CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: (cont)
Now Mr Bokaba, at the end of the proceedings last week we were at the stage where I was asking you to give explanations of how Ngo could have known of your activities, those of Selahla and of Loots and we’ll proceed from there.
During which stage between ‘87 and 1989 did Ngo approach you and say to you that he wanted to join security branch?
MR BOKABA: Let me put it shortly. I said that it was early 1987, somewhere in February, if I remember well.
MR MEMANI: Now in that case, how could Ngo have known that throughout the entire period ‘87 up to ‘89 Loots was the officer commanding? Let me put it this way, how could he have known that you were reporting to Loots all the time - that things would not have changed?
MR BOKABA: I’ve explained that Ngo could have known because I took him for an interview to Captain Loots.
CHAIRPERSON: The point counsel makes is that you took him for an interview in early in February 1987, that wouldn’t give him no indication at all that Loots remained in that job in 1988 and 1989, would it?
MR BOKABA: I understand that he could have known Sir, because he knew that Loots was the commanding officer.
MR MEMANI: Now, on your version, he saw Loots only once, is that correct? And he never saw him again.
MR BOKABA: That is my understanding.
MR MEMANI: Now, you do not dispute that the house of Louisa Mbongo was burnt down, isn’t it?
MR BOKABA: I don’t dispute that fact Sir.
MR MEMANI: And you also do not dispute that it was burnt down by Ngo and Selahla?
MR BOKABA: I dispute that Sir.
MR MEMANI: By whom was the house burnt on your version?
MR BOKABA: It was himself, by himself. I’m not saying it is him, I’m saying there is a probability that it is him if it was burnt.
MR MEMANI: Why would it be Ngo alone?
MR BOKABA: He’s the one who knows that the house was burnt.
MR MEMANI: And he also knows that Selahla was present when he burnt the house?
MR BOKABA: Selahla disputes that Sir.
MR MEMANI: How can you dispute that Selahla was present when the house was burnt down?
MR BOKABA: I’m saying Selahla denies that also.
MR MEMANI: Can you dispute it?
MR BOKABA: I don’t know how to answer that question because I’m explaining that Selahla also didn’t dispute - he doesn’t know that.
MR MEMANI: As far as you’re concerned, do you dispute - do you say Selahla was not involved in the burning down of the house of Louisa Mbongo?
MR BOKABA: I say he was not there.
MR MEMANI: How do you know that he was not there?
CHAIRPERSON: He has told us twice that Selahla disputes that he was there. I take it that’s why he says Selahla was not there. Did you believe Selahla when he said he was - he denied that he was there?
MR BOKABA: Yes, I believed him.
MR MEMANI: Now, why do you believe Selahla when he denies that he was not present?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I want to object against that question.
CHAIRPERSON: This was a policeman who worked with him as a unit for how many years?
MR MEMANI: You can say about three Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t that a fairly obvious reason why he believes him - they worked together?
MR MEMANI: I don’t think the matter is that simple Sir. He must tell us, the evidence must come from him why he believes him when he says that he was not present when the house was burnt down.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on. Why ...[inaudible]
MR BOKABA: I worked with Selahla in Mamelodi.
MR MEMANI: Were you with Selahla at all times during ‘87 to ‘89?
MR BOKABA: In many instances I was with him and I believe that if he is called to testify before this Commission, he’s going to say exactly what I’m saying - that he was - he didn’t work with Ngo and he didn’t burn the house with Ngo.
MR MEMANI: And you obviously dispute that you were involved in the burning of the house?
MR BOKABA: Yes, I dispute that - I didn’t burn anybody’s house during my work as a policeman.
MR MEMANI: And did you not dispute that Nono Gint’s house was burnt down?
MR BOKABA: I dispute that, I don’t know that.
MR MEMANI: You don’t know if whether the house was burnt down or not?
MR BOKABA: I don’t that house, I don’t know as whether it was burnt.
MR MEMANI: And you can’t dispute that it was burnt by Ngo and
MR DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: He doesn’t know if it was burnt.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, furthermore the version was not that it was burnt only by Selahla and Ngo but Mr Ngo’s version is that Captain Bokaba was present as well, now my learned friend is putting a version which is not even his own client’s version.
MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I proceed?
CHAIRPERSON: I think that’s a fair objection. You’re putting that it was burnt by two people ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: What I’m saying ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] Your client’s version is that it was burnt by three people.
MR MEMANI: It is obvious that he disputes that he was involved and what I’m putting to him is that he can only deny that he was not involved but cannot deny that Selahla was also involved.
Now, can you deny that the house was burnt down by Ngo and Selahla?
MR BOKABA: Let me answer you this way, I don’t know.
CHAIRPERSON: Is this getting anywhere when he says he doesn’t know anything about it? His original answer was he didn’t know if this house was burnt down or not. What is the point of putting more
questions - to try to get what answer? I don’t know?
MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Now you cannot dispute - you do not dispute that Louisa Mbongo was member of MAYO, do you?
MR BOKABA: I don’t know Louisa whether she was a member of MAYO or not, I don’t know.
MR MEMANI: And you do not dispute that her house was burnt down as a result of the fact that Nono, I beg your pardon - you do not dispute the fact that her house was burnt down as a result of the fact that she organised a sympathy protest against the burning house of the - against the burning of the house of Louisa Mbongo?
MR BOKABA: I don’t know Nono Gint’s. I don’t know Nono Gint’s house. I don’t know as whether her house was burnt and again I don’t know as whether there was such kind of a protest march.
MR MEMANI: And this house - these houses were petrol-bombed. Now, you also do not dispute that obviously, do you?
MR BOKABA: I know - I know nothing about those houses. Those are the allegations made by your client.
MR MEMANI: Now ordinarily, houses were petrol-bombed in the course of political conflict, do you dispute that?
MR BOKABA: May you please repeat your question Sir.
MR MEMANI: Ordinarily, house were petrol-bombed in the course of political conflict.
MR BOKABA: May you repeat your question Sir?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, is my learned friend putting that as a fact - is there going to be evidence before this Committee about that? I object against the question.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, it hasn’t been put in the form of a question, it’s been put in a form of a statement. What you’ve said to him is, ordinarily houses are burnt - it’s part of a political ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: And I’ve asked him whether he disputes that or he doesn’t.
MR BOKABA: Do you say that I dispute that houses were burnt during the political unrest?
ADV DE JAGER: No, he’s asking you whether houses ordinarily, were burnt in the course of political unrest - petrol-bombed in the course of a political unrest or do you know of any other cause why houses were petrol-bombed?
MR BOKABA: Does he speak specifically about the houses which his client alleges that they were burnt of he speaks under general circumstances?
ADV DE JAGER: Under general circumstances.
MR BOKABA: Yes, houses were burnt under general circumstances.
ADV DE JAGER: Why? Because of political unrest or because of other reasons?
MR BOKABA: Let me answer that question in this way.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I ...[inaudible] received the ...[intervention]
INTERPRETER: We’re waiting for the complete answer Sir.
MR BOKABA: During the time of unrest, some of the houses were burnt because of political reasons.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to make the point that on page 45 of bundle A, Mr Ngo himself has said that he burnt a house because of a personal grudge and that application was withdrawn, so the statement made by my learned friend should be qualified for instance by an incident where his own client was involved.
CHAIRPERSON: I think he said mainly, didn’t he?
MR MEMANI: That is correct Sir. Ordinarily, petrol bombs were used in the course of political conflict, isn’t it?
MR BOKABA: Petrol-bombs were used in the township.
MR MEMANI: But Captain, why do you seem to have difficulty with dealing with what you understand to be the essence of the creation, that these petrol bombs were used in political - in the political context.
MR BOKABA: I don’t dispute that, I explained. I explained to you that petrol bombs were used to burn houses in the township generally in the township. That’s how I answered your question.
MR MEMANI: But what I’m putting to you is that ordinarily petrol bombs were used in the course of political conflict.
