TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
AMNESTY HEARING
DATE: 14.05.97 NAME: MPEZELE NELSON NGO
CASE: 2422/96
DAY 3
__________________________________________________________
JUDGE WILSON: You assisted in extending the tables for Counsel and
providing further microphones for their use, thank you.
We are now proceeding to hear the application of Mpezele Nelson Ngo,
applicant No 2422/96. The Committee consists of the same three persons
Wilson, Ngoepe, De Jager.
MS THABETHA: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair I don't know, I think we
should clarify, Mr Motsomai is sitting over there with the applicant.
JUDGE WILSON: Is he also, I thought you're not ready to hear that. Are you
ready to hear that?
MS THABETHA: That's what I wanted to clarify, that maybe he should, he
needn't sit here necessarily because ...(intervention).
JUDGE WILSON: I understood that its going to be arranged that we're going
to hear Ngo only and that he would join tomorrow and he's ...(indistinct) his
application. Is that ...(indistinct)?
MS THABETHA: Yes very well, I'm indebted to the Committee members.
ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson I think I also need to be clarified. What
does it mean when the Committee says that it's going to hear matters
simultaneously in practical terms?
JUDGE WILSON: It means as provided in the Act that it is going to hear
evidence which relates to different applications together. We are not going to
duplicate these things, we are going to hear the applications. They remain
separate applications brought by each individual, there is no such thing as a
joint application. They are separate applications which are heard together. That
is the evidence led is evidence in both or all of the applications, in so far as it is
relevant to that application.
ADV MEMANI: Doesn't it mean then that the applicants must then be there
together at all times, that when we're finished does it mean that when Mr Ngo
finishes to testify he's going to testify or does it mean that when Mr Ngo
finishes testifying then the police witnesses are going to testify? I'm at a
complete loss now.
JUDGE WILSON: We would have the police witnesses that relate only to
Ngo. Those that relate to both of them would give evidence after they have
both given evidence.
ADV MEMANI: In that even then we are not hearing Mr Motsamai then,
we're hearing Ngo alone?
JUDGE WILSON: Today yes.
ADV MEMANI: Then may Mr Motsomai be excused?
JUDGE WILSON: That's what I suggested that he remove himself from the
table and go and sit elsewhere, down in the body of the hall.
ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.
JUDGE WILSON: Where he can hear the evidence of Mr Ngo because it
may well be, and certainly is, that part of that will relate to him. It may be more
if he remained sitting here where he can hear it easily. If you wish we could
start both applications now, it was you as I understood who said that there were
various reasons why we couldn't.
ADV MEMANI: Yes but then I understood that pressure was put upon me to
proceed with these applications no matter what, but the only reason why we
could proceed was that the only relevance is that the only evidence that would
be led this afternoon is that of Mr Ngo.
JUDGE WILSON: No I can't hear you, speak up.
ADV MEMANI: My understanding was that they are going to be heard
simultaneously, that is together whilst they are sitting there but we will be
hearing the evidence of Ngo only today.
JUDGE WILSON: Yes but that evidence may well relate to your other client.
Ngo isn't to be asked to give evidence again. The whole purpose of hearing
applications together is to avoid the repetition of evidence.
ADV MEMANI: I think Mr Chair should say that you are more comfortable
with them sitting there together and they will just proceed as they are sitting
there together.
JUDGE WILSON: Very well we'll hear both the applications, we will hear
then the application I have already given you details of and the application of
Mohanaetsi Stephen Motsamai applicant No 4031/96. These applications are
being heard together.
MS THABETHA: Mr Chair I would like to hand over to Mr Willem Brits.
MR BRITS: Thank you Mr Chairman, my involvement only relates in so far
as the application of Ngo. The implicated persons there who I represent is
Colonel Flip Loots and Sergeant Hendrik Bukawa. Now I've drafted affidavits
in which they state their version of the facts where they were implicated, I've
handed copies of these affidavits to my learned friends here and specifically to
the legal representatives of the applicant, they've gone and worked through it,
they said that we can hand it in by agreement, we can hand it in but they are not
waiving the right to cross examination but at this stage it doesn't necessary that
there are so many material facts pertained in these affidavits that they want my
clients to be present at the moment. I am available and I beg leave to hand
original copies of these affidavits to the Committee, and these implicated
persons do not oppose the application of Mr Ngo.
JUDGE WILSON: Very well, they will be, Loots will be A and Mukaba B.
Is it necessary for us to read these?
MR BRITS: Not at this stage Mr Chairman. If needed later ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: One would certainly read them later, I ...(intervention)
MR BRITS: Ja but for cross examination, maybe for record purposes, then we
can...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: ...(indistinct) difference will be made to the
pattern...(indistinct)
MR BRITS: And as such I may at this stage be excused from proceedings.
I've made arrangements with them where they can contact me if necessary but
practically it doesn't look like they're going to need my clients within this
...(indistinct).
