Amnesty Hearings

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman the next matter is the matter that was supposed to be number one on the Monday roll, Ngo's matter.

JUDGE WILSON: What is the position with that now?

MR MPSHE: The matter is going on, the advocate is coming with the client. He is represented.

Thank you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, before we commence with the applicant's evidence I want to draw the Committee's attention to the attached statement by the applicant, starting on page 5 thereof.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe this matter was due to start yesterday morning as matter number 1. The reason why we couldn't start was because there was nobody representing the applicant. But now we've got Advocate Nemane, I don't know why this - when did Advocate Nemane get instructions, could you please tell us?

MR MPSHE: Advocate Nemane got instructions this morning. But initially when I contacted the Legal Aid Board I spoke to one of their personnel a Mrs Nortje, she said to me Mr Mthembu, who was now present in the former matter, Mr Mthembu has been instructed to represent the applicant. And when I conveyed this to Mr Mthembu yesterday Mr Mthembu said no he does not know of such an instruction, he has not been given an instruction. And I took it up again with Mrs

Nortje here in Bloemfontein who then apologised to me and said she thought that Mr Mthembu was given the instruction but it has transpired that the instruction is still on her desk in the office. It has not been given to Mr Mthembu. And I said to her Advocate Nemane is available to assist, and she said to me Advocate Nemane is briefing another matter that is why he is here, he is here on another Legal Aid matter. But if he is available they can arrange that he take the matter. Then she gave the instruction to him to take the matter. And I immediately thereafter gave him all the application and all relevant documents and he has consulted with the client this morning.

JUDGE WILSON: When was the Legal Aid Board informed of the necessity for legal aid to be granted to the applicant?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman the Legal Aid Board, if my memory serves me well, was informed a week or two weeks ago. Now the procedure that was followed is that Mr Machaka takes the application forms and refers them to the nodal point, that is in Durban, and our nodal point in Durban is Advocate (...indistinct) who then wrote out the certificate as required in terms of the Legal Aid Board agreement with the TRC and processed this to Bloemfontein and then Bloemfontein Legal Aid Board appoints lawyers to come and appear.

JUDGE WILSON: Well I think we should make every attempt to give more notice so that proper arrangements can be made. It is grossly unfair to counsel and attorneys that they should be asked at the last moment to undertake something which may be inconvenient to them, and also I think the Legal Aid Board should have more than a week to process things. I request that the various hearings we are going to have in the next few months we endeavour to make sure that

proper notice is given. Thank you.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I do recall that Mr Mpshe spoke to somebody at the office last week in Cape Town about this particular matter and I requested that the office of the State attorney be contacted with regard to this particular applicant because it seems to me he's saying that - I mean he was a policeman isn't it?

MR MPSHE: Yes.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And then he actually says that when he did this he did this on the orders, whether that was true or not is something that we are still going to decide upon, but he said he was a member of the South African Police and he said that he did that on the orders of the police, and I suggested that this applicant would seem to be entitled to the services of a State attorney, and I mentioned that point deliberately because we are being criticised by some of the people, or rather questions have been directed to us with regard to the quality, and I am not saying that any other type of representation would not be of adequate quality but, queries have been directed to us with regard to the type of legal representation that is being enjoyed by certain people while other people are not entitled to it. And I specifically requested that in order to avoid that kind of criticism this particular, because he was a police office, a policeman, must also be represented by the State attorney, or at least enquiries be made as to whether or not he too should not be represented by the State attorney. It seems to me that course was not followed.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I must state that I was not aware of that directive. Up till now I am hearing it for the first time.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I am very uncomfortable about the fact that this particular applicant, there have been a number of applicants who were former policemen, who appeared before us who were, because of the nature of their work, were entitled to the services of the offices of the State attorney, and they did get such services, but this particular applicant is not getting such services. And I don't know whether or not the office of the State attorney would have agreed to represent him, I don't know, but I am just uncomfortable that such an enquiry had not been made.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Wapenaar, sorry to interrupt you, but Nyou've been (...indistinct) State attorney, what would the policy be, would he be entitled to be represented by the State?

MR WAPENAAR: Mr Chairman, ja, under normal circumstances that would have been the position, but as far as I know the Minister of Justice has issued a directive that because the State attorney is the lawyers for the Truth Commission that there may be a clash of interest situation for the State attorney when representing individuals at any proceedings of the Truth Commission, and therefore it was decided that private practitioners should represent people like the present applicant as well.

ADV DE JAGER: What about the (...indistinct)(speaker's mike not on) ... would the representatives be paid on a Legal Aid basis or on a basis of being instructed by private attorneys?

MR WAPENAAR: A system has been introduced Mr Chairman whereby members or ex members of the security forces may apply via their previous or present departments for assistance at State expense. So the present applicant he

can contact Police Head Office in Pretoria, I will give him the particulars at a later stage, the specific people, and he can then apply via that office for legal assistance at the expense of the Department of Police. It can be done. JUDGE WILSON: Mr Ngo have you heard what has been said?

MR NGO: Yes I did hear that.

JUDGE WILSON: Now you have now got Legal Aid assistance, you have got an advocate appearing for you, you can continue with that or if you would prefer to make application through the Department of Police for an attorney to be appointed at their expense we can adjourn to allow you to do so, which would you prefer?

MR NGO: As I am already here, I think we can continue with the matter because I already have an advocate. I do not know if the Committee would take how long to get me an attorney to represent me.

JUDGE WILSON: I am afraid I can't give you any undertaking as to that. Very well we will continue. But I trust that what my brother has said is noted and that in all future cases involving policeman, whatever rank they may that they be informed that they can apply through the address that we must have and supply them with in Pretoria so that should be done as soon as applications are received from policemen.

MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: One further item before we start is I have prepared a list, very quickly, I do not rely on it all which I referred to yesterday, where I have the names of 15 policemen who are mentioned. I am not including the two brothers of the applicant, they presumably have knowledge of what's going on, but I'm told that six policemen I think are being represented, eight or nine....

MR VISSER: There were nine, we are now representing eight Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. Have all the policemen, all the persons named been informed? Because from the statement annexed to his application he names numerous policemen. Have they been informed? Sorry if - your machine is being attended to at the moment, can I ask Mr Visser, Colonel Coetzee which one is that?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman some of our people have not been informed but we will waive insistence on being formally notified ....(break in transmission)

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know which Colonel Coetzee it is?

MR VISSER: Yes. We are in fact representing him. He didn't receive, but he's here, and he's going to be a key witness.

JUDGE WILSON: He's not the gentleman we've heard of before?

MR VISSER: I don't know which gentleman you heard of before.

JUDGE WILSON: Your attorney is indicating fairly clearly....

MR VISSER: No it's not that one Mr Chairman. But Mr Chairman may I say that as far as we are concerned we are not insisting on formal notification.

JUDGE WILSON: No.

MR VISSER: Clearly once we've got notice we've got notice. But there are, we were given to understand that the matters which emanated, or which were perpetrated in the Transvaal would not form part of the present hearing. I'm not sure how that sits with the Committee to do this piecemeal. If you wanted to do this all in one go then clearly Mr Chairman we can't continue, because Loots for example was an applicant in an amnesty application before you and we are not privy to their applications, but we are fairly certain that he made no application in regard to the allegations which are now made by the present applicant. So he would certainly have to be informed. And then there are a number of other persons as well which we believe may not have been informed although Mr Mpshe may be able to inform you more pertinently. Mr Chairman we are here basically to deal with the Venter issue. We can, also, deal with the other incidents which were perpetrated in the Free State to some extent, probably completely, but we are certainly not here to deal with the Transvaal matters, and none of those persons implicated in the Transvaal, in regard to those incidents, are our clients.

JUDGE WILSON: This is on page 6, Mamelodi?

MR VISSER: That is so Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: What is this about part of it being heard somewhere else Mr Mpshe?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, as I indicated at the beginning that I want to take the Committee through the attached statement of the applicant was definitely going to deal with what Mr Visser has dealt with. May I be allowed to deal with that, and then I will respond to the issues as I come to them please. I am going to start on page 5 of the statement.

Mr Chairman under paragraph A, the during 1986 Bloemfontein, there are matters that appear in this application, matters that are of non-gross human rights violation.

INTERPRETER: The Interpreters do not have copies of the documentation.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman on page 5 of the statement....

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, I thought I heard on the machine somebody saying I do not have copies of the documentation.