MR BOKABA: That is so, at times they were burnt because of personal grudges.
MR MEMANI: Now, which incidents do you know of where houses were petrol-bombed because of personal grudges?
MR BOKABA: Should I explain specific houses and the owners of those houses?
MR BOKABA: Then I don’t know those houses which were burnt because of personal grudges.
MR MEMANI: And you only know about the one which Ngo refers to in his applications, in his application?
MR BOKABA: I don’t know even that, that’s how explained that incident.
MR MEMANI: Now, where houses were petrol bombed, security branch would have had an interest in the circumstances leading to the arson, wouldn’t it?
MR BOKABA: May you please explain your question Sir? Put your question clearly Sir.
MR MEMANI: What is it that you don’t understand about the question?
MR BOKABA: I’m asking you to repeat the question.
MR MEMANI: The question is simple. Where petrol bombs were used in the course of arson, security branch would have an interest in the matter?
MR BOKABA: What kind of interest are you talking about?
MR MEMANI: But Captain, you are a Captain you know ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: What he’s trying to avoid is the suggestion that by "interest", you mean they may have participated in the petrol-bombing. What you in fact mean - as I understand it, you mean they would have had an interest in investigating the matter.
MR MEMANI: That is the obvious interpretation.
CHAIRPERSON: If you could perhaps make that clear to him because your client’s version is that the security police did all the bombing.
MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Where houses were petrol-bombed, security branch would have an interest in the matter in the sense that they would have cause to investigate the matter?
MR BOKABA: Yes, they would investigate but let me explain it this way. There was a special task team which was stationed in Mamelodi police station. That special task team was working directly to investigate those kinds of incidents. Security branch was not part and parcel of the investigative team, those are the people who would
MR MEMANI: Now, we know ...[intervention]
ADV DE JAGER: Who was in charge of this team or who were the members of this team?
MR BOKABA: I don’t remember well but let me say this, Director Fikter who is the station commander of Garangu police station, was a member of that special investigative team.
MR MEMANI: Now, before you brought in the qualification, you conceded that special branch, rather security branch would have an interest in investigating the matter. In what sense would security branch investigate the matter?
MR BOKABA: Let me explain it this way Sir, to gather information - if we were able to gather that information that so and so was involved, then we’ll pass that information to the special investigative team.
MR MEMANI: Now, it is obvious that the special investigative team would carry out the investigation insofar as the prosecution is concerned and that security branch would carry out the investigation insofar as the gathering of information relating to security matters is concerned. Do you dispute that?
MR BOKABA: Yes, the security branch would gather the information - not to investigate the case and to carry the docket. They would gather the information and then pass it over to the relevant people or structure, then those people would do the arrest, then they will take those people to court.
MR MEMANI: And on the other hand, security branch would also detain people on strength of the suspicion that they were involved in incidents like petrol-bombing houses?
MR BOKABA: To detain people because of taking part in the petrol-bombing was not part and parcel of the security branch, they would only take that information to that task team which I mentioned. There were a state of emergency where members of the security branch detained people because of the information they were able to gather.
MR MEMANI: Such as that persons were associated with certain political organisations and could possibly have been responsible for the petrol-bombing of certain houses and other properties?
MR BOKABA: They would do that because of the information at their disposal.
MR MEMANI: Now, why do you dissociate yourself from security branch because you were a member of the security branch, why do you say "we arrested them on the strength of such information if we had such information"? Why do you use the third person?
MR BOKABA: Let me explain it this way ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: I’m afraid I don’t understand that question at all. You’re saying to him - he said: "we arrested them on the strength of such investigation", are you suggesting that is the third person when you say "we"?
MR MEMANI: No, I’m saying that he keeps saying that they would arrest people when they got such information and I’m saying why doesn’t he say, we arrested people ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, why doesn’t he say ...[inaudible]?
CHAIRPERSON: Because as I understand it, he’s told us they didn’t arrest people, they passed any information they had onto the special unit or to other investigative units. They didn’t do that, they didn’t investigate the case and they didn’t carry the docket which would mean as I understand it, they didn’t effect the arrests.
MR MEMANI: That was a while ago Sir, later on he said that security branch did arrest people and they would arrest people on the strength of such information, they would detain them under the security branch and this is ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: When there was a state of emergency they would detain people.
MR MEMANI: Yes, and my question to him is that he was a member of the security branch and why does he dissociate himself from these activities? Why doesn’t he say, we arrested people or detained people on the strength of such information because he was also a member of
CHAIRPERSON: Were your duties - did your duties include arresting people, detaining people? I’m talking about you now personally.
MR BOKABA: During the state of emergency yes, I was one of those people who were detaining people.
CHAIRPERSON: And otherwise, when people had committed crimes when it was not during the state of emergency?
MR BOKABA: It was the work of the special investigative team during the other incidents.
MR MEMANI: But Mr Bokaba, there was security legislation in terms of which people were detained without trial, which was carried out by the security branch.
MR BOKABA: You must understand one thing, I started working at the security branch on the 1st of May 1986. I didn’t have a rank then, the highest rank which I had - I was just a mere constable. If you are going to ask me about a Security Act and then how people were detained and on which Act they were detained, then I’m not going to answer your questions in that regard.
MR MEMANI: But you know, that legislation was a matter of public knowledge. Since around 1976, it had become common knowledge that there was security legislation in terms of which people could be detained without trial and you were a constable, you should know
MR BOKABA: I explained to you that during the state of emergency, we detained people.
MR MEMANI: Now, the point of my question is that the incident such as the burning down of political activist Louisa Mbongo and Nono Gint’s house, would have come to the attention of security branch?
MR BOKABA: I don’t know those houses, I don’t know them.
MR MEMANI: And on your version, you and Selahla were the people primarily responsible for Mamelodi?
MR BOKABA: I was working in Mamelodi as I explained and together with Dannyboy Selahla and others whom I’ve explained but the house you speak of them, I don’t know them and the people you mentioned like Nono Gint, I don’t know them.
MR MEMANI: And you do not have the slightest idea about these houses?
MR BOKABA: I don’t know them. Whatever happened to those houses, I don’t know.
MR MEMANI: Is it possible that these things came to your attention but you’ve forgotten about them?
MR BOKABA: I don’t know them. I start to know them when you spoke of them.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you know of any houses that - in Mamelodi which were bombed by members of the security branch?
MR BOKABA: No English translation.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you know of any houses in Mamelodi which were bombed by members of the security branch?
MR BOKABA: I know the house - the church which belonged to Legot which is called Legotlo. I knew that by hearing from Captain Loots - those are the people who took part in the bombing of that church and Scheepers Marudi’s house. I knew later when they were talking, that they were burnt or bombed by the members of the security branch. I think those are the only houses I know.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Whose house - Scheepers Marudi’s house?
MR MEMANI: Did you mention Marudi’s house?
MR BOKABA: Yes, that’s Scheepers Marudi’s house.
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] Scheepers Marudi?
JUDGE NGOEPE: Did they tell you it had been bombed by the security branch?
JUDGE NGOEPE: Did they tell you it had been bombed by the security branch?
MR BOKABA: Yes, they did tell me.
JUDGE NGOEPE: When did they tell you that?
MR BOKABA: I heard later from Captain Hechter.
MR BOKABA: That was after a long time.
MR MEMANI: Why do you say in your affidavit that
"as far as my knowledge goes, no houses as far as my knowledge goes, were bombed by members of the security branch"
MR BOKABA: I was talking about myself.
MR MEMANI: Page, sorry - page 45, para 3.4
"I categorically deny 3.4 that any of the houses where I was supposedly involved as mentioned in his application, were ever bombed by myself or as far as my knowledge goes, by members of the security branch, Northern Transvaal"
You are referring to ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Where I was personally involved.
MR MEMANI: You are referring only to the two houses in question.