JUDGE WILSON: Okay we will excuse them till further notice.
MR BRITS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson may I put it on record that Mr Mthembu and
I do not accept responsibly for notifying him of any postponements or calling
him and this is a matter which is within the ...(indistinct) of the functions of the
Commission.
JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.
MS THABETHA: Members of the Committee, before we proceed with Mr
Ngo's evidence, I would like Advocate Memani to certify how he is going to go
about addressing his evidence because as far as I know Mr Ngo has applied for
eight acts which he is committed. So I would like to have some clarification on
Advocate Memani.
ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson, when we concluded these
proceedings...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Sorry this is, you say he's applied for eight. And where is
this list to be found?
ADV DE JAGER: That's the first that you have advised us that you prepared
something that could assist the Committee.
MR WAGENAAR: Mr Chairman indeed I have, the only hesitation I have at
the moment is that I would have to hand in more than one of the pieces of work
that I've prepared for it to make sense. I must just inform the Committee with
respect at this stage, that because we're not involved in the Pretoria incidents
they have not been included in what we have prepared but subject to that
qualification we gladly hand it to you Mr Chairman. If you will give me a
moment's time, Mr Chairman may we first hand in Exhibit P30, you don't have
to concern yourself about marking the exhibits, we are keeping the exhibit list
numbers up to date and we will hand that to you as well. So we might hand to
you Exhibit P30 and I'll give you a short word of explanation on that so that
you can understand, with respect, how the document is intended to work Mr
Chairman.
Mr Chairman looking at Exhibit 30 you will see that it consists of five
pages, actually six but the last one is just in case a member of the Committee
wishes to fill in any other information which I couldn't think about. Mr
Chairman the list approaches the matters of both Mr Motsamai and Mr Ngo on
all the documentation that was placed before the Committee and it approaches
the matter from the point of view of incidents. Now I'm going to hand to you a
further exhibit, P31 in a moment which approaches the matter from the point of
view of persons indicated so that you have the best of both worlds we hope Mr
Chairman to assist you in the summary of what we attempted to do.
What we have attempted to do Mr Chairman is because Mr Motsamai
has produced three documents, perhaps you know about them, if you don't,
may I quickly inform you what they are. The first is his application form, and
then at the last hearing on the 14th of March a document was produced which
was a hand-written document, the status of which we are not certain of Mr
Chairman. That was handed in as Exhibit P28.
ADV MEMANI: Is my learned friend referring to Mr Motsamai or Mr Ngo.
MR WAGENAAR: I'm referring to Mr Motsamai.
ADV MEMANI: I'm sorry but we haven't heard Mr Motsamai yet, nor have
any documents been submitted on behalf of him.
JUDGE WILSON: Motsamai, let me just see what I have got, I've got his
application.
MR WAGENAAR: The document produced by the official of your
Committee Mr Chairman on the 24th of March when we were here last time.
It's a hand written document, we've included it here Mr Chairman, we don't
know what the statement of that document is but reference to certain incidents
were made in that document.
JUDGE WILSON: What does it look like?
MR WAGENAAR: It's this one Mr Chairman.
MS THABETHA: It's the handwritten statement, you've got it annexed.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Chairman, why don't we proceed with the evidence
and go and deal with these matters at the most appropriate stage?
MR WAGENAAR: Mr Chairman it is the one that looks like this, it's the
handwritten statement that looks like this. It's under a covering...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: It's headed Brief Description of the Violation of Human
Rights.
MR WAGENAAR: Well mine says, Details of the Person Making Statement
and then it goes on to say, exactly, Brief Description.
JUDGE WILSON: Mine Starts off saying, Declaration. I Mahonaetsi
Motsomatsi solemnly declare the information I'm about to give is correct. The
next page is, Details of Person Making Statement and the next is, Brief
Description of the Violation of Human Rights, and then are then two additional
pages.
MR WAGENAAR: You will forgive us Mr Chairperson, we don't have the
first page which you referred to but that is the documentation which was
handed in as Exhibit P28 at the last hearing.
JUDGE WILSON: P28?
MR WAGENAAR: P28. We are not addressing at all the merits of what we
are referring to, we're simply taking you through the document, exhibit P30 to
explain to you how it's supposed to work.
Mr Chairman and then last week another document was produced by the
Committee which was forwarded to us and there's a document marked
Annexure B. You will certainly see it at some stage or another if you haven't
got it already. The reason why I mention that Mr Chairman is merely for this
purpose, to show you that Miss Motsamai has placed three documents before
you apparently, we also don't know what the status of Annexure B is, we will
have certain submissions later, but what we've done Mr Chairman is from the
point of view of incidents, we have over the five pages before you dealt with
every incident which was mentioned in the application form in the first column,
in Exhibit P28 in the second column and in Annexure B in the third column,
and then simultaneously Mr Chairman, in the last column we dealt with the
evidence on the application form and the annexure thereto of Mr Ngo. So that
the purpose is this, Mr Chairman, you could at a glance, see what incidents
have been referred to by both these applicants, where they were referred to and
in a sense, to a certain extent, how they either agree with each other or how
they conflict with each other.