INTERPRETER: It's the Interpreters, and should Mr Mpshe read rather rapidly then it will not be possible to follow. We only have the application, not the statement.

MR MPSHE: I will endeavour to take them along.

JUDGE WILSON: It should be attached to the application, isn't it?

MR MPSHE: Paragraph B Mr Chairman, that is the matter of the burning of ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe could you kindly hand my copy, I will see whether I could share with my colleague ...(intervention)

MR MPSHE: I am indebted to you Sir, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Ja, page 5.

MR MPSHE: Page 5 Mr Chairman, paragraph B. In that matter Mr Chairman notification has not been done.

JUDGE WILSON: Where's paragraph B on page 5? Stuck in the side, you can't see it.

MR MPSHE: Starting with "on instructions of Colonel Coetzee". Are we on the same page Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Right.

MR MPSHE: And paragraph C as well.

JUDGE WILSON: What about paragraph B?

MR MPSHE: Paragraph B Mr Chairman notification has not been done, because this matter, the matter is going to be dealt with in chambers, it is of a non-gross violation Mr Chairman. I am trying to take the Committee through inasfar as notification is concerned. May I proceed Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR MPSHE: And paragraph C as well.

JUDGE WILSON: I have some difficulty with this, saying it's no going to be proceeded with, it can be proceeded with in chambers as a non-gross violation when the same persons are named who were named on other charges, who as I understand are denying most of them and would want to cross-examine and deny these as well.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman it will not debar the legal representatives of the implicated persons Mr Chairman. If the Chairman will bear with me, the affidavits filed by the lawyer for the implicated persons, they address all these issues as contained in the statement of the applicant. They have been addressed in the form of affidavits Mr Chairman, and again Mr Chairman, if the lawyers for the implicated persons are of the opinion that they would like to cross-examine the applicant on this they are free to do that because he is available, but they have addressed this in the affidavits already.

JUDGE WILSON: So he will be available for questioning and they can lead evidence on this, so it's not - you are not going to lead evidence, or demand that he lead evidence on these B, C and which other?

MR MPSHE: Certainly Mr Chairman they have that route available to them.

JUDGE WILSON: We'll hear Mr Visser later. Just tell us all the ones, what other ones are there that you say should be followed?

MR MPSHE: Paragraph D Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Paragraph D?

MR MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman. Inasfar as paragraph C is

concerned Mr Chairman, this is a human rights gross violation Mr Chairman, but the person here, the deceased or even the next of kin have not been informed. I issued an instruction Mr Chairman when I read this statement to the Investigative Unit member, Mr Pilato, to try and obtain at least the inquest report in this matter. He has filed a report with me. He has been to the Batho Police Station, as he has told me as per report, he has been to the magistrate's court to get to see if he cannot trace the inquest, but the problem which he says he has encountered in this regard is that the full names of the deceased are not known.

JUDGE WILSON: Is this paragraph E?

MR MPSHE: C Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: C.

MR MPSHE: C, D, E - I am sorry.

JUDGE WILSON: E, yes.

MR MPSHE: E Mr Chairman, a person was killed there. Neither could the applicant Mr Chairman provide us with the full particulars of the deceased save that name Phapi, and it was difficult for the Investigative Unit to trace even the inquest docket, even the inquest record Mr Chairman. So no notification has been done for those reasons. The Investigative Unit has informed me that the applicant himself cannot even remember where Phapi stayed. So it becomes difficult for us if we do not have that type of information.

Then I move Mr Chairman, still on page 6 under B, "during 1987, 1988 in Mamelodi"....

JUDGE WILSON: Which one is this now?

MR MPSHE: I'm still on page 6.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, yes.

MR MPSHE: Under paragraph B Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Well where? Read me the first few words.

MR MPSHE: "Within a period of three weeks....."

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, yes.

MR MPSHE: Starting with that Mr Chairman. Now that paragraph, including the very following paragraph, that is non-human rights violation action Mr Chairman, it is the bombing of houses in Mamelodi, as indicated by Mr Visser.

Paragraph B Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Paragraph B yes, "While driving through Mamelodi..."

MR MPSHE: "While driving through Mamelodi..." there we had a problem again Mr Chairman inasfar as Fikile is concerned because Fikile was abducted, shot at in Mamelodi, but was not killed, but the particulars, the full particulars of Fikile could not come forth even from the applicant himself Mr Chairman, save making use of the name Fikile.

Mr Chairman the Investigative Unit member Mr Pilato of the Durban office had referred this to the Johannesburg office to see if anything can be done in tracing this Fikile who was shot at in Mamelodi, but up to this moment no report has been provided.

JUDGE WILSON: Has the clinic got no record of him?

MR MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman as I indicated this matter was now referred by Durban to the Johannesburg Investigative Unit and nothing has come out of it up to now.

JUDGE WILSON: When was it referred?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman the Investigative Unit member was here, I got this report from him this morning that this is what he had done Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Well what is the point of leaving things to the last moment to get reports on the day after the hearing is supposed to have commenced. Isn't notifying victims one of the first things that's done when applications are received?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman that is one of the first things that is done when the application is to be heard Mr Chairman, but as I have indicated this was done for hearing purposes, but as I've indicated again the matter was investigated first by the Durban Investigative Unit in whose jurisdiction Bloemfontein falls, now because of this issue that this man was shot at in Mamelodi the Durban Investigative Unit referred the matter to the Johannesburg Investigative Unit in whose jurisdiction the matter falls, and that is where the buck stopped Mr Chairman. Otherwise Mr Chairman in the other victims the victims are available in herein with us today and the matter can be proceeded with. Yes Mr Chairman Mr Visser says victims, I say the victims in the true sense of victims. Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: If you are talking of victims there you mean people who were injured.

MR MPSHE: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Visser have you got anything to say about this suggestion?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I am in the hands of my learned friend. Clearly if he can't continue for whatever reason I can't compel him to do so. Perhaps we should just kick off and see how it goes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well.

MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, then I hand over to my learned friend. Thank you.

MR NEMANE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now Mr Chairman I must point out from the outset, due to time limitations we are prepared to proceed only as far as the Venter killing is concerned. We are not prepared on the other matters that were subsequently confessed to by the applicant.

JUDGE WILSON: Are these incidents so completely separable that one can hear one on its own and then hear the other?

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman that is indeed so. The Venter murder consists an entity on its own. The Venter murder constitutes an entity on its own, whereas the rest of the activities were separate and took place on separate occasions. I propose that we proceed on the Venter killing this afternoon and that we proceed with the rest of the incidents tomorrow morning.

JUDGE WILSON: I am sorry I thought you meant we would proceed with the rest of the incidents on another occasion. You mean we are going to deal with all of them but we will deal with them in portions. Very well carry on, on that basis.

MR NEMANE: I am indebted to you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: I take it that that means you would prefer not to sit too late so you have a chance to consult further?

MR NEMANE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.

MPEZELE NELSON NGO: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR NEMANE: Now Mr Ngo is it correct that principally you are applying for amnesty in respect of murder, robbery, possession of a firearm and ammunition that forms the subject matter of an incident that took place at Mr Venter's house?

MR NGO: (...indistinct)

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly formulate what you are asking amnesty for, because if we give amnesty we can't grant amnesty for some general offence, we should say exactly what it is because otherwise the offence can't be identified. So give us the date, the place and what all the aspects you are asking for.

MR NEMANE: Now Mr Chairman the applicant has been convicted of murder, robbery, possession of the firearm and ammunition.

ADV DE JAGER: Is that page 1 and 2 of the indictment?

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Not the indictment no, of the police papers, page B. These are these offences you are talking about.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman those are the offences I'm talking about.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman on paragraph C there's a whole indictment listing them out clearly.

JUDGE WILSON: Paragraph where?

MR MPSHE: C of the bundle.

JUDGE WILSON: That gives the dates and everything else we need.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR NEMANE: As the Chairman pleases. Now Mr Ngo, can you tell Mr Chairman how you became involved in the killing of Mr Venter?

MR NGO: I was based in Mamelodi. While I was still on duty I received a message from Major Jordaan that I must report to Captain Loots at Compol Building in Pretoria. I went there as directed. When I arrived at Captain Loots he said to me I must go to Bloemfontein. Then on arrival in Bloemfontein I must report to Colonel Coetzee. The

following day I was in the company of Hendrik Bokaba. We took a Ford Sierra car to Bloemfontein. When I arrived in Bloemfontein he dropped me off at the City Branch offices here at Fountain Street in Bloemfontein.

