up to two months ago and that was the first occasion, about two months ago, when you were prepared to tell someone about that, is that right?

MR BERGER: She didn't say two months.

MR STRYDOM: I think the estimate was two months ago.

MR BERGER: A few months ago.

MR STRYDOM: A few months, a few months, sorry. A few months ago, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct, that's when I was prepared to tell everything concerning my injury.

MR STRYDOM: But why weren't you prepared to tell the policeman, Kekana that?

MS F MOLETE: He is younger than myself.

MR STRYDOM: Why were you not prepared to tell Caroline Nichols and Barbara, I forgot the surname again ...

MR BERGER: Sudana.

MR STRYDOM: Sudana. ... that at an earlier stage when they took a statement?

MS F MOLETE: I was still afraid to tell that.

MR STRYDOM: But will you be afraid to tell about the injury you sustained?

MS F MOLETE: May you please repeat the question.

MR STRYDOM: I can't understand why you were afraid to tell about the injury you sustained.

MS F MOLETE: It was embarrassing to me. Even Caroline and those people who accompanied her were younger than myself.

MR STRYDOM: I want to refer you to your statement on page 13, and I'm referring to the statement you made to Kekana, paragraph 7, page 13. It reads as follows:

"During that time the ambulance were already transporting people to the hospital. I then realised that my head was injured, my stomach was painful but not bleed, and my thighs were painful. But I was bleeding from the vagina as a result of being stabbed with sharp instrument. (instruments it seems)"

Is that what you told Kekana?

MS F MOLETE: I cannot see, the writing is very thin.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but accept for the moment what I've read is correct.

MS F MOLETE: It is true. These things happened many years ago, maybe I told him about that.

MR STRYDOM: So this version that you kept this for yourself up to a few months ago is incorrect, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: I was still in pain. People were coming asking for statements and we were also burying the dead. So we were really confused then.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Molete we understand that. What counsel wants to find out is, you've just told us that you didn't disclose the injury to your private parts to Mr Kekana because he was younger than you, and you went on to say that you didn't disclose it to Ms Nichols I think it is, because you were afraid at the time. And you also told us that because it was embarrassing and the people who accompanied her were younger, do you understand that? Do you understand what I've just repeated, said to you?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I do understand, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But now it appears that in the statement which you signed, there is mention of the injury to your private parts. Do you understand that, do you understand what I'm ...(intervention)

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: So what counsel wants you to explain is why did you tell us that until approximately two months I think was the estimate, the injury to your private parts, you had never disclosed that to anyone, including Ms Nichols, because it was embarrassing and the people that accompanied her were younger. Do you understand what he wants you to explain?

MS F MOLETE: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand what counsel wants you to explain?

MS F MOLETE: I do understand, Chair. I had already forgotten that I told him about that because we were still in pain at that time, but now it appears on the statement that I told him about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what about the explanation that you've given us as to why you didn't tell Mr Kekana? I understand that because you were still in pains at the time and you were emotionally disturbed, you may not remember having told Mr Kekana about this injury, but what about the explanation that you gave us as to why you did not tell him? Do you understand what I'm asking you?

MS F MOLETE: I do understand, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS F MOLETE: That's why I say that it's apparent that I told him. I was thinking that I did not tell him. Honestly, he was younger than myself, but now it appears that I told him. I have always been under the impression that I had not told anybody. I thought that it was the first time that I told Ms Cambanis about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, is the position that the reason that you gave us as to why you did not tell him what you consider to have been the only reason which could have prevented you from disclosing the injury to Mr Kekana? It is on the assumption that you didn't tell him.

MS F MOLETE: Are you referring to the reason that he was younger than myself?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MS F MOLETE: That's correct, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Strydom.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chair.

According to you, what injuries did you sustain during that night?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR STRYDOM: Ja, well we can exclude the one we know now or you've just testified about, the injury to the vagina and the other injuries.

MS F MOLETE: I was injured on my head and my body because I was beaten by sticks.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, the head and?

MS F MOLETE: My head was swollen. I had to shave my head.

MR STRYDOM: Other parts of the body?

MS F MOLETE: That's on my private parts, my thighs as well.

MR STRYDOM: Is that all?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Were both your thighs injured or just one side?

MS F MOLETE: The other one was badly injured, but the other one was not seriously injured.

MR STRYDOM: Your shoulder, was that injured?

MS F MOLETE: They were beating me. All over my body was beaten.

MR STRYDOM: And you went to the hospital and you were discharged the next day, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: I left the hospital in the morning.

MR STRYDOM: Which one of the injuries was the more serious one?

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Strydom, I'm feeling hell-of-a uncomfortable, I must be absolutely frank, about this. It's patently clear that this person has been stabbed in a particular place. You've probably go the medical evidence there. I mean really, is this necessary, to put her through this in this way?

MR STRYDOM: Mr Lax, unfortunately it is because of her evidence about the injury to the vagina and things that were said at the time the injury was sustained, it becomes relevant unfortunately. I've got the medical records, I'll deal with that now.

The question was, the more serious injury, which one was that?

MR BERGER: But with respect, Chair, is that necessary, to have to get the witness to describe which injury was more serious?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I don't want a description, I just want her to tell, to say which one, if she knows.

MR BERGER: But to what end? The woman has been ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just not waste time, let the witness tell us whether she knows. If she doesn't, let's get on with the examination.

MR BERGER: But does she have to?

CHAIRPERSON: I've ruled that she has to.

Do you know which injury was the more serious one? If you know, tell us, if you don't, tell us.

MS F MOLETE: I was unable to walk because I was injured in my private parts.

MR STRYDOM: What I want to put to you is your medical record. You were taken to the hospital, Sebokeng Hospital and according to the examination, treatment, progress, and then there's a description. It states here:

"Assaulted last night with an iron bar on the left thigh and left shoulder."

And that's the only injuries that appear on this medical report, and you were given voltaren and maybe some other medication. But what I'm putting to you is, it does not state the injury which according to you was the more serious injury to the vagina.

MR BERGER: Is my learned friend suggesting that Ms Molete was not injured where she says she was injured?

CHAIRPERSON: He is simply putting to her what appears on the medical report.

MR BERGER: Yes, but implicit in what he's putting to the witness is that she was not injured where she says she was injured.

CHAIRPERSON: But this is what the report that's been put to her states. Maybe she will be able to explain to us why.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the other point is that I understood a ruling from you, Chair, that we were not to put in documents on a piecemeal basis and that as soon as we had the documents we were supposed to hand them in to you. My learned friend has known that Ms Molete was going to come and give evidence and this is the first time we get these documents. We had documents which we got from Iscor, relating to Mr Vanana Zulu, we didn't wait until he's called as witness, we handed them in long ago.

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, the affect of cross-examination may be lost if certain documents are handed in beforehand, and this is one of the documents. I'm not sure exactly when we got hold of this document, but I was handed this document only this morning. But I would submit in certain circumstances, for cross-examination purposes, it would appropriate to hand in a document at the relevant time when the witness is cross-examined and when the witness has already committed herself to certain answers, otherwise the affect is gone of the cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: The purpose my urging the parties to make sure that they exchange documents well in advance is to prevent unnecessary delays, just like is happening now. It is a complete waste of time. This is not a trial by ambush, it may be necessary to investigate some of the documents that are being handed in.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson, we are in the unfortunate position that we don't have ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Carry with your cross-examination.

MR STRYDOM: Ja. I've put to you that according to this medical report two injuries are stated here, do you want to comment why the other injuries do not appear on this, or don't you want to comment?

MS F MOLETE: If they do not appear on that report, I don't know, because I was at the hospital.

MR STRYDOM: Can this exhibit be marked HH?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: You've testified yesterday that whilst you were injured on your private parts, that things like - what was said was that:

"That's where the children from Mandela comes from"

Is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON:

"The dogs from Mandela come from".

MR STRYDOM:

"The dogs from Mandela come from"

MS F MOLETE: That is what happened to me.

MR STRYDOM: Why didn't you tell that to Kekana when he took the statement?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Kekana would ask a question and I would give him the answer and then he will ask me to explain and I did that. I have also mentioned before this Committee, that I was still in pain at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete, to enable us to go through this ...(indistinct) much easier, would you please endeavour to answer the question. What is being put to you is that in the statement that you made to Mr Kekana, there is no mention of the statement to the effect that this is where Mandela's dogs come from. Do you understand that?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as you can remember, did you tell Mr Kekana about this?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct, Chair, I did not tell him because many things were written and he was in a hurry as well.

MR STRYDOM: But you told him about the injury to your vagina, why didn't you at that stage - it wouldn't have taken much time, tell him what was said whilst that injury was inflicted?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, can we take this point any further? The witness has said she did not tell him.

MR LAX: Mr Strydom, you know if one looks at the statement there is no mention other than assault, of the actual details of what happened to her as relayed in her oral evidence at all. And at the end she just talks about in general all the injuries she sustained, at the very end of the statement. So if you are going to explore anything that would be what to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Strydom, did you ask her whether she told Kekana about the statements relating to the dogs of Mandela?

MR STRYDOM: With special reference as she testified, where they come from, pointing to her private parts, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was the witness' answer?

MR STRYDOM: She didn't tell that to Kekana because she didn't have, he was in a hurry and she didn't have time to tell him that.

MR BERGER: No, he was in a hurry and many things were written down.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So is her answer "I did not tell him because Kekana was in a hurry and many things were said".

MR BERGER: Yes. - written down.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say written down, because I've got here:

"Many things were said"

MR BERGER: Many things were written.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, alright.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you. I want to turn now to your evidence about the elimination. You testified about the Apollo lights and if you can have a look at Exhibit J, I want you to indicate where these lights are.

CHAIRPERSON: Before he does that, is there any issue about where these Apollo lights were?

MR STRYDOM: There's still the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Objectively speaking.

MR BERGER: Well the only think is, Mr Strydom has a report which indicates certain things and Ms Molete disputed that, but I'm sure we could take a drive out and establish it for ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if you could at a certain point just verify the location of those, with reference to the exhibit. I think it's ...(indistinct).

MR BERGER: Yes, alright.

CHAIRPERSON: And also, I suppose you would take the map, Exhibit J, if you could just highlight them where they are because it just seems to me that it's not an issue which can just occupy us for the whole day. Either these Apollo lights were where they are and that's the end of the matter.

MR BERGER: If Mr Strydom wants to come with us he's welcome to, we can together.

MR STRYDOM: We'll do it in due course, at an appropriate time. I just want to enquire about a third source of light that's mentioned, apart from the Apollo lights.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed.

MR STRYDOM: Your evidence - apart from the Apollo lights, you also said that there was a light, next to the shack there was also a light. Do you still refer to the same Apollo lights or was there some other source of light next to the shack? - in your evidence-in-chief. Do you understand the question? You said that - you made reference to light in QwaQwa and another one at the curb at Bakwena Street and then you said:

"Next to the shack there was also a light"

Now I just want to find out if, apart from the Apollo light there's another light?

MS F MOLETE: The Apollo light is at the curb in Mohokari Street.

MR STRYDOM: ...(inaudible)

MS F MOLETE: It's at the corner of Mohokari in Babedi Street.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I think - I agree with you that there is a light, but I want to know, you said something about the light next to the shack. I just want to find out if there's another light.

MR LAX: Can I help you, Mr Strydom. Her evidence was that there were houses on the built-up portion of Boipatong, that borders on Mokwena, it's the road between them and Slovo Park, and she said the lights from those houses were an additional source. That was her testimony.

MR STRYDOM: Did you hear that? Is that what you said?

MS F MOLETE: The house that is facing my shack, they have a light on the kitchen door and on the other two sides of the house. So when those lights are on, the light reaches my shack.

MR STRYDOM: When you heard the sounds outside, did you speak to Phule at all?

CHAIRPERSON: Would you just answer the question first.

MR STRYDOM: The question was: at the stage you heard sounds outside, just before the attack, did you speak to Phule or did he speak to you? - before the people entered the shack.

MS F MOLETE: I was talking to them. While they in the bedroom I was in the kitchen.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let me just get this explained. You mention a house that has a light on the outside, would that house be located along, would that be the row of houses located along Bakwena Street?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR STRYDOM: Now the question is, did you say something to Phule when you heard sounds outside?

MS F MOLETE: I called Matsileng and I told her that there is something that is happening outside and I also called Phule and then I said to him: "There are men outside". I was talking to them while they were in the bedroom.

MR STRYDOM: Did he reply to you?

MS F MOLETE: He said to me we should sleep.

MR STRYDOM: Now when you peeped through the hole from the kitchen, you saw people at shack number 23, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Number 33?

MR STRYDOM: No, 23.

MS F MOLETE: They were at Agnes' place.

MR STRYDOM: Agnes Malindi, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: How far is that shack from where you stood in the kitchen, peeping through the hole?

MS F MOLETE: It is not far from my shack, you can clearly see what's happening on that shack.

MR STRYDOM: Could you identify the people, give a description of the people that you saw at that stage, at that shack?

MS F MOLETE: They were many and they were outside the shack. Some of them were running. I could see there was something happening there and then I told them that something is happening outside.

MR STRYDOM: Could you see that they were wearing headbands, either white or red?

MS F MOLETE: I could only see that there were people when I was peeping.

MR STRYDOM: So over that distance from where you were looking to the shack of the Malindis, you could not see if they were wearing headbands, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: That hole was not that big that you could see a person at that distance.

MR STRYDOM: Wasn't the reason for the fact that you could not observe headbands because of the light situation, it was too dark?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, that hole was very small, so when you peep through that hole you only see that there are people outside.

MR STRYDOM: When your shack was broken into, can you tell the Committee how many people entered initially?

MS F MOLETE: Because there was a fight I didn't have time to count people.

MR STRYDOM: Did you see that people came into the kitchen where you were?

MS F MOLETE: After they had broken down the door the other one was standing at the door and then a group of them entered.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you just repeat that, I didn't get that.

MS F MOLETE: After they had broken down the door one of them was standing at the door and thereafter a group of them entered.

MR STRYDOM: The man that was standing at the door, was that a black or a white man?

MS F MOLETE: He entered with them.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what he's asking you is about the man who stood at the door. You see you've told us that after they had broken the door there was one man who stood at the door and a group of them entered. Did you understand that? Do you see the man that we're talking about?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that is the one who was standing at the door. After the door was broken down he entered with the other group that entered and they were all running into the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. So what happened is, after the door was broken a man appeared at the door.

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And a group of men appeared also at the door and all of them got into the ...(indistinct)

MS F MOLETE: That's correct, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what he wants to find out is about the first man that emerged at the door, was that man black or was he white?

MS F MOLETE: He was a black person.

MR STRYDOM: During the course of this attack, did you at any stage see any white people inside the shack?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, the people who were assaulting me were black men.

MR STRYDOM: What he is asking you is, during the attack on yourself during this attack, did you see any white men inside the shack?

MR STRYDOM: Inside the shack.

MS F MOLETE: We were screaming and we were facing death. The other people were in the bedroom, I was in the kitchen. I was just trying to save my life because I was facing death. I did not recognise, I didn't see whether they were white or black people.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say "we were screaming", who else was screaming?

MS F MOLETE: The family of Lekabe were in the bedroom, myself I was in the kitchen and the door had already been broken down then.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand that, but what I want to find out, I heard you say "we were screaming", so what I want to find out is, who else was screaming apart from you?

MS F MOLETE: I don't understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I get the impression from your answer that it was not only yourself who was screaming, but there may have been other people or another person who was also screaming, do you understand what I'm trying to say?

MS F MOLETE: ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: When she says ...(Zulu)

INTERPRETER: She was actually asking whether you are saying "in the shack".

MS F MOLETE: We were all crying. We were screaming when these people entered the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: That is as far as ... who is the "we" you are talking about?

MS F MOLETE: I was with Phule and his family in that shack. That is my shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Were they also screaming? That is all I want to find out from you.

MS F MOLETE: We were all crying.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, did you hear the screams or did you see the people screaming? Did you see them as they were screaming or were in a place where you could not see them but you hear the screams?

MS F MOLETE: They were crying in the bedroom and I was also crying in the place where I was.

ADV SIGODI: Could you see them?

MS F MOLETE: There was a door leading to the bedroom and they were inside and they had closed that door because they were about to sleep.

ADV SIGODI: So you could only hear the screaming?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I heard the cries and then the other part that separating the kitchen and the bedroom, fell.

CHAIRPERSON: We will be taking the tea adjournment at 11 o'clock.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson, maybe one more question.

Did you see the attack on your sister, Miriam and on Mita?

MS F MOLETE: We were all attacked in the house.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I accept that, but what I want to know is, did you see the attack? Whilst the attack was going on on these people, did you see the attack on them?

MS F MOLETE: I was trying to protect myself, my life. Miriam was in the bedroom, how would I see Miriam, because I was also being assaulted on the other side.

MR STRYDOM: Whilst the attack was taking ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is the answer:

"I couldn't see because I was also being attacked"

Is that the answer?

MR LAX: Yes. ...(indistinct) bedroom. Can I just confirm, you say you couldn't see, there were two basic reasons, one, it was happening in the bedroom and two, you were being attacked yourself? Did I understand your answer correctly?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, the others were in the kitchen and the others broke from behind and they entered into the bedroom where Miriam was.

MR LAX: I just want to take you back one little bit. You spoke about - the way it was interpreted were these words:

"The other part separating the kitchen and the bedroom, fell"

Just explain what you mean by that. Was it the wall that fell, was it the door that fell, what exactly fell?

MS F MOLETE: They were broken down. This was just soft hardboards, they were tied to the door. Even if you just apply pressure on it, it will fall down.

MR LAX: So it was the door and the wall that all fell down in one go, is that what you are saying?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

MR LAX: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And did any part of the bedroom also fall off?

MS F MOLETE: It fell down. While we were still fighting, even this part that was separating the kitchen from the bedroom, fell down.

CHAIRPERSON: But did any other wall of the bedroom also fall down? - to enable people simply to walk into the, to come directly into the bedroom from outside.

MS F MOLETE: This was a four-cornered shack, it fell as I am indicating now, also in the middle.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that between the kitchen and the bedroom?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that's between the kitchen and the bedroom, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Did any other wall fall, apart from that wall?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LAX: But just - I'm now confused because I thought you said earlier, you may not have used the word "fall", but you said that:

"The bedroom door was closed and the people got into the bedroom from some other place"

And my understanding is that they must opened the bedroom from another side, and the hardboards you mentioned in your evidence-in-chief. So I'm now puzzled.

MS F MOLETE: This shack fell at the back and in front and also in the middle. In the middle is the wall separating the kitchen from the bedroom. These were very soft hardboards.

MR LAX: Now explain the one at the back and the front then, just so we get a clear picture in total.

MS F MOLETE: This other side was also closed and this side we have a kitchen door, it fell at that side as I'm indicating and also in the front. And then in the middle, the wall that was separating the kitchen from the bedroom also fell.

CHAIRPERSON: So is the position that, you see the door from the outside goes into the kitchen and then from the kitchen you go into the bedroom. Now the door fell, together with the surrounding walls?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And then the wall in-between the kitchen and the bedroom also gave in?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did any other wall fall, apart from these two that you've just mentioned?

MS F MOLETE: This part that is on the side of the street did not fall, it only fell as I'm indicating here.

MR LAX: So how did people get into the bedroom then?

MS F MOLETE: Others entered from behind. As they were entering they broke down the shack, so the back part of the shack fell. There were other people who were in the kitchen with me and there were other people who were in the bedroom with Miriam.

MR LAX: Now I understand you properly, thank you.

MR STRYDOM: I see it's six past eleven.

CHAIRPERSON: It is. Very well, we will take the tea adjournment and resume at half past eleven.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

FLORENCE MOLETE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, I handed out a further document, which I would ask to be marked HH. That is this witness' - II. That is this witness' evidence at the Goldstone Commission, which I will refer to later.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Now this document is?

MR STRYDOM: That's the evidence of this witness that was given at the Goldstone Commission, at the hearing which was held at Vereeniging.

CHAIRPERSON: Did this Commission make any findings?

MR STRYDOM: No, not as far as I'm aware.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose if it had, Mr Lowies would us have asked us to declare our ...(indistinct)

MR BERGER: I can confirm that Judge Goldstone says he's waiting for the outcome of the appeal, before he makes a finding.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean to the Supreme Court of Appeal?

MR BERGER: Indeed, yes.

MR STRYDOM: Just before the attackers came into the shack, what was the light inside the shack? If you can start with the kitchen where you were.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you continue - at least this document has numbers. I think in future we should endeavour to paginate documents, if a document has more than one page, but at least this one does have pages we can refer to, page 265 and so on. Anyway, yes?

MR STRYDOM: Did you get the question? I want to know, the light in the kitchen before the attack started.

MS F MOLETE: With a lamp.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you here when the witness gave evidence?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR STRYDOM: What I want to know, was that source of light there right through until after the attack, or did something happen in-between?

MS F MOLETE: The paraffin lamp was on and it fell on the ground.

MR STRYDOM: And the light went out, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Was that during the attack?

MS F MOLETE: That is when the attackers had already entered the house.

MR STRYDOM: Was there any source of light in the bedroom section?

MS F MOLETE: The attackers were assaulting me, so I don't know what was happening in the bedroom.

MR STRYDOM: Whilst you were under attack, did you try to get out of the shack to go outside?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And was it at that stage when you got outside, that you saw this person which you thought to be a white person?

MR BERGER: I don't believe the witness said she thought him to be a white person, she said he was a white person.

MR STRYDOM: So she definitely said she thought him to be a white person. Later on she gave a description and then she said that according to her he was a white person, but the note I've got here has got the word "thought", but nothing turns around that, I just want to know, to get the sequence right.

When you went outside and you saw the person which you later described to be a white person, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: How far out did you go?

MS F MOLETE: I was crawling on the stoep, when I lifted my head I saw this man.

MR STRYDOM: And did he say anything or not, this man you saw, the white person?

MS F MOLETE: He was just standing looking inside the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but did he say anything? - if you can recall.

MS F MOLETE: He was just standing and looking inside.

MR STRYDOM: And just to get clarity, that's the only white person which you saw during the course of the attack, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that's the person.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that is the person.

MS F MOLETE: He was standing outside.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think the question was, is that the only white man that you saw during the attack?

MS F MOLETE: When I went outside I saw him.

MR LAX: You're not understanding the question, let me try and help you here. You're being asked; during the whole attack, besides this one man, did you see any other white people? Do you understand?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I understand.

MR LAX: So the answer is either yes or no, it's as simple as that.

MS F MOLETE: In the kitchen there were only black men and then I saw this man. When they ran out I only recognised one. I saw two, I recognised two.

CHAIRPERSON: Two what?

MS F MOLETE: They were wearing camouflage clothes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, were these white men?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, they were white.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's get this right. Now at what stage did you say you saw these white men? Where were these white men who were wearing camouflage?

MS F MOLETE: While I was crawling to the outside I saw this one man and then when they were all running out ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MS F MOLETE: ... then I realised that he was not the only white person.

MR LAX: And what made you to realise this?

MS F MOLETE: He was easily recognisable.

MR LAX: Just explain what you mean by that, "easily recognisable".

MS F MOLETE: There's a difference between a white person and a black person.

MR LAX: And what was this difference that you noticed?

MS F MOLETE: A white person's nose is longer than a black person's nose.

MR LAX: Anything that you noticed that helped you come to this realisation?

MS F MOLETE: That is his height.

MR LAX: Anything else?

CHAIRPERSON: What about his height?

MS F MOLETE: Normally Sotho people are short and white people are tall.

MR LAX: Anything else?

MS F MOLETE: That's the only thing that I remember.

MR LAX: Did this other person also have a balaclava on?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, the second person that I realised that he was white, he had a balaclava on.

MR LAX: And just so I'm clear in my own mind, you noticed him when they were running away you said, when they were leaving the shack, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LAX: Where were you at that stage? - just so we can be clear about that.

MS F MOLETE: I was in the kitchen pretending to be dead, but I was watching them.

MR LAX: And you saw this person inside or outside the shack?

MS F MOLETE: He was passing as they were running out of the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Well was he running from inside the shack, out of the shack?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, they were running from the bedroom, running outside.

MR STRYDOM: This man running out, did he wear camouflage clothing?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: So you did not see this person entering the shack, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, how could I see these people, how could I see him because we were fighting?

CHAIRPERSON: So is the answer that you didn't see him entering the shack?

MS F MOLETE: I did not see him when he entered the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you did see was a group of people who entered the shack?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and you can't tell us whether he was in that group?

MS F MOLETE: I cannot say he was in that group because I only saw him when he was going out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know you didn't say that, but all I want to find out is, you cannot say whether or not he was in that group that entered.

MS F MOLETE: Mr Ngcobo, this person was running out of the house and that shows that he was also in the house, because when they passed I was at the door.

CHAIRPERSON: The group of people that you saw entering the shack, in that group did you see anyone wearing a camouflage?

MS F MOLETE: Are you referring to the people who entered in the kitchen?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS F MOLETE: Those who entered from the kitchen door, when they entered they were already fighting.

MR STRYDOM: What I want to put to you, you testified, and I've got a note here that you only saw black people entering the kitchen, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, you are right.

MR STRYDOM: So what you're saying now, apart from the man who stood outside who you said was a white, you also saw a white leaving the shack. So did you see two whites in total?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir, others were in the bedroom with Miriam and others were in the kitchen with me.

MR STRYDOM: No, no, I'm just talking about white people, you're talking about others now, but just tell me if I'm correct if I state that you in total saw two white people on that night of the attack. We know about the one standing outside, we know now about one running out, only those two?

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: The one you saw outside, could it be the same person who later on came out of the shack?

MS F MOLETE: That one was standing, looking inside the shack.

MR STRYDOM: So according to you it could not have been the same person, is that what you're saying?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, when I was on the ground pretending to be dead, these people passed me when they were running and that person who was standing outside left with them as they went out.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Ms Molete, what counsel wants to establish is the number of white people that you saw, do you understand that?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You've told us that one such person was the one who was outside of shack already, who was merely standing looking into the shack and this is the person that you saw as you crawled out of the shack on the stoep, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: May you please repeat again. With respect, Sir, I don't understand you.

MR SIBANYONI: Ms Molete, I notice that sometimes you answer before the interpreter finishes to speak, so what I want to know from you, are you listening directly to the Chairperson, or are you listening to the earphones or both?

MS F MOLETE: I am listening to Sesotho.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let me start all over again. When you respond to what I'm saying, please do not just nod your head because it doesn't come through, do you understand that? Just answer by saying yes or no.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I've been explaining to you that what counsel is trying to establish is how many white men, or should I say white persons you saw that evening.

MS F MOLETE: I saw two.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The first one that you saw was the man who was outside of the shack, whom you saw as you crawled out of the shack on the stoep.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And the second person that you saw is when you were lying down pretending to be dead, and he was amongst a group of people who ran out of the shack.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that's correct.

MR STRYDOM: What I want to know, you say that you tried to pretend that you're dead and you were in the kitchen now ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry. And now the question was, is it possible that the person you saw could be the same person who was standing outside? - you saw running out of the house, could he be the same person that you saw standing outside?

MS F MOLETE: I saw two, the one who was standing outside and this one who passed me running to the outside.

ADV SIGODI: Do you remember what the person who was standing outside was wearing?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I remember.

ADV SIGODI: What was he wearing?

MS F MOLETE: He wore camouflage and he had a balaclava on.

ADV SIGODI: And the white person who was running outside whilst you were pretending to be dead, what was he wearing? The one who ran out of the house whilst you were pretending to be dead, can you still remember what he was wearing?

MS F MOLETE: He wore a coat and this camouflage overall with a coat on top.

ADV SIGODI: Did he have a balaclava on his face or just ...?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, he had a balaclava.

CHAIRPERSON: How were you - as I understand you were lying down pretending to be dead, now how were you lying? Were you lying down with your face down or with your face upwards, or were you lying on your side?

MS F MOLETE: I was lying with(sic) my stomach, but my head was facing the door, I could see outside. When they were running out I was looking at them.

MR STRYDOM: So all that you would have been able to see of this person running out, is you would see him from behind?

MS F MOLETE: The shack was down, as they were running out they passed me when I was on the ground.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but the point is, they're running out of the shack so they're running away from you, so you would have seen him from behind.

MS F MOLETE: Sir, these people were passing me as I was lying on the ground. I did not see him only from behind, I also saw him from the front.

CHAIRPERSON: When you saw his front, was he already outside the shack or was he still inside the shack?

MS F MOLETE: They were running to the outside.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you still recall where exactly in the shack he was, was he still inside the shack or was he already outside the shack?

MS F MOLETE: They were running out.

CHAIRPERSON: When you first saw this white man, where was he, was he still inside the shack, was he outside the shack? - if you can remember. If you don't remember, say so.

MS F MOLETE: The first one that I saw is the one who was outside looking inside and then the second one is the one that I saw when they were running out. That is when they were leaving.

CHAIRPERSON: I've heard you describe how you saw the first one and I think that was when you were outside, what I want to find out is, the second person, when you first saw him, this second white man, was he still inside of the shack or was he already outside the shack?

MS F MOLETE: He was outside the shack and they were running away.

MR STRYDOM: When you were asked yesterday by Mr Berger, if you've seen any white people during the attack, why did you not mention this second white person?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Berger asked me about one person, one white person.