That's the only purpose of Exhibit P30 is to give you a working
document if it's of any assistance to you. We don't hand it in for purposes of
proof of the contents thereof, it's simply a working document.
Mr Chairman may I then refer you to another...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Everybody else has seen this have they?
MR WAGENAAR: Yes they have. Mr Chairman I have also drawn, if you
regard the contents of that, 31, I'm sorry 31, the contents of that as of doubtful
assistance to you, well then of course you are free to ignore it but the purpose
of this document was to approach the evidence of both Mr Ngo and Mr
Motsomai from a point of view of the perpetrators Mr Chairman, so that when
you deliberate on the issues at the end of the day, we felt Mr Chairman that you
would have a summary from both points of view and we hope that that will be
of assistance, not only to you but also to our learned friend.
While I have the floor so to speak Mr Chairman and perhaps to continue
with a few other household matters, at the last occasion when we adjourned we
gave an undertaking that we would attempt to find the personal file on Mr Ngo.
We are told Mr Chairman that there are more than one file but we've been able
to locate one of them. That file has been gone through by myself and the
documents which may be of interest to the Committee from the point of view of
its enquiries, I have photocopied Mr Chairman and I place them before you.
You are welcome to go through the file of course yourself, it's a fairly bulky
file, and my learned friend is also of course very welcome to do so. I couldn't
find any documents other than the ones which we've got before you now, which
we'll hand to you now, which are vaguely relevant to your enquiry Mr
Chairman, and perhaps we could hand that up for your assistance as well.
What we've done Mr Chairman, because it deals with the same issue as
did Exhibit P27 at the last hearing, we have numbered them P27.1/2/11 so that
they're all in the same area in your exhibit file Mr Chairman perhaps lastly as I
promised, we have drafted just for you to know where we are more or less, we
have drafted an update on the exhibit list numbers which we also hand to you
Mr Chairman. And then very lastly Mr Chairman, there was some, perhaps
criticism is a strong word, but there were some doubts expressed by the
honourable Committee members at the last hearing about a computer print out
reflecting as is purported to do the leave of Mr Erasmus. What we've been able
to do is to find an additional document which we beg leave to hand in under
cover of an affidavit which actually sets out an extract from his leave file Mr
Chairman...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: That was P26 wasn't it.
MR WAGENAAR: Correct Mr Chairman, and we suggest that we mark this
one P26 too to have it all together. And with that Mr Chairman I have nothing
further to say.
JUDGE WILSON: Well wait, wait, I'm coming with more queries. Other
members of the Committee may have similar ones. I do not seem to have all the
Exhibits listed on your list. Now I don't know whether copies were made
available of all these documents or whether they were merely one.
MR WAGENAAR: Mr Chairman there are two answers to your question.
The first is you must bear in mind perhaps wisely or unwisely at the hearings in
Pretoria we suggested and the then Chairman His Lordship Mr Justice Mall
accepted that it might be an idea to hand in all the exhibits emanating from
clients of Wagner, Miller and du Plessis as a P exhibit, P to 1 500, so what you
have before you is a list of exhibits which don't only cover Ngo's case and
Motsamai's case obviously but it contains the full list. Now it may have been
wise or unwise but that's part of the answer.
The rest of the answer to your query Mr Chairman is that whenever we
handed up documents it was always done with copies at all times. Now if you
would give an indication of which exhibits you miss, we will make certain that
you have copies presented to you to replace the ones that are missing from your
file.
JUDGE WILSON: Well perhaps rather than wasting time now
...(intervention)
MR WAGENAAR: We'll do it during the night and will have it tomorrow
morning.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you, we will consult with one another as to
whether any of us have or who has or has not and let you know.
MR WAGENAAR: Perhaps after the adjournment we could wait and receive
your instructions as to what ...(intervention).
JUDGE WILSON: Yes if we adjourn and you could come and speak for a
few minutes.
MR WAGENAAR: Certainly Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: Have you got all these exhibits?
MS THABETHA: Yes Mr Chair I do. Only exhibits is so far as the matter
Ngo and Motsamai are concerned. I know that I've got more copies for the
affidavits ...(intervention).
JUDGE WILSON: No the affidavits we haven't had yet are the P32 to 41.
MR WAGENAAR: Perhaps we could hand them in straight away and
...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: No but I shouldn't have them yet, that's all, they're not
missing.
MR WAGENAAR: Mr Motsomai's application hasn't...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: The list goes up to 31.