When I arrived there I met Colonel Coetzee to whom I reported. As I was deliberating with him there were two officers who came in, Mr Erasmus and Mr Shaw. Colonel Coetzee told me that I am here to carry out an operation. He took out a photo written "P D Venter". It was written with a marking pen. I did observe that this photo was that of Mr P D Venter that I knew. He stayed at Universitas. And Mr Erasmus took me to his place when I was attacked by (...indistinct) students when I was still at school, I took refuge there. He told me this is the person that we must deal with. The reasons he gave me were that Mr P D Venter is not like before, he does not cooperate with him, he doesn't want to give information to the police. He didn't report about the strikes that took place in 1989. He did take two months salary that was given to them as he was the informer.

From there he ordered Adjutant Ramaswewu to take me to the police station in Botshabelo Barracks. That is where I stayed. At that Barracks police station I slept there. In the morning arrived Lieutenant Shaw and Adjutant Ramaswewu. On their arrival they took me from Botshabelo, then we went to Mr Venter's place. The aim of going to Mr Venter's place at Universitas was to observe the situation whether the operation that I was going to carry out would be suitable under such conditions that would prevail at that place. After being satisfied of the conditions at Mr Venter's place we left. Together we went to the Security Branch offices. On our arrival there we stayed a while. Before we left the police station they said we must go to Hamilton shooting range where Lieutenant Shaw explained to me how to carry out this operation concerning Mr Venter. He explained to me that - he said to me I must shoot at Mr Venter, however, it must look as if he was robbed. And he did tell me that I must take a firearm, the 7.65 type, which I will use. Then he took my patrol Beretta, my pistol, then he gave me this 7.65 pistol that I was going to use for this operation.

From there he gave me Old Mutual forms and gloves and two hangers. The reason being he said to me I must go to Mr Venter and make as if I've got a problem concerning the forms to renovate the house when I arrived at Mr Venter's place so that he can allow me to get into the house and talk to him.

From there they took me back to Batho police station where I stayed until seven o'clock. At seven o'clock Adjutant Ramaswewu arrived in the company of Sergeant Mamume. Then we all left to Mr Venter's place. We parked just behind Mr Venter's house along the freeway, the N1 freeway. Then I rounded behind the houses towards Mr Venter's street. Then I knocked at Mr Venter's house. Then he opened the door for me. Afterwards I told him that I am here so that he can help me fill in these Old Mutual forms. He invited me in and wanted to know what the problem was with these forms. Afterwards we went together into the sitting room.

I took out the forms whilst talking to him. As he was looking through the forms trying to get my problem I opened the briefcase and pulled out the firearm. Whilst he was reading these forms I shot him on the forehead with this

firearm. As he fell down I took the watch from his wrist then went out the door and then I ran towards the car that was waiting for me along the highway where Sergeant Mamume and Adjutant Ramaswewu were waiting for me.

On arrival at them I told Adjutant Ramaswewu and Sergeant Mamume that I have shot Mr Venter and I have killed him. Adjutant Ramaswewu said myself and Sergeant Mamume you must go back and remove Mr Venter's corpse from that place. We jumped the fence and went into the house through the back door, into Mr Venter's house. Then we wrapped his corpse with the carpet where he fell. From there we went out and I took a shovel, I took a spade and we handed the corpse to Adjutant Ramaswewu over the fence.

From there I drove this car. We drove this car on a gravel road to Kwaggafontein. On arrival there we took the road that went to the Municipal land around there. We stopped when we arrived at that place and myself and Adjutant and Sergeant Mamume, we took the corpse from the car. We ditched it in a donga that was dug there in that Municipal area then we covered the corpse. After covering it we drove back together with Adjutant Ramaswewu and Sergeant Mamume to Mr Venter's house. On arrival Sergeant Mamume said we must take Mr Venter's car and park it at the Stolen Vehicles Unit. We took the car with Adjutant Mamume and drove it to Botshabelo and we left behind Adjutant Ramaswewu here in Bloemfontein. On arrival we parked the car amongst these stolen vehicles in Botshabelo. From there we went to report at the Security Branch offices to Adjutant Banjani, and Adjutant Mamume said we have brought the car, it is outside. Did he arrange as we have talked together about the car? Then Adjutant Banjani agreed and said we can leave.

We took a Datsun made car, a 4X4, drove to S Section in Botshabelo to a certain house. We found two people there. It was Zachariah and Ben Ramarukane. Then Adjutant Banjani introduced us to these people, they are his informers, they pass information to him, and they work for National Hospital.

He ordered them to accompany us to Bloemfontein and assist us to confiscate some clothing of askaris who were going to work with us. From there he told them that the rest they will get from us pertaining to the arrangements. We took Adjutant Banjani to the offices in Botshabelo and left him there. We left together with these two people.

On arrival in Bloemfontein I told Sergeant Mamume that we are going to take out an operation in the afternoon, we must take Ramarukane and Getsi and leave them at my brother's place at one plot in this area. When we arrived at this plot we met Zachariah and John, my brother who was visiting him. We told them that we are going to leave these people here, we will come for them in the afternoon.

We left them and I was in the company of Sergeant Mamume when we left, and then we went where we hid Mr Venter's corpse in this Municipal area. We just wanted to see if the place was well covered. We found the corpse not well covered and Sergeant Mamume said we must weed some grass and cover it so that it is not visible.

From there we left for Rocklands location. At Takolikwala where we were going to fetch Adjutant Ramaswewu at his place at Takolikwala in Rocklands location. We took Adjutant Ramulahwana and we went to Stalsweg where Mr Coetzee stayed at Welgehof. We found Mr Coetzee with

Lieutenant Shaw and Adjutant Ramaswewu, not Ramulahwana, explained that we did carry out the operation. As we sat there explaining about the operation we carried out Shaw recorded all he said, the report he was giving. Major Coetzee said he was satisfied with what we did, however, he is not satisfied because what we were supposed to do was to remove all the evidence so that the act we did should be like housebreaking because it must not be known that it was a security policeman who did that. Lieutenant Shaw and Adjutant Mamume we will do as directed.

As we left that place we took Adjutant Ramulahwana back to his place and we drove around the location. We went to Kwaggafontein at 12 o'clock. When we reached Kwaggafontein at 12 o'clock it was during the night, we met John and Ari and Getsi together with Ben. From there we all left. The reason for taking them with was, as I said, to Sergeant Mamume that we must take Ari so that he can assist us there. We went to Mr Venter's grave. On arrival we stopped and Sergeant Mamume was left behind with Ben and Getsi in the car. Myself and John went to this place where we hid Mr Venter's corpse. The reason for Sergeant Mamume to stay behind was that these two people must not see what was taking place. Then I asked Ari and John to get a spade, I asked them to start digging next to Mr Venter's grave. After they have done that I said to them they must take Mr Venter's corpse and put it in that hole that we have just dug. They asked me what's the corpse all about. I said to them these are people who have been killed in accidents and things like that, and then we, the police officials, if the next of kin does not come and collect them we come and collect the corpses and bury them in this Municipal area and we have the right to do so.

From there we left back to Mr Venter's place, together with these people who were accompanying us. On arrival at Mr Venter's place we entered the house and I opened the gate so that the Sergeant Mamume should put the car in the garage, where we took the chairs where Mr Venter was sitting and put them in the car. And then we took them to Botshabelo. We left them at S Section where we found Ben. We came back and took some more, the dressing table and a headboard at Mr Venter's place and some clothing. Then we said he must take that clothing.

From there we went to Kwaggafontein where we collected Ari and John. On arrival I took an FM radio and I gave it to John Ngo. And Sergeant Mamume took the clothing and said Ari must take all this clothing. Then he gave them both R50,00 notes, each one of them a R50,00 bank note. And we all left and took the rest of the assets in the car to Botshabelo.

When we arrived at Botshabelo we dropped all these assets at S Section in Botshabelo. Sergeant Mamume opened the drawer and took the jewellery he found within this drawer. I took one of the rings and he asked the others what they wanted. They said they wanted the TV set and they wanted to use it at work. He took it and gave it to them and he gave them both R50,00 bank notes. Then we came back to Bloemfontein where Sergeant Mamume left me at the Batho police station where I can sleep and relax.

The following day Sergeant Mamume and Sergeant Ramaswewu came to Batho police station. Then we reported to Colonel Coetzee. After reporting to Colonel Coetzee he said he was satisfied with the operation we carried out. Then he gave me my 9mm Beretta pistol and said I must take the firearm that I used for the operation and give it to Adjutant Banjani at Botshabelo or give the numbers to Ben at S Section. And he gave me R500,00 cash. Then he gave me five days to go and relax.