MR MEMANI: The houses mentioned by the applicant.
MR BOKABA: I explained that I heard later about those houses. I
think it is after I’ve already submitted that affidavit.
MR DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman, in his ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: I understand the context different, I understand you. I think I must take back my question, I misunderstood the paragraph.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I please just for purposes of the reference to Scheepers Marudi’s house just - I know we don’t have the applications here but refer you to the applications of Hechter and van Vuuren specifically. You would have noted that it wasn’t dealt with in their evidence but there was a general application made for amnesty for bombing of various - petrol-bombing of various houses - or bombing of various houses of which the details the applicants didn’t know about. I’m just referring for purposes of the reference to this bombing, to those applications.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Well Hechter specifically - I think he mentioned specific - he didn’t know the addresses but with regard two houses, he actually gave the details as to who he was with.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, he gave details of those he could remember but you will see in the applications, there was a general schedule referring to petrol-bombing of other house of which they couldn’t remember the details. I’m just making that point Mr Chairman.
MR MEMANI: Now, you have applied for amnesty haven’t you?
MR BOKABA: Yes, that is correct.
MR MEMANI: In respect of what ...[intervention]
ADV DE JAGER: That’s correct, I think that’s why we’re here. ...[inaudible]
MR MEMANI: And for what acts have you applied for amnesty?
MR BOKABA: The same person called Scheepers Marudi.
MR BOKABA: And then also for murder where I was present when that murder happened. I don’t remember the identity or the names of those people but the person I remember among those people, the other one is Patrick Maake - M-a-a-k-e, the other person is Sefola - S-e-f-o-l-a. I don’t remember the third one. Then I don’t remember the other person again - the other victim. I’ve applied amnesty for three cases.
MR MEMANI: Now, where did these incidents take place?
MR BOKABA: Let me say it this way, the assault happened after the person was arrested in Mamelodi, then it happened at Compal Building. And then the murder, the one person was arrested in Mamelodi. I think it’s Maake or Sefola or - that is Makupi. I don’t remember well but the other one was arrested in Witbank...
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, before we go into all the detail of
where Makupi and Maake and Sefola were arrested and where they were taken, I have the amnesty application of Captain Bokaba in front of me. You have heard evidence about this incident. The evidence in his application accords with the evidence you have heard. The place was Hammanskraal, close to Pienaars Rivier ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: You would remember that. And then ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: Just one second Sir, I think these questions are asked for my benefit as well and when he - you know, if he wants to clarify these matters, he must make me follow what he is saying. I don’t know where Hammanskraal comes in for instance.
MR DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman, with respect, we are going into the details of those incidents as well now. My learned friend doesn’t know the contents of those applications and if he’s going to ask Captain Bokaba about those incidents and how it happened, we’ll have to go into the exact detail of how Maake was abducted in Mamelodi, how Makupi was abducted, how Sefola was abducted, how it happened, where they were taken etc.
What I’m trying to place before the Committee is something that you have heard in evidence before of other applicants and that is that this incident happened in Hammanskraal according to the amnesty
application of Captain Bokaba and the other incident ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: Which incident happened in Hammanskraal, that’s my question?
MR DU PLESSIS: The incident, Makupi, Sefola and Maake. That was the one incident ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, the murder, the murder. The murder happened there. And then there was the murder of the unknown ANC cadre which you also have heard evidence of Captain van Vuuren and Captain Hechter and that took place in Boputhatswana.
MR MEMANI: You see the difficulty now is that you’re giving a different account of what he’s told us ...[intervention}
INTERPRETER: May we ask you for a moment, the applicant cannot hear - maybe it’s because of the earphones.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, and furthermore I object against these questions, I don’t know what the relevance of the questions are. I don’t know what it has to do with Mr Ngo’s application, how does it fit in with Mr Ngo’s application - really it escapes me.
CHAIRPERSON: As I understand since it’s the only reason why it would be relevant is that he hopes to get some information from here about acts which Ngo also gave evidence about, acts which Ngo was also concerned in. Is that not so Mr Memani?
MR MEMANI: That is correct Sir.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, acts where Mr Ngo were involved in which he didn’t apply for amnesty for, because the acts referred to in the amnesty application of Captain Bokaba according to Mr Ngo, he wasn’t present but as far as my learned friend wants to create that impression before the Committee and prejudice his client’s case, then he can go ahead.
MR MEMANI: Now, you told us that these people were arrested in Mamelodi, is that correct?
MR BOKABA: I said not all of them were arrested in Mamelodi, not all of them were arrested from Mamelodi.
MR MEMANI: Now, who was arrested in Mamelodi?
MR BOKABA: I said to you that’s Scheepers Marudi and the other person whom I cannot remember and then Maake. I don’t know as well if it’s Makupi or - but one of them has been arrested from Witbank.
MR MEMANI: And these people were associated with activities in Mamelodi?
MR BOKABA: Do you want me to explain the cases in detail or what?
MR MEMANI: Look, the ...[intervention]
JUDGE NGOEPE: I think the question is, these people were political activists in Mamelodi engaged in some - in political activities of some
kind in the area of Mamelodi where you worked.
MR BOKABA: Yes, Scheepers Marudi was an activist in Mamelodi. I think Makupe and Maake were activists in Mamelodi.
ADV DE JAGER: Was Mr Ngo involved in any of these incidents, the arrest of Maake or Sefola or Makupi or Scheepers Marudi?
MR BOKABA: I thank you for that question because I was asking myself that question, that if Ngo was working with me, I believe that he could have made an application for amnesty in regard to those acts.
ADV DE JAGER: I’m only asking you whether he was involved, yes or no? And if we could ...[intervention]
ADV DE JAGER: If we could get straight answers we’ll shorten the proceedings in the interest of the whole of South Africa and the taxpayers.
CHAIRPERSON: Was Selahla involved in these ... [intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: The two of you were both involved.
MR BOKABA: Yes, the two of us.
MR MEMANI: Was Loots also involved?
MR BOKABA: Loots was not present.
MR MEMANI: Did you get your commands from Loots to do these things?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman with respect, now we’re going into all the details of the instructions, we’re going into the detail of Brigadier Fikter’s instruction and at the end of the day Mr Chairman, I’m concerned that Captain Bokaba is going be prejudiced - I didn’t prepare him for the contents of his application, he was not prepared for cross-examination on the contents of his application and if we’re going to do that, I’m going to ask ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: This surely relates to the credibility of your previous witness?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but Mr Chairman, we ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: So why can’t you cross-examine your next witness if it reflects on the credibility?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don’t have a problem with that Mr Chairman, but clearly as you all - as you know, you have had extensive evidence about the order structure and specifically the order of Brigadier Fikter and it’s not as simple as the question my learned friend ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: The question did not relate to Fikter, it related to Loots as to whether Loots gave orders.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but Mr Chairman, I think the question went further Mr Chairman, but if my learned could repeat the question perhaps then we could deal with that.
MR MEMANI: Did you get your orders from Loots?
MR MEMANI: Who did you get your orders from?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, there we go into the problem because you must remember with Maake, Sefola and Makupi, the evidence was specifically that the whole incident took place under the auspices and the whole general tender of Brigadier Fikter’s order.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, it’s a question of whether he got orders from somebody. He can tell us who it was.
MR BOKABA: Let me answer it this way Sir, we received instructions from Hechter. As to whether - where he received instructions from, I don’t know.
MR MEMANI: Now, you mentioned three incidents, did you get your instructions on each case from Hechter?
MR BOKABA: We were together with him and we were working with him. As to where he received the instructions, I don’t know.
MR MEMANI: I’m asking you about your instructions, did you get your instructions in each case from Hechter?
MR BOKABA: We received instructions from Captain Hechter in all
MR MEMANI: And besides these incidents, are there any other incidents for which you might have to apply for amnesty in respect of which you made a mistake of not applying earlier on?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I object against this question.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the point of the question and are you suggesting there are other matters that he hasn’t applied for amnesty for? If so, on what basis?