MR WAGENAAR: Yes. We'll try to sort it out.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
MS THABETHA: Mr Chair before we proceed, may I just highlight it to the
Committee members that between the application of Mr Motsamai and Mr
Ngo, there are two matters which seem to be related to the same offences,
namely the burning of Winnie Mandela's clinic and the bombing of Jannue
Mohape's Ford Cortina and Elia Mohape's minibus. It's just those two which
are related to each other.
JUDGE WILSON: Let's look at these. the burning of the clinic, the burning of
the Ford Cortina, I'm not sure what compare be means, petrol bombing of the
house of Max Mokuba and the murder of Oupa Makhubalo. So how many, you
say there are two, those two, the burning of the house and the car, and then
there's the further mention of the attack of the attack on Oupa Makhubalo or
attacks, matter No 13 under Motsamai, and next to it appears the letters
compare B.
MR WAGENAAR: If I may explain, I don't want to confuse you but the
reason why that is inserted there is merely because that is the only place where
Mr Ngo refers to Makhubalo, but he doesn't refer to an attempted murder on
...(indistinct), only the attack on his home.
JUDGE WILSON: The same person though.
MR WAGENAAR: Yes it's the same person.
JUDGE WILSON: That's right.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Well perhaps we'll get to hearing the evidence that we
have come for.
MS THABETHA: I will now hand over to Advocate Memani to lead Mr
Ngo. Thank you Mr Chair.
ADV MEMANI: Thank you Mr Chair, now Mr ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Are you going to call him now to give evidence?
MPEZELE NELSON NGO: (sworn states)
ADV MEMANI: Now Mr Ngo at the previous hearing you testified about the
incident relating to the death of Mr Venter.
MR NGO: That's true.
ADV MEMANI: Now Mr Chair at this stage I would like to make a request
to refer to some aspects on his evidence at that stage. Mr Chair do I have your
leave to do that?
JUDGE WILSON: Certainly.
ADV MEMANI: Now on the last occasion you told us that your brothers
John and Arrie Ngo assisted you in what amounted to reburial of Mr Venter? Is
that correct?
MR NGO: That's true.
ADV MEMANI: Now you also told us that you had told them that Mr Venter
had been found in an accident and had been buried there. Do you remember
that?
MR NGO: Yes that is so.
ADV MEMANI: Now do you wish to add anything about the involvement of
your brothers in the incident relating to Mr Venter?
MR NGO: They helped me to bury him there, that is the only thing that they
did because we requested their help.
ADV MEMANI: The question which arose is why did you prefer to use your
brothers when you had informers who were available to you, why did you
prefer them who were on your evidence some kind of a risk to the Security
Branch?
MR NGO: The explanation I gave is that they firstly knew the area well
which was a municipal area where we buried Venter. We used to use them
because I trusted him, those were the people whom we used for information, he
used to tell me things that I trusted that even if I told him that he should do that
kind of a thing, he'll be on my side. I recruited him in other words in the
Security Branch about to be an information source.
ADV MEMANI: Now it is the first time that you're telling the Committee that
your brothers had been your information sources and that you used them
precisely because they were your sources and you trusted them. Why didn't
you tell the Committee on the previous occasion that they were your sources
and you trusted them because of that reason?
MR NGO: The reason was that I was answering because in terms of the
questions asked and I am answering now because of the question asked and
those are the things which I was prepared to say because it was in line with the
question.
ADV MEMANI: Now Mr Ngo the question about the wire that was found
on the neck Mr Venter do you have you anything to say regarding how it came
about that there was a wire around his neck?
MR NGO: It happened that I arrived there then I shot Mr Venter. After that I
tied his hands with wire, then I went back after to the car after I had tied his
hands and his feet. After that when I arrived at the car, Adjutant Ramasweu
made a decision that we should go and fetch the body. When we arrived in the
house we found Mr Venter while he was sleeping on the mattresses, he was
bleeding, we were supposed to pick him up and take him out of the house. We
saw that just to take him there there will be some blood stains on the ground.
That is why I put a pillow case on his head, then I tied that pillow case on his
neck so that he should not bleed and we should not have blood stains on the
ground. That is how the wire was there on his neck. We were awaiting blood
stains on the floor and on the ground whilst we were taking him to the car.
ADV MEMANI: Now in the Judgement, I beg Mr Chair's pardon, I haven't
made a note of where it appears on the record, but there is some reference to
the fact that there was no blood found at the house of Mr Venter and that
makes it improbable that Mr Venter would have been shot in that house
because the doctor said that if Mr Venter had been shot in his house, then he or
she would have expected to find blood to be found by the police on the scene,
because he would have bled profusely. Do you have any comment as to why
there was no blood found there if you shot him inside the house? That if Mr
Venter had been shot in the house as described by Mr Ngo, he or she would
have expected blood to be found on the scene because a person shot in the
manner described by Mr Ngo would have bled profusely. The Police testified
that there was no blood found on the scene. The learned judge then in his
judgement made a finding that it is improbable that Mr Venter was shot in his
house in the light of the evidence given by the doctor and the police. I am now
asking Mr Ngo to tell us why no blood was found in the house of Mr Venter. I
have been told that it's page 32 line 20 of the judgement My Lord.