I took one of my fiancé who stayed at Rocklands and we went to Botshabelo at G55 at my sister's place. The following day I took her back to Bloemfontein because she was to attend school. After she left she came back in the company of policemen from Murder and Robbery Unit. Mr Dion Pieterse, one of the policemen said to me he's arresting me for murder. I was arrested and locked here at the Batha police station. After they have talked they took me to Hamilton where I was arrested.

Then I attended the trial. At this trial Lieutenant Shaw and Colonel Coetzee visited me. They said to me I must not disclose anything concerning Mr Venter's murder. They will do everything and look after my family. I agreed to what they were saying to me.

After a time I notified Mr Coetzee that I have a problem, it seems as if this case won't go my way, and I intend escaping from jail. He said he will arrange that a person be sent to me who will assist me. They sent one policeman from the SAP who took me to Pelonomi Hospital. At this hospital he told me to escape and run away. I did manage to do so. After I had left Pelonomi Hospital's yard, on my way to the gate, there were some security policemen who knew that I was attending trial from Ramkurane(?). They sent for someone to arrest me and they took me back to prison. We went back to prison and on arrival the policemen explained that I tried to escape from hospital but however

I was arrested. From there the head of this prison said to me I will be charged at the police station.

On arrival Mr Coetzee said to me he will arrange that I escape again. He will tell head of the prisons that he has charged me, then I will be sent back to prison, so this record of attempted murder and this one of escaping from the hospital it still appears on my files at the hospital.

I stood trial and I did not disclose anything concerning the operation of the Security Branch. I did not admit the guilt of what I did. Then I was convicted and sentenced to the years that I did get at this trial.

MR NEMANE: Now Mr Ngo why did you not tell the truth at the trial?

MR NGO: It is because I was told to do so because if I revealed the truth I would have exposed all the operations done by the police and therefore the mess of the police would be exposed. I was instructed by the officers.

MR NEMANE: Is it correct that what you are saying is that senior officers advised you to conceal police complicity in your killing and robbing Mr Venter?

MR NGO: Yes. All these things that we were doing we did them such that the people should not see that it's the police who did them.

MR NEMANE: Now Mr Ngo, when did you first become involved working with the police?

MR NGO: I was a COSAS member and an executive member as a secretary. As we were going ahead with the duties of COSAS we were charged with public violence and we were arrested and kept at Fontein with Petrus Oliphant and Oupa Makubalo. As we were there we were beaten up by the police and they demanded to know why did we do all the things we did.

Lieutenant Shaw and Lieutenant Erasmus took me aside and they tried to talk to me and they showed me that this charge of public violence will land me into prison and should I land in prison I won't be able to further my studies, and the politics is not good for me. If I want them to drop the charges I must cooperate with them. Because I was afraid of going to prison I agreed. Since then I've been working with them as an informer. Until the students became aware of that and they attacked me due to the information that I gave them and they hid me at Mr Venter's house on one instance when the students attacked me.

MR NEMANE: Now you say that - I beg your pardon, you say that they hid you at Mr Venter's house, who hid you at Mr Venter's house?

MR NGO: It's Lieutenant Shaw and Lieutenant Erasmus with Adjutant Tswametsi, he is the one who took me to hospital after this attack by the students.

MR NEMANE: And what was the purpose of hiding you at Mr Venter's house?

MR NGO: They did not want these people to know where I was and it wouldn't be - I won't be able to go home, and Mr Venter was always providing the hiding for all the informers, so they kept me there for security reasons.

MR NEMANE: What was the relationship of Mr Venter with the police?

MR NGO: According to what they told me he was one of their informers and he used to assist them with giving people refuge whenever they needed it.

MR NEMANE: In your application you referred to him as a trade unionist, why do you refer to him as a trade unionist?

MR NGO: He was working at the South African Railways and

he was giving them all the information regarding the strikes at the Railway, giving all this information to Lieutenant Shaw.

MR NEMANE: Is it correct that if you had been misled about the nature of the relationship between Mr Venter and the Police you would not have been able to verify such?

MR NGO: I would not have verified such, I would have just explained as they told me, that is what they told me and I said what they told me.

MR NEMANE: At the time when you were given the instruction to go and carry out the operation involving Mr Venter, were you a member of the police force, a regular member, a member of the regular police force?

MR NGO: At that time yes I was a member of the police force. I shot a Mr Nyongwana in Rocklands and I had a case in Bloemfontein, Rocklands, and therefore they took me to Pretoria and they shielded that case and they told me that I would not be charged, but although I was arrested in the township. But I was just told I must go back to Pretoria and I won't be charged. They told me that I mustn't worry about that case, I must just safely go back to Pretoria. I was a member of the Police Force.

MR NEMANE: When you were given the order to go and kill Mr Venter, could you, according to standard Police practice, refuse to carry out that order?

MR NGO: In the Police force you cannot refuse to do any instructions given by a senior officer. You had to do as instructed and that's why I did that.

MR NEMANE: If you had refused to carry out the instruction what would have happened to you?

MR NGO: Normally the Security Branch is not like any other branch of the police, if you had to do everything and you refused they would take you as an odd element that betrays them and they might even kill you or anything that they have done to the other policemen who did not want to carry out the operations.

MR NEMANE: Now there has been a suggestion by Paul Erasmus that you had a homosexual relationship with the late Mr Venter, what is your comment?

MR NGO: It is a story that I told the Judge to try and cover the case, but as far as I know Mr Venter was not a homosexual.

MR NEMANE: Did you have any homosexual relationship with him?

MR NGO: No I am not a homosexual and I am not aware of him being a homosexual, but I did say that in the case and that was a lie.

MR NEMANE: Now there has been a suggestion that the police could not have used you at the time when you killed Mr Venter because at that time the public had already come to discover that you were cooperating with the police, what is your comment thereto?

MR NGO: There is no such, I was working with the police all the time. They knew well before that I came from the training college, they knew that I'm a policeman, why did they avoid using me if they knew that I was coming from the training college.

MR NEMANE: Now Mr Ngo you wish to apply for amnesty, is that correct?

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

MR NEMANE: And how do you feel about the death of Mr Venter?

MR NGO: I am very remorseful about what I did to Mr Venter. Moreover he is the one person who helped me and I seeked refuge in his house when the students wanted to attack me. But due to the information that they gave me I had to follow the instructions that I had to kill him otherwise I wouldn't have done that.

MR NEMANE: If Mr Venter's relatives were present here would you ask them for forgiveness for what you did to Mr Venter?

MR NGO: Yes I would.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEMANE

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: May it please you Mr Chairman. Mr Ngo when you completed your application form were you assisted by anybody who gave you advice, your application for amnesty?

MR NGO: I completed my application form for amnesty alone, however, I handed it to some officials at the prison to type it before they sent it to the Committee.

MR VISSER: Were you aware, when you completed your application form, that you had to make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts concerning the incidents for which you apply for amnesty, were you aware of that fact?

MR NGO: Yes I did know that.

MR VISSER: And did you in fact disclose all the relevant facts in your application form?

MR NGO: Those that I could recall I did disclose them.

MR VISSER: Yes. Well let's just look at your application form, page 2, 8B Mr Chairman. You didn't inform the Committee, in your application form, that you were an informer, did you, an informer of the South African Police before you joined the South African Police, you didn't say

that in your application form?

MR NGO: In my application form, does it show on my application form, there's a place where it shows on my application form.

MR VISSER: I am putting it to you that you didn't tell, you didn't insert in your application form the fact that you were an informer of the South African Police, do you agree with that?

MR NGO: I wrote there that I was a member of the SAP Security Branch because I got the form, according to my rank, they didn't say I must mention the capacity that I served in at the SAP Security Branch.

MR VISSER: Alright, well let's just leave that. Is it true that you became a police informer around 1983 while you were still at school?

MR NGO: It is so.

MR VISSER: Is it not true that you actually lived with Mr Venter long before 1986?

MR NGO: It is not true.

MR VISSER: You didn't live with him?

MR NGO: I did not live with him.

MR VISSER: I see. Were any of your possessions stored on the premises of Mr Venter at any time?

MR NGO: When I returned from the police training college I was at Pretoria where I didn't wear my police uniform. Some of my clothes that I didn't require I sent them to Mr Venter so that he can take them home.

MR VISSER: How did that come about, why did you send it to Mr Venter?