MR MEMANI: On the basis of my instructions.
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] should have applied for amnesty on all Ngo’s - matters Ngo speaks of, is that what you mean?
MR MEMANI: That is my point, that there are matters where on my instructions, he should have applied for amnesty and I’m asking him whether he knows of any other incidents for which he should have applied for amnesty.
MR BOKABA: I made application for amnesty for the three things which I took part in and there are no other incidents which I took part in.
MR MEMANI: Besides yourself, Selahla and Hechter, who else was involved in these incidents?
MR BOKABA: Do you mean the three incidents which I’m asking amnesty for?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I beg leave to hand the amnesty application to Captain Bokaba, then he can read to you from the amnesty application exactly who was present in what incident.
MR BOKABA: Maybe it’s not necessary, it is Hechter.
MR MEMANI: That’s even better, let’s save time - tell us.
MR BOKABA: That is Hechter, that’s Paul van Vuuren, Joma Masela ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: Just one second, we’re taking notes. Paul van Vuuren?
MR BOKABA: That is Hechter, Paul van Vuuren, Joma Masela and Danny Selahla.
CHAIRPERSON: One point I’d like you to clear up before we go on - when did this happen? The year I’m more interested in not the precise date.
MR BOKABA: I would say they happened in 1987 if I’m not mistaken.
MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. It seems the client - the app - the witness is still trying to answer your question, I don’t know. As the Chair pleases, I will proceed.
Mr Bokaba, do you know if the applicant had been a member of the security branch at Bloemfontein prior to his involvement with Pretoria?
MR BOKABA: I don’t know. He explained it to me for the first time when we met that he was an informer. I started to know that from him, that he was an informer in Bloemfontein, as whether he was a full member of the security branch, I don’t know.
MR MEMANI: And you knew the applicant very well, isn’t it? He lived with you at barracks, isn’t it?
MR BOKABA: Yes, I used to see him at the barracks, I was staying with him at the barracks.
MR MEMANI: Did you see him at the barracks right through 1987 up to 1989?
MR BOKABA: I would not say all the time.
MR MEMANI: But he was living there during 1987 to 1989?
MR BOKABA: He was staying at the barracks in 1987, that is the time when I said I saw him there. You won’t just always pay surveillance to a person as whether he’s asleep or he’s not asleep.
MR MEMANI: But you lived there, didn’t you?
MR BOKABA: Yes, I was staying at the barracks. Yes, I was staying there at the barracks.
MR MEMANI: And you met him at the barracks in 1987, isn’t it?
MR BOKABA: I don’t know when you say: "we met", what do you mean?
MR MEMANI: No, don’t waste time. In whatever sense, you met him at the barracks in 1987?
MR BOKABA: He came to me in - he approached me in 1987 to tell me that he wants to work at the security branch. We met on that incident.
MR MEMANI: And during 1988, he was living at the barracks?
MR BOKABA: I don’t remember as to whether he was at the barracks or not.
MR MEMANI: During 1989, he was living at the barracks?
MR BOKABA: I don’t remember as to whether he was staying at the barracks.
MR MEMANI: Were you staying at the barracks during ‘88 to ‘89?
MR BOKABA: I was staying at the barracks but at times I was sleeping in the township.
MR MEMANI: I don’t care where you slept at times. Now, during that time, during ‘88 to ‘89, you did not know whether Ngo was living there or not?
MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, we have an interest here suddenly in this particular question and I’d like to understand in fairness to Mr Ngo, precisely what the question entails. I understand the question to
be a statement that Ngo was living at the barracks in 1989. I would really like my learned friend if possible, to clarify that because that would have ramifications and implications on the evidence of Mr Ngo which he gave before you. And he’s put the question twice on the basis that: "I put to you that Ngo lived in the barracks in 1988 and ‘89".
And you will recall Mr Chairman, that one, evidence has been placed before the Committee that he was on suspension at the time, from the 3rd of January 1989. He was in Bloemfontein admitted to hospital from the 5th to the 7th of January 1989 and he committed the murder on the 3rd of February 1989, so Mr Chairman, if the question is going to be on the basis of a statement that he lived in the barracks in Pretoria in 1989, we would have an interest in that.
MR MEMANI: Well, save for the fact that my learned friend is misleading the Committee, there’s no evidence that Mr Ngo was suspended, it was suggested to him that he was suspended.
MR STANDER: There is evidence before you Mr Chairman, it’s in the affidavit - on paper and it is Exhibit P27 and there will be evidence as well Mr Chairman.
MR MEMANI: Now, will the witness answer the question Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: What the counsel asked is, are you putting that Ngo lived there for the whole of 1989?
MR MEMANI: I did not say so, I said that he was living there during ‘87 and ‘89 - ‘87 up to ‘89, I did not say that - the entire year.
CHAIRPERSON: Well you asked him about ...[inaudible] and as I understood it you asked about ‘89 as a separate year.
MR MEMANI: It is an unfortunate misunderstanding but the fact of the matter is that prior to his arrest, he was permanently resident at the barracks in Mamelodi.
ADV DE JAGER: Now, could you - you know when your client has been arrested, could you put it to the witness: "up to this day in February or March or April or whenever, he permanently lived at the barracks"?
MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Now during 1987 up to 1989, Ngo - early 1989, Ngo lived at the barracks.
MR BOKABA: I don’t remember and then again, I cannot dispute that he was staying at the barracks.
MR MEMANI: You see, earlier on you told us that you lived with Ngo.
MR BOKABA: I said so, yes, then I said February 1987 he approached me that he wants to work at the security branch but from there I cannot remember well and I cannot dispute that he was staying at the barracks.
JUDGE NGOEPE: By the way, when you met - when Mr Ngo approached you for the very, very, very, first time, did you know him before?
MR BOKABA: I used to see him before but ...[intervention]
JUDGE NGOEPE: Had you spoken to each other before?
MR MEMANI: Was it also in February when you went - when you took him - yes, you told us the following day you made an appointment with Loots for him to go and see him, isn’t it?
MR BOKABA: Yes, I said that I saw him then, then the following day I made an appointment with Colonel Loots, then I returned, then I took him to Colonel Loots - that is so.
MR MEMANI: And this was during February 1997 - rather 1987?
MR BOKABA: That is February 1987.
MR MEMANI: And you told us that your application took three months to process from the time you had applied to join the security branch?
MR BOKABA: I told you that it is so.
MR MEMANI: And according to the record, Mr Ngo left reaction unit in May 1987?
MR BOKABA: What records are you talking about? I don’t
understand. If the records are like that, I don’t know.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: I’m talking about B ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: My learned friend is correct, it is P27, 6. That is the one that is also at your - I think it’s page 65 in the bundle B - 68 Mr Chairman, the last, yes. I’m not chipping in, I’m just trying to be of assistance so that we can go quicker Mr Chairman. It’s at page 68 of bundle A, the last - B, bundle B, the last entry.
MR MEMANI: Now, that would have - that is exactly three months from the time when you spoke to Ngo up to the time when he says that he joined security branch.
MR BOKABA: You said he left security - he left the unit in 1987, according to the records?
MR BOKABA: Where did you go according to the records?
MR MEMANI: No, no, I don’t answer questions from witnesses, I’m telling you now that, that would be three months after the day when you spoke to him.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman in all fairness, my learned friend should put to the witness that on 18 May 1987, according to the record, he went to the college Hammanskraal Human Resources Management - according to this record on 18 May 1987.
MR MEMANI: Now, do you see the coincidence?
MR BOKABA: What in what? What is coinciding with what?
MR MEMANI: That it took three months to process your application to join security branch and that it took ...[intervention]
MR BOKABA: I, I ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: I’m speaking, now listen to me. And that it took three months - I’m not intimidating you, you must listen. That it took three months, it took three months from the time when you spoke to him in February to the time when he says that he joined security branch.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I’m just asking leave to provide Captain Bokaba with the specific copy of the page - It is my bundle that I handed up to him - just to make it easier and clearer for him.