Now we are waiting for the answer from Mr Ngo I suppose.
MR NGO: I didn't quite understand your question.
ADV MEMANI: At the trial the Doctor testified, let me start with the police,
the police testified that when they arrived at Mr Venter's house there was no
blood on the floor and the Doctor testified that if Mr Venter had been shot in
his house in the manner in which it's described and had suffered the wounds
that he suffered, he would have bled profusely and he would have expected the
police to find blood on the scene. The presiding judge then in his judgement
remarked that if you were telling the truth then you would have expected in the
light of what he's been told by his doctor and the police that blood should be
found on the scene. Now I'm asking you to tell the Committee why no blood
was found on the scene.
MR NGO: Where I shot him it was in the sitting room. There were sofas
there, there were carpets just next to every sofa. They were round and they
were put in front of the sofa, so after I shot him he fell on one of the carpets
which were there. When we returned I found him lying on one of the carpets,
he was bleeding. I did not take a long time before I came back. I ran fast from
the car to the house, where he fell he fell on one of the carpets, he was not on
the mats on the mats which were fixed on the floor. We took him together with
the carpets and took him outside. The blood which was there was on the carpet
which we took together with the body, where he fell, so we took him together
with that carpet.
JUDGE WILSON: Cupboard or carpet? Carpet.
ADV MEMANI: Now another aspect Mr Ngo is the question of your
testimony at the court...(intervention).
JUDGE WILSON: Sorry before you go on, can I ask him something about
this. Is the only blood stained you removed the carpet that his head was lying
on?
MR NGO: He fell on the floor mat so we rolled that mat on his body, so we
took him together with that floor mat.
JUDGE WILSON: Is that the only trace of blood you removed from the
room, you didn't clean up the room in any other way?
MR NGO: He fell on that floor mat, his head fell on that floor mat which was
on top of the carpet, so I took the pillow and covered his head and took him
together with that floor mat but I did not see any other blood stains on the floor
or somewhere else.
JUDGE WILSON: He was standing was he when you shot him?
MR NGO: He was reading a paper.
JUDGE WILSON: Because you see the doctor also said there would have
been spots of blood caused by the impact of the bullet and no such spots were
found. Can you explain that.
ADV MEMANI: At which page are we My Lord.
JUDGE WILSON: Page 32 line 20.
Volgens Professor Olivier sal daar sekerlik ..there would definitely
have been spots with the shot being fired. If the body of the
deceased had stayed in one place and after that he would have
expected that there would have been quite some blood under the
head.
Can you explain why there weren't spots of blood elsewhere caused by the
impact of the bullet?
MR NGO: I'm not able to explain that as to why there were no blood stains
somewhere else because I was not looking. What I did is that I shot him. After
shooting him he fell, he wanted to lean forward but at the time when I shot him
I pressed him down and then I tied him on the hands and feet. Whether there
was no blood elsewhere I'm not able to testify.
ADV MEMANI: Is it correct Mr Ngo that the furniture that was in the house
was also removed in the room where Mr Venter was shot?
MR NGO: That is true.
ADV MEMANI: Did you inspect that furniture to see if it had blood stains on
it or not?
MR NGO: I didn't have an opportunity to inspect the furniture on my own. I
don't know of people who remained with the furniture in But...(indistinct), that's
why they did inspect, that's where there were blood stains.
ADV MEMANI: A question which seemed to arise again was why, when you
had already seen that the police were not helping you after you had killed Mr
Venter, did you then not choose to tell the truth and say that 'I was sent by
Coetzee and Erasmus to do this thing' and chose to implicate your brothers
instead?
MR NGO: They didn't say to me they are helping me and they did help me.
They used to bring money to me in prison and at the same time they helped me
to escape from prison.
ADV MEMANI: And in court, why did you chose to implicate your brothers
and say that they were responsible for the killing of Mr Venter?
MR NGO: As I explained, in court I gave evidence in fact hoping that they
will do all means that I should not be imprisoned. As they did promise me that
they will make it possible for me to escape from prison, so I trusted them
because there were many things which they were able to do for you as
members of the Security Branch that they would negotiate with the prison
officials for my escape so that they would arrange with other prison officials
that I should escape.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Ngo, your counsel is taking you back to questions
which you were asked and which you answered, which area he did not traverse
or did traverse during the opportunity he was given to reexamine, which
reexamination he did carry out. Now do you remember the answers you gave
to this same question which was asked you last time, do you remember what
answer you gave as to why you incriminated your brothers during the trial, for
example?