MR STRYDOM: Mr Berger asked you if you saw any white people, why didn't you mention the other person?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, Mr Berger asked me whether I saw a white person, he didn't say white persons.

MR STRYDOM: The question was:

"Did you see any white men at any time during the attack?"

So I put to you that the question was clear enough to also include another person if you saw that person, why didn't you mention that person?

CHAIRPERSON: But as I understand her explanation, she says she was asked about a person, which is why she didn't tell us about persons. Is that right, Ms Molete?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that's correct, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why you only mentioned one person.

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: I'll leave that for argument because the record speaks for itself.

Now you were just asked about the clothing of the people outside, of the white man outside, and you said he had camouflage clothing on and you mentioned that the person inside had a coat on. So can I gather from that that the person standing outside, the white person, did not have a coat on?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, I said the person who was outside wore a camouflage and this second person a had camouflage and a coat over that camouflage.

MR STRYDOM: You see the statement you made to Mr Kekana, you said the following, on page 11: - just to put it in perspective I'll read from the fifth line from the bottom ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR STRYDOM: Page 11, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR STRYDOM: Ja, but just the last five sentences of paragraph 4.

"One of the attackers tried to stab me with a spear and shifted and he missed and I managed to get out of the shack. When I got outside it was full-moon (there seems to be a letter there which I can't read, but then) a bright, and I saw a white male person wearing a (camouflage) and an overcoat which was unbuttoned and it made it possible for me to see the clothing. He was having a rifle which was pointed towards the shack. Even though he was wearing a balaclava his face was fully visible and I could clearly see that he is a white person. I then ran back into the shack and called Phule."

Now firstly, do you remember stating this to Mr Kekana?

MS F MOLETE: There is a mistake there, the portion that refers to Phuleng.

MR STRYDOM: To Phuleng? I didn't read a portion relating to Phuleng.

CHAIRPERSON: She's referring obviously to the part relating to Phule.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, she may have heard Phuleng, who is her sister.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm just you know telling Mr Strydom that she probably would be referring to the part relating to Phule.

MR STRYDOM: But it's unclear now, I didn't read about him. Did she read the paragraph herself?

MR BERGER: You did read, you read to the end of paragraph 4, and the last word is Phule.

MR STRYDOM: Sorry, I'm wrong, I missed that, that's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just clarify this. You say in the portion that has just been read to you, the only aspect that's incorrect is the one that refers to Phule?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. What's incorrect about that?

MS F MOLETE: I thought that he was referring to Phuleng.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, no but - oh yes, I see. What he read to you, what he should have read to you is the following:

"I then ran back into the shack and called Phuleng"

Is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that portion is correct, that is when we were still fighting.

MR STRYDOM: And you said you're happy with the rest of the paragraph.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I'm satisfied.

MR STRYDOM: So then you're also satisfied with the portion that the person standing outside had an overcoat, which you even could say that was unbuttoned and that made it possible for you to see the clothing?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: But I asked you a while ago if the person outside was wearing an overcoat and you said "no", why are you happy now with this what is stated here?

MS F MOLETE: Sir, you have asked me so many questions. The way it is written here this person wore a camouflage.

MR LAX: The simple issue is that you were asked about whether the person outside was wearing an overcoat. In fact to put the whole question to you fairly, you were firstly asked about the person inside and you were clear that person had an overcoat, you were then asked about the person outside and you differentiated between the two of them, on the basis that only the one inside had an overcoat. Now the question Mr Strydom is putting to you is, why are you happy with this statement if it says that the person outside had an overcoat, when in your evidence you told us he didn't. Do you understand the question? Do you understand the question?

MS F MOLETE: I understand the question.

MR LAX: What is your comment or answer?

MS F MOLETE: The man who was standing outside wore a camouflage, he had an overcoat and a balaclava on.

MR STRYDOM: I'm going to leave it at that, but I'm going to put to you that you are changing your version as you carry on.

CHAIRPERSON: The man who was standing outside wore a camouflage and an overcoat, is that what you said?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And a balaclava?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, on his face.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now the one inside?

MS F MOLETE: He had an overcoat, he wore a camouflage overall, he had a balaclava over his face.

CHAIRPERSON: So these two white men then appear to have been wearing the same clothing, that is camouflage, overcoat and balaclava?

MS F MOLETE: That is how I saw them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, ja.

MR STRYDOM: I also want to put to you that in your statement to Kekana you do not mention a second white person that was on the scene on the night. Can you give an explanation?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, I explained that Mr Kekana was in a hurry when he was writing this statement.

MR STRYDOM: But apart from Mr Kekana being in a hurry, did you mention it to him?

MS F MOLETE: He said to me I should be quick because he has to go to Pretoria and then come back again.

MR LAX: Sorry, the question was, did you tell him about the second person or not? It's really quite simple, either you did or you didn't. Just give us a simple answer.

MS F MOLETE: Everything that I told Mr Kekana is what is written on that statement.

MR LAX: Does that mean you didn't tell him.

MS F MOLETE: I don't remember well because this happened many years ago.

MR STRYDOM: Just before the attack, your sister and her husband and the child went to the one room and you stayed in the kitchen and obviously you must have seen them going into that room. But from that time, when was the first time for you to see your sister again and Mita?

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection may not be accurate, but did she say that just immediately before the attack they went there or did she merely say they were already in the bedroom?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I can put it differently because nothing revolves around that. I just want to find out, from the last time she saw them, when they went to go and sleep on that specific night, when was the next occasion when she saw them, that's now Mita and hers sister.

MS F MOLETE: While I was going to seek help from Mr Sampson, she jumped over the fence to my brother-in-law's place. She had her baby in her hands.

MR STRYDOM: So whilst the attack was going on you did not go to her and try to assist her or try to assist Mita, or anything of the kind?

MS F MOLETE: I went there trying to protect the baby. She had the baby in her arms and they were fighting.

MR STRYDOM: But Ms Molete, I just asked you when did you see them again, from the time they went to bed, and you said:

"Afterwards when she stepped over the fence with the baby."

Now why do you say now that you saw her during the course of the attack?

MS F MOLETE: When the attack was still on I was trying to protect myself and I was also trying to protect the baby because the shack was already down on the other side.

CHAIRPERSON: In order to protect the baby, did you go to the bedroom where your sister was?

MS F MOLETE: The all between the bedroom and the kitchen was already down on all these people were inside the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: When you - as I understand your evidence, in the course of the attack on yourself you were trying to defend yourself, but at the same time - well protect yourself, and at the same time you were trying to protect the baby.

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And how did you try to protect the baby?

MS F MOLETE: I was trying to take the baby from her mother.

CHAIRPERSON: And can you still recall - I mean if you don't remember, say so, but can you still recall where the mother was with the baby at the time?

MS F MOLETE: They were just next to the wardrobe.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be in the bedroom?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

MR STRYDOM: Was that at a stage before you went out of the shack?

MS F MOLETE: That is before there was a fight inside the house.

MR STRYDOM: Was that at the stage when you anticipated that the people may come into the shack and injure somebody?

MS F MOLETE: Are you referring to the time before the attack, Sir?

MR STRYDOM: No, maybe you're confused now. You went -according to your evidence now, to Mita to protect her. Now what we want to know is, when did you go to Mita to protect her?

MS F MOLETE: That is when the fight was already on. I was asking myself where the baby was. I was crying that time, I was also being assaulted at that time, so what I wanted was to protect the baby, so that if I die, I die with the baby.

MR STRYDOM: And what did you do to protect the baby?

MS F MOLETE: I didn't even make an attempt because when I was crawling towards the baby I was hit by a knopkierrie and then I fell back.

MR STRYDOM: Then we're back to the first question. So, did you see your sister and Mita at that stage or didn't you even get to see them? That's now at the stage when you tried to crawl towards Mita but you were assaulted again and you couldn't reach them.

MS F MOLETE: They were just next to the wardrobe.

MR STRYDOM: So is the answer you saw them?

MS F MOLETE: The lights were on, yes, I saw them.

MR STRYDOM: What light was on at that stage in that room?

MS F MOLETE: Moonlight, Sir.

MR STRYDOM: Did you see the assault on Miriam, your sister?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, when I was assaulted I was in the kitchen, she was in the bedroom, how could I see her?

MR STRYDOM: No, I'm asking, when you tried to get to them you started crawling to them, did you see that there's an assault in progress on your sister and on Mita?

MS F MOLETE: The fight was already on at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete, just take a moment or two and just listen to what I'm about to ask you now. We've heard from you that you tried to protect the baby ...

WITNESS DISTRESSED

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, would you find out from the lady who is assisting Ms Molete, whether she's in a position to continue at the moment.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, could we just take a short adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'm just thinking - because it's about twenty one, I was just thinking whether we should ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: Take the lunch now?

CHAIRPERSON: ... take the luncheon adjournment and perhaps reconvene at about half past one.

MR BERGER: Please, that would be appreciated.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: I've got no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Ms Molete, we will take the lunch adjournment now and we will reconvene and one thirty.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, would it be in order for Ms Cambanis to speak to Ms Molete during the interval and just find out how she's doing and how she's coping?

MS CAMBANIS: I'll clearly undertake, Chair, I undertake not to discuss the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean, do you have any objection to that?

MR STRYDOM: In the light of the undertaking I've got no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. And then if there are problems, would you come back to us in the conference room?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Together with the other counsel.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Chair, we will.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay very well, we'll rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR BERGER: Chairperson, Ms Molete would just like to say something to you. She says she's got something she wants to ... Well, she is still under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

MR BERGER: Ms Cambanis said that I should just confirm she's still under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You're still under oath, Ma'am.

FLORENCE MOLETE: (s.u.o.)

MS F MOLETE: There is something that hurts me and that concerns Mita, always when Mr Strydom talks about Mita and Miriam, because the baby is now crippled.

MR LAX: I'm sorry, we didn't get your interpretation, could you just repeat it please?

INTERPRETER: She says the only thing that hurts her is when Mr Strydom talks about Mita and Miriam, because the baby is now crippled or handicapped.

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom hurts me when he talks about Mita, because we are struggling about this baby who is now handicapped, so always when he refers or he talks about Mita, it hurts me a lot.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the position that you do not want to be asked questions often concerning the child?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis and Mr Berger, perhaps you should explain to your client what is required of her when she takes a witness stand, because whilst one understands her feelings and the feelings of those who may have lost or had their relatives injured in the attack, once a witness takes the witness stand the witness has to be asked questions. It would hamper these proceedings if witnesses tell this Committee what questions they do not want to be asked, because if another witness takes the witness stand and then adopts the same attitude, this will render the task of this Committee difficult.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, we have explained to Ms Molete what is required of her when she gives evidence and that Mr Strydom is doing his job when he asks these questions. At the same time however, Chairperson, the Act requires in Section 11(a), that victims shall be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that applies to the victims only, it applies to anyone who appears before this Committee, everyone has to be treated with respect and with compassion.

MR BERGER ADDRESSES: Chairperson, Section 11 deals with the principles governing the actions of the Commission when dealing with victims, it's specific to victims only. And as you've said, Chairperson, this isn't a trial and one has to be robust about the cross-examination of a witness.

She's given evidence at length now, about an incident which probably didn't take more than a couple of minutes and she's been cross-examined over and over again about the hacking of the child and the hacking of herself and the sexual attack on her and injuries, and there comes a time I submit, Chairperson, where compassion must enter the picture and there must be a limit to such cross-examination because if she's going to be treated as a witness in a motor collision case, then she's not being treated anymore with compassion. And Chairperson, you speak about other witnesses coming forward, we've indicated in the past the difficulty that we've had to get women who were sexually assaulted, to come forward and Ms Molete is the first woman to volunteer to come forward and talk about her experience, and if she's going to be cross-examined at such length and with such intensity, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be cross-examination, but at such length, it is going to result, if it hasn't already, in the other women not coming forward and then there will be no evidence before this Committee, other than the evidence of Ms Molete. So in a sense the treatment of Ms Molete will play a role in whether other women are going to come forward and talk about their sexual assaults.

All we're asking Chairperson, we understand that, and we've explained to Ms Molete that she can't refuse to answer questions, but all we're asking is that she be treated with compassion, as the Act requires, and that in our submission she has been cross-examined at length already and has answered all the questions put to her.

CHAIRPERSON: So is it your submission that she should not be cross-examined further at this stage?

MR BERGER: No, that's not our submission. She broke down, Chairperson, and she's explaining to you why she broke down ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand that. What's your submission, Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM ADDRESSES: Chairperson, my aim is definitely not to treat this witness without compassion, my aim is not to injure or to hurt her in any way, but she made certain statements stating that white people and police were involved and that's contrary to our instructions and I have to test her credibility, and unfortunately I'll have to go through portions of her evidence which is not pleasant, but I would argue later that it is a deviation from her statement, and it's on these aspects that it's unpleasant.

So I'll have to - in the process of testing her on her credibility I'll have to go through some of these aspects. I'll try not to go into it any deeper than I feel is necessary for purposes to attack her credibility. That's just for the ordinary purpose of cross-examination and I'll try to do it with compassion.

CHAIRPERSON: What's the submission of the other counsel?

MR LOWIES ADDRESSES: Chair, I'd like to make one remark. Is it really necessary to lead evidence regarding sexual assaults when there's no amnesty required for that, requested sorry, requested by the applicants. Otherwise I have nothing further to add than what my learned friend has said.

MS PRETORIUS ADDRESSES: Chair, I full agree and I think, I am very sorry for the witness, she's in an enviable position that not one of us would like to be, but I submit that Mr Strydom has been treating her with compassion. Unfortunately there are questions that have to be asked about the child, and if Mr Strydom doesn't do it one of the other counsel will have to do it. So it's my submission that it will have to be done in any case.

MR DA SILVA ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, for what it may be worth, I submit that Mr Strydom has treated the witness very fairly, I don't think he has been unfair to her at all, with respect.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chair, I have no submissions to make.

MR MEY: I have not submission, I'll leave it in your hands, Chairperson.

MS TANZER ADDRESSES: Mr Chair, I think it's difficult to cross-examine a person and be compassionate at the same time, but I think Mr Strydom is doing his utmost to be fair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malindi?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I associate myself with the submission by Mr Berger. Chairperson, in addition I would say that if this cross-examination leads to witnesses like Ms Molete, breaking down, that will hamper the proceedings of these hearings more than it would if these victims who have come here as witnesses are treated with more compassion than has been shown so far. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS ADDRESSES: Thank you, Chair. I also associate myself with the comments of Advocate Berger. However, we have always given the undertaking to witnesses that should they not wish to, that no-one will be forced to give evidence and should she wish to withdraw at this stage, that will have to be put to her, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA ADDRESSES: Chairperson, I align myself with the legal position put by Mr Berger, insofar as the treatment of victims is concerned. I may want, Chairperson, further to ask the Committee to take into account that the victim is not an ordinary witness and some kind of, some measures will have to be adopted in whatever fashion as the Act may require in adhering to the principles that are laid down there when it comes to victims.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) measures?

MR MAPOMA: I can't think of, Chairperson, at this point in time, but I did canvass the point with the legal representatives at the start of the hearing, I mean at the start of the testimony by one, by the first victim, and one of the proposals I made to them is that out of the testimony of the victims it does not seem to be an issue, the question of the injuries that they suffered, the points which are in issue here are the presence of the police and white persons. And I did canvass with them that it may well be in the advantage of the victims and also the proceedings themselves, if issues which are not in dispute are not put before the Committee by the legal representatives.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't the presence or otherwise of the police a matter which will have to be resolved on the basis of the credibility of the witnesses?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, whilst that is the position we are confronted here with a situation where that credibility has to be, whilst the credibility has to be tested, the principles which require the Committee ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Now how does one test the credibility of witnesses without asking the witnesses about matters which are not strictly speaking in dispute? Because the question is where does one draw the line, should cross-examination not be allowed on any other issue other than the issue of whether the police were present.

MR MAPOMA: Chair, now that the evidence has been led on other issues other than police involvement, I find it difficult to argue that cross-examination on those issues must not be made.

CHAIRPERSON: No you see, the problem is that it is an issue which is going to arise in regard to the other witnesses, because when these witnesses come and they don't talk about the police only, they talk about other matters. Now is it your submission that the cross-examination of the witnesses should not go beyond the question of whether the witnesses ...(indistinct) and if so, what are those measures that this Committee should take in order to ensure that that doesn't happen?

MR MAPOMA: My submission, Chairperson would be that the witnesses who are called must be the witnesses who are going to testify about the issues which are in dispute and be led only on issues which are in dispute and such issues be dealt with without going into the injuries suffered.

The applicants have in their applications mentioned that they attacked people there, and the question of whether those people were injured or not is not in dispute. So I think one of the measures would be for the legal representatives to agree that evidence which must be led here must be evidence which deals with the issues that are in dispute.

CHAIRPERSON: From the very beginning I made that clear but that has not worked out. Okay, so you say the witness has to be led on issues that are in dispute?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, as far as ...(indistinct) and cross-examination be confined thereto as well.

CHAIRPERSON: What other measures do you have in mind?

MR MAPOMA: Well that is all that I have in mind at this moment, Chairperson, I may think of some other measures as the hearing goes by.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You see because what concerns me is even if you lead witnesses only on the disputed facts, when you're testing the credibility of the witness you are bound to go beyond those issues. The question is, how far do you go?

MR MAPOMA: I appreciate Chairperson, it's very difficult but I think ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because it doesn't help me or anyone to say that there should be compassion. I don't think that there's anyone who can dispute that. The only question is, how does one regulate to the cross-examination when one's dealing with matters of credibility, without hampering the right of the applicants to a fair hearing? How does one draw the line? Where counsel goes beyond what I consider to be the bounds ...(indistinct), what should be the, you know how does one determine what questions to ask when one is testing the credibility of the witnesses because some of the evidence that we hear is the evidence that I would have thought is common cause or is not in dispute, but nevertheless we have to listen to that evidence. Issues relating to the poles, you know the Apollo lights, I would have thought that those are matters which ought to be common cause unless the suggestion is that since the attack the lights have moved or are no longer located where they were located at the time, but nevertheless we still have to go through that evidence. Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand the point you are making, that the witnesses be led on the issues that are in dispute, but simply where does one draw the line?

MR MAPOMA: I think, Chair, cross-examination must be limited in whatever manner ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand that.

MR MAPOMA: That's one of the measure that can be employed. Thank you, Chairperson, I don't take it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, what is your submission on the proposal made by Mr Mapoma?

MR BERGER IN REPLY: Chairperson, I agree fully with the position that you have stated, that even in respect of issues in dispute, cross-examination must go beyond those issues in order to test credibility. That must be the correct position in law, but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You see the difficulty really that I see is, to the extent that those extent that those are collateral issues, where does one - it's easy to say there has to be a line, and I don't think there is anyone who will disagree with the fact that, with the proposition that there has to be a line and I've talked to counsel in chambers and I have made this point, that people have to be - I understand people may be longwinded in their cross-examination, I can't stop a person when he is just laying a foundation, but how does one limit the cross-examination in a manner which does not interfere with the right of these applicants to a fair hearing?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, yes. The general rule in cross-examination is that any question asked on an issue which is a collateral issue, the answer that is given to that question is final.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BERGER: So there can't be endless cross-examination on collateral issues, that position is clear. The second thing is, when we lead a witness and we lead a witness on a full story, we do that because we don't want to be seen to be leading in the unacceptable sense of the word, so we say tell your story, and in the process of telling a lot of things which are common cause, so the issue in dispute gets dealt with in a way that isn't leading the witness in the unacceptable manner. So that's why we ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Because the - you know the other difficulty that may arise is that you will then have to put a witness onto the witness stand and you'll simply say to her: "Did you see the police and where did you see those police?". We've got to lay some kind of foundation so as to introduce the witness. I think it's, there's a difficulty in simply saying you lead the witness on those issues whilst one can safeguard the problem of "why didn't you mention this in evidence-in-chief", on the basis of "I wasn't asked that", but still when that's the very issue that's disputed you can't just get the witness in and say "Did you see the police?"

MR BERGER: No, you can't. Chairperson, you asked what measures can be taken. The first is, when it's a collateral issue the question is asked, the answer is given, it's final. The second thing is that cross-examination shouldn't be repetitive. And I know it comes back "well, we're laying a foundation", but there's a limit to laying the foundation as well. And the third point, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well it depends on how ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: How long winded?

CHAIRPERSON: No, how deep your foundation wants to be.

MR BERGER: Yes. But the third thing about credibility, I understand fully that credibility has to be tested, but it's got to be seen in context, and here we have the context of a woman who is being treated like a rugby ball being ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think that's just an overstatement.

MR BERGER: Well she's been thrown and she's ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) to suggest that.

MR BERGER: No, no, no, I'm not ...(intervention)

MR LAX: He's not talking about counsel.

MR BERGER: I'm not talking about counsel.

CHAIRPERSON: You are talking about the woman.

MR LAX: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR BERGER: No, no, I'm suggesting my learned friend ...(intervention)

MR LAX: It's in the context of the attack.

MR BERGER: I'm not suggesting my learned friends are doing that, I'm saying the attackers. Sorry if I was misunderstood.

MR LOWIES: ... apologise for misunderstanding.

MR BERGER: The attackers are treating her like a rugby ball and she's being thrown and kicked and punched and all sorts of things are happening to her in a very, very short space of time. So one has to assess her credibility in that context and one can't, I would submit, keep going into minute detail on and on and on. That's where, I submit, there has to be a limit to the cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: Continue cross-examining?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, just ...

MR STRYDOM IN REPLY: Oh. Chairperson, what is also important is her ability to observe because she made certain observations and she said that she saw white people under these circumstances, so I'll have to test her ability and then I'll have to ask her certain questions about other aspects as well just to test that. That maybe is not a credibility issue, but there's a chance that she can make a bona fide mistake and I must also test that possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOWIES IN REPLY: Chairman, I would suggest - there's a lot of what Mr Mapoma said that I agree with, you are at this stage limiting cross-examination, I know from my own experience, when I want to cross-examine on certain aspects, which normally in a criminal court I would be entitled to, to start afresh on any aspect that Mr Strydom has covered, you limit us and everybody else down the line, so from that point of view I would say yes, there is.

But my - where I also find common ground with the argument of Mr Mapoma is really, is it necessary to lead evidence regarding a sexual assault? It reflects badly and that is definitely something which is irrelevant here because you can't get amnesty for it and the applicants are not applying for that. So that is for instance one instance where I think it's completely unnecessary to lead such evidence. I have nothing further to add.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you see what Mr Berger is saying as I understand the submission, is that one just can't call the witness into the witness stand and simply ask the witness about the issues that are in dispute, one has to lay some kind of, be it of a background.

MR LOWIES: Oh yes, there we are all ad idem. I think all counsel is.

CHAIRPERSON: And also, he is also concerned about a witness not mentioning something in the evidence-in-chief and then to be taxed on why you didn't mention that. Do you understand the ...

MR LOWIES: Ja, but on the other hand say for instance, to come back to the sexual assaults, who can say that that is strictly speaking relevant if we know that it's something that is from a victim's point of view, not nice to talk about. We don't want to go into that, that I give you the assurance and my, speaking for my clients and myself, we don't want amnesty for something that happened like that, but you have listened to their versions, it's not their versions that they have committed it, unless of course a witness comes and identifies a specific witness, then it's a different story. But I think strictly speaking we're all talking about the same thing.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I'm sorry I have to differ.

MS PRETORIUS IN REPLY: Chair, my opinion is that we are being limited, that's why I don't ask many questions, not because I don't want to represent my applicant, but I don't want to repeat what Mr Strydom has said and get another version and test that again. So we are limiting the time and the questions as far as we possibly can.

MR DA SILVA IN REPLY: Chairperson, I submit that Section 11 is to remind the Committee and the parties, that the victims in an application like this should be treated with compassion. It is not the rule of law saying that they should be cross-examined any differently than any of the other witnesses that have testified. If that was the rule it would mean that one set of rules is applied to an applicant, a different set of rules is applied to a witness that's testified. And I submit with respect, that in the manner that this hearing has been dealt with, it's been dealt with correctly and it can't be dealt with in any other manner. Unfortunately issues like credibility is an issue that is pertinent in this matter and it can't be dealt with in any other manner. I can't foresee ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And there's reliability.

MR DA SILVA: And the reliability of a witness. Mr Chairman, I can't see how a person can curtail the cross-examination other than what has been done in this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. What do you say about the suggestion by Mr Mapoma, that the witnesses be led only on the issues that are in dispute?

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairman with respect, I don't think that is practical because an issue, for instance whether police were on the scene or not, that must be seen against the background of the global evidence, and it would be a farce, with respect, if only those issues were led, with respect. I don't have any further submissions, Mr Chairman.

MR BOTHA(?): Mr Chairman, I align myself with the submission of Mr da Costa(sic) and I have nothing else to say.

MS TANZER IN REPLY: I also align myself with what Advocate Pretorius said and with what Advocate da Silva said, especially in light of the lengthy cross-examination that Mr Nosenga underwent and I do submit that witnesses certainly should be cross-examined to some degree on their credibility the way Mr Nosenga was. I also say that in trying to restrict the cross-examination it's really, they're not putting much faith in the Committee itself, the Committee is the body that is presiding over these hearings and they are the body that makes the decision on limitations or when evidence is beyond its reach or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mey?

MR MEY IN REPLY: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I am of the opinion that if I do understand the witness correctly, that her breakdown resulted due to the questions asked about Mita and she didn't mention anything about the sexual assault, that was mentioned by Mr Berger, but I do align myself with Mr Strydom and the others, that it is essential that the credibility must be tested and on her version, on the witness' version the only thing that was in dispute here, what resulted in the breakdown, was the fact that she was questioned about the injuries to the child and not to the sexual assault.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me that the problem with Ms Molete arose because she was asked about the baby, which she says she does not, which she says hurt her, but counsel has in the course of indicating the basis of her position, raised the issue of the limits of cross-examination.

I have now heard the evidence, it seems to me that the Committee must now take a decision as to what would be the proper course to take in these circumstances, noting the objections by Ms Molete and her unwillingness to talk about the baby.

We will take a 15 minutes adjournment and then I will come back and make a ruling.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

FLORENCE MOLETE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, Mr Lowies, Advocate Pretorius, am I correct in saying that the applicants deny that there were white persons during the attack, whether policemen or otherwise? Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson. I will put it this way, the applicants I appear for testified and already denied that white people or police were involved during the attack, but I must add a rider to that. If some white people participated at some point in Slovo Park or Boipatong, at a stage when my clients weren't there, they won't be able to say if they did something wrong because they didn't see them.

But my instructions are that there was nothing, they never saw white people and they never police vehicles but implicit in that is that a possibility cannot be ruled out that somewhere in Boipatong or in Slovo Park, whilst my clients were some other place in that area, a white person could have been. That they can't rule out. But I will add also that it's my clear instructions that there was nothing said beforehand or no discussions or anything that indicated that whites or police will be participating in the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Advocate Lowies?

MR LOWIES: Exactly my instructions as well, Mr Chairman. As to Mr Vanana Zulu, who is also my client, what I have put is also that he wasn't there at all. So his is a complete denial and an alibi.

MS PRETORIUS: My position is exactly the same and also that Vanana Zulu was not part of the attack that night, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You're not representing Vanana Zulu are you?

MS PRETORIUS: I'm not representing him, but the applicant that I am representing also states that Vanana Zulu was not there that night.

CHAIRPERSON: There is the position with regard to the applicants that you represent, Mr Strydom.

MR STRYDOM: That they deny the presence and participation of Vanana Zulu, that is indeed so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Ms Tanzer?

MS TANZER: My client obviously as you heard, states that the police were intricately involved in the attack on Boipatong and he had a version where Mtwana Zulu was also involved in the planning of the attack, although he said he did not see him on the night of the attack during the attack, but he definitely believes he was part of the planning of the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but do you have any instructions as to whether Mr Zulu was present during the attack?

MS TANZER: Yes, my initial instruction was that he was part of the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. The victims as I understand it, is that there were white men or white persons during the attack.

MR BERGER: That is correct, yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that of course they saw the police vehicles during the attack.

MR BERGER: Yes, that is also correct, Chairperson. - assisting the attackers.

CHAIRPERSON: And that Mr Vanana Zulu was present during the attack.

MR BERGER: Indeed yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, we don't have a position, we are probing.

R U L I N G

Having listened to counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the issue in this hearing is whether there were police or white persons during the attack who took part and assisted the attackers and secondly, whether Mr Vanana Zulu was present and took part in the attack.

These issues raise matters of credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of the evidence relating to the identity of persons alleged to have been present during the attack.

Insofar as issues of credibility are concerned, the ordinary rule relating to cross-examination is that a cross-examiner is allowed a wide latitude, in particular to probe matters that are in issue. The limit to that cross-examination will be repetition, but on matters that are not in issue, that is collateral issues, the answer to those questions given by the witness, is final. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules but broadly-speaking these are the limits that will be allowed during these proceedings, bearing in mind that one is dealing with an inquiry.

The other matter which is of grave concern to us and we find it deeply disturbing is that at the very beginning of these hearings it was agreed that there will be an exchange of documents that will be used during the proceedings so as to afford the other side a proper opportunity to examine the documents and prepare the case of those that counsel is representing. That role has not been observed, and I once again urge the parties to comply with that rule.