MR BOKABA: I see it here, it says 1985 on May, Human Resources Management, Hammanskraal College.
MR MEMANI: And you say that you do not know where Ngo would have been at the time - you do not know when Ngo left barracks as he did?
MR MEMANI: And Ngo says that he was not actually - he did not actually leave barracks, he was living there until ‘89.
MR BOKABA: I don’t know, that’s what he said.
MR MEMANI: And that he did not go to the college but instead he
MR BOKABA: The records say he went to Hammanskraal, it doesn’t show that he went to security branch.
CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, I asked last week whether enquiries could be made to ascertain the accuracy of various records and whether, with all the voluminous records that police normally keep, such as pocket books which they fill in and which are kept thereafter, whether something could not be done to ascertain what records there were as to where the applicant was for this period and I wonder whether enquiries have been made at Hammanskraal for example, to ascertain whether there was such a course that started in May 1987 and matters of the nature because it seems to me an awful lot of time is being spent, which may prove to be entirely valueless if there are accurate records showing where in fact the applicant was at the relevant time.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I at this stage - I wanted to do that after Captain Bokaba’s evidence but I can just as well deal with that now and explain to you exactly what we have done. We have succeeded in making contact with Major Jordaan, we - I will endeavour to - when we finish today, have a consultation with him during this week and hopefully be able to provide you with exact information later in the week, around about Thursday, about exactly what his position is
and what he says. Furthermore, Captain Bokaba arrived at Pretoria a bit late on Friday to be able to get hold of the records. Colonel Loots and I arrived in Pretoria around about - just after 4 - we were also not able to obtain insight of the records. Colonel Loots is however today busy trying to find as much information as possible for the Committee and hopefully we will be able to present you with all the evidence that we could succeed in obtaining during this week. We will do that later in the week Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I would also like to suggest that the TRC investigators be asked to do what they can because it may well be that they find it easier to be given now official access to records and copies of records than persons who are involved in possible transgressions. And I would urgently request that, that be done because on the applicants version, this is obviously a falsification of his record and if that is so, it may be that people are reluctant to come forward now.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, that would obviously be of help. We will do whatever we can to assist the Committee and my attorney and I will probably be back around about Thursday or Friday to present you with whatever information we can get.
MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Bokaba, I want to refer you to bundle B45. The document is bundle B44 and I’m referring you to page B45 - it’s your affidavit. And the second sentence there - let me read 3.3 as a
"You say that you deny that you and Constable Selahla were involved in a petrol-bombing in the Mamelodi district where the applicant was present. The applicant was never a member of the security branch, Northern Transvaal and as such was never a trusted member of the operations of the security police, Northern Transvaal branch at the time".
Now Mr Bokaba, what would have made you qualify your statement by stating that Ngo was not a trusted member of the security branch? Let me re-phrase what I’m saying. The impression I gather from your use of the words: "that he was never a trusted member of the security branch", suggests to me that there was something in your mind about him being a member but not at all - not being trusted altogether as a member.
CHAIRPERSON: If you look at paragraph 6.6, it may perhaps clarify your thoughts.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, and if you read 3.3, it says - the first part of the sentence says: "the applicant was never a member of the security branch, Northern Transvaal and as such, was never a trusted member of the operation". So, it’s just an added part of the sentence which could have been left out really.
MR MEMANI: Well, what I’m saying to you is that if you did know of any involvement of Ngo in operations of the security branch, why would you have added the qualification of him not being a trusted member? Why didn’t you just stop at saying he was never a member of security branch?
MR BOKABA: I never worked with Ngo in the rest of my life. Let me just answer it bluntly as such, I never worked with Ngo in my life and Ngo was never a member of the security branch of the Northern Transvaal.
MR MEMANI: Now Mr Bokaba, are you suggesting that Ngo would have gone out on a frolic of his own to go and bomb houses belonging to activists in Mamelodi?
MR BOKABA: That might be so, that he burnt Mathabathe’s house with a personal grudge. It might happen that even other houses he burnt because he had a grudge with those people.
MR MEMANI: But he has told us that he burnt Mathabathe’s house due to a personal grudge and he has said that the rest he burnt on instructions from Colonel Loots.
MR BOKABA: Let me answer that this way. He said he burnt that house, Mathabathe’s house with us, then again he changed that he burnt that house together with his friends. You may see that even other houses he burnt together with his friends because I don’t know
MR MEMANI: Now, which houses did he say that he burnt together with you and later said it was with his friends?
MR BOKABA: He spoke of Mathabathe’s house.
MR MEMANI: Now, you’ve just said that he said that he burnt the houses with you and later he said that he burnt the houses with his friends ...[intervention]
ADV DE JAGER: He said he could have, he didn’t say - he didn’t state it as a fact, he said, he burnt the house of Mathabathe with his friends and he could have burnt other houses with his friends too. That’s how I understood the answer, I don’t know whether I’m correct.
MR MEMANI: The next answer was then that
"I say so because initially he said that he burnt the houses with us and later on he said he burnt the houses with his friends"
MR BOKABA: That’s what he said about Sandra Mathabathe’s house because he said he burnt that house together with his friends on a personal grudge. When initially he said he burnt that house with us, then he changed and said he burnt that house on a personal grudge.
MR MEMANI: Now, this is what I want you to clarify, where do you take that from?
MR BOKABA: That is the evidence he gave before this Commission,
"why you withdrew or you changed your statement"?
MR MEMANI: Now, you are referring to words he said at page 13?
MR MEMANI: That’s bundle C, A section.
MR BOKABA: I have it before me.
MR MEMANI: And he then - when he was told by the TRC to give more details as to the state - as to these statements, mentioned that you were not involved in the burning of the house of Rebecca.
MR BOKABA: I heard him speaking of Sandra Mathabathe’s house, that he burnt that house together with his friends. I think that’s how he explained and if I’m not wrong but I heard him speak of Sandra Mathabathe’s house - that he burnt Sandra Mathabathe’s house together with his friends.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I’m not sure - what point are we making here, I’m not so sure I understand.
MR MEMANI: The point that I wish to make to him is that when he was given the opportunity to explain his statements, he then explained the statement and he exculpates you from the bombing of the house of Sandra Mathabathe.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I don’t think the witness would have a problem
with that but then what is the point beyond that?
MR MEMANI: The point is that the applicant did not set out forcibly to implicate him.
MR BOKABA: I don’t know how to respond to that because the paper which you showed me, he implicated us - that we were together with him. What I want to explain to the Committee is that all things which he said, I don’t know them all. If they happened, they happened because he did those things but in all those things I didn’t take part and I was not present.
MR MEMANI: You deny involvement in ...[intervention]
MR BOKABA: I deny involvement in any way.
MR MEMANI: And I’m saying to you that if Ngo wanted to implicate you forcibly, he would have persisted in the story that he burnt the house of Sandra together with you. When the occasion arose for him to explain things, he did mention that you were not involved in the burning of the house of Sandra.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, can you take that as an admission that what was stated in Bundle C about the fact that Captain Bokaba was present during the burning of the house of Sandra, was clearly a wrong statement and that he has now given us the truth on page 45 of Bundle A, which is the application which was withdrawn? I don’t understand the question of my learned friend, all I can see is my
learned friend is quoting to the disparity in his client’s evidence about this incident and who was involved and it seems to me that he’s making a remission in the question that he’s asking.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I think Mr Ngo said, consider that he did make a mistake. I know he took a lot of trouble before he made such a concession but he did eventually concede that he made a mistake here.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I’m just - I know that, that was done in his evidence, I just want to make sure that my learned friend is making that admission now in the question and I’m just pointing that out Mr Chairman.