MR NGO: He was my contact to take messages at my mother's place.

MR VISSER: He was your contact to take messages to your mother's place?

MR NGO: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: Again, why did he do that for you? Wasn't it because you were good friends?

MR NGO: Yes I said that Mr Venter was the person who gave me refuge. You cannot seek refuge from a person who is not used to you. I got used to him when he gave my asylum, that is to say he's a person I understood him.

MR VISSER: You see the picture which you have tried to paint is that the police actually took you to Mr Venter when you were attacked by your fellow students, isn't that correct or am I wrong?

MR NGO: If you understand that I said I started to know Mr Venter when the police took me to his place. When I came back from Pretoria I took my luggage and took it to his place and the clothes which I was not using. In other words I went to training college after I have known Mr Venter. That is why after training I went back to Mr Venter and left my luggage there.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo let's try to make this easy. Did you know Mr Venter before the police took you to his home?

MR NGO: I did not know him, I knew him when I was taken there for asylum, that's where I got to know him.

MR VISSER: I see. Is it not true that at the time when Mr Venter was murdered you were in fact not stationed at Bloemfontein at all but at Mamelodi in Pretoria, that's where you were stationed?

MR NGO: Yes it is so.

MR VISSER: And is it your evidence that Captain Loots ordered you to come to Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: It is so.

MR VISSER: Was Captain Loots a member of the Security Police at the time?

MR NGO: Yes it is so.

MR VISSER: But you were not, you were not, I am putting it to you, you were not a member of the Security Police.

MR NGO: I was a member of the Security Police and I started to work with the Security Branch, you can even ask this - the citizens around Bloemfontein, they - ever since I was recruited I have been working with them.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, just answer this question, when you were working as a policeman in Pretoria, stationed at Mamelodi Section 19, were you a member of the Security Police? Why do you have difficulty answering such a simple question?

MR NGO: In my application form I stated clearly that I was stationed at Rosslyn Unit 19, it's a reaction unit that works directly with the Security Branch. I was based in Mamelodi.

MR VISSER: Alright. Let's step off this matter, are you maintaining that you were a member of the Security Police in Pretoria, while you were stationed in Pretoria?

MR NGO: Yes I was.

MR VISSER: You see to come back to Mr Venter, we have some extracts from a judgment by Judge Beckley, Mr Chairman I am not sure whether you have been provided with copies of that judgment, we only have some pages of it Mr Chairman, I want to put it to you ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Well I don't know (...indistinct)

MR VISSER: Yes it is a trial which ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Case no.175?

MR VISSER: Yes that we don't know Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: What page have you got?

MR VISSER: I am missing quite a few pages, I am missing pages 3 and 4 and ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: (...indistinct)(microphone not on...)

MR VISSER: And then my judgment runs to page 12 and then again I've got no further pages.

JUDGE WILSON: ...(microphone not on)

MR VISSER: "Later die dag as vervolg van verdere inligting..." is my page 5 Mr Chairman. Well Mr Chairman perhaps I can sort this out with my learned friend Mr Mpshe, he may have a judgment. We didn't receive anything from Mr Mpshe, this is what we have ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Wait a bit we have got another judgment, "Later die dag as ...."

MR VISSER: Yes, yes that is the one I am referring to, now Mr Chairman please do stop me if I put anything which is unfair to the witness because I do not have the full judgment before me, but my point that I want to put to you is this, is it not correct that at your criminal trial, together with your two brothers, each of you was represented by a separate advocate? That's a question to you Mr Ngo.

MR NGO: I said I didn't want legal representation. They were represented but I refused legal representation.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo were you not accused 1 at the trial before Judge Beckley who was the Judge who found you guilty and sentenced you, were you accused 1 in that trial?

MR NGO: Yes it is so.

MR VISSER: Were you not represented by Mr Williams, page 6, the middle paragraph?

MR NGO: The fact of the matter is that I conducted my own defence. However, he just - the role that he played there

was that he asked for mitigation of sentence.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo according to this document I have in front of me it appears that Mr Williams was described as "accused 1's counsel" and that he cross-examined on your behalf.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser we've also got a full judgment, ja, I think he was at one stage represented by Advocate Dafood and then Williams and there was - I think there was trouble about who should represent him and he refused to be represented if my recollection is correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I thank you for that information, we don't have that information unfortunately, but what - for purposes of the question which I want to put now I think I am going to leave out who the counsel was.

JUDGE WILSON: If you do get a copy of the full judgment this is at page 29 of the full judgment, the Judge deals there with the fact that Mr Williams gave notice, that after discussion with accused 1 he couldn't continue as his counsel. Accused 1 confirmed this and after Mr Williams was excused as pro deo counsel accused 1 indicated that he needed the services of another pro deo counsel. It was then the case was adjourned so another pro deo counsel could be obtained. On the adjourned date, the 12th of February, Mr Dafood appeared on behalf of accused 1. He told the Court that as a result of instructions he received on that date accused 1 was not willing to consult with him on the basis that he did not need the services of pro deo counsel, but chose to put his own defence. Accused 1 confirmed this, and after the position was explained to him, what the advantages of pro deo counsel was he persisted in his attitude that he wanted to conduct his own defence. At that stage it was

arranged that Mr Dafood would remain, not as pro deo counsel on behalf of accused 1, but the Court asked him to remain as amicus curiae.

MR VISSER: I am indebted to your Mr Chairman, and perhaps in view of what you have just read to me, I should leave this, the few questions on what transpired at the trial until such time as I've had an opportunity of studying exactly what happened there.

May I return to Mr Venter. Mr Ngo, I am informed by the police here in Bloemfontein, who were policemen at the time of Mr Venter's death, that he was never an informer nor did he ever have any political profile as far as the Security Branch was concerned, what do you say to that?

MR NGO: I will answer by saying that, what they told me that he was an informer and that he collaborates with them, then I can stay with him he would not sell me out. I took it that he was an informer as they told me, however, I cannot say he was an informer to me because I was told by Captain Erasmus that he was his informer. I don't know when he gave information and how, but I just knew that he was a railway worker.

MR VISSER: Yes. How often did you in fact stay on the premises of Mr Venter, once, twice, often, permanently?

MR NGO: I stayed there for 14 days at Mr Venter's place. From there I left his place and I stayed at a private nurse where they will extract the stitches.

MR VISSER: This 14 days, are you saying that that was after you were assaulted by your fellow students?

MR NGO: Yes, from there I was assaulted by fellow students until I was ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Until you were?

MR NGO: Until the stitches were to be extracted by this private nurse.

MR VISSER: And then you didn't go back to Mr Venter?

MR NGO: Then I did go back to him. Then I took my clothing and then I left for Ladybrand.

MR VISSER: Yes.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Visser can I just interrupt you on that point. You see it's not clear to me what your answer was to a question about when it was put to you that Mr Venter was not a police informant, what was your answer? Did you say that you assumed, you assumed he was an informer, or exactly what did you say?

MR NGO: The time when I was taken to his place Mr Erasmus told me that he's working together with Mr Venter and Mr Venter is his informer, that's what he told me.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Commissioner. Did Mr Venter allow you to use his motor car at any time?

MR NGO: Whilst I was still there, the time when I was still there, but after training when I came for my contacts, he used to lend me his car.

MR VISSER: Now you say when you were still there, was that during this 14 days that you were talking about, that he lent you his car?

MR NGO: No, the 14 days when I was there he didn't lend me his car, but after training, when he was my contact, he used to lend me his car.

MR VISSER: Yes. At that stage you didn't need any refuge did you, from Mr Venter, because you were now a policeman, you have been trained you were now a policeman, you didn't need any refuge from Mr Venter did you?

MR NGO: Yes I didn't need any protection, it was the person I know, I used to go to him.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes and you went back and you borrowed his car, not so, you were very friendly with him?

MR NGO: He was my contact person between myself and my parents because he was staying here, I was staying in Pretoria.

MR VISSER: Why don't you just want to answer the question, you were very friendly with him and he with you.

MR NGO: He was person who was honest with me.

MR VISSER: Alright. Do you know, are you aware of the fact - well let me ask this question first of all, was there a time, or were there times when Mr Venter lent you his car and you didn't return it, did that happen?

MR NGO: That is when I capsized with that car.

MR VISSER: So I take it your answer is yes, there were times that you failed to return the car to Mr Venter?

MR NGO: The time I didn't return the car it was when I capsized with the car.