We have urged the parties to reach some agreement as to what precisely are the matters that are in dispute, that has not been done. As a result of that we hear evidence on matters that appear to be common cause or that are not in dispute and in the process the process is being delayed. And I want to state and urge the parties once again, we now know what is in issue and what is not in issue, I urge the parties to stop fighting about matters that are not in dispute or matters which can readily be ascertained, but only to agree on what evidence we need to hear relating to these matters that I have now placed on record and which the parties have agreed are in dispute. I sincerely hope that the legal representatives will comply with this request.

To the victims who are here to testify, it is necessary that we know what happened and one way that it can be done is to ask questions as to what happened. The purpose is not to traumatise the witnesses, but it is a sincere attempt to know what happened, so that at the conclusion of these hearings when we sit down to consider the evidence, we have the full picture of what happened.

I hope I am expressing the sentiments of each and every Member of this Committee, when I say we understand the pain and the trauma that you suffered at the time. If we had an option we would have preferred not to ask you to relate these events once again, but we have a job to do. When counsel oversteps the limit we will intervene. I therefore ask you for you co-operation so that we can bring these proceedings to some finality.

Yes, Mr Strydom?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, just before Mr Strydom continues and lest we be seen to be conceding certain issues, I understand your ruling is in the context of the evidence which is being given at the moment, there are however other issues which have to be decided, such as proportionality, authority and motive and other issues and quite clearly those don't touch on the evidence we're hearing at the moment. The one thing which does is the question my learned friend, Mr Lowies spoke about, sexual assaults and that that is irrelevant.

Our submission is that that would be relevant to the whole question of proportionality and that's why that evidence is being tendered where it is possible to tender such evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Strydom?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: (Cont)

Thank you, Chairperson.

Ms Molete, I want to read a certain portion of your evidence-in-chief to you. I've got a cryptic note and I just want you to confirm that evidence and then I'll ask you a few questions in that regard. The question was:

"Did you see other white people during the attack?"

Your answer was:

"It was difficult, facing death, to see if the attackers were white or black."

When ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Strydom, are you referring to ...(intervention)

MR STRYDOM: Evidence-in-chief, according to my notes.

ADV SIGODI: Oh, thank you.

MR STRYDOM: Do you confirm that portion of your evidence?

MS F MOLETE: Can you please explain yourself?

MR STRYDOM: I'm just reading from what you said in your evidence-in-chief, because I want to ask you certain questions after that. According to my note it reads as follows: - the question was:

"Where there other white people during the attack?"

And you said:

"It was difficult, facing death, to see white or black"

That's my note, but I would assume it said "to see if the attackers were white or black", is that correct? I just want you to confirm the evidence.

MR BERGER: Perhaps if you could explain what the evidence-in-chief was, that might help.

MR STRYDOM: Maybe I should do that. When Mr Berger asked you questions you gave certain answers and at that stage I was writing down what you said. Now you testified quite quickly and it was difficult to write down every word, but my note reads as follows and I want you to confirm if this is what you said. The question by Mr Berger was:

"Did you see other white people during the attack?"

And then you answered:

"It was difficult, facing death, to see white or black."

That is according to my note.

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom has asked me many questions and now he returns to the same question again.

MR STRYDOM: All I want to ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, if I can ...

Please Mrs Molete, you must understand, we're not trying to badger you, this question is question of what you said when you first testified when Mr Berger led you and Mr Strydom is entitled to ask you this question and we'd like you to please give us an answer. So he's not unfairly questioning you at this stage.

MS F MOLETE: I do not dispute that.

MR LAX: All he is asking you is, can you remember saying that to us when Mr Berger was asking you questions, that is was difficult to tell whether a person was black or white when you're facing death. If you can't remember saying that, that's okay, just give us ...(intervention)

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember because he has asked me so many questions.

MR STRYDOM: Then my note goes further to read when you testified:

"When the men came in I was fighting for my life. I didn't know where Miriam and Mita were."

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And then you said something:

"When I came back from the dumping ground I saw her inside the ambulance. The ambulance was full."

And that is why you couldn't get into the ambulance.

MS F MOLETE: That's correct.

MR STRYDOM: So if this portion of your evidence is correct you did not see who attacked Miriam?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, you were not there. This happened in my house. I'm talking about something that happened in my house. So if you now dispute what happened in my house I really don't know what to say.

MR STRYDOM: No, all I want to put to you, I accept that there were attackers in your house and those attackers attacked Miriam, but what I'm putting to you, you cannot say this or that or any other person was the attacker that attacked her. She was attacked by attackers but you can't identify or say anything about the person that attacked her.

MS F MOLETE: I know nothing about Miriam. I know what happened to me.

MR STRYDOM: So it would not be correct to say that you met Miriam after the attack in a shack of the neighbour, because you saw her in the ambulance?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, you asked me a question and then said what was the last time that I saw her, you didn't ask me about the neighbour.

MR STRYDOM: Well tell us, before you saw her in the ambulance again did you see her at any other place before that?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, you repeat the same question again. You asked me that question and I gave you an answer.

MR STRYDOM: I don't want to be difficult and I don't want to make it difficult for you. All I want to know, before you saw Miriam in the ambulance did you see her at any other place?

MS F MOLETE: I cannot answer that question.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Strydom. Maybe if I phrase it this way: before you saw Miriam in the ambulance when was the last time that you saw her?

MS F MOLETE: I told Mr Strydom that the last time I saw Miriam was when she ran out with the baby in her hands and the other time that I saw her after that was when she was in the ambulance. Now she's repeating the very same questions again.

MR STRYDOM: In your statement, paragraph 4, and I'm not going to read it to you to avoid making it unpleasant for you, but I'll put to you that you stated there that you in fact saw the attack on Miriam and what you told us now is that you did not see the attack. Can you explain that? I want you to try to clear that up.

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, if you were present at that time you wouldn't be asking me these difficult questions. I explained where Miriam was and where I was. I don't even want to know about what happened to Miriam.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, could I have permission just to speak to Ms Molete and just tell her to be patient with Mr Strydom, it might help. I'm not suggesting Mr Strydom is doing anything wrong.

Thank you, Chair. Just for the record, I explained to Ms Molete that - she said she doesn't want to keep on answering questions about Miriam, I explained to her that in her statement she says things about Miriam and Mr Strydom wants to ask her questions about what is in her statement and I've asked her just to be patient and to answer the questions. That is what I said to her.

MR STRYDOM: Do you remember when you - I want to ask you certain questions about your testimony at the Goldstone Commission, and just to put you in the picture, it seems to me that you made a statement and your statement was read into the record and certain questions were also asked then. Now I want to refer to page 258 where you were asked the following, in the middle of the page:

"Was that the only white person that you saw that night? - at that stage, sorry."

You said:

"Well I noticed this white person and another one who came in through the broken portion of the shack."

MR BERGER: Perhaps it should be explained that the first white person is the white person standing outside the door that's being referred to.

MR STRYDOM: Ja, that is indeed correct. I don't want to read the full document but that is correct.

You referred to another white person and you referred to somebody standing outside, and then the question was asked:

"Was that the only white person that you saw that night? - at that stage, sorry."

MS F MOLETE: Well I noticed this white person and another who came in through the broken portion of the shack. He walked over the planks of the shack that had been broken down and got into the bedroom. Is that portion of your evidence correct?

MS F MOLETE: This thing happened a long time ago in 1992, it's been years now, I forget some of the things. I have made many statements. I cannot remember some of the things that happened in 1992, that were written in those statements.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but you see the reason why I'm asking this, what you could you remember today is that you saw, whilst lying pretending to be dead, you saw a white person leaving the shack. Now this is not the same as this, here you said that you saw him coming into the shack.

MS F MOLETE: In that statement I have also mentioned two people, two white people.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but it still doesn't explain what you told this Committee, that you saw the second white person when he left and that's the only time you saw, when he left the shack.

MS F MOLETE: That's what I'm explaining to you, that what happened in 1992, you'll not remember it in totality, we were at pains that time.

MR STRYDOM: If you saw that Miriam's attacker was a white person, you have remembered that at any occasion, and all occasions, is that so?

MS F MOLETE: That Sir, that one affects Miriam alone.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete ...

MS F MOLETE: Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: What Mr Strydom is putting to you is the following, and he is not saying you saw this, he's putting to you that if you had seen a white man attacking Miriam, you would not have forgotten this. Do you understand the question?

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, Ms Molete has indicated that she wishes to address us, which we ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, do you have any objection if the witness ...

MR STRYDOM: Well not for this occasion.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger ...

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ... if Ms Molete is not comfortable in answering questions relating to Miriam, we understand that, we will move on.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, Ms Cambanis and I have spoken to some neighbours of Ms Molete and we've come to the opinion that she appears to be taking a lot of strain at the moment. She tells me that she's prepared and able to carry on, but I don't know if her perception is the only perception that's relevant. She appears to be taking a lot of strain.

I don't know if we can stand her down and start with another witness or if that's just going to cause too many problems, or maybe we have to adjourn for the day, I don't know. I am sorry about this, but it's now becoming, you know every question is a hardship and she's also not appreciating what Mr Strydom is doing. She's saying that Mr Strydom is telling her what to say, when clearly he is not telling her what to say, but that's the way she's perceiving it at the moment. Perhaps it's just exhaustion at this stage, or being over stressed, but she's clearly not coping.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

Would it be possible, this is just a suggestion, that we stand down Ms Molete, we lead our next witness only in-chief and we then adjourn and Ms Molete continues her cross-examination first thing tomorrow morning?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand your offer, Mr Berger and perhaps that might be the solution, but what concerns me is that this is recurring. We might stand the matter down and the same thing might happen again. So that is what I am trying to resolve with my colleagues.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

What do you say to the proposal by Mr Berger?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, if this witness is going to stand down, I will have to ask all the questions leading up to my next question again tomorrow morning and we'll be in the same situation probably. What - I do not have an objection if we adjourn at this stage, but I think I just want to ask her one more question because the questions that, the groundwork to ask the next question. But if the witness is really distressed I'm not going to stand in her way to take the adjournment and to relax. I just hope we won't have the same situation tomorrow, and it will obviously take some time to get to the same point where I am now to ask that question.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: What about the proposal that we excuse her at this stage and then call another witness and then bring her in tomorrow morning, when she would have relaxed overnight?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I'm not going to be unfair. If she needs the adjournment I won't stand in her way.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Mr Strydom - you've heard what Mr Strydom has said in terms of laying down the foundation to the questions which if we break now without him completing this line, he would have to take her through the same motions again. Is it not desirable that he should finish this line and then we adjourn? But if Ms Molete is not in a position to continue now, we will excuse her and then deal with another witness and we will deal with her tomorrow morning.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, she's not comprehending, she's not understanding anymore what Mr Strydom is doing. I think if we start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning she would have had a night's rest, she will be in a far better frame of mind than she is now.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: And perhaps what we should do is to lead the evidence-in-chief of the next witness.

MR STRYDOM: That will be in order.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you can commence cross-examination tomorrow morning.

MR STRYDOM: I accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: You accept that. Yes, very well.

MS PRETORIUS: Chairperson, may I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies?

MR LOWIES: I have nothing to say, I have no opinion.

I have no contribution we'd like to make, I fall in with whatever you decide.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS PRETORIUS: The only problem I can possibly foresee for the next witness is that is may be a part-heard by Friday when we adjourn and especially if being a victim I don't think it's fair to get the victim halfway and then adjourn for a couple of weeks and come back. I don't know, but if Mr Berger has no problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: She won't be part-heard.

CHAIRPERSON: ... that is the consequence which we'd have to live with unfortunately, the manner in which these proceedings are proceeding.

Mr da Silva, do you ...

MR DA SILVA: I abide by the Committee's decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BOTHA: I abide by the Commission's decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mey?

MR MEY: I abide, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MS TANZER: I also abide, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Why is it that when you're right in front of me I can't see you? I think maybe you should wave a flag. I suppose if you want to hide something you've got to put it right in front of the eyes.

Very well. Ms Molete?

MS F MOLETE: Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: We understand and we are satisfied that you are no longer in a position to carry on with your evidence, at least for the time being. We will therefore excuse you from the witness stand. Will you return tomorrow morning for further cross-examination?

MS F MOLETE: Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: We've lost a great deal of time. I know that counsel come from Johannesburg and Pretoria, is there a possibility that we might start earlier than 9 o'clock, to make up for the lost time?

MR BERGER: Yes, we'll come early.

MS PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well okay, if counsel can just co-operate in that regard I would appreciate it. I take it Mr Lowies, you'll abide with the decision of the majority?

MR LOWIES: Is the word for it "under protest"? Yes, Chairman, I'll abide.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, very well.

MR BERGER: We'll make arrangements for Ms Molete to come by taxi because otherwise she won't get here earlier if she has to come by bus.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, half past eight, quarter to nine.

MS PRETORIUS: Half past eight is fine, Chair.

MR MALINDI: Yes, I support ...

MR BERGER: Half past eight it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Half past eight, okay. Very well, we will then - will you make sure that you are here at half past eight tomorrow morning?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And your legal representative will ensure that you are here by then.

MS F MOLETE: I thank you, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS CAMBANIS: Chair, may I excuse myself for a few minutes?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BERGER: My learned friend, Mr Malindi will lead the next witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Yes, Mr Malindi?

MR MALINDI: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, the next witness will be Mrs Hilda Monokoane; M-O-N-O-K-O-A-N-E.

MR MALINDI: The witness will testify in Sesotho, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Mrs Monokoane, will you state your full names please.

PHULANE HILDA MONOKOANE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni. Mr Malindi?

EXAMINATION BY MR MALINDI: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mrs Monokoane, were did you reside in June of 1992?

MS MONOKOANE: I stayed at Boipatong.

MR MALINDI: What was the house address in Boipatong?

MS MONOKOANE: 544 Bafokeng Street.

MR MALINDI: On the 17th of June 1992, is there anything of significance that happened that you know of?

MS MONOKOANE: There is something of significance that happened, I was attacked in the house.

MR MALINDI: What time did this attack take place, if you can remember.

MS MONOKOANE: I cannot remember the time.

MR MALINDI: Can you tell the Committee how this attack occurred when you first realised that it was taking place.

MS MONOKOANE: The attack started whilst we were seated. I heard the window breaking and I asked my husband: "What is taking place outside?". We stood up ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, we would ask the witness to take it slowly please.

CHAIRPERSON: Ma'am would you please speak slower so that the interpreter can have time to interpret what you are saying. Do you understand that?

MS MONOKOANE: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Sorry, you were saying that you heard a window breaking, you asked your husband what's happening and you stood up to look at the window to see what was happening.

MR MALINDI: Whose window was breaking at that time, your window or neighbours?

MS MONOKOANE: What was breaking were my windows.

MR MALINDI: Besides your husband were there other people in the house?

MS MONOKOANE: Yes, Sir, there were others.

MR MALINDI: Could you please name the other people who were in the house.

MS MONOKOANE: It was Moses Monokoane and Miriam Monokoane and Alicia Monokoane and Elias.

MR MALINDI: Are those all the people who were in the house?

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: You say after uttering those words to your husband you stood up to look as to what was happening.

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: And what did you, your husband and other members of the family do?

MS MONOKOANE: At that time my husband stood at the passage to look.

MR MALINDI: And then what happened thereafter?

MS MONOKOANE: Then a spear appeared at the door.

MR MALINDI: And after that what happened? If you can relate the whole incident of the attack.

MS MONOKOANE: They broke down the door. They kicked the door inside. It was a wooden door.

MR MALINDI: And then what happened?

MS MONOKOANE: At the time they kicked the door I hid myself.

MR MALINDI: During this attack, were you personally attacked?

MS MONOKOANE: It was at the time I was hiding.

MR MALINDI: And during the duration of that attack did you see any member of the family being attacked?

MS MONOKOANE: I did not see them but where I was hiding I heard them.

MR MALINDI: Is there anything in particular that you heard that was uttered during this attack?

MS MONOKOANE: Yes, Sir, there is.

MR MALINDI: What did you hear?

MS MONOKOANE: I heard at the time my husband started shouting, saying: "Zulu, what have I done to you when I worked with you?"

MR MALINDI: After you heard that did you hear any other things being said?

MS MONOKOANE: Yes, I did. At the time they have attacked my daughter-in-law and my daughter.

MR MALINDI: What is it that you heard?

MS MONOKOANE: The other one who got into my daughter-in-law's room stabbed her with this spear.

MR MALINDI: These words that you heard, could you link them to any particular person?

MS MONOKOANE: The person I may say might have said those words has since passed away.

MR MALINDI: Is that your husband?

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: Now after this attack at your house, did you discuss this attack with you - in fact before I ask that question, when did your husband die?

MS MONOKOANE: In 1996.

MR MALINDI: Before your husband died did you discuss this attack with him?

MS MONOKOANE: Yes, I did.

MR MALINDI: Did he tell you anything in particular about this attack?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, if the witness is now going to state what her late husband to her I submit it's hearsay evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Malindi?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, if she relates the late husband said to her it would not be hearsay, it will be something that she herself can testify about. If it is something that her husband experienced himself and then told to her, then that would constitute hearsay and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you want to the witness to say? I mean you know what the witness said.

MR MALINDI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to lead - you know that you can't just lead hearsay evidence unless it falls within the exception of the 1998 Evidence Act.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the witness heard her husband utter certain words and her husband must have later told her what had happened to him and who he identified as one of the attackers. That is what I want to put to this witness. And Chairperson, I submit that if it is hearsay it will fall within the exceptions that will be allowed in the circumstances.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: You see, to the extent that this, that evidence is going to be highly prejudicial to the person that is implicated, we are disposed of not allowing that evidence to be led unless you can convince us that there is a good basis for it.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the person who will be identified is a person whose name has previously been identified in these hearings and a person who is represented.

CHAIRPERSON: If it is highly prejudicial against that person, we are disposed not to allow the evidence of what he was told who the person was, identifying the person.

Yes Mr Strydom, do you have anything to add?

MR STRYDOM: Ja, to fall within the ambit of the Act, there are seven criteria, which I can't mention now, but one of them is if it's highly prejudicial then it would not be allowed. That's one. I would in any event say at this stage that no basis has been laid for that evidence to be accepted.

CHAIRPERSON: Well since I understand the criteria, one of them is that the witness who made the statement must be shown to be unavailable to give evidence, he himself or herself, and secondly, if it is in the interest of justice to allow the evidence, and thirdly, one has to consider how prejudicial the evidence is. But at the end of the day it's a discretionary matter as to whether or not that has to be led and I'm satisfied that it doesn't fall within any of those. The Acts asks us for our discretionary ...(intervention)

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the person who can give evidence as to identifying who it was being referred to as: "Zulu, you are doing this to me when I've worked with you for such a long time", is dead, it's the witness' husband. And Chairperson, I would submit that this evidence at this stage can be allowed and then it is the property(?) value thereof that can be weighed at a later stage and the Committee can use that discretion ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well we've heard the evidence from her indicating what she overheard. Is that going to take it any further than that? Because we have heard the evidence of what she herself heard. I mean, what else is there? She heard what was said.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I will abide by the ruling.

Mrs Monokoane, in your mind, when you heard your husband uttering these words did you conclude in your mind who he was referring to?

MS MONOKOANE: I reached the conclusion that he knows this person, he knows these persons because he has been working with them for a long time.

MR MALINDI: Do you know any Zulu that your husband has worked with for a long time?

MS MONOKOANE: My husband worked at Iscor, worked with everybody at Iscor.

MR MALINDI: And when your husband referred the Zulu who was attacking him, with whom he had worked for a long time, do you know who he was referring to?

MS MONOKOANE: The person I knew was the same Vanana Zulu.

MR MALINDI: Besides seeing the attackers who came into your house, is there anything else that you saw during this attack?

MS MONOKOANE: I have already stated that during the attack I did hide myself, but as I came out of hiding I found blood all over the place.

MR MALINDI: After the attack, did you observe anything that's relevant to the attack itself?

MS MONOKOANE: I cannot remember, Sir.

MR MALINDI: During or after the attack, did you see anything outside?

MS MONOKOANE: Nothing at all. I never went outside, I was helping the children inside.

MR MALINDI: Thank you, Mrs Monokoane. No further questions, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, are you in a position to commence your cross-examination? I know I have said we will lead the evidence-in-chief, but ...

MR LOWIES: Can you proceed or do you want ...

MR LOWIES: No, I can proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: You can proceed, very well.

MR LAX: Can I just - before you do. The bundle GG refers to a statement by this person, but I can't - is it Miriam Monokoane? But there's nothing there with the surname Monokoane that I can find.

MR STRYDOM: Ja, I think the reference is too that she, a Miriam Monokoane testified in the criminal trial. That is what we have, not the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Now is there a statement by Hilda Monokoane?

MR LAX: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a statement?

MR LAX: It's shown as number 7 on this list, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

MR LAX: I can't find it in my bundle. It should be between Anna Mbatha and Diana Maneyka, but there's nothing there, in this bundle. It's obviously missing.

CHAIRPERSON: What about - Mr Berger, do you have it?

MR BERGER: No, we don't have any statement.

MR STRYDOM: We have the statement of Miriam Monokoane, and she testified at the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, but not this witness.

MR STRYDOM: Not this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay. Okay so there is only - as I understand the position, Miriam Monokoane is somebody else is it?

MR STRYDOM: It's the family members that lives at the same house, 544 Bafokeng Street. I think the witness mentioned her name.

CHAIRPERSON: There is no statement by this witness, is that correct?

MR LOWIES: Not as far as we know, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, alright. I may have jumped you, Mr Strydom, but do you have any questions to ask of this witness?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I prefer it if my learned friend does the cross-examination. If there's something left out I'll ask questions, but at this stage I haven't got questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. It's about that time of the day.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: I hear you, Chairman.

Mrs Monokoane, did you give evidence in the criminal matter, either at Delmas or at Pretoria?

MS MONOKOANE: I have never given evidence at a criminal trial. The person who did so was my husband.

MR LOWIES: And do I understand you correctly, his name was Moses, or am I wrong? - or is he Elias?

MS MONOKOANE: Moses is my son.

MR LOWIES: What is the name of your husband.

MS MONOKOANE: My husband was George Monokoane.

MR LOWIES: George?

MS MONOKOANE: That's correct.

MR LOWIES: Now I would just like to put to you that in the criminal trial there were a few Zulu accused, I mean their surnames were Zulu, do you know Nkambuzana Bernard Zulu? He was accused number 1, for record purposes, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just get the question straight. There were a few accused with the surname Zulu.

MR LOWIES: Z-U-L-U.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Okay, do you want to give those to us or do you want to - are you giving them to the witness?

MR LOWIES: I'm giving it to her.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR LOWIES: The first one was Nkambuzana Bernard Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you just spell the name.

MR LOWIES: N-K-A-N-B-U-Z-A-N-A. Sorry, let me spell it again: N-K-A-M-B-U-Z-A-N-A. I'm sorry, Chairman, I may have confused you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...-M-B-U-Z-A-N-A?

MR LOWIES: That's right, and the second name is Bernard: B-E-R-N-A-R-D. Then ...(intervention)

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, is that the second name of Nkambuzana or is it ...

MR LOWIES: Ja, the second name of accused number 1, in the criminal trial.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you're going to ask her about these individuals, is it not better perhaps to go through them individually? Ask her whether she knows this one.

MR LOWIES: Do you know this chap?

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know every a single one of them.

MR LOWIES: So I take it you can't also say whether he worked with your husband at Iscor.

MS MONOKOANE: Nkambuzana, I do not know that person.

MR LOWIES: Then accused number 10 was a chap by the name of Amos Velenkosini Zulu; V-E-L-E-N-K-O-S-I-N-I, one word. Do you know this person?

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know them at all. There isn't anything regarding Xhosa in my house.

MR LOWIES: Do you know accused number 47: Jotham Zulu: J-O-T-H-A-M?

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know the person.

MR LOWIES: There was a chap who was accused number 56: Sifiso Phinda Zulu. I spell Sifiso: S-I-F-I-S-O, Phinda; P-H-I-N-D-A. Do you know this person?

MS MONOKOANE: I have already stated that neither Zulu nor Xhosa is used in my house or people of such names are in my house.

INTERPRETER: I would take it that that is the answer from the witness.

MR LOWIES: Do you know ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What you're being asked is whether you know these individuals whose names are being read to you. So your answer should be yes, I know them or I don't know them. It is necessary for counsel to read all these names to you, do you understand that?

MS MONOKOANE: Yes, I do.

MR SIBANYONI: And if I may add, Mr Chairperson - and these names are not purported to be names of the people in your house, but are the names of the people who were charged in connection with the Boipatong incident.

MS MONOKOANE: Well I do not know them.

MR LOWIES: Do you know a chap by the name of Vanana Zulu?

MS MONOKOANE: I know the person.

MR LOWIES: Have you met him personally?

MS MONOKOANE: No, I have not talked to him.

MR LOWIES: Have you ever met him yourself?

MS MONOKOANE: I have been meeting him here when we assemble here at the hearings.

MR LOWIES: So you did not know him before '92?

MS MONOKOANE: I did know him, he stayed at Serela.

MR LOWIES: Did you meet him in '92, or before?

MS MONOKOANE: No, I have not met him.

MR LOWIES: Do you know where he stayed in Serela?

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know. He stayed at Bafokeng, at upper Bafokeng.

MR LOWIES: Did he stay there personally?

MS MONOKOANE: I'm not sure about that.

CHAIRPERSON: What you know is that he had a house in Bafokeng, somewhere in Bafokeng Street.

MS MONOKOANE: That is where he, he married in Bafokeng. His house was in Majola Street.

MR LOWIES: When did you know that his house - sorry, you say that his house was in Majola Street, when did you know this for the first time?

MS MONOKOANE: What thing are you referring to? May you please repeat the question, Sir.

MR LOWIES: According to you he had a house in Majola Street, when did you learn about this fact?

MS MONOKOANE: He was a person who stayed at Serela, long ago.

MR LOWIES: Could you just repeat, what did your husband say - this is the last point I want to canvass with you, I won't be long with you. What precisely did your husband say when he said the words about Zulu? - during the attack.

MS MONOKOANE: It was when he had attacked her and hitting him and that is when he said: "Zulu, is it you who is doing this to me when I have worked with you for so long?"

MR LOWIES: Isn't it possible that he referred to a man by virtue of his race, saying to him you're a Zulu person? His ethnic group instead of his surname?

MS MONOKOANE: That is where I do not know, Sir.

MR LOWIES: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOWIES

CHAIRPERSON: Do we know where these individuals worked, if at all they worked?

MR LOWIES: They're not known to me at all. I have no instructions regarding that. You mean, Chairman, the accused persons that I've ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the individuals.

MR LOWIES: No, no, I - hang on, sorry Chairman, I apologise, we may have in the charge sheet.

CHAIRPERSON: I think your client wants to say something to you.

MR LOWIES: Chair, could we take the adjournment regarding this, I'd like to get instructions, there are a few names. I see my client wants to draw my attention to ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's just see whether you can ...

MR LOWIES: May I have your permission to consult with Mr Khanyile?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR LOWIES: Thanks.

MR LAX: Mr Khanyile, just come up.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR LOWIES: Thank you, Chair. My instructions are from Mr Khanyile, although he's not my client, he acts as my interpreter, that all these people that I've mentioned the names of, work at Iscor indeed. He says that Mr Jotham Zulu, for instance, is here today and he is an Iscor worker. He's sitting somewhere in the back.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

ADV SIGODI: Mr Lowies, sorry. Do you have instructions as to when these people started working at Iscor?

MR LOWIES: No, but I get. Well I'll try to get, but no, I have no instructions.

ADV SIGODI: And also if they were working at Iscor at the time of the attack.

MR LOWIES: No, I haven't got instructions regarding that, but I took it from the consultation that I had, they were working there then.

CHAIRPERSON: Well don't take it like that.

MR LOWIES: No, well he confirms with me that it's the situation.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you have to take proper instructions whether they were.

ADV SIGODI: And how long they had been working at Iscor.

MR LOWIES: ...(indistinct). I can take it no further. I'm sorry.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR LOWIES: Thank you. I have the following instructions, Chair. Amos Velikasi(sic) Zulu was definitely working there at the time of the attack, he's now on pension.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, he's on pension.

MR LOWIES: Jotham Zulu working there for longer than 20 years.

MR LOWIES: Sifiso Phinda Zulu, according to this person, may work there now but he does not know what the situation was ... Let me rephrase, Chairperson, I started with the wrong name and I apologise. Everything I was wrong. Let me start again. Nkambuzana Bernard Zulu did definitely work there in '92, he's now on pension.

CHAIRPERSON: So that is the one that, you should have started with him?

MR LOWIES: I'm sorry, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, so we'll simply make an arrow here, right. Amos Velenkosini?

MR LOWIES: He thinks he works there now but he does not know whether at that stage he worked there.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR LOWIES: Mr Qwambelani Buthelezi I think knows that he's been working there.

CHAIRPERSON: What about Jotham?

MR LOWIES: Jotham Zulu works there for 20 years.

CHAIRPERSON: At least that's one thing that was correct. Alright.

MR LOWIES: Sifiso Phinda Zulu, not sure whether he worked there then, has a suspicion he works there at present.

MR LAX: So the suspicion regarding whether he works there applies to both Sifiso and to Amos?

MR LOWIES: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, yes?

MR LOWIES: That's all, thank you Chairman, that I know of.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, is Mr Lowies saying that all these persons were present during the attack?