JUDGE NGOEPE: How much more of an admission do you want Mr du Plessis? I mean, if the witness himself, under oath admitted that, well I made that mistake ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: Well, it’s now two admissions Mr Chairman.
MR MEMANI: Now what is your comment to the fact that as soon as the opportunity arose for Mr Ngo to ...[inaudible] yourself, he did so and he did say that you were not involved in the burning of the house of Sandra?
MR BOKABA: That I didn’t take part in the burning of Mathabathe’s house? I don’t understand well.
JUDGE NGOEPE: The point that is being made is this, that - you see, initially Mr Ngo said you were involved in Sandra’s case, now later he
admitted that he made a mistake and he absolved you and because he absolved you with regard to Sandra’s case therefore, the fact that he does not absolve you in regard to the others, it shows that you probably were there. I think that’s the essence of the question.
MR BOKABA: No Sir, let me explain it this way, even if he said that I took part and then he absolved me, it was a lie because I didn’t take part in all these houses, in the bombing of these house and then again I never worked with him Mr Chairperson, at all times.
MR MEMANI: It’s a convenient time Mr Chair.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, on page 43 of Bundle A, your client states
"during 1987 to 1988, while I was based at Mamelodi police station as a member of reaction unit 19, working together with members of the security branch"
He doesn’t state that he was a member of the security branch, he states that:
"as a member of reaction unit 19, working together with members of the security branch"
Perhaps you could think it over during the adjournment and then advise us as to your view on this.
MR MEMANI: Well, it shouldn’t...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: We’ll take a short adjournment.
MR MEMANI: Mr Bokaba, you know Doctor Ribero, don’t you?
MR MEMANI: You know his son Chris Ribero, don’t you?
MR BOKABA: I know Chris Ribero Sir.
MR MEMANI: And you did investigate Chris Ribero’s activities, didn’t you?
MR BOKABA: I never investigated his case.
MR MEMANI: You did monitor Ribero - Chris Ribero, didn’t you?
MR BOKABA: We never monitored his movements. I’m talking about myself.
MR MEMANI: Who monitored Chris Ribero?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, what is the relevance of this, with respect?
CHAIRPERSON: I hope it is. You will remember that you told us last week that you would be 30 minutes to an hour this morning.
MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.
MR BOKABA: I don’t know the person who was monitoring Chris Ribero.
MR MEMANI: Just one second for me Sir. And you know Solit Silwane, don’t you?
MR MEMANI: Solit Silwane was your informer.
MR BOKABA: I don’t know him Sir.
MR MEMANI: Solit Silwane is the person you got information about Chris Ribero from.
MR BOKABA: I don’t know Solit Silwane, don’t force it upon my throat please.
MR MEMANI: And Solit Silwane was an informer you saw jointly with Ngo and Selahla.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, is there going to be evidence about this? That wasn’t testified by Mr Ngo. I object against this question.
MR MEMANI: My instructions are that evidence is forthcoming, attempts are being made to locate people who might corroborate this.
MR BOKABA: Let me explain it this way in front of your face, I don’t know Solit Silwane, then I said I never worked with Ngo, I worked with Danny Selahla. I never handled a source called Solit Silwane.
MR MEMANI: And you, Ngo and Selahla often went to Doctor Ribero’s house to monitor the people who were living there.
MR BOKABA: I never entered Doctor Ribero’s house. I know Doctor Ribero’s house just by passing by. I was a patient of Doctor Ribero whilst I was working at Mamelodi police station in the uniform branch.
MR MEMANI: And my instructions further that you, Ngo and Selahla often raided people together.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just make sure. My learned friend says there will be evidence ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: I think he said: "my instructions are", didn’t he?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, he said, his instructions are, Mr Chairman. Then I want to make the point that, that was never testified but I will leave it in your hands to allow the question or not.
MR MEMANI: Now, what is your answer?
MR BOKABA: I never worked with Ngo.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, he’s told us that so many times, I don’t think you are going to trick him by putting again and again and again that he did things with Ngo.
MR MEMANI: Sir, it is not my strategy to trick witnesses, what I do is to put the version that I hope will be established or lay a basis for argument.
Now Mr Bokaba, let’s go to your statement at B46, paragraph 6.2. Now, before I ask you the questions, you do understand English, don’t you?
MR BOKABA: Yes, I understand English although it is not my mother tongue, I understand it like any other person whose English is not his mother tongue.
ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] my system, in any event. I can’t hear the interpreters. It’s wonderful to hear the silence.
MR MEMANI: And you also understand Afrikaans?
MR BOKABA: Yes, I do understand Afrikaans. That’s not my first language, it’s my second language.
MR MEMANI: You are satisfied that the interpreters are interpreting your evidence correctly?
MR BOKABA: I’m satisfied because they tell me exactly what you’re saying.
MR MEMANI: And at any stage when you have problems with the interpretation, you have the right to inform the Committee that the interpretation is not correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman with respect, he’s listening to a translation in Tswana over his headphones, he’s not hearing the English translation or the Afrikaans translation, so how can the witness comment on that?
MR MEMANI: No, I can hear both, he can also hear both.
Now Mr Bokaba, you say at paragraph 6.2:
"the applicant contacted me with the request that he wanted to join the security force police at the time, well knowing that I was the contact person if he was at all interested"
Now, Mr Ngo has firstly denied that he ever had this conversation with you and you say that he had the conversation. What is of importance here which I want you to deal - which I want us to deal with is that he spoke to you because he knew that you were the contact person if he was interested. I assume that what you’re saying is that if he was interested in joining the security branch, he knew very well that you were the contact person, am I correct?
MR BOKABA: That is true because he had an interest and then he came to me, knowing that I was the only member of the security branch who was staying at the barracks and because he had the interest to join the security branch, he came to me.
MR MEMANI: And on his version, he did not apply but he was just called up so to speak and he was made to work with security branch.
MR BOKABA: According to him? What I said is that he came to me at the barracks, he contacted me and then he told me that he had an interest to join the security branch. What he said to you, he told you that but I know that he contacted me at the barracks.
MR MEMANI: You see, I’m putting it to you that you are lying. Ngo had much better contacts than yourself, you were a mere constable then. He knew Lieutenant Shaw, he knew Colonel Coetzee, he knew Lieutenant Erasmus in whom he had confidence.
MR BOKABA: Those people you have mentioned, I don’t know them. Even if they can come to this hall, I’ll never identify them. If he had that contact with them - not with those I worked with.
MR MEMANI: These people had a system that assisted him in joining the police force despite the fact of his previous convictions, they had worked with him, they had even provided him with a gun before he was trained in the use of firearms.
MR BOKABA: I don’t know all of those things you’re mentioning.
MR MEMANI: They were White, had more influence that yourself and they had much higher ranks than you.
MR BOKABA: I don’t know all those things you’re saying to me.
MR MEMANI: Those were his contacts in the security branch.
MR MEMANI: You know by the same token, what you say at 6.3 that
"at that time the applicant informed you that before he joined the police, he had been an informer of the security branch, Bloemfontein and I thought that it was correct that he should be granted the opportunity to maybe join the security police at that time"
MR BOKABA: That’s what he said to me.
MR MEMANI: Now, he told - I think it is - okay. At paragraph 6.4 you say that
"I contacted my direct commander, Colonel Flip Loots who granted the applicant an interview in respect of his willingness and participation in the security police"
Now, you heard evidence here that your direct commander would have been Hechter but that you sometimes reported to Flip Loots.
MR BOKABA: Which way did I explain?
MR MEMANI: And if that is correct, this can’t be correct - that your direct commander was Colonel Flip Loots.
MR BOKABA: I explained to you that Hechter was a team leader, I explained that. Maybe the Committee didn’t understand that. Then our section commander, our direct commander was Captain Flip Loots who is now - then he became a Colonel at a later stage. I did mention something like team leader.
MR MEMANI: Yes, but then the team leader would be your direct commander and then Loots as you say, was the section commander.