MR VISSER: Yes, alright. Was there a time when you left for Pretoria and left the car at the railway station without telling Mr Venter?

MR NGO: No Sir.

MR VISSER: I see. Will it surprise you to know that Mr Venter at some point laid a charge of using a motor car without his permission against you, that you just took the car from him?

MR NGO: That charge was never brought to me so I didn't know about it, even up to now I don't know anything about it.

MR VISSER: Yes. I'll tell you why I am asking you these

questions Mr Ngo, because there is going to be evidence which is going to point to a very friendly relationship between you and Mr Venter, that's the first point. And the second point is, it appears that something must have gone wrong in your relationship with Mr Venter which led to his death, I am putting it to you.

MR NGO: Mr Venter was the person whom we were always together at all times and I loved him very much, even I told my seniors that it was difficult for me to kill him.

MR VISSER: Yes, you loved him very much, you see this is the point I am trying to make all along, thank you. You see ...(intervention)

MR NGO: With the reason I have already explained.

MR VISSER: Yes. You see Mr Ngo the policemen whom you implicate, Erasmus, Shaw and Ramaswewu and Mamume, all of those people deny the allegations which you make against them of their involvement in criminal activities or that they gave you instructions to perform criminal activities, they deny that.

MR NGO: If I was a policeman, if I was a captain or adjutant or one of the senior ranks and somebody junior who was at risk or in a problem and implicated me in these kind of issues I would deny because my future would be doomed. And again in Free State nobody has ever told people about what they have done in the past and even the police who were engaged in other atrocities. I am the one who did expose what the police did.

MR VISSER: You see Mr Ngo you were told to go and kill the man "you loved", in your own words, and the reason why you had to kill him appears to be that he was failing to provide information to the Security police about railway strikes and that he received money and that he wanted not to be a police informer any longer, am I fair to you, were those the reasons?

MR NGO: The most important thing is that I was a policeman and he was working with us at that time, as Mr Erasmus did say if he turned away not able to work with the police again and become an enemy of the police again, he is always - he turned against the police and therefore we had to assassinate him.

MR VISSER: So are you saying that the reason why he had to be assassinated was because he was going to become an enemy of the police, is that what you are now saying?

MR NGO: The first thing is if you sever your relationship with the police you are now an enemy of the police because you are no more giving us the information we need.

MR VISSER: But how does that make you an enemy Mr Ngo? You are not an informer any longer, you're a policeman, how does that make you - the fact that you ceased being an informer how does that make you an enemy of the police, necessarily?

MR NGO: If we use as an informer it's not because you severed the relationship with them but they did give him money and he had some information about strikes which he denied to give us information about, and because of the three reasons I was able to find out why I was given the instructions to kill this person. If you severed the relationship with this person then what about me, because he severed the relationship with those people he was working with all the time.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, yes, I don't quite understand your answer. On two occasions within the last five minutes you

told the Committee that Venter was working with "us", referring to whom? Who were the "us" that you referred to on two occasions?

MR NGO: For example if you have an informer who is giving information to the Security Branch, he doesn't only give information to the security of the person, he's always protecting the security of all the policemen who are in charge or who are present at that time or who were working at the Special Branch.

MR VISSER: Did he ever have to give you information Mr Ngo, I am talking about Mr Venter?

MR NGO: He was not my informer, he was informer to Mr Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Did you ever see him or hear him give information to any policeman, yourself? I am talking about Mr Venter?

MR NGO: Mr Erasmus was handling Mr Venter so I don't know what kind of informations they were collating at that time.

MR VISSER: On what factual ground are you saying that Erasmus was handling Venter, will you tell the Committee please? On what factual grounds are you saying that?

MR NGO: The first thing is he told me that he must protect me, he did protect me.

MR VISSER: Who told you?

MR NGO: Lieutenant Erasmus told Venter to protect, Mr Venter did protect me.

MR VISSER: Yes, incidentally that will be denied but please carry on, yes, and is there anything else?

MR NGO: Like what Sir?

MR VISSER: Well I don't know, you are saying that Mr Venter was an informer, we would like to know why do you say that, because the police say that's not so.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I think the question was on what factual basis do you say that Mr Venter was handled by Mr Erasmus, and then you started by saying "in the first place", that's why Mr Visser wanted some more information from you, he thought that you are still going to add some more facts. Because you started off by saying, "in the first place Venter was told to protect me and he did protect me".

MR NGO: That is the reason I was trying to explain that he was able to carry the instructions which were given by Lieutenant Erasmus that he must protect me, to give me proper protection, he did agree when he was told to protect me. So that is the reason why I was satisfied that he was an informer and he was working together with Lieutenant Erasmus.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Is that the only reason ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Because he protects someone who has been beaten up by a crowd of students, you think that means he is an informer?

MR NGO: I was told by Mr Erasmus that Venter is Mr Erasmus' informer, that is why - that is how I was able to get hold of that information that Mr Venter is an informer.

MR VISSER: Will you please tell us when Erasmus gave you this information, when was that?

MR NGO: Which information Sir?

MR VISSER: The information you have just told the Committee for the first time about, that Erasmus told you that Venter was his informer?

MR NEMANE OBJECTS: Objection Mr Chairman this is misleading - my learned friend is not being fair to the witness, the witness' evidence-in-chief was that he was

informed by Erasmus that Venter was an informer and that has been the theme throughout, it has not been new evidence before the Committee.

MR VISSER: I will withdraw that question or that statement Mr Chairman it's not that important. When did Erasmus tell you that Venter was an informer? What year was it?

MR NGO: That is the time when he took me to Mr Venter when I was assaulted by the students, then I was taken there for protection, that's when Mr Erasmus told me about Mr Venter to be an informer.

MR VISSER: What year was it?

MR NGO: I think it was in 1985.

MR VISSER: How old were you then?

MR NGO: I don't remember how old I was then.

MR VISSER: Well work it out please Mr Ngo, when were you born?

MR NGO: I was born in 1963.

MR VISSER: 22 years old, and you were still at school and you were then assaulted by your fellow students and you were taken to Mr Venter, and you were approximately 22 years old, would that be correct?

MR NGO: If your calculation is good therefore that's true.

MR VISSER: Okay, now you say in your application form, at page 3 Mr Chairman, under 9C(ii), you refer to the victim as Mr Venter and you say the occupation and address of the victim and as his occupation you say he's a "trade union member", Mr Venter, do you stick to that evidence today? That the occupation of Mr Venter was being a trade union member.

MR NGO: What I know is that he was involved in the worker's activities and that includes trade union.

MR VISSER: I didn't hear the last part, "and that..." what?

MR NGO: That includes trade union.

MR VISSER: Okay, of which trade union was he a member according to your personal knowledge?

MR NGO: I said he was in the trade union but I am not sure which kind of a union is that.

MR VISSER: But you are a policeman, were you aware of what trade unions were at large in - and operating in Bloemfontein at the time?

MR NGO: I know of South African Railway Workers Union, I am not sure as to whether Mr Venter belonged to that Union or not.

MR VISSER: I see. You see Mr Ngo you are the one who made the allegation, you made the allegation in writing saying that he was a trade union member, I know simply ask you of which trade union and you can't tell us.

MR NGO: That is why I didn't write the actual name of the trade union, if I knew I did, if it was Cosatu or whatever Union I would write it down but I know that he was in the worker's struggle at that time.

MR VISSER: How do you know that he was member of the trade union and not merely a employee of the South African Railway?

MR NGO: He was working at the Railways Sir.

MR VISSER: If you work at the Railways does that make you a member of the trade union automatically?

MR NGO: The information I got, or the impression I got is that Mr Venter was involved in the workers' struggle in the trains in - therefore I knew that if he took part in that struggle he was a member of a particular union.

MR VISSER: Alright. Now let's just, please would you define, for the members of the Committee what precisely Venter's part was in this struggle that you are talking about, what did he do?

MR NGO: I was not monitoring his political activity, I was not his monitor therefore I cannot tell anybody about what he did.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, he was your friend, you stayed there for a while, you borrowed his car, you "loved the man" in your own words, please don't tell us that. What was Venter doing that the police might have been interested in?

MR NGO: I don't know.

ADV DE JAGER: On what did you base your impression that he was involved in the struggle? Or on what information, or what information did you have that he was involved in the struggle?

MR NGO: I got the information from the information I got that he is involved in the workers' struggle and that he is informer to Mr Erasmus, as to whether he belonged to what organisations I don't know.