CHAIRPERSON: No, these persons were working at Iscor in 1992 and they were accused persons at the trial. That's all I'll answer.

MR LOWIES: No, the point is not, I'm not implicating them on behalf of my clients or anything, all I said is they were working there and they were accused persons, fullstop.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Pretorius?

MS PRETORIUS: I have no questions, Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS PRETORIUS

MR DA SILVA: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR DA SILVA

MR BOTHA: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA

MS PRETORIUS: Mr Mey has no questions, Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MEY

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS TANZER: I just have one question.

Did you know whether your husband worked closely with Vanana Zulu, when he was at Iscor?

MS MONOKOANE: ...(indistinct)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR LAX: Just repeat your answer, the mike wasn't on.

MS MONOKOANE: My husband worked at Iscor Medical Station as a nurse there.

MS TANZER: My questions was, did you know whether he worked closely with Vanana Zulu, while working for Iscor?

MS MONOKOANE: I would not know that point because they are at the firm and I am not there.

MS TANZER: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS TANZER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got a question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: You made mention of Miriam Monokoane. I just want to put to you she testified at the criminal trial and not your husband, but according to her testimony she heard the following at the stage when the people came into your house, as far as I can recall, Bafokeng Street.

CHAIRPERSON: You say ...

MR LAX: George.

MR STRYDOM: No it's Miriam who testified, George did not testify.

MR LAX: You're saying George didn't testify, Miriam testified.

MR BERGER: It has not been interpreted for the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Mrs Monokoane, what counsel is putting to you firstly is that according to the court records your husband did not testify at the trial. Do you have any comment on that or don't you know?

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know, Sir, because he would leave with my daughter-in-law when they were called.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and is your daughter-in-law Miriam?

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the second aspect of the question is that according to the records only Miriam, that is your daughter-in-law, testified but you don't know that.

MS MONOKOANE: I do not know that Sir, because they were first from home to that place.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Strydom.

MR STRYDOM: Now from Miriam's evidence it appears that she was in fact asked if she heard the people that came in say anything. That appears in volume 14 on page 1585, towards the bottom of the page. Now she was asked:

"Did you hear any people talk at any stage?"

That's now with reference to after they had been in the house, came into the house and her answer was:

"Yes, when they came into the house - yes, as they were coming into the house they asked: 'Where are the dogs'?"

And then she used the Zulu words:

"Zipi izinja"

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: So did you also hear that?

MS MONOKOANE: At the time they entered the door, after they had kicked the door inside.

MR STRYDOM: And she didn't state anything further in answer to that question, and specifically did not state that she heard your late husband saying anything. She doesn't state that. I just want to put that to you.

MS MONOKOANE: I would not be able to answer that because I do not know.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malindi, do you have any re-examination? I beg your pardon, Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Malindi?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MALINDI: Just a few questions, Chairperson.

Mrs Monokoane, where was your daughter-in-law Miriam during the attack?

MS MONOKOANE: She was in the bedroom.

MR MALINDI: And where was your husband?

MS MONOKOANE: He was standing at the door of our bedroom.

MR MALINDI: And where were you?

MS MONOKOANE: I was hiding.

MR MALINDI: Where?

MS MONOKOANE: Underneath the bed.

MR MALINDI: Of which bedroom?

MS MONOKOANE: In my daughter's bedroom.

CHAIRPERSON: Which daughter?

MS MONOKOANE: There is a daughter of mine who was also stabbed, she is still at school.

MR MALINDI: Can you say what the distance more-or-less is between where your husband was and the bedroom where Miriam was in? Chairperson, I think the interpretation is no - the question that I asked. I'm asking the distance between where ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Put the question in Sotho. Put the question to her in Sotho if you can.

MR MALINDI: Oh, okay, Mr Chairman.

Mrs Monokoane, would you tell us the distance between the room where your daughter-in-law Miriam, was sleeping and where your husband was attacked?

MS MONOKOANE: Miriam's room is at the passage as you walk out of the sitting-room and my husband's room is on the left.

MR MALINDI: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat the answer, I didn't catch that. Miriam's room is where?

MS MONOKOANE: It is on the right of the passage as you leave the dining-room.

CHAIRPERSON: And does this room open to the passage?

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And where was your husband?

MS MONOKOANE: He was in our bedroom.

CHAIRPERSON: And does this bedroom also open into the passage?

MS MONOKOANE: That is correct, the passage that leads to the kitchen.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this a separate passage from the one that you referred to earlier on, to which Miriam's room leads to or is it the same passage?

MS MONOKOANE: I'm referring to two passages. These passages, the other one is from Miriam's room and my room. They are separate passages.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Yes, thank you. Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I said I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I beg your pardon. Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment now and we will return tomorrow morning at half past eight.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

20-05-1999: Day 14

Matter: Boipatong Massacre

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: We now know that starting at half past eight is not impossible. Maybe next time we will try half past seven.

MS TANZER: Mr Chair, just before you proceed, I have to request to leave early today, at about - early meaning four o'clock because of religious holidays that start early this evening. I have arranged for somebody to be here tomorrow in my place, I don't know if my absence would have been noted anyway, but somebody will be here, so if you don't mind, I will be leaving at around four o'clock, quarter past four.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not a question of me not minding, it is the client that your represent, somebody has to take ...

MS TANZER: As I said I have arranged for somebody to be here tomorrow for his representation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

FLORENCE MOLETE: (still under oath)

MR BERGER: Mr Chairman, before my learned friend, Mr Strydom continues, Chairperson, can I just place on record that this morning I spent some time with Ms Molete, again explaining to her the purpose of my learned friend's questions, the purpose of putting versions, the purpose of comparing her statements, what she said to the Police, what she said to Judge Goldstone, what she said in her evidence in chief. I went through all of that and explained to her the purpose so that hopefully she will be in a better position to answer questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed we are indebted to you Mr Berger, thank you. Who led her by the way in chief?

MR BERGER: I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, very well, yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: (continued) Thank you Chair. Yesterday I referred you to page 259 of the testimony taken at the Goldstone Commission and I wanted to ask you a question, I just tried to set the background first, I am not going to repeat that, but for saying that you were asked about the person that attacked Mita whilst Miriam was holding her. Then the question was asked "who is that one of the men", was it a white person or a black person? You said it was a white person. Why did you state at the hearings at the Goldstone Commission that the person that hacked Mita was a white person?

MS F MOLETE: I cannot remember that.

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you cannot remember, is it whether you said what has been read to you?

MS F MOLETE: This statements were many, now I do not remember at present what I stated in the other statements.

MR STRYDOM: I asked you yesterday if you saw that a white person was the person involved in the assault on Mita and Miriam, that is one thing you would have remembered, isn't that so?

CHAIRPERSON: I think - Ms Molete, I think what Counsel wants you to explain if you can, is that I gather from him in your evidence before us, you did not mention that the child was hacked by white men, is that right?

MR STRYDOM: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereas when you testified at the Goldstone hearing, you testified that the person who hacked the child was a white man. Do you understand that? Do you understand what he is trying you to explain?

MS F MOLETE: I did understand his question, my answer is I cannot remember at present ...

MR STRYDOM: Can't you remember what you said at the Goldstone Commission, can't you remember what happened during the attack when Miriam and Mita was injured?

MS F MOLETE: This is an incident that took place in 1992, I am an old person, I do not remember a thing that took place a long time ago, at present.

MR STRYDOM: What you are in fact saying is that some things you can remember, some things you can't remember?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: Do you remember any one of the attackers during the attack said something that sounded to you like the Zulu of a white person? A white person speaking Zulu?

MS F MOLETE: I cannot remember well sir, because I am suffering from stress and I am still healing my wounds.

MR STRYDOM: I want to put to you then, that you can't remember what happened in Pretoria when you went there after you had been subpoenaed to come to Pretoria as well.

MS F MOLETE: I have never been summoned to Pretoria regarding a case.

MR STRYDOM: We will get to that. Although you can't remember that you heard - let me sort out my papers here - you testified on page 256 of the transcript of the Goldstone Commission, firstly your statement was put to you, paragraph 8 of your statement that was put to you, reads as follows -

"... I started shouting for Puleng, someone outside said in Zulu 'the dog is dead'. He spoke Zulu with a white accent."

Do you remember that was in your statement, that was presented at the Goldstone Commission?

MS F MOLETE: I say to you sir, a lot of things I cannot remember. As an older person, an old person, I most of the times pray, trying to work off these things.

CHAIRPERSON: You are at page 256.

MR STRYDOM: Yes you stated now that you can't remember, but I will just put to you what was then asked to you and your answer -

"... can you perhaps elaborate on that? How do you know when a white person speaks Zulu?"

Then your answer was -

"... when a white person learns to speak Zulu, you can tell. He does not speak quite well Zulu."

So clearly what you wanted to say there is that you gathered at that stage, during the attack that the person that said "the dog is dead", in Zulu, was a white person. Now you can't remember anything about that, is that what you say?

MS F MOLETE: I stated to this honourable hearing that two white persons were involved in the attack at my house, this happened to me. Most incidents that took place, I now at the moment, do not know of them. I am now an old person.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, let's move on. After the attack on you, you left the shack and eventually went to the dumping ground, is that right

MS F MOLETE: Yes sir.

MR STRYDOM: In your evidence in chief you said that you saw a big vehicle, a Police vehicle. At what stage was that, before you went to the dumping ground or after you returned?

MS F MOLETE: When I came back from the dumping ground, whilst I was up there at the dumping ground.

MR LAX: Sorry, can I just clarify something here Mr Strydom, the way the answer has been interpreted to us, it is contradictory in itself. On the one hand you saw it when you came back from the dumping ground, on the other hand you saw it when you were at the dumping ground? Can you just clarify this for us please?

MS F MOLETE: Up there at Matiki.

MR LAX: At the dumping ground, Matiki?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, we refer to it as Matiki.

MR LAX: You saw this vehicle when you were at the dumping ground, is that what you are saying?

MS F MOLETE: Yes sir.

MR STRYDOM: How many vehicles did you see?

MS F MOLETE: One vehicle.

MR STRYDOM: In your evidence in chief, you said that that vehicle, you thought it was entering Moakare Street, is that right? Is that correct, the vehicle you saw?

MS F MOLETE: Senqu or Seqoqone Street.

ADV SIGODI: Is she asking a question or is she stating that it was Senqu or Seqoqone Street? I didn't get it quite well. Where was this vehicle when you saw it?

MS F MOLETE: Matiki is a bit far from Tserela township, the older township of Tserela. I saw this from a distance, I was up there when I saw this.

MR STRYDOM: This Matiki is it between - sorry, I've got it wrong - Matiki you have told us already is the dumping ground, is if you look at Exhibit J towards the right of Slovo Park?

MR BERGER: The witness is pointing slightly to the right of Slovo Park, towards the bottom of the page, I don't know if that has any significance.

MR STRYDOM: Maybe the witness can indicate in line with which street would you say the dumping ground is, I am referring to streets in Boipatong? For instance would it be in line with Baralong, Majola, Bapedi or which street?

MR BERGER: Somewhere to the right of Bapedi and Majola Streets, to the right of Bakwena.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any, you see if you look at what is depicted as Slovo Park, the little squares, you've got the caravan there, you've got right at the very bottom of those squares, the very last one on the right, which is marked in black, can you see that, which is coloured in black, can you see that, in relation to that, is there any indication where it is?

MR BERGER: Yes Chair, Ms Molete has indicated the dumping ground to the east of Slovo Park, running at an angle, starting towards Mosheshe Street and moving eastwards at an angle, passed Bapedi Street somewhere between the middle of, halfway between Bapedi and Batswana. If you want, I can show you what she has indicated.

CHAIRPERSON: Will it be behind, beyond Slovo Park?

MR BERGER: It is there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MR BERGER: It is running at an angle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.

MR BERGER: Perhaps I can just hand it to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Unfortunately we don't have the space here to indicate, you can only indicate it on the table. Yes very well.

MR STRYDOM: Ms Molete, if you follow a direct line from your house in an easterly direction, you will get to the dumping ground?

MR BERGER: Ms Molete is indicating that her shack is not near where number 15 has been marked, but if you come out of Bapedi towards Slovo Park and turn right, in other words go south, it is that shack just off Bakwena Street.

MR STRYDOM: I think that shack has been marked 17 on my map.

MR BERGER: Oh, not on mine.

MR STRYDOM: The one, it is the first one next to Bakwena Street.

MR BERGER: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, so the question is really ...

MR BERGER: But she has also indicated the route that she took to the dumping ground, so perhaps she can speak for herself.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just make it clear, there is one here that is marked 97, will that be the one Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: No Chairperson, if one moves to the left from 97, there is one marked 81 and then to the left of that, there is one almost bordering on Bakwena Street.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is right.

MR BERGER: It is that one that has been indicated as number 17.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, which is in line with 81?

MR BERGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So would that be number 17?

MR BERGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR STRYDOM: The question is from your house, your shack, I just want to know which route did you follow to get to the dumping ground, did you go directly, did you walk straight to the dumping ground or did you move downwards or upwards or what did you do?

MR BERGER: Ms Molete is going to mark on my map. Chairperson, it has been indicated on my map in red, she went south, next to Bakwena Street and then worked her way through the shacks until she got to the dumping ground and then moved, you will see the arrows moving northwards, in a north easterly direction up to a certain point where the arrows stops. There are two arrows.

MR STRYDOM: Just to get clarity, that is the route you followed from your house to the dumping ground?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: You didn't go into any houses on your way there?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, from my house when I turned at the corner, I got to Mrs Agnes. I entered Agnes' place.

MR STRYDOM: Is that Agnes Malindi?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Sorry, none of that was interpreted? Sorry, I never heard.

MR STRYDOM: You stopped by at Agnes Malindi's place, what did you do there, for what purpose?

MS F MOLETE: I observed that the windows were broken, I got in and left, running away.

MR STRYDOM: So the purpose was just to observe what was done at that shack by the attackers?

MS F MOLETE: I do not know how to answer you sir.

MR STRYDOM: You said that you went to the shack of Agnes on your way. All I want to enquire was there a purpose or why did you stop there, why didn't you go straight to the dumping ground, that is what I want to know. If you can't remember, say so.

MS F MOLETE: That is along the route, as I ran away, I was looking for them, so that we all run away because it was bad at that time.

MR STRYDOM: So it is not a situation that after attackers had left your shack, you went with Miriam to your sister's shack which is next door to yours?

MS F MOLETE: We got into Puleng's shack and we didn't take a minute there and I left saying that I am going to look for an ambulance. I left them there.

MR STRYDOM: Ms Molete, I just asked you to tell me if you stopped at any shacks and you didn't mention that. Why didn't you mention it when I asked you a moment ago and you said you stopped at Agnes' shack, why didn't you say you stopped at Puleng's shack as well?

MS F MOLETE: Your question was not direct, it was a bit difficult.

MR STRYDOM: Did you leave your shack after the attack with Miriam and Mita, to your sister's shack or not?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: From the rubbish dump, you said that you could see down Bapedi Street, and you saw the Police vehicle?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct sir.

MR STRYDOM: In your evidence in chief you said if my note is correct, "as I looked back, I saw the Police vehicle", is that correct? You looked back from the rubbish dump?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: And then you said in your evidence when Mr Berger asked you questions, that you think that you saw the vehicle enter Senqu or Moakare Street, Moakare Street was definitely mentioned. Why do you leave that out now?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember what I said sir.

MR STRYDOM: Why do you say Seqoqone Street now? Why didn't you mention Seqoqone Street yesterday when you testified, sorry the day before yesterday?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember the day before yesterday's answers, your answers has been many so far and I have explained that I suffer from stress.

INTERPRETER: Or nerves as she says.

MR STRYDOM: the reason why I am asking you this, you see at the Goldstone Commission your statement which you have confirmed, reads as follows -

"... from the rubbish dump ..."

that is on page 261 -

"... I could see two casspirs turning in Seqoqone Street and moving in a northerly direction. At this stage the attackers were still at Bakwena Street, they were still breaking windows and attacking houses. I did not see the casspirs taking any action."

Today for the first time you also say Seqoqone Street? Did you have an opportunity to look at your evidence of the Goldstone Commission at any stage?

MS F MOLETE: No sir.

MR STRYDOM: It seems to me that at the Goldstone Commission you were quite certain that it was Seqoqone Street because you didn't mention any one of the other streets, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: I have stated that there were many statements, I am old, I cannot remember well and I plead that God helps me to forget the incident that took place on myself.

MR STRYDOM: Why did you say there that you saw two casspirs, at this Committee you said that you saw one?

MS F MOLETE: I have stated that I do not remember, Mr Strydom. This incident happened in 1992, it has been years now.

MR STRYDOM: But can you now remember that you saw any casspirs?

MS F MOLETE: Yes sir.

MR STRYDOM: You see at the Goldstone Commission on page 261, you even pointed out on a photo or a map they had there, the route these two casspirs followed, so at that stage it seems to me that you were quite clear about your case or your evidence?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the witness has explained it is seven years ago and she has forgotten things, she has said that several times now.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what this exercise will lead up to, because what we are getting from the witness is that she can't recall what she said then and she can't remember the things that she saw.

MR STRYDOM: I will leave it at that, I will leave it for argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed.

MR STRYDOM: You gave evidence what happened when you went to Pretoria and it seems to me as far as that portion of your evidence is concerned, you are quite clear what happened in Pretoria, is that so?

MS F MOLETE: May you please elaborate on the question please.

MR STRYDOM: In your evidence in chief you said that you went to Pretoria after you received certain letters and then you gave evidence of what happened when you got there, who met you, what food was given to you and the rest, I am not going to repeat everything, but it seems to me and I am asking you, is your memory clear as to what happened when you went to Pretoria on that specific day?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: And that also happened about five years ago, is that right?

MS F MOLETE: I do not know the year sir.

MR STRYDOM: I put it to you it was during February 1994.

MS F MOLETE: I am thankful to hear the date.

MR STRYDOM: You said that you and some of the other people, received letters. Can you give any description of that letter you received or not? Can you give a description of the letter or can't you?

MS F MOLETE: We received letters that stated us we are called to Pretoria.

MR STRYDOM: If I put to you those were summonses, what do you say about that?

CHAIRPERSON: Summonses or subpoenas?

MR STRYDOM: Sorry, subpoenas yes.

MS F MOLETE: I am not learned, I know nothing. As I received the letter, I said the children must read it for me.

MR STRYDOM: Do you still have that letter or not?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR STRYDOM: I just want to put to you that initially you were a State witness, but the State, the Prosecutors decided not to call you and the other people as witnesses and those witnesses were made available to the Defence, and then you were subpoenaed by the Defence to come to Pretoria. Do you accept that?

MS F MOLETE: The person who called us to Pretoria, we did not know.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, and that is why you didn't want to speak to the Defence Counsel at that stage, isn't it so?

MS F MOLETE: We never met with the lawyers, the person that we met was you and we talked with you.

MR STRYDOM: Do you know the name of any one of the other Advocates, Defence Advocates that were involved in that case?

MS F MOLETE: I know you Mr Strydom.

MR STRYDOM: Do you remember Mr Botha, or Advocate Botha?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember him or her.

MR STRYDOM: I want to put to you that Mr Botha was actually the person that had dealings with you.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, Mr Botha put on record at the criminal trial that he never spoke to anyone other than Mr Mabuza and Mr Moloi.

MR STRYDOM: Well I never said he spoke with them, I never said that, I said he wanted to speak to them, but they refused, he had dealings with them.

MR BERGER: No you put Mr Botha was actually the person who had dealings with you.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but Chairperson, I am not putting that he had a consultation with them, he wanted to speak to them, and they refused to speak with him. That is what I am putting. Do you remember Adv Botha, he is about 6"4 and he weighs about 120 kg's?

MS F MOLETE: Sir, I am not learned and now when you read figures to me, I loose you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Interpreter, when the witness says (indistinct), what does she mean?

INTERPRETER: The witness when she says that (indistinct), she really means that she has not had a formal education or school education. Hence I say she says she is not learned.

MR LOWIES: I would say Chairman, lateral translation would be I did not go to school.

CHAIRPERSON: I never went to school, I thought so. Yes?

MR STRYDOM: In any event, you said that I gave money to buy food for your kid, is that right, or for the kid?

MS F MOLETE: For all of us, including the child, we were all hungry.

MR STRYDOM: What food was bought?

MS F MOLETE: Kentucky and bread.

MR STRYDOM: Rolls and Coke? Is that the known Kentucky Fried Chicken, is that what you are saying, the known brand?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: I want to put to you and I am not going to go deeper into this, but there is not a Kentucky Fried Chicken anywhere close that I know of, to the Supreme Court of Pretoria. I have confirmed that with my learned friends. So what I am putting to you is this story about Kentucky Fried Chicken is a total lie.

MS F MOLETE: With respect sir, great respect, you directed us to that place, we said we do not know Pretoria well. You said we must ask at a certain shop, that cafe. We went down towards the taxi rank.

MR STRYDOM: Did you go and buy the Kentucky Fried Chicken at the Kentucky Fried Chicken shop yourself?

MS F MOLETE: We left, meaning all of us.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, well I am not going to go deeper into this, this is actually collateral issues, but I want to put to you this version of yours that I gave you money, is a total fabrication and you are doing it for your own purposes, I do not know why - what they are.

MS F MOLETE: I am an old woman and a woman of the congregation. I am telling the truth. You said to us we must go up and get that money.

MR STRYDOM: And I just want to enquire ...

CHAIRPERSON: She said you must go up and get that money - from where?

MS F MOLETE: Where we were with him, he told us we must go up and get somebody there who would give us money.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and how much money were you given there?

MS F MOLETE: R150-00.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, so someone else gave you the R150-00, is that what you are saying, not me?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, I don't think we should belabour this point. You are alleged to have directed them to a particular office and at that office they were then given money by somebody else.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I won't take it further, but I am putting that that is different from your evidence earlier on, and I am just putting to you that what you are stating now, is in fact a lie. Thank you Chairman, I've got no further questions.

MS F MOLETE: Mr Strydom, that is the truth. Even in heaven that is like that and you are an old person, we are here to speak the truth.

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, maybe - I just want to say something, I can't remember whether they received witnesses' fees, but that is something that can be investigated, I don't know.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies? Perhaps just before you put questions to her, do you know what is your date of birth?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, my mother often tells me and my mother did tell us.

CHAIRPERSON: What is it?

MS F MOLETE: I was born on the 1st of August, the eighth month, now I tend to forget the year.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your standard of education?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember sir, because my mother passed away when I was young and I had to work to fend for the younger ones.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, yes Mr Lowies.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: That was actually the first point I wanted to canvass. I refer you to page 266 of your evidence in the Goldstone Commission and there you said you think that you were born in 1952, the middle of the page, approximately line 18 Mr Chairman. Could that be so?

MS F MOLETE: They estimated upon looking at me, trying to find out in which year I might have been born.

MR LOWIES: I think you are making a mistake, I would just like to read to you what the record states. The cross-examiner asked you -

"... Mrs Molete, one last question, what year were you born in?"

And your reply not theirs, your reply was -

"... I think it was 1952."

MS F MOLETE: When these boys come and take statements from us, they look at us and say it would seem that you were born in this year, know that you were born in this year.

MR LOWIES: Now what would you say, what is your age? There were you are sitting, what do you think?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, the point has been made, she can't recall what her age is, nor can she recall what her standard of education is. Let's move on to another point.

MR LOWIES: Can you read or write?

MS F MOLETE: I am trying to write and I was taught by my child to write my name and to read a little bit. I suffer from eyes sir and I have nerves.

MR LOWIES: You suffer from eyes?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: The reason why I ask you this question, I actually observed on a previous occasion when you gave evidence, that you read the statement which Mr Strydom referred you to and it was held by Ms Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: May I place on record Chair, that she also pointed to words and asked me what they were.

MR LOWIES: Let's hear what she says. What do you say?

MS F MOLETE: I have been telling Ms Cambanis that I can read here, I cannot see, I can see there. The understanding of English and Afrikaans is not that well, I speak Afrikaans that is used by maids in the kitchens or suburbs, who work in the suburbs.

MR LOWIES: Could you read what was shown to you on your statement, were you able to read that?

MS F MOLETE: With respect sir, who read that for me?

MR LOWIES: Did you read it yourself, that is what I am asking you?

MS F MOLETE: People who wrote the statement for me, asked me, I tell them, they write. Now I do not know how I will answer this.

MR LOWIES: Maybe you are understanding me wrongly, we are talking about the time when the statement was held in the hands of Ms Cambanis next to you. You were pointed to a place where something is said. Did you manage to read what was written in that statement when Mr Strydom cross-examined you, yes or no?

MS F MOLETE: No, Ms Cambanis pointed out that where we are reading, it is here, and she pointed out with this thing.

MR LOWIES: Now you say "I suffer from my eyes", what do you mean by that?

MS F MOLETE: I grew up with a problem of my eyes and this is combined with the nerves that I suffer from, ever since this incident took place.

MR LOWIES: Let me just understand you correctly, you say you were born with this problem regarding your eyes, but the nerves only started after the attack?

MS F MOLETE: Even at the moment, I do suffer from nerves and that is great suffering that I have.

MR LOWIES: If you say you suffer from your eyes, do you mean that you can't see properly?

MS F MOLETE: At times I can see, at times when I am indoors, when I go outside, my eyes start crying.

MR LOWIES: Would you say that you have weak eyes, in other words you can't see properly?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Lowies, when I am under the shade or in a shady place like when I am indoors, when I go outside, at times I cannot see properly. I take time to see clearly.

MR LOWIES: When you were inside here, could you see what Ms Cambanis showed you on your statement, here two days ago?

MS F MOLETE: Sir, Ms Cambanis read out to me where Mr Strydom was reading and marked with this pen.

MR LOWIES: Yes, now the question is that which she marked for you, could you see it, could you read it, here indoors?

MS F MOLETE: I cannot read English. I pick out here and there, not fully like a person who is able to read. I sort of spell out what I am reading.

MR LOWIES: Would you say that you are a nervous person by nature?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I think the witness has explained that since the incident, she has been suffering from nerves.

CHAIRPERSON: Put the question differently, prior to this incident, did you suffer from any nerves?

MR LOWIES: You heard the question, prior to this incident, did you suffer from any nerves?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LOWIES: On the night of the incident, were you nervous?

MS F MOLETE: Before the attack, I didn't have nerves.

MR LOWIES: Were you confused on the night of the incident?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Between yourself and Miriam, who is the eldest?

MS F MOLETE: Myself.

MR LOWIES: During your evidence in the Goldstone hearing, page 268 more or less at line 22 you said the following -

"... we were still confused and now I just, I don't remember so well. We were just still very confused."

MR BERGER: Chairperson, perhaps my learned friend could start at the beginning of a sentence, rather than in the middle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what is the point of putting this?

MR LOWIES: The question that I would like to ask is, it appears to me that even when you gave evidence during the Goldstone Commission, you had two problems, one being confusion of what happened on the night of the incident and secondly, you could not remember well. Do you agree with firstly, you were confused as to precisely what happened on the night of the incident?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, in fairness to the witness, my learned friend ...

MR LOWIES: How can I cross-examine like this?

MR BERGER: Excuse me, I am allowed to object. In fairness to the witness, my objection Chairperson, is that my learned friend plucks a statement out of the middle of a sentence, and in fairness to the witness, he should explain the context in which the statement was made.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question is fair, he is putting to the witness, the witness is quite entitled to say yes, that is true, or no, it isn't.

MR BERGER: This statement is made in the context of statements which were taken from her.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he is putting the question now to the witness, the question is fair, that is what we rule. Put the question and let's proceed.

MR LOWIES: So firstly, were you during the Goldstone hearings confused regarding the happenings on the night of the attack?

MS F MOLETE: At the Commission sir, are you referring ...

MR LOWIES: Yes.

MS F MOLETE: I was still confused because in my life, that was the first time I have seen such an incident.

MR LOWIES: And now, are you still confused giving evidence here?

MS F MOLETE: When I am being asked questions, this thing comes to mind. It is like I can see what happened to me, what was done on me, and now my feelings get hurt.

MR LOWIES: I don't follow, are you confused or not, here, giving evidence?

MS F MOLETE: I prayed to God to help me to ward off this incident so that I can talk to you in a proper manner.

MR LOWIES: And, are you confused now or not?

MS F MOLETE: I am getting confused as time goes on, bit by bit, it is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete, is the position that what you are telling us now, and you have been telling us since you took the witness stand, what you can recall of and concerning the events of the 17th of June 1992 to the best of your ability?

MS F MOLETE: Are you saying that I must tell what took place at my place? I do not understand well Mr Nqcobo.

CHAIRPERSON: What I am putting to you, is that what you are telling us is what you can recall of what happened on the 17th of June 1992?

MS F MOLETE: Some I can remember, some I do not remember.

MR LOWIES: Now when you gave evidence at the Goldstone Commission Enquiry, did you remember well what happened at the night of the incident?

MS F MOLETE: Some of the things I would forget.

MR LOWIES: Did your memory improve since then?

MS F MOLETE: My memory would be confused because Miriam was unemployed and we had to get a wheelchair for this child. All of these things were on my shoulders as I was the eldest in the family.

MR LOWIES: So does that mean you memory actually faded or it improved, I don't know since Goldstone?

MS F MOLETE: As I look at this child, my memory fades because the child is growing up and I have to fare her mother to Germiston, the wheelchair breaks, they come to me, now I do not get a rest and emotionally I do not get rest.