MR BOKABA: That’s how you understand that.
MR MEMANI: Well, if Loots - let me put it like this, what type of person would you have referred to as a direct commander and how would you distinguish your team leader from your direct commander?
MR BOKABA: I would say my team leader is my commander in the
MR MEMANI: And that is the person who gives you commands directly?
MR BOKABA: Not directly at all times. Let me explain it this way, at times Hechter would go on leave and then we’d direct commands from Loots. Is that so? It depends on the situation. It doesn’t mean that if this person is your immediate commander that he would be your commander all the time, he had other commitments which he had to fulfill at the end of the day so that in that instance you’d not get direct commands from him, you’d get them from somebody else.
MR MEMANI: Let us say both Loots and Hechter were present, the person you’d take commands from would be Hechter, isn’t it - directly?
MR BOKABA: You say if Hechter and Loots were present, what happened?
MR MEMANI: If Hechter and Loots are both present and none of them is on leave, you take your commands directly from Hechter.
MR BOKABA: If it’s from Loots, it’s possible that I would get direct commands.
MR MEMANI: I’m not saying that it’s not possible but you must say yes, you do take instructions directly from Hechter.
MR BOKABA: Even from Loots I’d get instructions, I would not get
- you want me to say yes, even from Loots I’d get instructions. Loots would come to me and say Hendrik, I ask you to give me these specific files for a certain issue or for a certain purpose - that is an instruction, I’d take that file and give it to him.
MR MEMANI: I know that even the Minister of Justice could come to you and say: "stand on parade" but you wouldn’t call him your direct commander, would you?
MR BOKABA: I don’t know how you want me to answer this question to satisfy you.
MR MEMANI: What difficulty have you got with conceding that the person you would ordinarily take commands from, was Hechter?
MR BOKABA: I’ve problems because look, I said to you even Loots would give me instructions although Hechter was my team leader but even Loots would give me instructions. I don’t know as whether you understand the way I explain it.
CHAIRPERSON: Let me clarify what you’re putting to him. As I understand it you’re putting to him that he in the field in Mamelodi would get his direct instructions from Hechter.
MR MEMANI: On the version that they’ve given.
CHAIRPERSON: But not on the version that Mr Ngo has given?
MR MEMANI: That is correct. Now, what difficulty have you got in conceding that from the nature of the command structure, the person you would take commands directly from usually, on you version would have been Hechter.
MR BOKABA: I don’t agree, I deny that I was receiving instructions from Hechter as he was team leader but even from Loots there were - I would receive other instructions to do that - it couldn’t be a problem.
MR MEMANI: Look, what in essence I want to suggest to you is that you in fact refer to Flip Loots as your direct commander because that is how in fact you operated.
MR BOKABA: Flip Loots was my direct commander. I explained the situation that in the township there were three people who were team leaders but our direct commander - all of us was Captain Flip Loots. We had team leaders but our direct commander - all of us - those people I’ve mentioned, was Captain Loots.
MR MEMANI: And on the version that you have given there seems to be no suggestion at all that Hechter would have been active with you and Selahla.
CHAIRPERSON: But you have just made him concede that he regularly received instructions from Hechter, that’s what you have just done as a result of your questioning, you have got him to tell us that he did, which he hadn’t told us before but you have now brought that out for which we’re obliged.
MR MEMANI: What I’m saying Mr Chairman is that when one has
regard to his version, there is no more than what was said by Loots that Hechter was the commander, the commander was in fact Loots and that is - that corroborates Ngo.
CHAIRPERSON: Ngo never knew Hechter, did he?
MR MEMANI: Yes, he did not know Ngo - he did not know Hechter because Hechter ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: You’ve just put before us evidence that ...[intervention]
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: You’ve put before us evidence that they received instructions from Hechter as the team leader and also from Loots.
MR MEMANI: What I said Mr Chairman, is that in the ordinary course of things Hechter being the direct commander, rather being the person who’s the team leader would have been the person they were taking instructions from and he says yes and I’m say - I’m putting that subject to the qualification that it is their version here in court and I’m saying that that version is not true. The truth is that the commander was Flip Loots and he worked directly with - and Selahla - and he worked directly with Selahla, Ngo and Bokaba. Do you have any difficulty with that suggestion Sir?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because that was not the version they were putting up till you started questioning him about it. It’s you who
...[inaudible] this information for us. Will you continue?
MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. I understood it to be the evidence of Loots.
Now I put it to you that Ngo - you described Colonel Loots as your direct commander because he was in fact your direct commander and Hechter wasn’t in fact your direct commander.
MR BOKABA: I’ve just explained that Hechter was my team leader then in the field which I’ve explained, that is Shweshanguwe, Mamelodi, Attridgeville, they were team leaders and then all of us, our commander in Attridgeville, Mamelodi and Shweshanguwe, was Captain Loots. He was the one who was the - the director - the commander of section B.
MR MEMANI: You see, but you referred to him - you referred to him not as a section commander there but as a direct commander.
MR BOKABA: I don’t know how you understand that. He was the person who was responsible for us, we were under him. He was our direct commander. He was the one who is above all people or officers or staff who were working with him. I don’t know how to explain it so that you should understand that.
MR MEMANI: And you did not at 6.4, suggest that Hechter would have been on leave at the time and hence you had to speak to Loots?
MR BOKABA: Yes, there is no ...[inaudible] I explained that he was
on leave, that Hechter was on - the whereabouts of Hechter I explained yesterday. I didn’t say he was on leave, I said I don’t remember well but I think he was on leave. I never said he was on leave, I said maybe he was on leave but I don’t remember well.
MR MEMANI: And if Ngo had come to know about your activities - about the security branch merely from being a member of reaction unit, one would have expected him to ...[inaudible] and think that Hechter was the person who was your direct commander?
MR BOKABA: Please repeat you question. I’m sorry to ask you to repeat the question, I don’t understand it well.
MR MEMANI: You told us that when Hechter was not in - on leave, the person you received instructions directly from was Hechter. And what I’m putting to you is that if Ngo had become aware of the activities of security branch as an outsider, he would have ...[inaudible] and thought that Hechter was in fact your commander?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I’m finding it difficult to follow the exact jest of this question and I object against it. I can see the witness doesn’t have a clue what is asked.
MR MEMANI: I don’t understand the objection, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t what counsel is trying to say was that if Mr Ngo was merely an outsider working there and going by what he saw, what he would have seen was Hechter giving commands, he wouldn’t
know that Loots was lurking in the background.
MR BOKABA: I explained that he could have known Flip Loots because I took him to Flip Loots for an interview because he had an interest to join the security branch, that is why he did not know Hechter that he was a team leader of Mamelodi. I hope that if he worked with us at any stage - even my application for amnesty, he could have made the similar applications.
MR MEMANI: I put it to you that you were involved in the activities in which Mr Ngo has implicated you.
MR BOKABA: I say that is a lie, I never worked with Ngo. The person I worked with is Danny Selahla, he is in my application for amnesty that I and myself we did what and we agree - we accept those and Ngo is not part of our applications. Then I believe that if he worked with us he could have been included in my application. In my application Selahla is there and Hechter is there, my names are there and Danny Selahla’s names are there. If it is true that Ngo worked with us I believe that Hechter could have included him in his application for amnesty.
MR MEMANI: You see, you did not apply for these things because you did not know that something was simmering at Grootvlei, you had forgotten about Ngo.
MR BOKABA: I never worked with Ngo. What he did, he did those
MR MEMANI: You, Selahla and - you, Selahla and Loots conspired to apply for amnesty in respect of prominent events or events involving prominent people.
MR BOKABA: Let me answer you this way, if you may look at the application of Colonel Loots, there is nowhere Colonel Loots speaks of me but if you can look at Hechter’s application, you would see that he’s mentioning my name.