MR NGO: Do you mean in which way did they help me to bury the body or
to give evidence, I don't understand the question correctly Sir.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I'm not talking about the police, I'm asking you, do you
remember that the same question was asked of you last time and do you
remember the answer you gave last time?
MR NGO: To say that my brothers should help me.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Why you incriminated your our brothers and risked them
going to jail or being sentenced to death and not spill the beans? Do you
remember the answer you gave last time?
MR NGO: Yes I do remember Sir.
JUDGE NGOEPE: What did you say last time?
MR NGO: I said I, one of my brothers was used as a state witness against me.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Well is it the same answer that you have just given a few
minutes ago?
MR NGO: I didn't understand the question asked by Mr Memani, that is why
I said the question should be repeated, because I didn't understand that question
in which way it was going or what kind of answer it needed.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Well why did you answer it if you didn't understand it?
MR NGO: I answered then he answered again, then I said I didn't understand.
That is why you came in and you said, 'do you remember the evidence you
gave in regard to the question', that is then that I didn't understand as to whether
do you mean what kind of evidence you are asking.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I advise you now that if your counsel goes back to asking
you questions which were asked and which you answered last time, you must
please try to remember the answers you gave last time because two questions
have been repeated here, both in respect of which you gave two answers which
you didn't give last time and it seems to me if you go on like this, if you don't
try very hard to remember the answers you gave last time we will keep on
getting different answers, answers that were different, which are different to the
answers you gave to exactly the same questions last time. You may be advised
to try and think very hard if your counsel goes back to the same questions you
were asked last time, my advice to you is that please try to think very hard
about the answers you gave last time.
JUDGE WILSON: That is if those answers were true.
MR NGO: I understand Sir.
ADV MEMANI: Now you've told us that you hoped that the police would
help you and they did help you by arranging an escape for you for instance and
they came and gave you money. Now you have also confirmed that on the
previous occasion you said that you testified against your brother because he
was being used as a state witness against you. Now when you say that he was
used as a state witness against you, let me say why do you say that he was used
as a state witness against you?
ADV DE JAGER: Because he testified for the State. What other reason could
there be?
ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson may the witness answer the question?
ADV DE JAGER: If you want to repeat all the questions you've put last time,
repeat all those questions, you could do so Mr Memani but you'll have to face
the consequences then.
ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson I'm not going to repeat all the questions, but
these are matters which I feel should be clarified because there is some
difficulty around them.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani I think that I did not want to put it as strongly
as one of my colleagues, perhaps properly put, but you see you are going back
to the same thing and we traversed this area and he came at some stages up
with a version that he incriminated his brother because his brother had sought
to incriminate him. It was pointed out to him that he was Accused No 1, he was
the first one to testify, even before any of his brothers could testify and he was
the first person to start incriminating his brothers.
ADV MEMANI: That is correct My Lord but there is something that I am
trying to lead him on on this aspect
JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't know, I'm speaking for myself, I really wouldn't
have allowed you to go back to this because questions were put to him, he
answered and then you reexamined him and you go back to the same
questions, now we, I'm not sure that we're getting a new version altogether
which will require of the other people now to come and reexamine him. I have
reservations about this. You are lucky that the Chairperson allowed you to do
that but perhaps don't push your luck too far Mr Memani.
JUDGE WILSON: Was his brother a state witness at the trial?
ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson he was not a state witness as lawyers
would understand it and that is why I'm asking him to clarify that matter, why
does he say that he was used as a state witness when he was in fact testifying
as a coaccused?
JUDGE WILSON: Carry on. Did your brother give evidence after you?
MR NGO: Yes he gave evidence after me.
JUDGE WILSON: So when you gave evidence he had not said anything to
the court?
MR NGO: Yes that's true.
ADV MEMANI: Now Mr Ngo, why do you say that he was a state witness?
at the court?
MR NGO: I took it that he was a state witness because he was telling how the
police took him to the Bri...(indistinct) and then bribed him and he was taken
out of us and taken somewhere, then they were protected by the police,
therefore in that regard I took him as the state witness.
ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo you are a policeman. You know what a state
witness is, surely. You were aware that this person was charged with you as
accused No 2. You know what a state witness is, you are a policeman but how
can you come and say to us that your brother was a state witness?
MR NGO: If people are coaccused and arrested together, the reason for them
to separate them into various cells and then at night you take him to other
places, you make him change his clouds and you know that he is dressing now
with new clothes from home and is now accompanying the police. So I came to
a conviction that he is now working in cahoots with the police, so that they are
creating an opportunity that he should tell the court what they want him to do.
That is why I understood that he was made a state witness.
JUDGE WILSON: But you know state witnesses are not charged, they are
given indemnity from prosecution, aren't they.