MR LOWIES: Just to put you in the picture, is it correct that your evidence is that initially on the night of the attack, you and Miriam peeped through a hole in the shack?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct sir, the kitchen door had a hole.

MR LOWIES: Right, who looked first?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, with respect, we have been through this at length. My learned friend is now covering ground which has been dealt with in cross-examination.

MR LOWIES: It was not covered, who looked first.

CHAIRPERSON: If you cannot remember, say yes, if you do, tell us so that we can pass on.

MS F MOLETE: I cannot remember sir.

MR LOWIES: Miriam said that when she looked, she could see the people were wearing headbands, your evidence is that you could not see that.

MS F MOLETE: Miriam has got her own eyes, I am Makwedi, I know nothing of Miriam's eyes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they peeping through the same hole?

MR LOWIES: Yes, that is what she said, through the hole in the door in the kitchen. It was also the evidence of Miriam that you peeped through the hole -

"... myself and Florence peeped through the hole ...",

reads my note. But the point that I want to make, it appears to me then that Miriam's eyes must be better than yours?

CHAIRPERSON: You can't expect her to comment, that is a matter for argument. She saw one thing, Miriam didn't see it, peeping through the same hole.

MR LOWIES: I will leave it at that Chair. It is not clear to me, is it your evidence that Miriam was attacked by a white person?

MS F MOLETE: I say Mr Lowies, I cannot remember. What took place at my home was a very confusing thing.

INTERPRETER: I may say (indistinct), that is the words she used.

MS F MOLETE: It was a commotion.

MR LOWIES: According to you the paraffin lamp fell down and broke. When did this happen?

MR BERGER: I think we have canvassed this question in exactly the same terms before.

MR LOWIES: Not according to me, Chairman. If I can be told what the answer was.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the answer?

MR BERGER: During the attack in the kitchen.

CHAIRPERSON: But what is the question that you are asking?

MR LOWIES: At what stage, when it happened, at what stage?

CHAIRPERSON: What was happening at the time?

MR LOWIES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can you recall what exactly was happening when the lamp fell down and broke? We know it was during the attack, but what Counsel wants to find out, can you recall what was exactly happening and if you can't recall, tell us. You have told us that there was a commotion, so if you can't recall what was exactly happening at the time, tell us.

MS F MOLETE: I was already being assaulted.

MR LOWIES: Do you know what caused it to break?

MS F MOLETE: I do not know.

MR LOWIES: Did you see any white people not wearing balaclavas?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LOWIES: Can you describe the balaclavas that you saw being worn by people that you think were white people?

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, I cannot see where the witness is pointing unless she states where she is pointing. Chairperson, I cannot see where the witness is pointing, unless she tells us where she is pointing, because from here my view is not clear of the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you describe this balaclava? Perhaps you can just tell us whether, did it cover the entire face or what part of the face, was covered, if it did not cover the whole face.

MS F MOLETE: I could see the nose.

MR BERGER: The witness is indicating, she is drawing a line around her face and she is indicating that she could see what was inside that line, if I am correct.

MR LOWIES: Maybe I can assist you, do you want to say that the face was open or that there were only three holes, one for the nose and two for the eyes or was it one big opening for nose and eyes?

MS F MOLETE: The nose was not covered and here and there...

MR BERGER: Here and there is the eyes and the mouth.

CHAIRPERSON: We have heard evidence of a balaclava that only showed two holes for the eyes and then one other hole for the nose, did you understand that?

MS F MOLETE: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, is the one that you saw, the type that exposed, that had one hole which exposed the eyes, the nose and the mouth?

MS F MOLETE: The one I saw, it is the one that I am referring to, around the eyes and down towards the nose and the mouth.

MR BERGER: Chairperson what the witness is indicating there appears to be around the eyes, then she went around the nose and then she went around the mouth.

MR LOWIES: Actually I also saw it, in other words four holes, are we ad idem regarding that?

MR BERGER: That is what it looked like, yes.

MR LOWIES: Now, you talk about the one balaclava that you saw, did you see more than one balaclava like this or only this one?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Lowies, I do not remember. When you ask me a question, I would request that you allow me some time probably about two minutes, for me to think a bit.

MR LOWIES: Are you ready to answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Just let the witness answer whenever she is ready.

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember well.

MR LOWIES: Did you see anybody ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just a second, (indistinct), doesn't that mean I can't remember very well? The translation says I don't remember when?

ADV SIGODI: Well.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay. Ms Molete, take time before you answer the questions if that is what you want.

MR BERGER: Chair, the witness actually would like a break, she says she is tired.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a break now and come back at eleven o'clock.

MR BERGER: Thank you very much.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Molete, how do you feel now?

MS F MOLETE: I am better sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Do you think you can continue giving evidence?

MS F MOLETE: Yes sir.

FLORENCE MOLETE: (still under oath)

MR BERGER: Ms Molete has said to Ms Cambanis that she would like to go to the Doctor at three o'clock, I sure hope her evidence will be finished long before three o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I have no doubt. Yes, very well. Yes Mr Lowies?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: (continued) Mr Chairman, maybe you can just assist me, did I ask and get an answer regarding whether she saw anybody with painted faces, I think that was the last question? Not?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR LOWIES: Did you see anybody with painted faces on the night of the incident?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LOWIES: During the attack or shortly thereafter, did you hear the sound of engines of a heavy vehicle?

MS F MOLETE: May you repeat the question please.

MR LOWIES: Did you hear the sound of the engines of a vehicle, a heavy motor vehicle during the attack?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LOWIES: Now, just to get perspective, I understand your evidence that you saw a Police vehicle at a stage when you were at the dumping ground, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Just bear with me for a second.

MR DA SILVA: I apologise Mr Chairman, with regard to the vehicles, Mr Chairman, my clients are still investigating that, I haven't got any information at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Even, I think even if it is photographs, if one can just take photographs of these motor vehicles.

MR DA SILVA: Yes, I am still obtaining instructions at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It may be a bit difficult to identify it from a drawing, a photograph is far better.

MR DA SILVA: Mr Chairman, I am obtaining instructions and as soon as I am in a position, I will revert to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And perhaps the legal representative who is appearing for the Police, if they could endeavour to get us a photograph of the casspir and perhaps just to complete the process, the "nyala", microwave, the suitcase and a hippo, yes. I don't think we would need the over-all's of the Green Beans. Yes, very well.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. This Police vehicle that you saw, was it a casspir, do you know what a casspir is?

MS F MOLETE: I know it to be a Police vehicle, I do not know what a casspir is.

MR LOWIES: Was it a big vehicle or a van, like a bakkie, a light delivery van?

MS F MOLETE: A big one.

MR LOWIES: Do you know what the colour was?

MS F MOLETE: No sir, I was far.

MR LOWIES: When you were at the dumping site, could you also see ambulances?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember, I just came down.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't remember how many - you don't remember seeing ambulances from the dump?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember.

MR LOWIES: Did you see ambulances on the night of the incident?

MS F MOLETE: The ambulance I saw was the one that carried Mita's mother.

MR LOWIES: When did you see this ambulance for the first time, where were you? In other words, were you still at the dumping ground, were you on your way to the house, were you at the shack where the assault took place or were you at any other place?

MS F MOLETE: I was already coming down.

MR LOWIES: From the dumping ground towards the house?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Which did you see first, the ambulance or the vehicle that you say is a Police vehicle?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, she said she saw the Police vehicle from the dumping site.

CHAIRPERSON: I also want to know the answer to that question Mr Berger.

MS F MOLETE: The Police vehicle, I saw first.

MR LOWIES: How long after the vehicle, after the Police vehicle, did you see the ambulance, can you give us an estimate?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember sir.

MR LOWIES: Would you say it was a short period?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember.

MR LOWIES: Let's maybe take it as follows, we know that you saw the vehicle that you say is a Police vehicle, whilst at the dumping ground? Starting from there, you have now seen this vehicle, did you remain at the dumping ground or did you after that, shortly thereafter or immediately thereafter, start walking towards your shack?

MS F MOLETE: I came down, then I went home.

MR LOWIES: How long did you stay at the dumping ground, did you just go there and immediately thereafter went back to your house?

MS F MOLETE: It was not a long time.

MR LOWIES: Maybe you can assist us with this, what did you do at the dumping ground, so that we can ascertain how long you were there? What did you do there, you arrived at the dumping ground, you saw the vehicle and then, what did you do? If I say the vehicle that you saw, I am referring to the Police vehicle?

MS F MOLETE: I looked at the location.

MR LOWIES: Yes?

MS F MOLETE: Then I took a blanket, borrowed to me from people who slept at Matiki, I did not take a long time, I came down.

MR LOWIES: Okay, can I just to make sure that we understand each other, so you saw the vehicle, then you went to a person who gave you a blanket, you took the blanket, you didn't stay long and then you went down towards the house again, is that the sequence?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: And then how far did you walk before you saw the ambulance?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember.

MR LOWIES: Can you maybe show us on the map where you were when you saw the ambulance, if the map can be shown to the witness, with your permission Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: The witness says she cannot remember where she was when she saw the ambulance. If she says that, is she going to be able to indicate on the map where she was, at the time when she saw the ambulance, we know from her now that after seeing the motor vehicle, the impression one gets from her, that she didn't remain there for a long time, she left, and on her way, she saw the ambulance. This is the ambulance that took Mita's mother to hospital. I think this is the one where she could not get in, because I think it was full as I recall her evidence. That seems to be the sequence of the evidence.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chairperson, I understand. I thought maybe with assistance of the map, she would be able to assist us regarding where she was. If that is the case, I will leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: I raised the question whether if she says she can't tell us where she was, maybe you can canvass if she is shown the map - Ma'am, if you are, remember the sketch that you have been shown from time to time, the map, is that the one that is in front of her, yes all right, do you see that map?

MS F MOLETE: It is the first time that I see this map. I am seeing this map for the first time here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand that, but if you have a look at that map, will you be able to indicate where you were when you saw the ambulance, is that the question?

MR LOWIES: Yes, thank you.

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair. If I suggest to you that it must have been a very short time since you saw the Police vehicle on your version, and the ambulance, would you agree with that?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Lowies, I can no longer remember.

MR LOWIES: When you saw this vehicle, there were no pedestrians near it, is that correct, it was just a vehicle?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember Mr Lowies.

MR LOWIES: As I understand the situation regarding the shack, it is a three roomed shack, is that correct, a bedroom, kitchen and a small room?

MS F MOLETE: The kitchen and the bedroom.

MR LOWIES: Is it only a two roomed shack?

MS F MOLETE: That is correct.

MR LOWIES: Did the bedroom have a window?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Was there a curtain in front of the window?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LOWIES: That wall, sorry how many windows were there in the bedroom, just one?

MS F MOLETE: Only one.

MR LOWIES: That wall with the window, was that wall ever damaged?

MS F MOLETE: It is the one that was damaged.

MR LOWIES: How?

MS F MOLETE: The wall fell down.

MR LOWIES: Did you see the actual falling of the wall or did you just observe afterwards this wall is damaged?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, this was canvassed at length yesterday and she repeated that the walls to the shack were made out of cardboard and they fell down, she even indicated which walls fell down. Now whether she actually saw the wall falling down or not, how is that going to prove or disprove the presence or otherwise of either Mr Zulu or the Police when she has already given us the answer?

MR LOWIES: I would have thought that she maybe saw who did it, whether the white people on her version, were involved in that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, well maybe you should just put the question directly, did you see you know, who broke the wall.

MR LOWIES: I will do that. Did you see who broke the wall?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LOWIES: This bedroom wall with the window, which direction did it face, if you can maybe show us on the map which Ms Cambanis is going to ...

MS F MOLETE: Facing in the direction of Sasol.

MR LOWIES: On the map?

MR BERGER: South.

MR LOWIES: Sorry, maybe Mr Berger can assist us.

MR BERGER: South.

MR LOWIES: Is there an Apollo light on the southern side of this window?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Do you know whether there were stones thrown at the shack?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LOWIES: More or less when did this happen, before or after the people entered the shack or during that period?

MS F MOLETE: During the time of the attack.

MR LOWIES: Did you enter into the court room, were you called with Miriam into the court room during the criminal, on the day, let me just help you, that is on the day when you say Mr Strydom spoke to you?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LOWIES: Were you at all called into a court room where the Judge asked you people questions, where Miriam was inter alia there as well?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LOWIES: Okay. The reason why I am asking you is the record reflects that you were inside the court room, your name is Florence Molete?

MS F MOLETE: I do not know about entering the court room.

MR LOWIES: At a stage you spoke about one white person and then about two white persons that you saw on the night of the incident. Do you recall what weapons if any, these people that you saw were white, or this person that you say was white, had with him or with them?

MS F MOLETE: The person was in possession of a gun.

MR LOWIES: Any other person with a weapon, a white person with a weapon that you can recall?

MS F MOLETE: The one I saw was in possession of a gun, the other one passed by, running.

MR LOWIES: And could you see a weapon in his possession?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR LOWIES: Because during the Goldstone hearings, page 259 of the Exhibit, Chairman, you said that he had something like an axe with him? You said one had a gun and the other one had something like an axe with him.

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember that.

ADV SIGODI: What page are you referring us to?

MR LOWIES: Page 259, line 7 more or less, 7 to 10.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

MR LOWIES: You also testified during the Goldstone hearings that, sorry Chairperson, this is at page 258 of Exhibit II, line 17 approximately and I quote now your evidence to you -

"... well, I noticed this white person and another one who came in through the broken portion of the shack."

MR BERGER: Chairperson, this specific paragraph has been dealt with in cross-examination.

MR LOWIES: I withdraw the question, my learned friend is correct. In your evidence at the Goldstone Commission, you said that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lowies.

MR LOWIES: I will start with a new aspect, when you saw the vehicle that you say was a Police vehicle, was there at that stage any attack or was the attack already finished, finalised?

MS F MOLETE: They had already passed my house, I cannot comment or I do not know about other places.

MR LOWIES: Because at page 261, the first ten lines approximately, you say that at the stage when you saw the casspirs, there you were talking of two, the attackers were still in Bakwena Street, they were still breaking windows and attacking houses?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Yes what, is that correct?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LOWIES: But you just now said that the attack was already finished when you saw the vehicle.

MR BERGER: No, she never said that.

MR LOWIES: You said you don't know.

MR BERGER: She said the attack had passed her house, she did not know what had happened at other places.

MR LOWIES: Well there is a contradiction as indicated by Mr Berger. How can you say you don't know, when there is clear evidence that you did know?

MS F MOLETE: Mr Lowies, I explained that the attackers moved along Bakwena. After they had passed my place, running towards Cape Gate seemingly.

MR LOWIES: At page 264, approximately at line 7, you state in the Goldstone hearings -

"... I was lucky to escape with hits and kicks only."

Is that true?

CHAIRPERSON: What are your instructions with regard to her injuries?

MR LOWIES: It appears that she was not sexually assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what are your instructions?

MR LOWIES: I don't know, so I have to explore.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, if my learned friends are putting to the witness that she was not sexually assaulted, then we will lead medical evidence if they do not accept her oral evidence. She has explained why she did not mention this to the Goldstone Commission.

MR LOWIES: I have instructions not to accept that.

MR BERGER: Not to accept what?

MR LOWIES: ... assaulted.

MR BERGER: So the applicants deny that?

MR LOWIES: Yes.

MR BERGER: So Chairperson, we can put on record that the applicants specifically deny that Ms Florence Molete was sexually assaulted, thank you.

MR LOWIES: No, it is disputed. What is your answer regarding "I was lucky to escape with hits and kicks only"?

CHAIRPERSON: I have to stop you now from cross-examining on this aspect. The witness has testified at length about the injuries that were sustained, the record of her evidence in the Goldstone Commission, speaks for itself. What else do you want the witness to say?

MR LOWIES: I withdraw the question then.

CHAIRPERSON: The record speaks for itself, the matter has been fully canvassed.

MR LOWIES: Thank you. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the page reference that you have just referred her to?

MR LOWIES: It is 264 Mr Chairman, at the sixth line.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the very last sentence?

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOWIES

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ma'am?

MS PRETORIUS: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PRETORIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Tanzer, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS TANZER: I do. Ms Molete, did you form the opinion that the Police took part in the attack on Boipatong?

CHAIRPERSON: We are not interested in the witness' opinion, we are only interested in the facts.

MS TANZER: I withdraw the question. When you were subpoenaed to appear in Pretoria, did you know why you had been subpoenaed?

MS F MOLETE: We did not know the person who called us.

MS TANZER: Did you want to give evidence at the criminal trial about the attack on your home on the night of the 17th of June?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MS TANZER: Did you not want to give evidence in order to put the attackers behind bars when you were subpoenaed, put them in jail, to be more exact?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, is the question why did she not want to testify?

MS TANZER: Well, yes in a roundabout way. In a roundabout fashion, that is the question.

MS F MOLETE: Ms Tanzer's question is a bit ambiguous, it is not direct.

CHAIRPERSON: It is supposed to be a direct question, why did you not want to give evidence at the criminal trial?

MS F MOLETE: I gave a statement to Mr Lucky, isn't that so Mr Nqcobo?

MS TANZER: When you went to Pretoria, when you were subpoenaed to Pretoria, that was involuntary or voluntarily, you went voluntarily or involuntarily?

MS F MOLETE: We were called by the Police, I was afraid of the reason why we were called.

MS TANZER: Why did you not want to speak to Mr Strydom in Pretoria?

MS F MOLETE: I talked to Mr Strydom.

MS TANZER: Did you know who Mr Strydom was representing at the time that you spoke to him?

MS F MOLETE: He explained to us.

MS TANZER: Would you have been willing to give evidence if you were representing the State against the attackers?

MS F MOLETE: Yes Ma'am.

MS TANZER: Did you know any persons dwelling at the kwaMadala hostel during the 1992 period?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MS TANZER: Could you identify any of the attackers, the black attackers that night at your home?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MS TANZER: When you saw the "koyoco's" from the dumping site, did you think that the "koyoco's" were part of the attack on Slovo Park or did you think they had come to assist and protect you from the attackers?

CHAIRPERSON: I have warned you Ma'am, that what we want this witness to tell is, is what she saw and not her opinion. It is for us to draw conclusions and inferences from the facts.

MS TANZER: Did you hear any rumours that an attack on Boipatong and Slovo Park was imminent prior to the attack?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MS TANZER: Did any of the attackers, besides the white Policemen on the stoep, have firearms in your home on the night of the attack?

MS F MOLETE: I did not see.

MS TANZER: This white man that you described standing on your stoep, had you ever seen him before?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MS TANZER: Were you aware of the relationship between the people of Slovo Park or Boipatong and the South African Police during the 1992 period?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MS TANZER: Whilst you were making your way to the dumping site itself, did you hear a lot of screaming and gunshots in the air?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MS TANZER: When you say you saw the ambulance and you saw your sister getting into the ambulance, had the attackers stopped already or did you still hear gunshots in the distance?

MS F MOLETE: At the time she got into the ambulance, the attackers were already gone.

MS TANZER: Do you know whether the mixed hostel near Slovo Park, or anybody at that mixed hostel, was attacked during the night of the 17th of June?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MS TANZER: So you know that the hostel itself, was attacked or that building that is called the hostel?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MS TANZER: Thank you, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS TANZER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Tanzer, Mr Da Silva?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DA SILVA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ms Molete, I just want to cover one aspect with you. You recall on Tuesday, Mr Berger was asking you questions and you gave certain answers regarding to the clothes that the white man with the gun outside your home, had. Do you recall that?

MS F MOLETE: There were many questions sir.

MR DA SILVA: Yes, I will take you specifically to the question, after you had testified about the white man with the gun, Mr Berger asked you what clothes did this man have, can you recollect that?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I remember.

MR DA SILVA: Then you explained, you said that he had clothes, I am going to paraphrase your evidence here, he had clothes used by soldiers or Policemen. They were ugly clothes used by the soldiers. You think they call it camouflage. Do you remember evidence to that effect?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I do remember.

MR DA SILVA: The question is, are you saying and this is what I want to clarify, that soldiers during June 1992 wore camouflaged clothing or are you saying that soldiers now, more recently, wear camouflage clothing?

MS F MOLETE: The soldiers and the Police were in a similar fashion, I cannot make a distinction, a very clear distinction.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that now, that is at about the time of the assault, what the Police and the military from as far as you were concerned, wore the same clothing, I mean similar camouflage clothing?

MS F MOLETE: At times others were called Police, others were called soldiers. I do not have a clear understanding, I worked in the morning and got off at half past eight in the evening.

MR DA SILVA: Ms Molete my instructions are that during June 1992, soldiers were not issued with camouflaged clothing. This only occurred during the middle of 1994. Can you offer any comment in that regard?

MS F MOLETE: I say I am old, to me a soldier and a Policeman is one and the same to me. A Police I would see when he or she wears others.

MR DA SILVA: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DA SILVA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Da Silva.

MR DU PLESSIS: Ms Molete, I have no questions for you. I do however, want to put to you that I act on behalf of Mr Pedro Peens and it is my instruction to put to you that he was not involved with the Boipatong massacre. If you can answer?

MS F MOLETE: I do not know the person you are referring to.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mey?

MR MEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ms Molete, I just want to put to you, it is my instructions to put to you, I am acting on behalf of Mr Chaka and Mr Greeff and they were not involved in the Boipatong massacre?

MS F MOLETE: I do not know those people sir.

MR MEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mey. Mr Mapoma?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Thank you sir. Ma'am, during the attack on you, did the attackers tell you why they were assaulting you?

MS F MOLETE: They never talked.

MR MAPOMA: I need your comment on this now. The applicants say they attacked Boipatong, yourselves included, because they perceived the Boipatong people as ANC supporters. What do you say to that?

MS F MOLETE: I do not know sir.

MR MAPOMA: Were you a member or supporter of the ANC at all?

MS F MOLETE: No.

MR MAPOMA: You have said they did not say anything, but they did say something - your evidence tells that. Amongst the things that they said, did they ever ask you where the comrades were?

MS F MOLETE: Yes. It is during the attack.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Berger?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson. Ms Molete, what did the attackers say about the comrades?

MS F MOLETE: They said we must take out our guns, in Zulu. Then we said there is none. They said "we know the comrades had placed them in here" and we replied that we do not know. Then a fight started.

MR BERGER: Is that all they said about the comrades?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR BERGER: Do you remember, you were talking about the white man who ran passed you, from inside the house to outside?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR BERGER: And you told the Committee that at some point, you saw him from the front.

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR BERGER: Now, can you tell the Committee where he was at the time that you saw him from the front?

MS F MOLETE: I do not know from where he was, but he passed me.

MR BERGER: Yes, but when you saw him from the front, where was he standing?

MR LOWIES: I must object, that suggests that he was standing, and the evidence is he wasn't standing.

MR BERGER: I am not suggesting that, I will rephrase. When you saw him from the front, can you say in what room of the house he was?

MS F MOLETE: He was coming out of the bedroom, they came out running.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the white man that at some stage you told us, you saw for the first time when he was outside, when he was running? That is the man that you saw as you were laying down on your stomach with your face facing the side, is that the man you are talking about?

MS F MOLETE: The one who was standing, was still standing there, looking inside the house when this one ran passed me and they got out, all of them.

MR BERGER: Ms Molete, you said to the Committee about evidence that you gave to Judge Goldstone and then you said, "I often pray to ward off these things". What did you mean by that?

MS F MOLETE: I mean that this thing must be moved far away from me and we must forget about it, we sustained injuries, we are handicapped and there is nobody who is going to help us.

MR BERGER: Is it that you want to forget?

MR LOWIES: That is leading with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: This is re-examination.

MS F MOLETE: Yes, I pray God to help us that we must forget, we are in difficult times. We are pushing a child on a wheelchair and those who injured her, are nowhere to be seen. We are paying school fees that is way too high for us and we do not know why we have to undergo such things.

MR BERGER: Ms Molete, do you know about the Kulumani Support Group?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR BERGER: Are you a member of that group?

MS F MOLETE: Yes sir.

MR BERGER: What does that group do?

MS F MOLETE: Kulumani Support Group is the one that gathered people who were harassed in the past and for us to forget past incidents. Secondly Kulumani, it is not aligned with any other organisation, everybody who comes, is with us.

MR BERGER: And you speak about your experiences there and you try to forget them, is that what it is?

MS F MOLETE: Yes, when we are at the Kulumani, we at times forget these things and we do some things and we forget what we experienced.

MR BERGER: How long have you been attending Kulumani?

MS F MOLETE: I do not remember sir.

MR BERGER: Do you feel that Kulumani has helped you at all and if so, how?

MS F MOLETE: It has helped by providing a wheelchair for the child when I did ask for it. Secondly it makes me forget and I can say it has helped me.

MR BERGER: Has it helped you to talk about your experience?

MS F MOLETE: When we have meetings, we discuss these things and we forget. At times we sing, we pray, it becomes joyful.

MR BERGER: Thank you Ms Molete, I have no further questions?

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any questions Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: Just one Mr Chairperson. Ms Molete, you said you were able to see that the two people were whites by their height as well as the nose or the size of the nose. What I want to know from you, were those the only marks or features you were able to identify them by, as whites?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: You also said that the balaclavas they wore, had openings around the eyes, the nose and the mouth?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it easy to see properly inside those openings?

MS F MOLETE: Which holes?

MR SIBANYONI: Around the eyes, the nose and the mouth?

MS F MOLETE: There was a lot of light, it was bright.

MR SIBANYONI: And you were able to see properly?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe I should ask you in this fashion, you never at all spoke about the colour of these people, why? The complexion, you never said anything about their complexion, I want to know why?

MS F MOLETE: I was not asked about their complexion, moreover, there was a fight ensuing.

MR SIBANYONI: So because there was a fight, you were not able to see the complexion?

MS F MOLETE: They are white, I saw them.

MR SIBANYONI: Can I rephrase perhaps the question, normally a distinguishing feature between a black and a white person will be described by way of the complexion and I noticed that you didn't say anything about the complexion. Do you not regard the complexion as the most important distinguishing feature?

MS F MOLETE: I do not understand.

MR SIBANYONI: Normally when we distinguish between a white person and a black person, we will talk in terms of the complexion, the colour, we will say the white person is white and the black person is black. But you didn't distinguish in terms of that complexion. Do you agree with me?

MS F MOLETE: I am not able to answer your question.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Adv Sigodi?

ADV SIGODI: Did you notice the complexion of the people wearing the balaclavas?

MS F MOLETE: It was a white person. His nose was not covered. This one who was looking into the house.

ADV SIGODI: Did you notice the complexion on the nose?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: What was that complexion?

MS F MOLETE: White.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax?

MR LAX: No questions Chairperson.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: Sorry, there was an aspect raised about Kulumani, which strictly speaking, wasn't arising out of cross-examination. I have one question pertaining to the Kulumani Support Centre, may I with your permission as a question? Do you know whether Mr Wilson Baloyi, Ms Buwa or your sister, Miriam, form part of this support group?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LOWIES: All three of them?

MS F MOLETE: Yes.

MR LOWIES: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOWIES

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: We intend taking a short break at this stage, approximately until about twenty past twelve, my watch says it is ten past, is that right? If we can then reconvene at twenty past. Is your next witness ready?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is the next witness?

MS CAMBANIS: It is Rebecca Motaung.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Whilst you get her ready, we will take the short adjournment and come back at about twenty past twelve. We will then sit probably until about quarter past, twenty past one, roundabout there, then we will have lunch. All right.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, what language is your client going to speak?

MS CAMBANIS: Sotho, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you.

MS MOTAUNG: I am Diektseng Rebecca Motaung.

DIEKTSENG REBECCA MOTAUNG: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: What is the first name, how do you spell the first name? Can the witness assist us? Can you spell your first name?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I cannot spell my name.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Interpreter, can you assist?

INTERPRETER: Yes, I will do so, it is Diektseng

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair. Ma'am, will you please tell the Committee, on the 17th of June 1992, where you were residing?

MS MOTAUNG: I was staying at 105 Slovo Park.

MS CAMBANIS: And you were present at your home during the course of that evening, is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I was at my place that night.

MS CAMBANIS: Please tell the Committee what happened that night?

MS MOTAUNG: It was around half past ten, me and my husband were already in bed.

MS CAMBANIS: Who is your husband, what is his name?

MS MOTAUNG: He is Petrus Motaung.

MS CAMBANIS: And it was only yourself and your husband at home that evening?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, it was the two of us only.

MS CAMBANIS: Please carry on.

MR LOWIES: Then we heard people throwing stones on our shack. We looked through the door, then people entered.

MS CAMBANIS: what people entered?

MS MOTAUNG: They were men, many men.

MS CAMBANIS: Can you describe these men at all to the Committee?

MS MOTAUNG: May you please repeat the question Adv Cambanis?

MS CAMBANIS: Could you please describe the men to the Committee?

MS MOTAUNG: Those that I saw in front, they had headbands on their heads, red and white headbands.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, and then they entered your home?

MS MOTAUNG: One of them who had a black overcoat, he came to me and he stabbed me with a spear, that is on my breast. That spear penetrated me on my left side. He stabbed me again where I am pointing.

MS CAMBANIS: Just hold on.

INTERPRETER: Honourable Chair, may I please ask that the witness explain in words, because where I am standing, I cannot see when she is pointing.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, very well. You say that he stabbed you again and I think you indicated, where exactly did he stab you again?