MR VISSER: So the answer to the question is your allegations of his activities in the struggle are based upon what Erasmus told you, is that the answer to the question?

MR NGO: I know that he was involved working with the Security Branch and he was an informant, but I don't know about his political activity or his Union activity.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes. Would you agree with me Mr Ngo that if indeed Mr Venter was an informant there would be no reason on earth why Erasmus would deny that fact, would you agree with that? Or could you think of a reason why Erasmus would deny that Venter was an informant if he in fact was,

as a policeman can you give a reason?

MR NGO: If a person is my informer, if I have no reason to give which it doesn't necessarily need from any person that I should tell that he's an informer, I cannot tell that.

MR VISSER: I am not sure I follow. Perhaps it's a matter for argument Mr Chairman. Now you see the matter now gets better when we come to paragraph 10 of page 3. You are now dealing as I ....(power interruption for +/- 10 mins.)

JUDGE MGOEPE: ... that you are reading to the applicant is in fact the application form that is before the Amnesty Committee, and if there is any other form somewhere else then I don't think that should really be a problem. I think we should proceed with the application that is before the Committee and the witness should be given that particular....

MR VISSER: I quite agree Mr Chairman.

MR NGO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Well can I clear something else up before. Was this bundle, where did you get this bundle of papers from?

MR NGO: After I have received a copy which is in Correctional Service that the Amnesty application is not complete I had to fill in another one, so I had to fill in a new application altogether.

JUDGE WILSON: The papers you now have did you get the whole bundle together or have you collected the bundle?

MR NGO: No those are the - the extra copy on top, the first copies are those which agree with the copies of the Truth Commission then I got that copy from the Truth Commission as a reference, and the last copy which I signed as my last application.

JUDGE WILSON: (...indistinct) just been handed to me. The top of the bundle is a letter from the Amnesty Committee dated the 6th of March.

MR NGO: Which told me that my form is incomplete therefore I've got to fill a new application form and then they photostatted those new forms and they returned them to me. Then there is a receipt ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: .....it says to you,

"Please take note that Mpezele Nelson Ngo has to appear in front of the Amnesty Committee through a hearing on the 24th of March".

that's what this says, it says nothing about anything being incomplete, the document on top that I'm talking to you about.

MR NGO: I am asking the Judge to look carefully that he should read those copies carefully and....

JUDGE WILSON: Where did you get this bundle of papers from, have you collected them and kept them, or did you get them all sent to you?

MR NGO: They sent them to - they sent them from the Truth Commission to me.

JUDGE WILSON: This whole bundle?

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe is that so, was a bundle sent to the applicant?

MR MPSHE: If I may have a look at it Mr Chairman I may be able to comment.

MR VISSER: To give you a running commentary Mr Chairman we've now discovered that the one form was signed in August last year, and the other one in March this year, we have to try and sort this out now Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I see there are quite a number of statements attached which statements could have been found from the police docket, which statements we don't have of witnesses who could have testified at the hearing. And number two, Mr Chairman, the letter is just informing him about the hearing, and the second letter as well, this comes from our office, and the third letter is what was contained in the documents which I gave to the advocate this morning. But I note Mr Chairman that the application that is in here is different - was signed on a different date as to the one that we are dealing with now. Now I don't understand Mr Chairman. But if the applicant has not completed the application form correctly the procedure is that we send it back to him with a letter that it be correctly filled out.

JUDGE WILSON: Well that's what he says was done.

MR MPSHE: So it means that this maybe one of these applications that was sent back to him, but what is surprising he signed this on the 7th of March 1997.

ADV DE JAGER: That's three weeks ago.

MR MPSHE: The suspicion, I am just - I am just thinking that he may have filled in another one at the Correctional Services and left it with the Correctional Services and thought that it was being posted to us. In the meantime we are working with the one that was signed in 1996.

JUDGE WILSON: Well I think Mr Visser if you have a look at the wording of that one it is also a little....

MR VISSER: I haven't seen it yet Mr Chairman, I haven't seen that one yet.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ngo could you perhaps inform us in the meantime when did your brother apply for amnesty?

MR NGO: It was after two months after I had applied, he applied.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman if I could come in there since this question was posed earlier on I wanted to come with it at an appropriate stage, I have a copy of a letter with me dated the 26th of February 1997 to our Executive Officer Mr Machaka requesting him to check as to whether the other two brothers Ari Ngo and John Ngo applied for amnesty. The response I am told verbally was that he called and he said this they have not applied. Can I hand over the letter seeking that information. If I may be told Mr Chairman with respect, as to how, is it the applicant who said his brother has applied?

JUDGE WILSON: But you ask him to go and find out from his brother whether they have applied, why don't we find from our own records whether they've applied? Kindly ask the applicant which prisons they are in and find out if they have applied or intend to do so, why don't we look at our own records to see if they've applied.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman a letter is directed to the Executive Secretary who then checks in our database which is confirmed by Bonita, the data capturer in Cape Town, Mr Chairman. That is the procedure, unfortunately Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: So our database hasn't told us that his brother has applied?

MR MPSHE: Mr Machaka Lungile has phoned back to say that the two brothers have not applied.

JUDGE WILSON: They have not applied.

MR MPSHE: They have not applied Mr Chairman and this was confirmed by Bonita, the data capturer.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well.

MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: If you want to look at this application before you continue.

MR VISSER: Yes. Mr Chairman may I just enquire, until what time would you like to proceed tonight?

JUDGE WILSON: Well counsel wants to go and talk to his client, so I said we would not sit too late. I will give you the thing now, you can look at it, and you can also get an opportunity to obtain the complete judgment.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Which I think you may want to look at before you ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Certainly, thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Well perhaps while we are still here I could just clarify, we now have this new application that you have produced which was signed in March of this year.

MR NGO: Yes it is so.

JUDGE WILSON: And we have an application signed on the 24th of August of last year, written by you, signed by you.

MR NGO: Yes I wrote that application and signed it after I got the information that the other one was incomplete and unacceptable.

JUDGE WILSON: Then why did you write another one in March, which you are now producing before us?

MR NGO: I made an application but in Correctional Services, in prison they told us that they want a comprehensive report about the events that took place about Mr Venter, and I had to furnish full details of Mr Venter's event and application.

JUDGE WILSON: Which I think you told us you got typed out in the prison for you, was it you who said that?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I have just discovered a letter that was addressed to the applicant in the working file, dated 26 February 1997.

JUDGE WILSON: What?

MR MPSHE: A letter.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR MPSHE: From our office to him dated the 26th of February 1997, may read the contents thereof Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR MPSHE: Thank you.

"Dear Sir

In connection with your application for amnesty kindly furnish us with the following information: In respect of which offences is amnesty applied for? That is, is it for offences you have been convicted of or for other acts committed by you but which you have not been convicted of?

We advise that unless you furnish us with complete and comprehensive details (not application) details within one month of receipt hereof amnesty in terms of the ..... Reconciliation be dealt with on paper before us as it appears.

There are hearings in Bloemfontein during the week of 24 - 27, it is of vital importance that you respond to us immediately so that we can decide whether we should enrol your matter for this forthcoming hearing".

The letter does not mention that the application form as supplied is incomplete, it simply says give us more information.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes. And then the letter was put away

somewhere and nobody took any notice of it and the matter was set down, is that the position?

MR MPSHE: The letter was sent Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, and what was the response to the letter?

MR MPSHE: I will check in the file again Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I do not find any response to this letter.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, when is that letter dated?

MR MPSHE: (...indistinct)

JUDGE MGOEPE: The application form that he subsequently completed, is it not supposed to be the response to the letter there.

MR MPSHE: (The speaker's mike is not on).... another application form, it only wants certain information pertaining to the application, that is for what - in respect of which offences he is asking for amnesty.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Ja you see you are dealing with lay people here and now I understand why he has been desperate to try to say that he did receive a letter from the Commission to say that something more was needed, all along he has been trying to (...indistinct)

MR MPSHE: That is why, that may be because of this letter that he filled up another application form which was not forwarded. Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: And did you prepare, as a result of that letter, you prepared this new application form and this new statement, the handwritten statement, is that so?

MR NGO: Yes I tried because I thought maybe they meant to say that they lost the first statement because the office they don't show you what happens to your statement thereafter or your application, therefore I resubmitted an

application.

JUDGE WILSON: With a new statement annexed to it, this one?

MR NGO: Yes, I thought there was a problem in the printing or an error, therefore I wrote the statement out with my hand.

JUDGE WILSON: Based on the typewritten statement.