JUDGE NGOEPE: It is possible that you can make a person a state witness
so that you, even if you're not a state witness but though you are an accused,
you can testify differently that even if he's your coaccused he will get 20 years
and then he will get 18 months because you have made him a state witness so
that you will be able to lighten his sentence to protect that it should be clear that
he is a state witness.
JUDGE WILSON: Anything else that you want to ask him about this?
ADV MEMANI: No more My Lord. Now I'm indebted to his Lordship for
this opportunity I am now going to proceed to the other acts My Lord.
Now Mr Ngo I want to refer you to your application, the one which is in
the manuscript. Mr Chairperson I recall that at the last hearing you asked Mr
Mpshe to make copies of what was referred to as the second application. I
don't know if those copies were made and are if front of you at this stage.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman with respect, your ruling on that
matter was that that one was going to be ignored for purposes of this
application, that was the ruling as far if I remember correctly. We don't have a
copy of it and I'm not certain whether it's relevant to bring it up now.
JUDGE WILSON: I don't have a copy before me at the present time, nor have
any of the other Committee members.
ADV MEMANI: But I do recall Mr Chairman that although that initially you
had adopted the stance that it was that it was not relevant, at some stage it was
brought before the committee and some arrangement was made that copies
should be made in due course.
JUDGE WILSON: Well that does not seem to have been done.
ADV MEMANI: Now Mr Chairman, that being the case then, I will proceed
without referring to pages because we don't have the same papers in front of us.
In your application you confess to an act of kidnapping a COSAS secretary and
you seek amnesty in respect of that conduct, is that correct?
MR NGO: That is true.
ADV MEMANI: Now can you tell this Committee about this incident? When
did the incident take place. Let me start here, what was the name of the person
that was involved?
MR NGO: That is White Mohape.
ADV MEMANI: When did the abduction or kidnapping of Mr Mohape
occur?
MR NGO: That's 1986 Sir.
ADV MEMANI: Do you recall the specific date?
MR NGO: No Sir.
ADV DE JAGER: ...(indistinct) records circumstances, this incident is
referred to on page 5 of the annexure to his application, is that correct?
MS THABETHA: That's correct.
ADV MEMANI: Now may I add that our numbering is not the same because
of the fact that I'm using the, what is referred to as the Second Application Mr
Chairperson. Now Mr Ngo, can you tell the Committee the circumstances
surrounding the kidnap of Mr Mohape.
MR NGO: It happened that Mohape was an influential leader in the COSAS.
ADV MEMANI: Were you alone when you kidnapped Mr Mohape?
MR NGO: No, it was Ditsametsi, Mamome, Ntyala and Cronje.
ADV MEMANI: Now where were these persons, were these
persons...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: Sorry who were the last two please? Ditsametsi,
Mamome, Ntyala and Cronje as in Afrikaans.
ADV MEMANI: Now how did you know these persons, what was your
relationship with these persons?
MR NGO: Do you mean these people I committed this kidnap with? Those
are the policemen.
ADV MEMANI: Were they stationed?
MR NGO: They were stationed at Fountain.
ADV MEMANI: Where is Fountain.
MR NGO: Bloemfontein.
ADV MEMANI: At whose command was Mohape abducted?
MR NGO: It was under the direction or instruction of Colonel Coetzee,
Erasmus and Shaw.
ADV MEMANI: Where did he give the order?
MR NGO: We were in the office.
ADV MEMANI: Which office?
MR NGO: We were at parade when we were just about to knock off at
Fountain Police Station.
ADV MEMANI: And why was Mohape, before we go to that, when was the
order to abduct him given?
MR NGO: I said at a parade when we were just about to knock off.
ADV MEMANI: And why was Mohape abducted?
MR NGO: He was influencing the students and again he was leading them to
commit public violence. When we laid charges against him in court he was able
to win all those cases. Then they were fed up because they said every time we
lay charges against him he always has lawyers. We detained him for a while,
then when he was supposed to be released ...(intervention)
ADV MEMANI: You said that they were now fed up. Who are these people
who were fed up?
MR NGO: I mean the police who were arresting for public violence, that is
Coetzee and them. When he was supposed to be released we got that
information, then they said that we should come, after we have knocked off that
we should come and kidnap him, so they phoned the Hilton Police Station
where he was detained, either Hilton Police Station or Bayswater Police
Station. Then they were instructed that he should be not released early in the
morning. After that they sent two policemen, that is Ditsametsi and Sgt
Mamome, then they said that they should wait for him somewhere, that they
should observe his movements. On his way to the township they should arrest
him.
ADV MEMANI: Did that occur?
MR NGO: Yes after we knocked off we took a car, we went to Ramkraal
then we waited for him there. After some time when they were there we heard
them on the radio that they found him, they told us at Ramkraal, then we went
to that point together with Cronje and took him to the place called Cellar. That
is where we hit him with hammers and crowbars.
ADV MEMANI: Now was he able to recognise you at that stage?