MS CAMBANIS: Just show?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know whether the Committee would allow me to undress so that I can show them.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no.

MS MOTAUNG: They stabbed me here.

MS CAMBANIS: Chair I can assist.

CHAIRPERSON: All we need is, you said that the first time he...

MS MOTAUNG: He stabbed me on my breast, and he repeated on the same place again for the second time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Left breast?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS MOTAUNG: That time I was still standing, there was nothing I could do and then he came again, the third time and he stabbed me on the thigh.

MS CAMBANIS: The witness has indicated the left thigh, Chair.

MS MOTAUNG: He stabbed me on the thigh and repeated again on the same place. He stabbed me again underneath, on the same leg, just below the first and the second wound.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the left leg?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct. He stabbed me seven times.

MS CAMBANIS: Do you recall, while the stabbing was going on, did anything else take place during the stabbing that you recall?

MS MOTAUNG: While he was still stabbing, the others were removing the curtains. I had a two roomed shack. Others were busy removing the curtains and others were smashing the tables, the chairs and the cupboards.

MS CAMBANIS: Did you hear anyone say anything?

MS MOTAUNG: When he was stabbing me for the seventh time on the right breast, I heard a white person speaking in Afrikaans, saying - asking whether that woman is dead. When I heard him saying that, I threw myself on the ground and I was shouting, saying I am dead. I fell on the ground just next to that white person.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that this man spoke in Afrikaans?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct Chair, he was speaking in Afrikaans.

MR LAX: Sorry, just repeat again what he said again please. The first part of it?

MS MOTAUNG: He asked whether that woman is dead.

MS CAMBANIS: So those are the exact words you heard him saying in Afrikaans language?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes. The other one answered and he said yes. When she called her mother, you must know that she is dead.

MS CAMBANIS: What language was that person replying in?

MS MOTAUNG: He was speaking in Zulu.

MS CAMBANIS: Please carry on, what happened then?

MS MOTAUNG: That white person called them saying "come, come". And then they left.

MS CAMBANIS: Are you telling the Committee that the reason he was white was because you heard him speaking in Afrikaans? What is the reason that you say he was white?

MS MOTAUNG: I saw him because the Apollo light in Mosheshe, its light reached our shack, so I could see the people who were entering my shack, because they also saw me.

MS CAMBANIS: Is there any other information that you can give the Committee about this white person, what he looked like, what he wore, anything?

MS MOTAUNG: He could be, his height could be that of Mr Malindi. He had a balaclava and I could see the nose and the mouth and he was pink.

MS CAMBANIS: Anything else that you want to add?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Ma'am, you could see - did you say you could see the nose and the mouth?

MS MOTAUNG: I could see his nose, his mouth and his eyes.

MS CAMBANIS: You say during the attack some of the attackers were also destroying property in your house, is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, they were taking blankets, smashing the table and the chairs and the cupboard and also the bed.

MS CAMBANIS: And after they left, what happened?

MS MOTAUNG: I sat there for a long time, crying.

MS CAMBANIS: And did you receive any medical treatment for your injuries after that?

MS MOTAUNG: At that time my neighbour came and he took me to the ambulance.

MS CAMBANIS: Were you hospitalised?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I was taken to Sebokeng Hospital.

MS CAMBANIS: For how long did you remain there?

MS MOTAUNG: I was discharged on the 18th and then on the 19th, I went to my mother's place.

MS CAMBANIS: In which area is that?

MS MOTAUNG: That is in Qua-Qua.

MS CAMBANIS: Do you remember, or do you know where your husband was during this attack?

MS MOTAUNG: He went through and ran away.

MS CAMBANIS: Is there anything that you wish to add, tell the Committee, anything further?

MS MOTAUNG: We were taken to write a statement on two occasions in Pretoria, and then on the third occasion myself, I was called by Mr Strydom.

MS CAMBANIS: Was this in Pretoria?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MS CAMBANIS: What happened?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I object, I say it is not relevant, this evidence.

MS CAMBANIS: I withdraw that then, in that case, I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: Thank you Chair. Can you have a look at Exhibit J?

MS CAMBANIS: May I indicate to her the contents of the note, because she doesn't know what is before her?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, by all means, unless there is an objection.

MR STRYDOM: I can do it as well, but if she is in trouble I will ask you to do it.

MS CAMBANIS: Okay, thank you.

MR STRYDOM: Do you see the Exhibit in front of you?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: As you look at the Exhibit in front of you, on the right hand side, you will see what is shown there as Slovo Park, do you see that?

MS MOTAUNG: Where it is marked in pink?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that area marked in pink, do you see it?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I do see.

MR STRYDOM: Now, do you see Bapedi Street?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I do see Bapedi Street.

MR STRYDOM: The last street between the Boipatong township and Slovo Park, is Bakwena Street, do you see that?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I do.

MR STRYDOM: You say that your shack's number is 107, can you just give an indication more or less, where on this map will you find your shack?

MS MOTAUNG: My shack is at the back, it is number 105, that is on this side of Florence's place.

MR STRYDOM: So is it close to the previous witness' place, Florence Molete, is that what you are saying?

MS MOTAUNG: It is far from Florence's place. Mine is at the back, Florence's shack is in the front.

MR STRYDOM: Is your shack closer to the dumping ground?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct, it is near the place called Matiki, that is the dumping ground.

MR STRYDOM: Yes. Can you indicate, if you must choose one of the streets, Bapedi, Majola, Baralong or anyone of the others, just give an indication, if you must draw a line, a straight line from anyone of those streets, can you state in which line would you say is your house, let's just get an indication?

MS CAMBANIS: Chair, she has gone along Bapedi Street, right to the extreme right hand and gone down to what looks like the last house in the bottom right hand corner.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be the one that is highlighted in black?

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, that is correct.

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, it could be there where it is marked with black colour.

CHAIRPERSON: What is that, would that be where - what is that what she has just indicated?

MS CAMBANIS: She is indicating southwards from number 17 that is marked, and she is indicating between Baralong and Mosheshe Streets, the shack that is marked in black.

MR STRYDOM: Can she show us which one she marked.

CHAIRPERSON: It is the very last shack on the extreme right, is it Mosheshe Street?

MR LAX: It is the most south eastern shack on this plan. And that is her shack?

MS CAMBANIS: That is her shack, number 105.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, it has just occurred by the way that the map that I have, has been cut. So whilst I may be referring to the very last - oh, no, it isn't.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you Chair. This shack of yours, how many rooms did it have at that time, the time of the attack.

MS MOTAUNG: Two rooms.

MR STRYDOM: In which direction was the front of this shack facing?

MS MOTAUNG: It was facing the Apollo light in Mosheshe Street.

MR STRYDOM: So it was facing towards the township, is that what you are saying?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct, it was facing the direction of the township.

MR STRYDOM: And that Apollo light that you are referring to, is that on the corner of Bakwena and Mosheshe Streets?

MS MOTAUNG: I know the one that is down Mosheshe Street, that is the one that its light reached my shack.

MR STRYDOM: Just to get clarity, you say down Mosheshe Street, is that towards the township itself or just on the corner of the township?

MS MOTAUNG: I am referring to the corner of the township that is next to the bar.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, the beer hall, do you know the beer hall?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, that is next to the beer hall, there is an Apollo light there, that is the corner of Mosheshe Street.

CHAIRPERSON: The corner of Mosheshe Street and which street?

MS MOTAUNG: That street goes up towards Bakwena.

MR STRYDOM: You have told us that the shack is facing towards the township, does it have a door that opens in the direction or a door on the side of the township?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, the door was in the middle of the shack, that door was dividing the two rooms. On the other side was the kitchen and on the other side was the bedroom.

MR STRYDOM: Was there a window on either side of the door?

MS MOTAUNG: No, there were no windows. It was just a shack without windows.

MR STRYDOM: On that night, the attackers had entered the shack, did they come through the door?

MS MOTAUNG: They broke the door with bricks and that door was broken and they managed to enter through that door.

MR STRYDOM: If you say the door was broken, did it come down or was it just forced open by the stones?

MS MOTAUNG: They hit this door with bricks in the middle of that door. This was made from a ceiling hardboard, it was not a strong door. After hitting this door, and then that door opened and then they broke that door as I am indicating now and they managed to enter.

MR STRYDOM: Just to get clarity, after they entered, was the door still hanging on its hinges?

MS MOTAUNG: They broke that door in the middle and there was an opening in the middle. The other one took another piece and removed that piece and the other one removed another piece, so when they entered, there was no door. They had thrown those pieces, those two pieces on the ground.

MR STRYDOM: Was there any source of light in the house?

MS MOTAUNG: No.

MR STRYDOM: The stones that struck the shack, what were you and your husband doing?

MS MOTAUNG: We were already asleep, then when we heard the stones hitting the shack, we woke up and then we went to the door to look. There was an opening at that door, so we managed to peep through that opening. When you peep through that opening, it became easy for you to see everything that was happening outside.

MR STRYDOM: When you peeped through the opening, what did you see?

MS MOTAUNG: We saw many people, a group of people, a large group of people.

MR STRYDOM: At the stage when you peeped through the window, could you see anything about what the group was wearing, their clothes?

MS MOTAUNG: They were wearing different clothes and one of them was wearing an overcoat.

MR STRYDOM: Apart from the overcoat, can you describe that person's clothing any further?

MS MOTAUNG: He wore a blue over-all, Iscor over-all.

MR STRYDOM: When the attackers started coming into the house, can you give an indication how many of them came in?

MS MOTAUNG: No sir. There were many who entered the shack.

MR STRYDOM: When they entered, your husband was also in the shack, is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: When they entered, my husband managed to escape and ran away.

MR STRYDOM: When your husband escaped, did you stay behind in the shack?

MS MOTAUNG: I was still in the shack because I only wore a short night-dress, so I couldn't go anywhere.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did you say that your shack had one entrance from the outside?

MS MOTAUNG: It was a two-roomed shack, we had a bedroom and a kitchen. We had only one door.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the door from the outside into the shack?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And this door from outside, does it lead into the kitchen area or into the bedroom?

MS MOTAUNG: It enters into the kitchen and then from the kitchen, then you will move through to the bedroom, because we only shared the kitchen from the bedroom with curtains.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, so between the kitchen and the bedroom, there was a door?

MS MOTAUNG: There was no door, we shared the bedroom from the kitchen with a curtain.

CHAIRPERSON: But there was a curtain, there is an entrance from the kitchen into the bedroom, but there was no door, there was just a curtain?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, you only open the curtain and then you enter the bedroom. There was no door, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see how your husband left the shack? If you didn't see, just say so.

MS MOTAUNG: When they entered, my husband escaped running through them, that is in between this room, I was standing there, I was surprised. He managed to run through this group of people. I could see him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, when this large group entered, that is when he managed to slip through them and out of the shack?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, he managed to run through them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: You did not leave the shack - sorry.

MR LAX: Just before you go on Mr Strydom, I just want to be absolutely clear in my own mind, was there a wall separating the kitchen and the bedroom with a doorway, but the doorway had a curtain in it or was the divider a curtain, I am just not clear?

MS MOTAUNG: This shack was divided by curtains, that is three curtains, like the one that is behind the Committee, so you just push that curtain and then you manage to go through into the bedroom.

MR LAX: Thank you, you have clarified it for me. Thank you very much.

MR STRYDOM: From the time when you woke up, till after the attack on you, you did not leave that shack of yours, is that right?

MS MOTAUNG: Not at all. I remained in the shack, standing there, I was surprised.

MR STRYDOM: Your husband, Petrus Motaung, testified at the criminal trial, is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, he testified but I don't know what he said. The only thing that I know, he ran away, so I don't know what he wrote in his statement.

MR STRYDOM: I want to refer you to a certain portion of his evidence and I then want comments from you. The portion I want to refer to, just for record purposes, Volume 22, page 2547, and I will translate. Firstly he said that he heard that there was something going on outside and now I am going to try to translate -

"... My Lord, I opened the door and when I went outside, my wife followed me. I saw the people outside in my yard. I jumped over the fence of the wire fence and tried to run away."

What I am putting to you is according to your husband, before the attackers came into the house, he went outside and you followed him, what do you say about that?

MS MOTAUNG: I do not agree with that, we never went outside, we just peeped through, that is through the door, we never went outside. The door was opened by the attackers when they hit that door with bricks. We never opened that door.

MR STRYDOM: Later on in his evidence he states the following, on the next page 2548, line 11. The question was -

"... when you jumped over the fence, where was your wife at that stage?

Then the answer -

"... My Lord, she ran back into the house."

MS MOTAUNG: I never went outside, I had been inside the shack. They opened the shack and my husband ran away.

MR STRYDOM: Did you see the time when your husband was injured?

MS MOTAUNG: No.

MR STRYDOM: Was he in fact injured?

MS MOTAUNG: I saw him on the 18th, he was from the hospital as he said, and he showed me where he was injured. That is next to the spinal cord.

MR STRYDOM: Did you hear at any stage that the attackers said "hlabi hlabi nam", which means stab him. Did you hear that? Sorry, I am going to just read the translation as it appears in here, "stab him, stab him, there he is." Did you hear that?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I never heard that from the attackers.

CHAIRPERSON: Is what you have read, supposed to have taken place inside the shack?

MR STRYDOM: No, no, I specifically asked at any stage if she heard that. It was not, according to the witness, this Petrus Motaung, it was not said inside the shack, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you see because as I understand her evidence, it is that she at no stage left the shack. She only left I think after the attack, after the attackers had gone.

MR STRYDOM: Yes Chairperson, I also understood her evidence to be that. I just asked if she heard that from any position where she could have been at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay, yes. Ms Cambanis, do you have a transcript of the ...

MS CAMBANIS: Yes, I have it in front of me, yes.

MR STRYDOM: You say that you were in the shack and then the people came in?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Strydom, where was the last quote from?

MR STRYDOM: The last line on page 2547.

MR LAX: Okay.

MR STRYDOM: And it continues on the first line of page 2548.

MR LAX: Okay, thank you.

MR STRYDOM: You said the people came in inter alia, a person with a black overcoat came in. Can you give any description, could you see him better to give a further description of what clothing he was wearing at that stage? Yes, one with a black overcoat, he came to me and stabbed me, I want a further description of that person.

MS MOTAUNG: I was stabbed by one person. He stabbed me seven times. This person wore a blue Iscor over-all and then he had this white headband.

MR STRYDOM: I take it if he had a white headband, he did not wear a balaclava?

MS MOTAUNG: These people who entered into the shack, they had white and red headbands. This one who was attacking me, who was stabbing me, and the rest were just smashing the property. I didn't notice when they left the shack because I was concentrating on this person who was busy stabbing me.

CHAIRPERSON: You are asking her about the person who stabbed her, whether he had a balaclava? Ma'am, Counsel is asking you what the person who had the overcoat, that is the person who was stabbing you, did he have a balaclava on?

MS MOTAUNG: No, he had a red headband.

MR STRYDOM: Was he a black person?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I was stabbed by a black person.

MR STRYDOM: You indicated that the door was off and there was an Apollo light close by so you could see quite clearly according to you, is that correct, what happened inside the shack now?

MS MOTAUNG: I could see inside the shack, because of that light from the Apollo light. You could even see something that was on the ground, you could even see its colour.

MR STRYDOM: When you heard this person speaking in Afrikaans, would you say that person was inside the shack or outside?

MS MOTAUNG: He was standing at the door. There was a hole there next to the door, he was just standing there and when I fell down, I fell on his feet. He was not inside. He was watching me.

MR STRYDOM: So you saw him clearly, is that what you are saying?

MS MOTAUNG: I could see him because that time, although this person was still busy stabbing me, I could see this other person, the white person clearly.

MR STRYDOM: As you described, you were laying right at his feet, so he was obviously very close to you?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I was just next to his feet.

MR STRYDOM: What was he wearing, can you say?

MS MOTAUNG: He wore camouflage.

MR STRYDOM: Why didn't you mention in evidence in chief, that he was wearing camouflage?

MS MOTAUNG: Adv Cambanis did not ask me what that white person wore, maybe I did not understand the question well, or I didn't hear the question, but I did write that on my statement.

MR STRYDOM: Which statement do you refer to now?

MS MOTAUNG: The one that I gave to Ms Cambanis.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute, as I recall it, the witness was asked a broad question as to could you give any other description of this white person.

MS CAMBANIS: That is what I recall, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that everyone's recollection? That seems to be my recollection. The question was not specifically directed what was he wearing, it was a very broad question, could you give any other description of this person. Yes, very well. Mr Strydom, when you are moving on to the next point, let us know so that we can ...

MR STRYDOM: All right Chair, apart from the camouflage, can you give further descriptions about clothing?

MS MOTAUNG: He wore a balaclava.

MR STRYDOM: I asked you about clothing, why didn't you mention about a balaclava from the beginning.

ADV SIGODI: There is something that was not interpreted, my Sotho is not so good, but I think she mentioned gloves.

INTERPRETER: Honourable Chair, what the witness was saying, she was using, she was pointing but where I am sitting now, I cannot see, but she mentioned something to the effect that it was "butler", that is why I said balaclava.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were asked apart from the camouflage, what else was this white person wearing, you gave evidence and then you indicated on your hands, what were you trying to convey?

MS MOTAUNG: He wore something that protected his face.

INTERPRETER: She says that is "butler".

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR STRYDOM: Anything else that you can remember, that he was wearing?

MS MOTAUNG: He had handgloves and he had a gun in his hand, a long gun, although it was not that long.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Would this be an appropriate time?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes indeed. We will take an adjournment now and come back at two o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Strydom?

DIEKTSENG REBECCA MOTAUNG: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: (continued) Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, it has come to my knowledge that some Bundles did not contain the statement of Rebecca Motaung. We handed out the document, I believe Adv Malindi had one and some other people did have, and I think that will explain why there was a difference in the numbering of the pages, but we have handed that document now to all the parties. It can just be added towards the end of the Bundle. Ms Motaung...

CHAIRPERSON: Did any of the Bundles contain the statement?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is it in the Bundle?

MR STRYDOM: According to the index, it should have been the 11th statement, Rebecca Motaung. It is 36 in the correctly numbered Bundle, paginated Bundle.

MR LAX: It should come before Buwa's, John Buwa and after Molete?

MR STRYDOM: Yes. Before the statement of John Buwa.

MR LAX: Will it correctly be 34 and 35 and then the other numbers will just follow afterwards, is that right?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that will be right. Ms Motaung, in your evidence according to my notes you state the following after the question was asked "did anyone say anything", you said -

"... I heard a white person saying in Afrikaans 'is that woman dead'?"

I just want clarity, apart from the fact that you heard that, did you also see him saying that?

MS MOTAUNG: I saw him with my eyes, because I fell just next to his feet.

MR STRYDOM: Whilst you were laying at his feet, he said that, is that what you are saying?

MS MOTAUNG: He asked the person was attacking me, he wanted to know from that person whether I was still alive or dead. So when I heard that, I threw myself on the ground. This other person explained to him that when she calls her mother, you must know that she is dead. I saw him and I heard what he said.

MR STRYDOM: You heard and saw him speaking just before you fell to the ground?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Is that all he said?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, that is all. That is not all rather, because after the other one had answered him, then he called him, he said "come, come".

MR STRYDOM: Was that then also said in Afrikaans?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, he was speaking in Afrikaans, like I say.

MS CAMBANIS: Can I just place on record that the witness uttered the Afrikaans words, "kom, kom".

MR STRYDOM: Just to get clarity and this is the same person who was wearing the balaclava, the gloves, the overcoat and the camouflage?

MS MOTAUNG: He wore camouflage, he had an overcoat, handgloves and something that protected his face.

MR STRYDOM: You could clearly see that he was a white person, is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: There was a light in the house, I saw them all when they entered, I could see him clearly because he was pink.

MR STRYDOM: So, if he wanted to wear the balaclava to hide his face, that was a total unsuccessful attempt because you could see that he was white?

MS MOTAUNG: Above his eyes and his nose, I could see the pink colour, like I am wearing my glasses, you can see my nose. I could see his mouth as well, he didn't protect the whole of his face, there were other parts of his face, that I could see. I saw him.

MR STRYDOM: Just describe this balaclava, which part of the face was not covered?

MS MOTAUNG: It had three holes to show the eyes, the nose and the mouth. You could also see the other side of the face, it did not show the mouth only, and also the area around the mouth. I saw him with my eyes.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, so there is an opening where you will find the eyes, there is an opening for the nose and an opening for the mouth, is that what you say?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: At what stage did you realise that he had a gun with him?

MS MOTAUNG: When he entered the door, I saw him that he had a gun in his hand. When he entered, he had that gun in his hand.

MR STRYDOM: When did he enter the shack? Sorry, did he enter the shack or did he just stand at the door?

MS MOTAUNG: He entered the shack and he stood there next to the door, but inside the shack, like where you are sitting Mr Strydom, where you are sitting is the door, and then he was standing where your books are, that is on the inside of the shack.

MR STRYDOM: So just inside the shack?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, he was inside, inside the shack.

MR STRYDOM: And he stood there all along, during the course of the attack on you?

MS MOTAUNG: The person who was attacking me, when he stabbed me for the last time, this white person entered and he asked him whether I am still alive. Then this man stabbed me for the last time and then he said to him, "yes My Lord", because I called my mother and then he said to him "when she calls her mother, you must know that she is dead", and I threw myself on the ground.

MR STRYDOM: Just to get clarity again, so he did not come initially, or he didn't come to that place where he came to a standstill, initially with the other attackers, he came at a stage whilst you were being stabbed?

MS MOTAUNG: He entered after the other group had already entered.

MR STRYDOM: You testified that your husband managed to escape through these people that were coming into the shack. How did he manage that, didn't they try to stop him?

MS MOTAUNG: He escaped through them when they entered. He told me after the attack, that is the following day, that he was also injured. They thought that he was one of them, when they entered, he managed to escape in between this group. He was stabbed outside, that is what he told me and I could see that he was really stabbed.

MR STRYDOM: According to my notes, just returning to the white person you say stood at the door, you were specifically asked when you were asked questions by Ms Cambanis what was he wearing and then you never said these things about balaclavas, you never said anything about the camouflage and the overcoat? You were asked about what was he wearing, that was the question, you mentioned the balaclava and I have checked the note here of my learned colleague, but you didn't say these things about the overcoat and camouflage, why not? What is your answer to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring to the part where she was asked to give a description of this white person?

MR STRYDOM: Yes Chairperson. My learned friend's got a more concise note that reads "can you give any information what he looked like, what he wore". It was the - and then she said balaclava, but she didn't mention at that stage the camouflage and overcoat. She did mention overcoat, but in relation to the person that stabbed her, the other person. She said the other person had a blue Iscor over-all and a overcoat over that.

CHAIRPERSON: Which person is this now?

MR STRYDOM: That is the stabber which she described, the overcoat.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the one that you are asking her about.

MR STRYDOM: She was asked about this white person, what he said and all that, and then she was asked specifically what did he look like and what was he wearing. Then she said something about the balaclava, but she didn't mention the camouflage, she only mentioned that when I asked her, but I want to know why didn't you when you were specifically asked what the white person was wearing, why didn't you say he was wearing camouflage?

MS MOTAUNG: I did not understand that question. I know in my statement I indicated that that white person wore a camouflage.

MR STRYDOM: Is that the statement, which statement are you referring to?

MS MOTAUNG: I refer to the statement that I gave to Ms Cambanis.

MR STRYDOM: You also mentioned two statements you made, can you just tell us which statements do you refer to?

MS MOTAUNG: I gave Mr Kakana two statements on two occasions in Pretoria. That is Lucky Kakana.

MR STRYDOM: I have one of those statements in front of me, and according to this statement it was taken - the date that appears on the statement, let's put it that way, was the 17th of March 1993. The person that took the statement was Kakana. Do you remember giving that statement?

MS MOTAUNG: I remember that I gave him that statement, but I don't remember the date, that is the day and the month.

MR STRYDOM: Do you remember giving a statement at Vanderbijlpark?

MS MOTAUNG: I never made a statement at Vanderbijlpark.

MR STRYDOM: I want you to look at a document which purports to be your statement, Chairperson, that is the statement that I handed in at the beginning of this session. On the first page of that statement, the signature appears at the bottom of that page, do you see it? Is that your signature?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I see, I wrote this Motaung, but I don't know who wrote Rebecca. Yes, I agree I wrote Motaung.

MR STRYDOM: And on the next page, do you see Rebecca Motaung written there?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I do. It is me who wrote here, this Rebecca Motaung.

MR STRYDOM: On the second page you also wrote Rebecca?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, she says she wrote Motaung, didn't she?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but on the second page she said she wrote Rebecca Motaung?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but she didn't write "Rebecca" on the first page?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is as I understand it.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you are saying?

MS MOTAUNG: I only signed Motaung, but on the second page, it is me who wrote Rebecca.

MS CAMBANIS: Chair, on the copy that has just been handed to us during lunch time, it is very faint on the first page, perhaps you should ...

MR STRYDOM: I am going to show you just another copy that is probably a better print. I think start with the first page again.

MS MOTAUNG: On the first page, I don't write Rebecca this way. On the second page, it is me who signed Rebecca and then on the first page, I wrote Motaung but not Rebecca.

MR STRYDOM: You don't know who wrote Rebecca on the first page?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the Rebecca that is on the second page, in your handwriting?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, that is my handwriting.

MR STRYDOM: I am not taking it further, but just by looking at it, I will put it it looks very much the same on the first and the second page, the writing of Rebecca.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your comment to what has been put to you? What Counsel is putting to you is that Rebecca who appears on the first page, looks very much the same as the Rebecca that is on the second page.

MS MOTAUNG: I say that I do not write "b" that way, that is on the second page. I know my writing, I know how I write Rebecca. The one that appears on the second page, is my writing, but the one on the first page, is not my writing.

MR STRYDOM: Let me ask you this, do you specifically remember that on the first page you just wrote Motaung?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I wrote Motaung. I remember everything that took place on the 17th, I also remember that I gave Lucky a statement, although I do not remember the date. I even know how I signed because I always remember what happened on that day.

MR STRYDOM: Did you tell him everything that you know about what happened on the 17th of June 1992?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I told him.

MR STRYDOM: Do you understand English?

MS MOTAUNG: No.

MR STRYDOM: Was he acting as an Interpreter, that is now Kakana?

MS MOTAUNG: He was the one who was interpreting for me.

MR STRYDOM: And did the two of you understand each other?

MS MOTAUNG: He was speaking in Sepedi, that is Northern Sotho, I was speaking Sotho. That is Southern Sotho.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but could the two of you communicate?

MS MOTAUNG: Sometimes when you speak Sepedi, he would explain to me in Sepedi and then I would listen to him, he would also try to speak Sotho, but whenever he doesn't know to say a thing in Sotho, he will use Sepedi. He said to me I should explain to him what happened and he will explain to me why he is asking that question.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but at the end of the day, the two of you could understand each other and you were happy by giving him the statement? You were happy that he was writing what you told him?

MS MOTAUNG: I was satisfied, although he did not read it to me what I explained to him. I explained everything that took place on that day. The person who is working for the law, I didn't suspect that he would change my statement.

MR STRYDOM: Yes. I want to refer you to paragraph 2, it reads here "I woke up ...", maybe I will just start at the beginning of the statement just to put it into context -

"... while we were asleep, I heard people crying and stones were thrown all over our shack. I woke up and lit the candle."

I am going to stop there now, I will read further just now. Is that correct that a candle was lit?

MS MOTAUNG: We did not light the candle and I did not hear the people crying. The only thing that I heard, were the stones that were hitting my shack. We never lit the candle because there was that Apollo light on, so it was clear in our shack.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but you must remember according to you, the shack didn't have any windows. I am sure when you woke up, the door was still closed? Why won't you light a candle under those circumstances so that you can see what is going on in the shack?

MS MOTAUNG: The light from the outside, could penetrate on the sides of my door, there was another opening above the door, even on the sides, so the light could penetrate into the shack from the outside.

MR STRYDOM: I want to put to you that it seems to me that the Apollo light was not so strong to make it clear inside the shack and that is why a candle was lit? Isn't it so?

MS MOTAUNG: That day there was this Apollo light and the moon light as well, it was like during the day.

MR STRYDOM: Yes. Now you said there are two mistakes, the one is about the crying and the second one is about the light. Let's go on -

"... my husband went out of the shack and he called me out."

Is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: No.

MR STRYDOM: Because you testified today you just stayed inside? Can you give any suggestion where Mr Kakana would have got this information from, if not from you?

MS MOTAUNG: I told him that we did not light the candle, I told him again that we never went outside. I told him that when the attackers came inside the shack, my husband went outside, running out. That is what I told him, so I don't know what he wrote in that statement.

MR STRYDOM: It is not really an explanation, or are you suggesting that he just wrote what he wanted to?

MS MOTAUNG: Because he was speaking in Sepedi and I was speaking in Sotho, so I don't know. There is a difference between Sepedi and Sotho. Because he apologised to us that he doesn't know Sotho, he only knows Sepedi and I told him that I cannot speak Sotho, English or Afrikaans, I only understand there and there - that is English and Afrikaans Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, did you not tell him that you do not understand Sepedi - not Sotho?

MS MOTAUNG: I told him and he said to me there is no one who can come and write this statement, because there was another person, Themba, who was speaking Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Just answer the question, what was conveyed to us in the interpretation is that you told him that you can't speak Sotho, English and Afrikaans, so what I want to clarify from you is whether you told him that you cannot speak Sepedi not Sotho?