MR MEMANI: And ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to clarify one thing in respect of this evidence so this witness is not cross-examined later on. He says that he has testified now about he’s mentioned by Colonel Loots. I have just - I have explained to you last week that Colonel Loots mentioned him in the church incident which they didn’t clear up when Colonel Loots drew the application and the mention of Bokaba in Loot’s application about the church incident, was a wrong reference. I just want to make that point clear so as not to prejudice this witness in further proceedings in future.
MR MEMANI: If that is the case, I don’t understand because I understood his evidence this morning to be that he’s applied for amnesty in respect of the church as well.
MR DU PLESSIS: That wasn’t his evidence.
MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Now, Mr ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the question as I remember it ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: He was asked if he had heard of places being burnt and he then said he had heard of the church being burnt from Colonel Loots.
MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Now, besides yourself and Selahla, who were the other Black policemen who were involved in the security branch?
MR MEMANI: In Pretoria, in the Pretoria area.
MR BOKABA: People who were members? Do you mean people who were members of the security branch in Pretoria?
MR BOKABA: Explain to you, that is a question which appeared from the Chairperson, that is Advocate de Jager. I did mention many of them then he said to me I should stop and say I’ve mentioned many names, I thing they’re enough.
MR BOKABA: Yes, Black people, I did mention them.
MR MEMANI: Now, will you enumerate the other Black people who were involved in security branch in the Pretoria area?
MR BOKABA: Should I repeat again?
MR BOKABA: I will start at Attridgeville. Sonti Makamu, Warrant Officer Sonti Makamu, working in Attridgeville, Robbie Maginta in Attridgeville and he was joined by Lesley Mogosi in Attridgeville, David Madou, Freemont Mampuru. Then I’ll go to Shweshanguwe - Shweshanguwe I mentioned Tiwi Mushwan, Jabu Gompa, Jantjie Mhaxhle, Adjudant Semine. Then I will go to Mamelodi - that’s myself and Selahla and Shangwani. They’ve already left in the police - from the police. I forgot Mr Masilesa, he was a member of the security police, Jerry Majeni, Kenny More, Smuts Matibula. I would even mention people from other sections. There were many whom I’m able to mention.
MR MEMANI: And there was not bad blood between yourself and Ngo?
MR BOKABA: How can I hate him because we never fought, I didn’t know him, where he came from, I never drank liquor with him, he was not my friend. I would put it that way.
MR MEMANI: And today, if you admitted that you were involved in these activities, you would be in trouble with the law?
MR BOKABA: If I took part humbly, I would never deny because I’m not against Ngo’s application for amnesty. I would not dispute that I
took part in those incidents which he mentioned. This is the time for the truth, everybody should tell truth of what he has done, to hide doesn’t help. If I took part in what Ngo has done - I’ve nothing against Mr Ngo, I agree and say yes, we did those things together. I would never dispute that I worked with him or I didn’t. I didn’t take part in what he mentioned.
MR MEMANI: Yes, but in order - you don’t just tell the truth and that’s it, you must tell the truth by applying to the Amnesty Committee and if you don’t apply to the Amnesty Committee you remain in trouble with the law.
MR BOKABA: This is my application for amnesty in regard to things I’ve done. What you explained to me and say I don’t tell the truth, I don’t know what you want me to tell this Committee of extra things I’ve done because I say what Ngo said I was involved in - in those things he mentioned, it’s a lie. I didn’t take part, I was never involved in what - in these incidents he mentioned.
MR MEMANI: But Ngo - I think there something wrong with the mikes today - but Ngo didn’t have any personal motive for attacking the house of Louisa Mbongo and Nono Gint’s house.
MR BOKABA: I do not know those people myself.
MR MEMANI: And you deny involvement because you realise that if you admit, you’ll be liable to a criminal prosecution and possible
conviction and sentenced for a long period.
MR BOKABA: I do not agree. Let me explain it to you, I have already explained before this Commission that I worked in Mamelodi. There’s somewhere here where Ngo states that somebody was shot and somebody fell down and left. People who worked in Mamelodi knew me and they would have known that it was myself and I could have been arrested with Ngo because the case would be reported. To shoot a person point blank during the day - that would reach the police and they would know that Hendrik Bokaba shot that person and I would be arrested.
MR MEMANI: Except that we know that the security branch was influential at the time and often they got away with most heinous crimes.
MR BOKABA: I do not know how to answer, I’ve already answered that ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: You don’t have an answer.
Mr Chairman, I’ve come to the end of my questions but I would like to know if there are any instructions from my client regarding questions which we might have asked. May I approach him?
CHAIRPERSON: How long are we going to be now? Why didn’t you take instructions over the week-end before we started again on Monday morning?
MR MEMANI: We did take instructions. What I’m saying is - the mike’s seems to be off - but what I’m saying is that there might be instructions arising from the answers we got since the adjournment.
ADV DE JAGER: How long would you require?
MR MEMANI: It’s a matter of walking to him and finding out if he’s got anything ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Anyone else who desires to put any questions?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions.
MR STANDER: I have no questions thank you, Mr Chair.
MR VISSER: Visser on record. Mr Chairman, we have no questions, thank you.
JUDGE NGOEPE: After Mr Ngo approached you as you say he did, that he was interested in joining the security branch, you felt that you should take him to Loots?
MR BOKABA: That is so. I explained to him that I will arrange for
an appointment with Colonel Loots.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you have personal about him yourself as to his suitability or otherwise?
MR BOKABA: I didn’t have any knowledge about him. What led me to believe that he could work with us, was when he stated that he was an informer at the Bloemfontein security branch and now he wants to come and work with us. It is a fact that Colonel Loots stated that we needed staff at Mamelodi and I decided not to stand in his way. I told Colonel Loots and he was the person who would have a final decision after holding the interview with Ngo. And I could not scrutinize him - what he stated was the truth or not. Briefly, that is what I would state.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Didn’t Colonel Loots ask you to motivate - whether to motivate or not? Do you just come and say, well I got somebody yesterday, he approached me, he said he once worked as an informer and did he just say, well bring him in or did he ask you whether you knew this person, what is his history and so on?
MR BOKABA: Yes, I did explain to him that this person told me that he was an informer in Bloemfontein but he didn’t require a further explanation about the person, then he said I must bring him in. I told myself that Colonel Loots would scrutinize him. I was still new in the field and I wouldn’t tell what kind of a person they needed.
JUDGE NGOEPE: You didn’t ask him where he had worked before or whether he had worked for the security branch before - Mr Ngo?
CHAIRPERSON: He said ...[inaudible]
MR BOKABA: No, he had just told me that he was an informer. He told me that he was an informer, I didn’t go into details as how he was handled, how he was paid and other things - I don’t want to lie, I didn’t ask him such things.
JUDGE NGOEPE: So, with regard to involvement in the security police in Bloemfontein, all he told you or all that you knew before you went to see Captain Loots was that Mr Ngo had been an informer?
MR BOKABA: Yes, that is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: How many people stayed at the barracks at Mamelodi?
MR BOKABA: The barracks at Mamelodi was a double-storey building. There were a lot of divisions, murder and robbery squad, liquor squads - those who came from outside Mamelodi stayed there. I can say more than 500 approximately 500, we were quite a lot.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. May Captain Bokaba be excused? Will you just bring my documents with. Will you just bring the documents Captain, with you - just take it with you please, I’ll get it from you just now.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, those were the two witnesses we intended to call now. As I’ve mentioned to you I will speak to Major Jordaan in this week and he has already given us an indication that he might be available to testify if the Committee at all wants such evidence. However, I don’t want to protract the proceedings, I will endeavour to obtain an affidavit and then act further on your instructions. We believe that we will not be involved further Mr Chairman, in the application of Mr Motsamai and may I request form you that my attorney and I be excused at this point in time and for us to perhaps return later in this week?
CHAIRPERSON: Very well Mr du Plessis, you and your attorney are excused for the moment.