MR NGO: He was not able to see us on the face but we had balaclavas on.
ADV MEMANI: Did he according to your knowledge become aware of your
identity before you applied for amnesty?
MR NGO: He was not able to identify us because we had balaclavas on the
face and it was night and it was dark where we were assaulting him. We
pressed him on the ground and at Bloemspruit and hit him there, then we left
him there.
ADV MEMANI: And why was he beaten up at that stage?
MR NGO: We were pressing him against the floor and he was trying to fight
back but every time we would win him and hit him. As we were busy
assaulting him he managed to run away and he fell on the ground. It wasn't
quite a distance, he fell and then we just left him there.
ADV MEMANI: Why didn't you for instance shoot him or kill him at that
stage?
ADV MEMANI: We were not told to kill him, it was part of harassment just
to harass him. If we were given an instruction to kill him we would have shot
him dead without any use of hammers, we were told just to assault him and we
used hammers. We were told to kidnap him, assault him.
ADV MEMANI: Now what did he do after you beat him up and he ran away?
MR NGO: We also ran and we took the car and we drove off. we do not
know what happened to him thereafter.
ADV MEMANI: Now you told us earlier on that the persons that were
involved were yourself, Ditsametsi, Mamome, Ntyala and Cronje. Did all of
these persons actively participate in the beating up of Mr Mohapi.
MR NGO: The white man Cronje was left behind in the car.
JUDGE WILSON: Did the rest of you participate?
MR NGO: Yes.
ADV MEMANI: And how far away in the car was Cronje?
MR NGO: It could have been towards the end of the hall I think. We were
actually driving in two cars, he was taking care of the cars.
JUDGE WILSON: Twenty, twenty five paces?
ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. And was he at all times aware of the
plan to assault Mr Mohape.
MR NGO: Yes we left our place knowing that we have to assault him and we
communicated with the radios and we followed them and they could see that
we were following him. They actually signed, they showed us a sign so that we
could follow them and we did.
MR NGO: Now what was the rank of Ditsametsi at the time?
Let's start with yours, what was your rank at the time?
MR NGO: I was a constable.
ADV MEMANI: And what was Ditsametsi's rank?
MR NGO: He was a warrant officer.
ADV MEMANI: And what was Mamome's rank?
MR NGO: He was a sergeant.
ADV MEMANI: And Ntyala?
MR NGO: He was a constable.
ADV MEMANI: Cronje.
MR NGO: He was also a warrant officer.
ADV MEMANI: Was any of these persons acting in a supervisory capacity of
one kind or another over you at that time?
MR NGO: They came with White to us but we were not told who was
supervising, but we knew that the warrant officer was the most senior person
and we would take instructions from him if it was necessary. But the fact of
the matter is they came Ditsomai and we followed them and we assaulted him.
The person who took care of the car was Cronje but the rest participated in the
assault.
ADV MEMANI: At the time when you were instructed to abduct or assist in
the abduction of Mr Mohape and during the assault of Mohape, did you regard
yourself as being a person acting in his capacity as a policeman.
MR NGO: It was our duty as the Security Branch members to kidnap people,
and if someone was troublesome with us we knew that we had to harass him.
We took it as a normal duty because we were involved in such activities.
ADV MEMANI: Did you report to anyone about the incident after you had
finished dealing with Mr Mohape?
MR NGO: Mamume and them went to Coetzee to report that we found our
target and he was assaulted. I didn't personally stand up and say I did the job,
we have done the job.
ADV MEMANI: Were you present when Mamume reported?
MR NGO: Every day when we attended the parade we were together and it
was our responsibility to report about the deeds of the previous night. I was
present when the report was taken forward.
ADV MEMANI: Is it your evidence that Mamume reported at the parade the
following morning in your presence?
MR NGO: Together with Ditsametsi, because they did indicate that they got
hold of him and he was assaulted.
JUDGE NGOEPE: They reported at the parade, during the parade?
MR NGO: They told Colonel Coetzee at the office. The parade field was not
big. We called it a parade because we had to report there every time and it was
our parade because we reported in four-four and there were other offices in that
building where the members of the Special Branch were conducting their duty.
Now we also had this other office.
JUDGE NGOEPE: It was in the office?
MR NGO: Yes it was in the office.
ADV MEMANI: Did you get any special reward for doing that?
MR NGO: We were not rewarded, it was part of our duty. When we
kidnapped people we were not rewarded at all, it was the harassment that we
had to do on such people.
ADV MEMANI: Now that concludes the application in respect of the kidnap
of White Mohape.
JUDGE WILSON: I think the time has come for us to adjourn, it is now 5
o'clock. We'll adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
1
M N NGO
BLOEMFONTEIN HEARING AMNESTY/FREESTATE
37 MN NGO
BLOEMFONTEIN HEARING AMNESTY/FREESTATE