MS MOTAUNG: I said I will speak Sotho, not Sepedi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: I will get to portions of the statement that corresponds with your evidence, so is that just a coincidence that certain portions are correct and other portions not?

INTERPRETER: Honourable Chair, Mr Strydom was cut, I could not get the last part of his statement.

MR STRYDOM: I withdraw that statement, I will ask that again at the end of the statement. The statement carries on and I just want to get clarification if this is now information from you or not -

"... while we were outside, I saw a group of people wearing blue over-all's and some of them red headbands"?

Do you want to comment?

MS MOTAUNG: I said they entered the shack, some of them had white headbands, others had red headbands. The one who was stabbing me, wore the blue over-all and an overcoat.

MR STRYDOM: Yes. So according to you there was only one person with a blue over-all?

MS MOTAUNG: I am referring to the person who was stabbing me, we were facing each other.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, but did you see any other people in blue over-all's?

MS MOTAUNG: Others were just wearing their private clothes when they entered. This person who wore this blue over-all, came to me, he was facing me, he was facing me and stabbing me.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, what I am trying to establish, which portion of your statement you agree with and which portion, you don't. This portion where it is stated "a group of people wearing blue over-all's" is also then not correct?

MS CAMBANIS: Chair, doesn't the statement read that that was outside, which she is denying?

CHAIRPERSON: We understand her statement that she did not go outside, that is on record here. All he wants to find out is the rest of the statement. She is free to say yes or no. Which portion of the statement are you putting to her now?

MR STRYDOM: Chairman, I am going line by line, but the portion I am putting now is "I saw a group of people wearing blue over-all's". The question is apart from the one person she says she was with a blue over-all, did she see other people with blue over-all's during the course of the attack, either inside, outside, any place?

MS MOTAUNG: Mr Strydom, when I was talking to Mr Kakana, we were talking about this person who was stabbing me. The other people were wearing their private clothes, the person I am talking about, is this one who was stabbing me.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Ma'am, so that we can get through this exercise faster, if you are asked whether you agree with that or do you not, say yes you agree or you don't agree. We have heard your evidence and you have told us that you saw a person who was stabbing you, who wore green over-all's, what he is putting to you is whether did you see a group of people wearing this, the answer is yes, I saw them, or I did not see them.

MS MOTAUNG: No.

MR STRYDOM: The next sentence -

"... and some of them wearing red headbands while others had white headbands."

Is that correct or not, did you tell that to Mr Kakana or not?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, that is true. That statement is true.

MR STRYDOM: And then it reads further -

"... they started throwing stones at us and my husband ran away and got into the house."

Is that correct or not?

MS MOTAUNG: That is not true.

MR STRYDOM: Paragraph 3 -

"... a group of black males entered into the shack and one of the group stabbed me with a spear, while others were breaking my kitchen units and chairs."

Is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: "... I was stabbed on the left thigh and below the left breast."

Is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: "... and then left the shack. While I they were passing next to the shack, I heard someone saying in Afrikaans 'het jy die vrou doodgemaak'?

INTERPRETER: May I please ask Mr Strydom to repeat the question please.

MR STRYDOM: Unfortunately I am reading as it stands here, so I will do it again, it doesn't make all that sense.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Strydom, does it not read "and they left the shack", not "and I ..."

MR STRYDOM: Yes, just to put it into context again, I have read to you "I was stabbed on the left thigh and below the left breast" and

"... and they left the shack. While I they were passing next to the shack",

I think that has been scratched out, I will read it again, sorry Mr Interpreter,

"... while they were passing next to the shack, I heard someone saying in Afrikaans 'het jy die vrou doodgemaak?' Then someone said (indistinct) in Zulu."

I have read quite a portion to you, do you agree with what is stated here in the statement?

MS MOTAUNG: No. I do not agree with that portion that says the person who was speaking Afrikaans, was outside. He was inside.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, because in this statement you say "while they were passing next to the shack, I heard someone saying", so that would indicate that the person that said that, was passing the shack, you never said that to Kakana?

MS MOTAUNG: No.

MR STRYDOM: And then it carries on -

"... in Zulu which means yes My Lord, she is dead and they left the premises."

Is that what the person said in Zulu?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: And then you go further -

"... I will not be able to identify any of the attackers."

Is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct.

MR STRYDOM: "... the damage on my kitchen units and chairs can be R500-00."

MS MOTAUNG: No.

MR STRYDOM: What is wrong with that?

MS MOTAUNG: I said I do not know the estimation because the cupboard fell, the dishes also fell and the chairs were broken and the table was also broken. So I said to him that I did not know.

MR STRYDOM: You see, what you left out in this statement is that you saw the person who said in Afrikaans "het jy die vrou doodgemaak". Why didn't you say that?

MS MOTAUNG: I told him about that, I told him.

MR STRYDOM: All you stated here "I heard someone saying in Afrikaans", it is not stated here that you saw him?

CHAIRPERSON: To understand this in the context, as I understand her evidence just now, she said the portion which is incorrect is that the one where the statement reads "while they were passing next to the shack, I heard someone saying ..." and the rest of the sentence, because as far as my evidence is concerned, this person was inside. That is how I - is that right Ma'am?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Let me ask you this way, did you tell Mr Kakana that the position of the person, did you say that he was standing in the door, very close to the door when he said that, that is what I want to know? Did you tell that to Mr Kakana?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I told him this clearly, I told him that he was standing at the door as he was entering. Like where you are sir, where your books are, that is the inside of the shack. I even told him that he had a gun in his hands.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, and did you also tell him that you could see him speak, that you could clearly see that he was a white person?

MS MOTAUNG: When he entered, there was a light. Any person who enters my shack, I could see. I could see that others were white and others were black.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that I understand but that is not the question. I want to know if you told Mr Kakana that you saw the person that spoke, you could see that he was white, in fact he was very close to you? Did you relate that to Mr Kakana?

MS MOTAUNG: I told him about that.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, can I just get some clarity as to the circumstances under which this statement was taken. Do you remember when you were giving this statement to Mr Kakana, not exactly the date, but do you remember the instance when you were giving the statement to Mr Kakana?

MS MOTAUNG: Are you referring to my life situation or where I stay, I don't understand your question.

ADV SIGODI: No, the day when you were giving this statement to Mr Kakana, do you remember that day?

MS MOTAUNG: I do not remember the day of the week, I do not remember the month. The only thing that I remember is that I gave him this statement because I went to another place to go and rest.

ADV SIGODI: Where did you give him this statement?

MS MOTAUNG: We were in Pretoria.

ADV SIGODI: And how many people were there when he was taking the statement?

MS MOTAUNG: I do not remember how many people were there, but he was calling us one by one.

ADV SIGODI: So in other words, you were alone with Mr Kakana?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, it was the only two of us. I do not remember the statement, or is the statement that we wrote while we were, the two of us, in the office because there is another office in which he was interpreting for another person. I don't know which one is this you are referring to.

ADV SIGODI: So you are saying there was a statement where Mr Kakana was interpreting for another person, and that other person was writing. Was that person writing the statement?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, he was writing the statement, even Mr Kakana was also writing. He called us and then he said to us we are going to give him another statement. I went there and I gave him another statement. I don't know whether this statement is the first one or is the second one.

ADV SIGODI: So was there a statement where he was taking from you and he was writing without reporting to somebody else, where it was just the two of you?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes. He said to me he is going to rectify some mistakes from the first statement.

ADV SIGODI: And do you remember which statement you signed, did you sign both statements or did you sign only one of those statements?

MS MOTAUNG: I signed the first statement on which there appears Motaung and then I also signed the second one on which it appears Rebecca Motaung.

ADV SIGODI: That statement, if it is this one, then it means you are referring - it is the same statement, but it is different pages.

MS MOTAUNG: I signed another statement Rebecca Motaung and the other one that I signed, I only signed Motaung.

ADV SIGODI: Did you sign on one occasion or did you sign on two different occasions?

MS MOTAUNG: The first time when I went there, I signed once. Then the second time, I signed once.

MR STRYDOM: If you look at this statement in front of you now, the one you said you signed on the first page Motaung and the second page Rebecca Motaung, would you say that is the first or second statement?

MS MOTAUNG: On the second one I see is Rebecca Motaung, even on this one it is Motaung. So I don't know which one is the first or which one is the second. I only know that I signed the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it to you this way, just think back about the two statements that you signed. You see the one that is in front of you at the moment, has got two pages on. Do you see that?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, the other statement that you signed, can you recall whether it had one or two or three pages, more than two pages?

MS MOTAUNG: No.

MR STRYDOM: I put it to you that the date on this statement is the 17th of March 1993, what I want to know from you, did you make no other statements before that to other people, other than the Police?

MS MOTAUNG: No sir. I was not around here, I had left. The first statement that I made was with Mr Kakana, on two occasions, I never made another statement.

MR STRYDOM: Why did you not lay a charge to charge the people that assaulted you? Why did you not lay a charge against the people that assaulted you? Soon after the attack, eventually you made a statement, but I want to know after you came out of hospital, why didn't you make a, why didn't you lay a charge?

MS MOTAUNG: I was angry, I was unable to walk and then I went to my mother's place in Qua-Qua.

MR STRYDOM: To get back to the statement we are talking about, did you tell Mr Kakana, that was the question, did you tell him that the person that spoke Afrikaans had camouflaged clothing on?

MS MOTAUNG: There is nothing that I hid, I told him everything like I am doing right now.

MR STRYDOM: Just to get clarity, you told him that the person had a gun, is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: You told him that the person had a balaclava?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes sir.

MR STRYDOM: Also about the camouflage?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Did you tell him about the gloves?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: Nothing of that, I put to you, nothing of that appears in the statement, so out of his own accord he must have left that out? That is the only explanation you can give, is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know because what I saw he was writing.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, did you tell Mr Kakana about the gun and the camouflage on both occasions that he took your statements?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes Ma'am.

MR STRYDOM: I started off by putting what your husband testified at the trial about the fact that you went out with him and that you went back later. I just want to put it to you this statement now is in line with what your husband testified. Do you still maintain that you did not go outside just before the attack?

CHAIRPERSON: Help me understand the question.

MS MOTAUNG: No sir, I did not go outside, only my husband went outside, only my husband, not me.

CHAIRPERSON: What is supposed to be in line with her husband's evidence?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, what I have put about the husband is that they were both outside at a certain stage and then she went back and the husband ran away. In this statement, it is also stated "I woke up and lit the candle, my husband went out of the shack and he called me out. While we were outside, I saw a group of people wearing ...", so according to her statement, this statement, and what her husband said at the trial, they were both outside, so I put this to her and asked her if she still maintains that what her husband testified there is wrong and this statement is also wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MS MOTAUNG: I never said that I went outside, I never said that I lit the candle, that is not what I said. I don't know whether they confused my statement with my husband's statement, the only thing that I know, I said what I am saying right now.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. You see what Counsel and you've got to listen very carefully here, what Counsel is putting to you is that the portion of the evidence which is contained in the statement which he has just read to you, that is waking up and lighting the candle, going outside of the shack and following your husband outside of the shack, that evidence is the same evidence that was led by your husband when he was called to testify at the criminal trial, do you understand that?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I think what he wants you to explain, if you have an explanation and if you don't have an explanation, you would say so, you are alleged to have made a statement in which you say that you woke up, lit the candle and went out. Your husband when he testified, gave evidence to that effect that he woke up, lit the candle and then went out and you went out. Now, what Counsel wants to find out is why is that so?

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry Chair, I think the evidence her husband gave was simply that they went out.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, they went out. Do you know why that is so?

MS MOTAUNG: Well, I don't know sir.

MR STRYDOM: I want to put to you either you are making a mistake about the white person you saw, or you are not telling the Committee the truth, do you have any comment?

MS MOTAUNG: I saw him. I fell on his feet, he had a gun, I saw him with my eyes.

MR STRYDOM: What kind of gun did he have, can you give any description?

CHAIRPERSON: I think all she could tell us was that it was a long gun.

MR STRYDOM: So can't you take it further than to state it was a long gun?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I don't know different types of guns, I only saw this long gun.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you Chair, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lowies? Should we take a break now? Yes, I think so Mr Berger. Shall we take a break now?

MR BERGER: I would appreciate it.

MS CAMBANIS: It seems that the only person who wants to continue Chair, is the witness, but I am sure she is overruled.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think Mr Berger will approve, I think he is ...

MR BERGER: I would like a break.

CHAIRPERSON: Ma'am, do you have an objection if we just take a short break and come back and continue with you?

MS MOTAUNG: When I listen to people speaking to me, I will confuse my evidence. I would appreciate if this Committee can continue with my evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, did people speak to you whilst you were giving evidence?

MS MOTAUNG: When I am looking at the victims, some of them are crying, so I don't want to see their faces, I do not want to see people who are crying, because that will confuse me and that will disturb me in my evidence. So I will appreciate if you will continue.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you remain here, then we will come back and finish with you. If we sequestrate you.

MS MOTAUNG: I thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Very well, we will come back at half past three.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

DIEKTSENG REBECCA MOTAUNG: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lowies.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair. Chairman, my esteemed learned colleague, Ms Tanzer, requested that she be afforded the opportunity. As you can recall, she's got a problem and she wants to be excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, very well, yes indeed.

MS TANZER: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair, firstly if you don't mind, I would like to excuse myself, but I will just excuse myself silently in the next half an hour or so, if it is okay with you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, by all means, do you want to leave now?

MS TANZER: No, I will stay around for a while, thank you. I have no questions for this witness either.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS TANZER

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, very well. Did I hear you say that you won't be here tomorrow?

MS TANZER: I did say that and I do have somebody who is going to be appearing here for me, in my place tomorrow, it is already organised.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Okay. Perhaps you should think about whether Mr Nosenga in light of what you have heard so far, deserves to call any further witnesses and if so, who are they and what each one of them is going to tell us, that we haven't heard.

MS TANZER: I am actually canvassing that with Mr Nosenga at the moment, I have got people who have been approaching me during the different breaks, who are willing to testify. I think, by the time we sit next, I will have a list of people.

CHAIRPERSON: These are people who will tell us something that we haven't heard so far?

MS TANZER: Well, they will more support what he is saying than tell you something new, I don't think they can introduce any more information, but what I have heard so far, they just support what he is saying. If that is not necessary, then I am in the Commission's hands.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

MS TANZER: That I believe.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed, yes, you may be excused at an appropriate time.

MS TANZER: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lowies?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOWIES: Thank you Mr Chair. Ms Motaung, how far were you from the door of the shack when you saw the white person?

MS MOTAUNG: From where I am sitting, to next to those tables before you, that is the distance between myself and the door.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that is about seven paces?

MR LOWIES: I agree with that Mr Chair. And how far was he from the door, the white person?

MS MOTAUNG: It can be this distance that I am indicating with my hands.

MR LOWIES: I would say a meter?

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Berger insists it is a meter, Chair.

MR LOWIES: I would also go along with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR LOWIES: Now, was he standing inside the doorway or was he slightly off, you referred Mr Strydom to the books and that, but I did not follow. Let's just get clarity on this. Was he standing inside the doorway or was he standing off to the left or to the right?

MS MOTAUNG: He was in the middle of that door.

MR LOWIES: So the light that came from the Apollo light, passed him from the back, correct?

MS MOTAUNG: There was light inside although the light hit him at the back, but I could see him.

CHAIRPERSON: The light that was inside, was it the one that was coming from the Apollo light?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct sir.

MR LOWIES: Do I understand you correctly then that you were still standing when he asked the person who stabbed you, whether you are dead?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I was still standing. When this person was stabbing me, I was still standing, surprised.

MR LOWIES: Would you agree, he would have been able to see that you were not dead, because you were still standing upright?

MS MOTAUNG: Sir, when he asked him questions, that is when I threw myself on the ground because when he entered, I was still standing, when he started asking questions, that is when this man stabbed me for the last time, and then I cried and I shouted my mother.

MR LOWIES: Let's just hear this.

CHAIRPERSON: What Counsel is putting to you is and this is what you have told us, it is that when this white man asked of the person who was stabbing you, whether are you dead, you were still standing?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was after that that you threw yourself onto the ground, is that right?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I threw myself on the ground because I was afraid that he would shoot me.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now what Mr Lowies is putting to you is that because you were still standing, it must have been obvious to the white man who was asking this question, that you were still alive, do you understand that?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I do understand but what I am saying ...

CHAIRPERSON: What is your comment on that?

MS MOTAUNG: My thinking is that he thought that I was not alone in the shack. I thought maybe he asked that question because he believed that I was not alone in the shack.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you think that he was asking about somebody else?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Not about you?

MS MOTAUNG: I thought that maybe he thought that we were many inside the shack, so after asking that question, I threw myself on the ground.

MR LOWIES: Chair, could the Interpreter's words be repeated?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lowies?

MR LOWIES: But he would have been able, on your version, to see that you were the only person there, besides the attackers?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know what was in his mind.

MR LOWIES: But you also said something else which is odd, you said on hearing this, you threw yourself to the ground and shouted "I am dead", in chief you said that.

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I said that I threw myself on the ground because I saw him having a gun in his hand.

MR LOWIES: And you said that "I shouted", or said that "I am dead." That doesn't make sense?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I called my mother, I said "mum, I dead."

MR LOWIES: So it must have been clear to you then, that he was referring to you if one looks at your reactions upon hearing what he said?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, it was clear to me that he was referring to me because I cried, I said "mum, I am dying."

MR LOWIES: The point is the following actually, it must have been clear to you that at the moment when he spoke, not you, when he spoke, he was referring to you?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know whether he thought that there was somebody else maybe in the house.

MR LOWIES: What were his words, can you repeat those please?

MS MOTAUNG: He said that woman is dead.

MR LOWIES: He was actually referring to a woman?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, he was referring to a woman.

MR LOWIES: And you were the only woman clearly, in that room, in that shack?

MS MOTAUNG: Mr Lowies, I was the only woman in that shack, but I don't know what was in his mind when he asked that question whether I am still alive or dead.

MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you that this didn't happen because it does not make sense.

MS MOTAUNG: This happened to me, Mr Lowies, it is me who heard that. This man was referring to me, that is why I said "mum, I am dying" and I threw myself on the ground.

MR LOWIES: Did anybody speak after you said "mum, I am dying"?

MS MOTAUNG: This Zulu man said to him "yes My Lord, when she calls her mother, you must know that she is dead", and the he in turn said "let's go, let's go."

MR LOWIES: The Zulu man said "let's go, let's go"?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR LOWIES: So it was not the white man that said "let's go, let's go"?

MS MOTAUNG: It is the white person who said "let's go". The Zulu people were speaking Zulu and white people were speaking in Afrikaans sir. He was called by a white person who was standing on the door, he was calling this person who was stabbing me, saying "let's go, let's go."

MR LOWIES: Did the Zulu person say "let's go, let's go", in Zulu or in whatever language?

MS MOTAUNG: He just followed him, he never said any word.

MR LOWIES: Because I understood your evidence to be, and I specifically asked you that, the person said to the white man, "she is dead when she calls her mother like that" and he said "let's go". That is how I understood your evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I didn't hear what was said, but my recollection is that she has repeatedly told us that the white man said "kom, kom, kom", and the person who had been stabbing her, followed.

MR LOWIES: Chair, she just said and that is why I asked.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, did the man who spoke Zulu say "let's go"?

MS MOTAUNG: No. The one who was speaking Zulu never said "come let's go", the other one was asking him in Afrikaans, it is the one who said "let's go, let's go." He was calling this one who was busy stabbing me and he followed him.

MR LOWIES: Do you understand Sepedi?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I do not understand, I only understand it there and there.

MR LOWIES: Did Kakana understand Sotho?

MS MOTAUNG: He told me that understand Sotho there and there.

MR LOWIES: And what do you think, did he understand Sotho?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I don't know because I was speaking in Sotho.

MR LOWIES: Well, you see if that was the situation, then you can't deny that Kakana did not understand you from what he told you if you don't know whether he did not understand Sotho?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know whether he understood Sotho, whether he understood Sotho or not, I don't know. I don't know his situation, I only know myself.

MR LOWIES: But one thing is clear, he told you he understood Sotho? You just testified about that?

MS CAMBANIS: No, she did not. He said ...

CHAIRPERSON: As far as I recall the witness never said Kakana - well, Kakana did not understand her. The import of her evidence is that Kakana spoke in Sepedi, he would try to speak Sotho as I understand it and whenever he got lost, he would then use the Pedi word.

MR LOWIES: She also said in cross-examination now, five questions, three questions ago, that he told her he understood Sotho.

MS CAMBANIS: No, no. Chair, with respect, Kakana said that he understands Sotho there and there.

MR LOWIES: Exactly.

MR LAX: In other words, in bits and pieces. That is how it was translated to us.

ADV SIGODI: Here and there.

MR LOWIES: Okay, I am confused now.

MR LAX: If I could help you Mr Lowies, in the same way that she understood Pedi there and there, he understood Sotho there and there. That is what was translated to us. I just understood that to mean in bits and pieces.

MR LOWIES: I hear what you say, but I also heard her saying in cross-examination that he told her he understood Sotho. Didn't she say that? Let's hear this. Did Kakana tell you that he understands Sotho that day?

MS MOTAUNG: He said to me he understands Sotho there and there, he only knows certain words in Sotho.

MR LOWIES: Oh, I see. But isn't it so that the Sepedi word for "outside" and the Sotho word for "outside" is the same?

MS MOTAUNG: No, they are not the same.

MR LOWIES: What is the Sotho word for "outside"?

MS MOTAUNG: (Indistinct), that is the word like she says, (indistinct).

MR LOWIES: Two words? Now what is the Sepedi word for "outside"?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know sir.

MR LOWIES: Did you use the words [lita kerse]?

MS MOTAUNG: I never talked about the lighting of the candle, the only thing that I remember is the Apollo light, not the candle.

MR LOWIES: Isn't the Sotho and the Sepedi words for this expression, the same?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know Sepedi sir.

MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you that you definitely said to Mr Kakana something about you lighting the candle, or is it not true?

MS MOTAUNG: No sir.

MR LOWIES: You did not talk about the candle at all when you spoke to Kakana on both occasions? Is that your version?

MS MOTAUNG: Not at all sir, I never talked about candles. I only mentioned the Apollo light, not a candle.

MR LOWIES: In your statement you also make reference to, this is now the statement to Kakana, in the statement of Kakana, there is reference in paragraph 2 to "we were outside". Another thing, isn't the Sotho word for "we" and the Sepedi word, the same?

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose the difficulty we are having at the moment is that you are suggesting to the witness that the Pedi and Sotho word for "outside" is one and the same, she does not know. You are putting to her that for the candles, it is the same. She doesn't know. No one is telling us what is that word.

MR LOWIES: All right, I take the point.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst we are prepared to recognise your linguistic abilities, we would want to know what is that word. If it is going to be put to the witness and if it is something that you want to make a mountain of, because the witness, you know, she says she doesn't know.

MR LOWIES: I will lead expert evidence regarding that, thank you Chairman. I will leave it at that. I want to put it to you that the version that you have regarding you not understanding Mr Kakana, is something that you heard another witness saying here in the hall.

MS MOTAUNG: Mr Kakana was talking to me and he said to me, I will try to speak Sotho. He said he would try to speak Sotho there and there, there was no other person, only the two of us. I don't know what other people said, I only know what I said.

MR LOWIES: Were you inside the hall when Ms Buwa gave evidence?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I was present.

MR LOWIES: Were you inside when Miriam Molete gave evidence?

MS MOTAUNG: I was here in the morning and during the day, I left.

MR LOWIES: Were you here when Florence Molete gave evidence?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I was present.

MR LOWIES: And isn't the reason why you are describing the white person as having a camouflage uniform with an overcoat, because you heard inter alia Florence and Miriam say so?

MS MOTAUNG: I saw him with my two eyes. Miriam got injured at her sister's place, I got injured at number 105. I cannot lie about something that did not happen, I am saying this because I got injured.

MR LOWIES: Do you understand Afrikaans?

MS MOTAUNG: I understand it there and there.

MR LOWIES: Do I understand you correctly, you do not understand English at all, was that the crux of your evidence when you were cross-examined about your ability to understand English?

MS MOTAUNG: I can hear what you say in English, but I am unable to answer or unable to speak in English.

MR LOWIES: You testified that Mr Kakana told you that he wanted to rectify certain mistakes. What mistakes did he want to rectify? Let me put you in the picture, that was when you were asked by Adv Sigodi regarding the second statement and your reasons that you gave, he said to you that he wants to take a second statement because he wants to rectify some mistakes, are you with me, do you understand the question?

MS MOTAUNG: He said to me there is a paper on which I did not sign my first name and then he said to me I should come and make another statement, so that I can sign all my names on that statement.

MR LOWIES: Was that the only mistakes that he wanted to rectify?

MS MOTAUNG: I repeated my statement, I told him my statement like I did this morning here, so I don't know whether my first statement to him, got lost or he wanted to make mistakes on the first statement, I don't know.

MR LOWIES: According to what he informed you, this is what I want to know, what did he inform you, what were the mistakes that he wanted to rectify? Was it only the fact that you didn't sign on two pages or whatever?

MS MOTAUNG: He said to me sir, I should tell him like I did on my first statement, so I don't know whether he was writing this statement again or he was taking another information from the other statement, to the second one, I don't know. He just told me to say to him what I said to him in the first statement.

MR LOWIES: Did I understand you correctly, when you gave evidence you referred to a certain piece of clothing that covered the face of the white man, but you can't say that it is a balaclava or can you, and I am using the word balaclava?

MS MOTAUNG: I forgot the name balaclava, I said he used something to protect or to hide his face, because I forgot the name balaclava. I even said it had holes for the eyes, the nose and the mouth.

MR LOWIES: Put simply, now that you know what a balaclava is, this is actually what he was wearing, correct?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct sir.

MR LOWIES: You only saw one white person there on your version? Is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct sir.

MR LOWIES: How long did you observe him, was it just a matter of him coming inside saying "is she dead", you falling down and then he went outside, is that how it happened?

MS MOTAUNG: I recognised him when he entered, but I do not know how many minutes. When he entered, I was looking at him, even when this person was busy attacking me, I was watching this man who had entered from the door because I was surprised, I didn't know what was happening.

MR LOWIES: What I want to know from you is the sequence of how things happened when you observed this white man as I have put it to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Quite frankly, I mean, that is not the question that you put to her? If you want the sequence, that is another question because what you ask her is for how long did she have this man under her observation.

MR LOWIES: I will put it as follows then.

CHAIRPERSON: If you want to ask her about the sequence, that is another question.

MR LOWIES: Thank you Chair. I understand what you are saying. The opportunity that you had and the sequence in which things happened, was the following - you were busy being attacked by the person who stabbed you, whilst attacked, the white man came in and he asked your attacker whether you are dead, upon hearing that, you immediately fell to the ground and shouted "mama, I am dying", upon that he immediately said "come on, let's go", is this how things happened?

MS CAMBANIS: I do not recall that that was her evidence. I think she was being stabbed, on the seventh stab, she then fell and actually Mr Strydom has done the sequence, Mr Lowies has previously done the sequence and I object.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what he wants to canvass is whether she had this one under his observation for a period, sufficient enough to enable her to properly identify him. I think it is a fair question.

MR LOWIES: What is your answer?

MS MOTAUNG: May you please repeat the question, I do not follow your question.

MR LOWIES: Do I understand you correctly ...

CHAIRPERSON: The sequence that you put to her, I don't think that is accurate, because as far as I recall, this man entered and then he stood next to the door, and at the time she was being attacked, she was just standing, okay. He was standing, at the time she was being attacked and from what I gather from her now, throughout, she was looking at this man because she was confused, she didn't know what was happening.

MR LOWIES: I heard her evidence differently in cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not a question of this man coming in and this man saying "is daardie vrou dood" and her throwing herself onto the ground.

MR LOWIES: Chair, if I understand her evidence correctly, when I started cross-examining, her evidence was that she was already being attacked when the white man came in, when I started cross-examining her. That is the version that I have from her. In other words the assault was already on the go, already in procession when that happened. But ...

CHAIRPERSON: ... that when the person asked whether I was dead, I was still standing. This was now after, the first thing that you did as I recall, you asked her about the distance where this person was standing, and she gave that it was seven paces, and then how far from the door, and that was given as about in the middle of the door, about a metre, and then the next thing was about lights. And then her answer was, there was light inside coming from the Apollo and this was in response to the question that at the time the door was still closed at some point.

MR LAX: The light was coming from the behind.

CHAIRPERSON: The light was coming from behind this man, yes.

MR LOWIES: Let me rephrase the question to you, I don't want to waste time. Were you already attacked when the white man came in or not?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, it had already started.

CHAIRPERSON: It had, all right.

MR LOWIES: So it was already on its way, now when he was there, whilst he was there, how many times were you stabbed in his presence, can you say?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall?

MS MOTAUNG: I do not remember sir, because I remember the last stab, that is after he was asked a question. He stabbed me for the last time, that is when I shouted "my mother", and the other one said "let's go", that was my seventh wound.

MR LOWIES: Yes, we have it then as follows, he asked whether you are dead and then you are stabbed for the last time and you fell down, is that how it happened?

MS CAMBANIS: Chair, she clearly says I do not recall how many times, she just said so Mr Lowies.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, what Mr Lowies is putting to her is that she said this white man says "is this woman dead" and then she was stabbed for the last time and then she threw herself onto the ground.

MR LOWIES: I want to know is this now how it happened?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR LOWIES: I am asking this, the first time that you became aware of the man, was he already busy speaking or did you notice him before he started talking?

MS MOTAUNG: I saw him while he was standing on the door, before he could say anything, I had already seen him. The time he spoke, I had already seen him.

MR LOWIES: I see. Now then you fell to the ground and is it immediately after that, that he said on your version "kom, kom"?

CHAIRPERSON: She threw herself onto the ground and then the man who spoke Zulu said "when you hear her calling her mother, she must be dead" and thereafter the man said "kom, kom".

MR LOWIES: Now, did they leave immediately after the man said she is calling her mother, that means she is dead?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, they left when they realised that I was on the ground, because I think that they thought I was dead and they left.

MR LOWIES: But when you were on the ground, were you still looking at this white man or could you not see him at that stage?

MS MOTAUNG: How could I have seen him, because they had left and I was on the ground at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what he wants to find out is whether after you had thrown yourself onto the ground, could you still see the white man?

MS MOTAUNG: No.

MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you that you were not at all in a position to see whether there was a white man as you have testified, because there was not sufficient light if it was coming from behind him.

MS MOTAUNG: Sir, I am saying I saw him clearly with my eyes. Like I am looking at you, I can see that you are a white person.

MR LOWIES: Do you still reside at 105 Slovo Park?

MS MOTAUNG: We have left that place, the place is now being rearranged.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that mean there is no more a place called Slovo Park?

MS MOTAUNG: Slovo Park is still there, but they have now shifted us from that place to another place, so there is a main road at that place where we used to stay, in other words they have now rearranged the area.

MR LOWIES: So the address 105 Slovo Park does not exist any more, is that what you are saying?

MS MOTAUNG: Where I used to stay, it was 105, there are people who stay there. The place now has been rearranged, in straight lines, so that there are streets like we are sitting here in a line.

MR LOWIES: Are you part of the Kulumani Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes sir.

MR LOWIES: Is Meshack Jabulani Ramaponopi known to you?

MS MOTAUNG: I know him, but I don't know him well. We never talk to each other.

MR LOWIES: Is he part of the Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: Well, I don't know.

MR LOWIES: John Buwa, is he known to you?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I know him.

MR LOWIES: Is he part of the Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: I know his mother who is a member of that Group.

MR LOWIES: Is he part of the group, do you know?

MS MOTAUNG: His mother is a member, I don't know whether he is a member.

MR LOWIES: Is Alfie the name of his mother?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes.

MR LOWIES: Is Florina Dlamini part of this Group?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, he is a member.

MR LOWIES: No, it is a she, unless the Interpreter made a mistake. Florina, isn't it a lady? Sorry, do you know, Florina, is she a lady?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, she is a lady.

MR LOWIES: Emily Mashinini, is she part of the Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, she is a member.

MR LOWIES: Johannes Mbatha?

MS MOTAUNG: He is also a member of Kulumani.

MR LOWIES: Mr Wilson Baloyi, do you know whether he is?

MS MOTAUNG: He is a member of Kulumani Support Group.

MR LOWIES: Mr Klaas Matope, is he a member?

INTERPRETER: Can you please repeat sir.

MR LOWIES: Mr Klaas Matope?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, he is a member.

MR LOWIES: Mr Simon Moloi, is he a member of the Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: I have never seen him attending the meetings, therefore I don't know whether he is a member or not, I have never seen him in a meeting.

MR LOWIES: Do you know him?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, I know him.

MR LOWIES: Miriam Molete and Florence Molete, do you know whether they are members of the Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, they are members.

MR LOWIES: Anna Mbatha, is she a member of the Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, she is a member, but I have never seen her in a meeting.

MR LOWIES: Hilda Monekwane, is she a member of the Support Group, do you know? Do you know Hilda?

MS MOTAUNG: I know her by Mrs Monekwane, I don't know her first name as Hilda.

MR LOWIES: Do you know whether she is a member of the Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know the name Hilda, I only know Mrs Monekwane. If she is Hilda, yes, I used to see her in the meeting.

MR LOWIES: Diana Manyeka, do you know her, is she a member?

MS MOTAUNG: I have never seen her at a meeting.

MR LOWIES: Maria Mashepe, do you know her?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know her.

MR LOWIES: It may be Mashudu, do you know Diana Mashudu? My mistake Chairman, Maria Mashudu.

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know her.

MR LOWIES: I have instructions to put to you that this version that there were white people on the scene on the night of the attack, is not true and it is a result of a conspiracy.

MS MOTAUNG: I cannot lie because on my third occasion when we went to Pretoria, we were driving with Mr Moloi's kombi, we didn't know who called us there. When we arrived or when I arrived in Pretoria, Lucky Kakana asked us what we wanted there then we told them that we were called and Simon Moloi took out a letter that indicated that we were called. They looked at this letter and then thereafter they said that we were called by Mr Strydom. That Mr Strydom came out and he said yes, he has called us. He called us in a room there in Pretoria, we were following him, he was alone. We followed him and when we arrived in that room, he closed the door and then he said to us, his people says they have seen whites, so today his people now have been left alone, deserted in other words, so those white people don't come forward, so now when you say I have just made up that story, I don't know why you say so, because I went to Pretoria. We talked about this with Mr Strydom. He even said to us that he had seen our statements that we have mentioned to the Police, he said now his people have been left alone, so I don't understand why today they say they were not accompanied by the Police and the white people.

MR LOWIES: So he said to you his people said they saw whites?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct sir.

MR LOWIES: Were you also called in by the Judge as a result of this?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I was called by Mr Strydom.

MR LOWIES: Did you then reply to him and say to him, yes this is true or this is not true?

MS MOTAUNG: He was telling us, that is Mr Strydom, he told us that that was what was said by his people. He even took out a R50-00, he gave it to me, I was with Florence, he said we should go and buy food. When we were about to leave, he gave us R150-00, each one of us. I am surprised that when his people say there were no whites, he said so.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that he gave you a sum of R150-00?

MS MOTAUNG: He gave us R50-00 firstly and we went to buy food.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, what I wanted to find out, confine yourself to the question, did you say that Mr Strydom also gave you a sum of R150-00?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, he gave us R150-00 each one of us, except that R50-00 for food.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And he took this money out of his own pocket, from his pocket?

MS MOTAUNG: There was a black bag, a big one, the one used for books. He took out this money from that bag, I saw him with my eyes.

MR LOWIES: Why did he give you the money, did he say?

MS MOTAUNG: I think he was giving us pocket money because every time we went to Pretoria, we would be given R10-00 as pocket money, maybe he was giving us that as pocket money, I don't know.

MR LOWIES: What did he want from you? I am sorry, sorry - did he say to you why he was giving the money to you?

MS MOTAUNG: No, the only thing that he said was that he will call us again when there is a need. He didn't tell us why he gave us that money.

MR LOWIES: Did he tell you why he wanted you there? You came all the way, did he say why he wanted you?

MS MOTAUNG: He said to us I think he wanted us to know that his people mentioned those whites that we also mentioned in our statements, I really don't know why he wanted us.

MR LOWIES: Miriam's evidence was that he offered you the money, not to mention that there were white people, you disagree with that, whites or Police?

MS MOTAUNG: Each and every person has his own understanding, you have your own understanding and I have my own understanding.

MR LOWIES: Did he want you to confirm that there were white people or not, white people or Police?

MS MOTAUNG: There was nothing to confirm because they had our statements. They could have asked us, basing their questions on the statements like you are doing now.

MR LOWIES: No, but he did not convey to you "listen people, I want you to confirm that there were white people and you may have to give evidence such as this", white people or Police?

MS MOTAUNG: He never asked us to give our opinions, he never wanted our opinions, he just told us that. He never asked for our opinions.

MR LOWIES: And then he gave you money and he left?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, he gave us money and then we left, and then he said he will call us, we have been waiting for him to call us.

MR LOWIES: So he knew that you were there and he knew that you were called to come to Pretoria?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lowies, you've got your answers now and I think your colleague Mr Strydom, will agree with me that this is just not relevant. He is the one who objected to this evidence being led.

MR LOWIES: I think it is relevant Chair, but I will leave it at that. I want to put the following to you - your version regarding what happened there, is not true, it is something that you sucked out of your thumb over the past few days.

CHAIRPERSON: Which aspect, because you have put to her on more than two occasions that she has insisted she saw the white men, are you now referring to what happened in Pretoria?

MR LOWIES: Yes, but I will put more detail, I agree with you. Your evidence that Mr Strydom handed you money, is not correct?

MS MOTAUNG: It is true, he gave me, Rebecca Motaung, R150-00, not you.

MR LOWIES: Did he give each and everybody that you - were there, R150-00?

CHAIRPERSON: She said that.

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, all of us, the eight of us.

MR LOWIES: When was the last time that you attended a meeting of the Support Group, Kulumani?

MS MOTAUNG: It can be three months ago, that was the last time this hearing convened here, because that time I was busy shifting my shack, so I was unable to attend the meetings thereafter.

MR LOWIES: I want to put it to you that you and others came together and concocted the story about two things, firstly there were white people or Policemen, secondly Mr Strydom admitted that to you?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I am telling you the truth. I cannot lie and say what person was there, I cannot lie about Mr Strydom. I cannot invent a story with other people who never got injured, I got injured. I can even show you below my breast, I still have those wounds, they are still painful even today.

MR LOWIES: I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOWIES

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Pretorius?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PRETORIUS: Ms Motaung, how long did you live in Slovo Park before the attack took place?

MS MOTAUNG: I arrived there in 1991, although I forgot the date. It was already a year at Slovo Park, a year and some few months.

MS PRETORIUS: You knew at the time that there were problems in Boipatong and Slovo Park with the comrades and the people from the IFP?

MS MOTAUNG: I never witnessed that conflict, but I heard people saying that there was a conflict.

MS PRETORIUS: So you knew about the conflict?

MS MOTAUNG: I heard people saying that, that there was a conflict between Boipatong residents and the people who were staying at kwaMadala hostel, but I never witnessed that with my eyes.

MS PRETORIUS: Did you witness the comrades guarding the Boipatong and Slovo Park?

INTERPRETER: May you please repeat the question again, Ma'am?

MS PRETORIUS: I am sorry Mr Interpreter, did you see the comrades guarding Slovo Park and Boipatong?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know who are comrades because even my husband would be called and they would address him as comrade. I don't know whether the comrades are people who belong to a particular organisation or all the people who stayed in Boipatong were comrades, I really don't know.

MS PRETORIUS: Did your husband go and help guard Boipatong and Slovo Park at any stage?

MS MOTAUNG: Yes, when he was at home because he was working shifts.

MS PRETORIUS: Do you know against what he was guarding Boipatong and Slovo Park?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know whether he was guarding at Slovo Park or Boipatong because every time when he goes out on guard, I will be left at home sleeping. He told me one day that when he attended the meeting, they were told that all men should go and be on guard, that is patrol, because there might be an attack.

MS PRETORIUS: Did he tell you an attack from where and by whom?

MS MOTAUNG: He said we might be attacked by people who were residents of kwaMadala hostel.

MS PRETORIUS: Did he tell you why?

MS MOTAUNG: No.

MS PRETORIUS: Did you know why you would be attacked by people from kwaMadala hostel?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I did not know Ma'am. The only thing that I heard is that there was a conflict, both parties were not on good terms but I never knew the reason.

MS PRETORIUS: Did you know that most people in kwaMadala hostel belonged to the IFP?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I did not know in which organisations individuals belonged, because I was not involved in politics at that time.

MS PRETORIUS: Was Boipatong and Slovo Park known as an ANC stronghold, in other words let me explain it to you that most people in Boipatong and Slovo Park were either supporters or members of the ANC, was that known?

MS MOTAUNG: No, not all the people.

MS PRETORIUS: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PRETORIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ma'am. Yes, Mr Da Silva?

MR DA SILVA: I have no questions Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DA SILVA

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chair. Ms Motaung, I act on behalf of Mr Pedro Peens and it is my instructions to put to you that he was not involved with the Boipatong massacre, if you have an answer?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know that person you are talking about.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Mey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Ms Motaung, I just want to put to you, I am acting on behalf of Mr Greeff and Mr Chaka ...

CHAIRPERSON: Would people in the hall, please keep quiet.

MR MEY: It is my instructions to put to you that they were not involved in the Boipatong massacre.

MS MOTAUNG: Well, I don't know, I don't know those people.

MR MEY: Thank you, thank you Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STRYDOM: Chair, maybe just before re-examination, I objected when the evidence was led, but now it came out and I must make certain statements just to this witness which I wanted to avoid, but now that it is on record, I will have to state it. You said that when you came to Pretoria, I had a statement of you in my possession?

MS MOTAUNG: You told us that you had our statements, it is you who told us. I did not see them, you said so.

MR STRYDOM: I just want to put to you that I never had any statement of you in my possession during the criminal trial, those statements belonged to the State and they did not hand over the statements when you were made available as a witness.

MS MOTAUNG: When we were in Pretoria, you said you have those statements, now today you say you did not have those statements, so I don't know what you are saying.

MR STRYDOM: I also want to put to you that I never told you that my instructions from the accused, whom I represented, were that whites were involved. I can just put to you that the instruction was that they weren't there, so obviously they wouldn't be able to say whites were involved or not. Do you have any comment?

MS MOTAUNG: You said that Mr Strydom, that is when I knew that you were Mr Strydom. I knew you since we met in Pretoria, I know you used to comb your hair backwards.

MR STRYDOM: I still do.

MS MOTAUNG: I thank you.

MR STRYDOM: I want to put to you that I never paid you R150-00 as you said.

MS MOTAUNG: Mr Strydom, I am Rebecca Motaung, the one that you gave the R50-00 so that I should go and buy food. I bought a chicken, a whole chicken and bread rolls and a coke. I still know you although I was still young at that time, I have gained weight because of this injuries.

MR STRYDOM: You testified that you did not go into the court when you went to Pretoria, is that correct?

MS MOTAUNG: I have never entered the court.

MR STRYDOM: But don't you remember the occasion when Abednego Mabuza and the other people that came with you, went into the court?

MS MOTAUNG: I have never been with that Mabuza you are talking about, I have never been to court.

MR STRYDOM: I just want to put to you and that is the end of it, you were brought into court and Mr Botha, the Advocate that appeared in the matter, mentioned your name, Rebecca Motaung as one of the people in court, that appears on page 3210 of the record. There it was indicated by you amongst the group, that you did not want to speak to us, the Defence Advocates. Do you remember anything of that?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I never said that sir. The only thing that I know is that we went to Pretoria, Lucky asked us who called us, we gave him the letter and he told us that you are the person who called us. I remember following you, you had a suitcase in your hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Could I have a look at the record please.

MR STRYDOM: Apart from my name, can you remember the name of any one of the other Defence Advocates?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't know whether he was an Advocate, I only remember a white lady with long hair. I don't know whether she was an Advocate but she was there, she was talking to the people that is the accused.

MR STRYDOM: Do you remember Adv Vic Botha?

MS MOTAUNG: No, I only know that lady and yourself.

MR STRYDOM: I've got no further questions, thank you, apart from stating, I am putting to you that you are lying about this.

MS MOTAUNG: No sir, I am not lying.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STRYDOM

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Ms Cambanis?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Yes, thank you Chair. Ma'am, would you please tell us what is the Kulumani Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: It is a body that represents all the people who got injured. All the people who were affected during that attack, it does not represent certain organisations. It is an impartial organisation.

MS CAMBANIS: And do you remember when you first began attending meetings at the Kulumani Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: I don't remember because it has been a long time since I started attending their meetings.

MS CAMBANIS: Could you estimate how many members there are in the Support Group?

MS MOTAUNG: There are many members, that is not only the people who got injured in 1992, even people who got injured way back in the 1960's, every person who got injured or who was beaten or who lost his loved one, is allowed to join this organisation.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Who lost their loved ones, got injured during an unrest?

MS MOTAUNG: That is correct sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS CAMBANIS: Nothing further Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, did I omit you?

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions, thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am not suggesting that you should ask any questions. Mr Sibanyoni, do you have any questions?

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Chairperson, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: No questions, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Ditto Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay, very well, thank you Ma'am, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I will be leading the next witness, I see that the time is ten to five, I don't know whether she should be called now.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Do you have an estimate how long the evidence in chief is going to be?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, it should not last longer than 15 minutes, 15 to 20 minutes, I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Malindi, you may call the next witness.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the next witness will be Anna Mbatha.

MS MBATHA: I will speak in Sotho.

MR MALINDI: Give us your full names.

MS MBATHA: (Indistinct) Mbatha.

ANNA MBATHA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: In giving evidence Ma'am, will you please try and speak up if you can, do you understand?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Malindi?

EXAMINATION BY MR MALINDI: Ms Mbatha, in June 1992, where did you reside?

MS MBATHA: I was staying at Slovo Park.

MR MALINDI: What was the number of your house?

MS MBATHA: I don't remember well, but I think it was 93.

MR MALINDI: During June 1992, do you remember an incident that took place on the 17th?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I do remember.

MR MALINDI: What was that incident?

MS MBATHA: The incident that I remember, we were asleep at home, I was woken up by my sister, I didn't hear anything.

MR MALINDI: Before you relate the incident, who were with you in the house?

MS MBATHA: I was with my mother and my elder sister and my sister's child.

MR MALINDI: Can you give your mother's name, your sister's name and your sister's child's name?

MS MBATHA: My mother is Paulina Mbatha, my sister is Elizabeth Mbatha, I am Anna Mbatha and Monica Mbatha.

MR MALINDI: You said that you were ...

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't quite get the name of her sister.

MS MBATHA: Elizabeth Mbatha.

CHAIRPERSON: Elizabeth? And is Monica your sister's child?

MS MBATHA: Yes, that is Elizabeth's child.

MR MALINDI: You say you were already sleeping when you were made aware that something was happening?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I was woken up by my sister and she told me about what was happening outside. She wanted to know whether I hear what was happening outside.

MR MALINDI: As a result of your sister waking you up, what happened thereafter?

MS MBATHA: All of us woke up. I was on my bed.

MR MALINDI: With what intention?

MS MBATHA: I wanted to peep through a hole.

MR MALINDI: Did you do so or did you not?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I did. Then I saw two attackers.

MR MALINDI: How far were they from you?

MS MBATHA: They were at where that wall is. That wall that I am pointing.

CHAIRPERSON: Which wall is she pointing?

MS MBATHA: That is the wall where we are sitting.

MR MALINDI: She is indicating to the part of the wall up to where the curtain has been drawn, the stage curtain.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, just behind Counsel?

MR MALINDI: Just behind Counsel.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. What is the distance again?

MR MALINDI: About ten paces Mr Chairperson.

MR STRYDOM: I would agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALINDI: You say you saw somebody being stabbed, do you know who was being stabbed?

MR LAX: Sorry, I didn't hear that.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, it may not have been interpreted, but I will start from ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just take her back again.

MR MALINDI: I will Chairperson. When you were peeping through this little hole, you talked about two attackers.

MS MBATHA: Yes.

MR MALINDI: What did you observe from then on?

MS MBATHA: I saw them stabbing Rebecca Matope.

MR MALINDI: Who is Rebecca Matope?

MS MBATHA: It is Klaas Matope's wife.

MR MALINDI: Did you know them?

MS MBATHA: I knew Klaas Matope's wife.

MR MALINDI: And how did you know her?

MS MBATHA: We were neighbours.

MR MALINDI: You saw her being stabbed, can you then relate what happened onwards?

MS MBATHA: They were stabbing her, she was holding a nine month old baby. They were stabbing her and two of these attackers passed.

MR MALINDI: Were these the same two attackers that were stabbing Rebecca Matope or not?

MS MBATHA: No, that is the others. These two passed when this other two were busy stabbing Rebecca, so these other two were passing, they went there to demolish the shack.

MR MALINDI: Which shack did they get demolished?

MS MBATHA: Our shack.

MR MALINDI: At the time that your shack was being attacked, what was the result of this attack?

MS MBATHA: They kicked the door twice, but the door did not open.

MR MALINDI: Did they succeed or did they not succeed in gaining entry?

MS MBATHA: They did not succeed in gaining entry because we had a chain.

MR MALINDI: The two attackers that you saw attacking Rebecca Matope and the two attackers that you saw running passed, whom you believe are the ones that attacked or tried to gain access into your shack, can you describe them to the Committee?

MS MBATHA: The other one that I saw, was a white person but he even said "open the door" referring to my mother.

MR MALINDI: What language was this person speaking?

MS MBATHA: He was speaking in Afrikaans.

MR MALINDI: Could you describe any form of clothing that you may have observed of these four attackers that you observed closely?

MS MBATHA: He wore a light blue trousers that is when he entered from the door, and he had an overcoat, although I do not remember the colour of that overcoat.

MR MALINDI: Which one is this one that you are describing as having worn blue pants?

MS MBATHA: That is this white person.

MR MALINDI: You say this person used your mother's name Ma'am Tani?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

MR MALINDI: How could he have known your mother's name?

MS MBATHA: He heard when Rebecca shouted saying "Ma'am Tani, please open for me, because I am dying."

MR MALINDI: You testified that then there were attempts to break down the door?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: So these two attackers did not gain entry into your shack at all?

MS MBATHA: They ended up gaining entry into the shack, they broke the other side of the shack, that is where the cupboard was standing and that cupboard fell inside and they gained entry into the shack.

MR MALINDI: How many of the attackers do you think, gained entry into the shack?

MS MBATHA: Three of them.

MR MALINDI: Are you able to describe any one or all of them?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's start with the first one who you had begin to describe what he was wearing. You said he wore, did you say a light blue trousers? Light blue pair of trousers?

MS MBATHA: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you say in an overcoat?

MS MBATHA: Yes, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else that that person wore?

MS MBATHA: This white person also had a white belt around him.

ADV SIGODI: White or wide?

MS MBATHA: White.

CHAIRPERSON: Over him? Where?

MS MBATHA: On his head.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.

MR MALINDI: And this white belt, could you tell what it was made of?

MS MBATHA: Well, I am unable to explain or describe, because I only saw it on his head.

MR MALINDI: And then you testified that about three of the attackers gained entry after breaking down one side of the shack?

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you go to the next one, is that all you can tell us about the first, the white man that you saw, about what he was wearing?

MS MBATHA: No. I only saw those things that I have mentioned because that time they had already demolished the shack from the side and they were kicking things inside.

CHAIRPERSON: Was his face covered?

MS MBATHA: No, although I did not see him facially because he was not facing me, I could only see him from his back. He had a torch in his hand.

MR MALINDI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The others?

MS MBATHA: I could not see clearly how these other people were dressed because we were in the bedroom, trying to hide ourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MALINDI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you then to say that you cannot tell us what clothing the other two persons wore?

MS MBATHA: Yes, they were not facing the light, the only one that we saw clearly, was this white person.

MR LAX: Can I just clarify something please? I am a little puzzled now, you said something just a short while ago in your evidence when you started describing this man and you used these words, you said "he entered through the door", I wrote that down. I was just a bit puzzled by that, which person entered through the door?

MS MBATHA: They did not enter through the door, because we had a chain around that door, they broke the side of the shack. That is next to the door, that is the place where we had placed our cupboard and our cupboard fell inside and then they gained entry.

MR LAX: Just one last thing, where did you - you said you were hiding and you didn't see the other two, how was it that you saw this one in particular?

MS MBATHA: I could see him like we are seeing, like I am sitting here, you can see, like you see through this curtains, so we went there because we wanted to go out. But after realising that we could not do so, we came back, that is when I saw them.

CHAIRPERSON: You were where? You were in the bedroom, where did you go, did you go in the bedroom?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And where did you go, did you go to the kitchen?

MS MBATHA: We went to the kitchen.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, you went to the kitchen and ...

MS MBATHA: I just wanted to describe this house, it was a three roomed house, we were using curtains like I am explaining, to close.

INTERPRETER: We divided these rooms with curtains, that is what she is saying.

MS MBATHA: We had a curtain in our dining room, but because the curtain was washed that day, we didn't have a curtain there, that is how we managed to see that white person. When they entered, the three of them we went back because we were trying to go out.

CHAIRPERSON: When you saw the white man, you could see the white man from the bedroom because there was no curtain?

MS MBATHA: We looked through the curtain, there was no curtain dividing the kitchen and the bedroom, because it was washed. They had demolished that side and the light was coming through that side. In the dining room, there were no curtains so we managed to see the person.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. You are saying that you - and then did you leave the bedroom to go to the kitchen?

MS MBATHA: We didn't even manage to get to the kitchen, we ended up in the dining room, that is when we saw them gaining entry. This white person was in front and the others were coming behind him.

CHAIRPERSON: So from the bedroom, you went to the dining room?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you were in the dining room, that is when they entered with the white man in front?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you ran back into the bedroom?

MS MBATHA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Malindi.

MR MALINDI: Thank you Chairperson. At this stage you say that you retreated into the bedroom part of the shack?

MS MBATHA: That is correct.

MR MALINDI: Once these men were inside your shack, do you know what they did inside, did they destroy or attack anyone?

MS MBATHA: They destroyed property but they didn't injure us.

MR MALINDI: Did you notice if they were armed in any way?

MS MBATHA: The other one had a spear.

MR MALINDI: And it was not used on anyone?

MS MBATHA: It was never used because he tried to use it, he tried to stab me and then I ran when my sister pushed me into the bedroom.

MR MALINDI: After these people had caused this destruction, did they leave?

MS MBATHA: Before they left, this white person was still looking with his torch around the house, but this torch was not giving him enough light, for him to see.

MR MALINDI: As a result of his failing torch, did they try to do anything?

MS MBATHA: The black man tried to use his matches, but he was unable to do so because the stick went off.

MR MALINDI: Is there anything that you want to tell the Committee that these men did while they were inside the shack?

MS MBATHA: Yes. After this match stick went off, he tried to light a piece of tissue paper, he was unable to do so because it went off as well.

MR MALINDI: And then what happened to this man eventually, is there anything else that you want to add?

MS MBATHA: When they heard noise from Emily Ramaeletsi's place, they went out because they heard a gunshot coming from our neighbour.

MR LAX: Can you just repeat that name please.

MS MBATHA: That is Emily Ramaeletsi. I am sorry it is not Emily, it is Evelyn Ramaeletsi. They went to Evelyn Ramaeletsi's place, that is when they heard the noise, then we were left with this one.

MR MALINDI: Which one are you referring to?

MS MBATHA: This one was speaking, when we went out of the bedroom, thinking that they had gone, I realised that he was still there and he could see that I was under the table. He tried to stab me with a speak, so my mother was holding me from the back, he pushed me backwards.

MR MALINDI: Is it your mother who pushed you backwards?

MS MBATHA: I was under the table, my mother was holding me with my clothes, from behind. When this man tried to stab me, my sister pushed us back into the bedroom.

MR MALINDI: And at that stage, are you saying that only one person, one attacker, was in the shack?

MS MBATHA: He was alone, he was also abusing us, saying that we are Mandela's dogs, in Zulu.

MR MALINDI: This one attacker that remained, what happened after he tried to stab you and your sister pushed you into the bedroom side?

MS MBATHA: He went out, he went around the back, following the other people, the other attackers who went around.

MR MALINDI: After the attackers had left, did you and your family do anything?

MS MBATHA: My mother went out with my sister, before they could do so, I lifted my baby, who was hacked, but she was still alive and then I took her to my mother's bed.

MR MALINDI: Are you referring to Rebecca Matope's child?

MS MBATHA: Yes.

MR MALINDI: Where did you, or how did you come to take her inside?

MS MBATHA: After this last attacker had run around, I did not waste time, then I went to the baby and I took the baby to the bed. That is my mother's bed.

MR MALINDI: After you assisted this baby, is there anything else that happened?

MS MBATHA: Before that, the late Rebecca Matope tried to crawl into the bedroom.

MR MALINDI: Was there any assistance that came to the injured people?

MS MBATHA: That is after all these people had left.

MR MALINDI: What kind of help was that?

MS MBATHA: The ambulance came.

MR MALINDI: This attack upon your shack and Rebecca Matope and the baby, were there any other people who were injured in this attack, I don't want you to describe how they were injured, but just name them.

MS MBATHA: At our shack, no one got injured because we managed to escape. I went to my brother, that is Johannes Mbatha's place.

MR MALINDI: Why did you go to Johannes Mbatha's place?

MS MBATHA: That is how the situation was, so I was just going there to find out whether they were not injured.

MR MALINDI: Do you remember in what house number they were, your brother Johannes Mbatha?

MS MBATHA: That is 131.

MR MALINDI: When you got to house 131, were they saved from this attack or did they also suffer a similar attack?

MS MBATHA: When I arrived there I asked his daughter, I wanted to know where my brother was. Then she said to me her mother was under the table and she was speechless. I tried to wake her up, I was unable to do so.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALINDI

CHAIRPERSON: At this stage, we will adjourn. Shall we start at half past eight tomorrow, just to see whether we can finish the witness. Okay, yes. We will resume at half past eight tomorrow morning and then may I see Counsel please. Ma'am, would you - we cannot complete your evidence at this stage, would you come back tomorrow so that we can try and finish with your evidence?

MS MBATHA: Yes, I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

This resource is hosted by the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory, but was compiled and authored by Padraig O’Malley. Return to the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory site.