MR NGO: Ja.

JUDGE WILSON: It reads very much the same. You wrote out from the typewritten statement, so we needn't look at that.

MR NGO: That's correct Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: I think that we should adjourn now and perhaps sort out this confusion. I gather there's also trouble with tapes at the moment. Rather than adjourn and let them get more tapes we will be adjourning very soon anyway and let us make - do you mind if we take this from you and make copies available now? Will you discuss it with Mr Visser about making them available?

MR NEMANE: As Mr Chairman pleases.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman we will have to know one thing, and I am sure you won't be able to give us the answer to it straight away, but we would have to know which is the application form we are dealing with here, either the one or the other or both.

JUDGE WILSON: If you look at the other one, it's very similar, it's different in wording, but the sense of the things are very much the same.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: You find the same feelings.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman may I enquire if I heard correctly the Chair saying we are adjourning, are we adjourning for

the day Mr Chair?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes. We are adjourning until 09H30 tomorrow morning. If you had listened at two o'clock you would have heard me say that we would adjourn fairly early because counsel has not had an opportunity of consulting with his clients.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman the position is that the adjourning in this matter would be in order, but there is another matter that is ready and the counsel is read Mr Chairman. I will abide by the Chair's decision.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mpshe they haven't got tapes for the other matter.

MR VISSER: If we have to proceed I could proceed Mr Chairman, I am really in your hands, I am just trying to be of assistance to my learned friend.

JUDGE WILSON: How long will the other matter take....(the Speaker's microphone is not on?

MR MPSHE: The Menera matter Mr Chairman, one applicant therein Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: How long will it take?

MR MPSHE: Estimation Mr Chairman one hour, thirty minutes. JUDGE WILSON: We will adjourn for the moment while they get tapes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MPEZELE NELSON NGO: (s.u.o.)

JUDGE WILSON: The application form is not before us, we have only got the original application form and I accordingly don't think it would be proper to introduce it or the statement annexed to it. I do think you can if you

want to, explore the one paragraph 10A which the witness himself introduced, but I do not think, subject to what

counsel has to say that we should now re-open - we should open up a whole new field with this application that was apparently prepared as a result of a letter he received but which is not one of the documents before us and I don't think we should make use of them.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman our reaction would be that we do agree with you with respect. The only issue is the one that we mentioned in chambers, if there is anything in those papers that are so contradictory so as to warrant your attention we will look at it tonight and we will draw your attention to it.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes then we can (...indistinct)

MR VISSER: But apart from that may we then take it that we are ignoring the new application, we are going on the original application?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, if he wants to discuss the wording of that one particular paragraph which he introduced I don't think there's a great deal, and on the other it would only be if there is a complete contradiction.

MR VISSER: A material discrepancy.

JUDGE WILSON: A material discrepancy, not just the changes you would expect. Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Now Mr Ngo do you have your original application form, the one that you wrote out in your handwriting in front of you?

MR NGO: Yes Sir I do have it.

MR VISSER: Could you please turn to page three.

MR NGO: Yes I've found that.

MR VISSER: For the sake of the typist I am going to read what the words in paragraph 10A say

"The total suppression or removal of the political activist and their liberation movement and the crushing of military wings of the organisations".

is that what you read there?

MR NGO: Yes that's exactly what I read.

MR VISSER: Is that what you wrote there?

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

MR VISSER: Referring to Mr Venter?

MR NGO: I was referring to the political objective that we were supposed to attain as a Security Police branch, that is our duties to remove political activists and liberation movements, but it was not based on Mr Venter. But if he was part of the people I've mentioned I would have done that. If he was disturbing our activities, our politics, I would have done my best to diminish his duties.

MR VISSER: Sorry Mr Ngo, may I perhaps try to make it easier. Was Mr Venter a political activist?

MR NGO: I would not say that he was an activist. All I know that he was a member of the workers' struggle. If he was involved with them then I take him as a political activist.

MR VISSER: So which is it now, was he or wasn't he a political activist in your book? You've now given two diametrically opposed answers. At first you said you don't think, you won't describe him as such and then you said he was.

MR NGO: I knew that he was informing about political activities, whether he was an activist himself I do not know. But I knew that he had some relationship with people

involved in politics, but if he was involved then I had to treat him like the rest.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Visser can I just interrupt, sorry to interrupt, now Mr Ngo, did you, by killing Mr Venter, hope to achieve any political objective? If your answer is yes, then what was that political objective that you sought to achieve?

MR NGO: What I wanted to achieve was if he did not want to cooperate and because he turned against us, I had to remove him as part of the police.

MR VISSER: And was that your personal view of the state of affairs, the answer you've just given was that your personal conviction?

MR NGO: What I understood is that if he was not cooperating with us I had to suppress and remove him.

MR VISSER: You see there's a difference and that was Judge Mgoepe's question to you, I think, the question is what did you want to achieve by eliminating Mr Venter and you gave an answer.

MR NGO: I was not killing him out of my personal interest, it was in the interest of the police, protecting the police against his duty....

MR VISSER: Are you saying that you yourself personally had no objective to achieve by eliminating Mr Venter, is that what you are saying or am I being unfair to you?

MR NGO: To make sure that our job was done at the end of the day I had to do what I did.

MR VISSER: Not because you were told to do it, but because you felt that's what you had to do?

MR NGO: I was following instructions. I had no political objectives, it was just following instructions.

MR VISSER: You had no political objective, alright. Mr Ngo, please tell the Committee, on your own knowledge was Mr Venter a participant in the liberation movement?

MR NGO: I never saw him participating I was just told that he is taking part.

MR VISSER: And who told you that, Erasmus or who?

MR NGO: It's Lieutenant Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Oh, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: That he was taking part in the liberation movement?

MR NGO: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: You've never mentioned this before, have you?

MR NGO: I was just responding to the question asked in the form as to what did I want to achieve.

JUDGE WILSON: The question you were just asked by counsel, as I understood it was, was Mr Venter taking part in the liberation movement.

MR NGO: He didn't take part in the liberation movement that I'm aware of.

MR VISSER: And did Erasmus tell you that he was taking part in such liberation movement?

MR NGO: He told me that he is a member of the workers' struggle.

MR VISSER: Why don't you just answer the question? The question is a simple one. Did Erasmus tell you that Venter was participating in the liberation movement?

MR NGO: Not in the liberation movement.

MR VISSER: Right. Was Venter a member of the military wing of an organisation?

MR NGO: No Sir.

MR VISSER: Did anybody tell you that he was?

MR NGO: Nobody ever told me that.

MR VISSER: So why is it here in paragraph 10A?

MR NEMANE: With due respect My Lord this is misleading, the applicant has stated that he was here describing the function of the Security Branch. He was not saying that the deceased was seen as an activist or a member of the military wing who had to be eliminated for that reason. And the question as phrased My Lord is not fair to the applicant.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ngo how long did you stay with Mr Venter, all in all?

MR NGO: I stayed 14 days in his house since I sustained injuries, and then the stitches were removed and then I was taken to Ladybrand where I was to study.

ADV DE JAGER: And afterwards?

MR NGO: Having completed my studies I went to training and I used to see him monthly or just give him a call as a contact who took money to my family.

ADV DE JAGER: Now I want to put to you what Mrs Sarkardi is saying, she is the sister of the deceased, and we have just received a letter from her in response to the fact that she had been notified that the application would proceed, and she is saying, after the murder,

"After the murder Mr Ngo himself drove around with the vehicle of the deceased, and put petrol in at filling stations and then simply drove off without paying for the petrol".

Is this correct or not?

MR NGO: When?

ADV DE JAGER: That was after the murder.

MR NGO: That is not true Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Then she proceeds to say,

"The relationship between the deceased and my brother was a relationship of trust. The accused lived on the property of my brother and worked there as a gardener. My brother trusted him to such an extent that once a week he also worked for my mother as gardener. Even when I and my children visited my brother during school holidays in Bloemfontein and while my brother worked during the day he trust the accused entirely with us around the house. The accused himself was a police official during the event. At that time he was suspended because of other accusations against him, amongst others for assault. My brother paid for the schooling of the accused and even for his transport to the place where he received the training. When Mr Ngo went for training at the Police College at a later stage my brother continued to support him financially".

Is this correct?

MR NGO: No, what I know is that I was visiting them as he was my contact. I was just visiting, I was not staying there. He used to lend me money and I used to do the same if he had problems as somebody that I trusted. And there's nothing more than that, other than trust. And we had a good relationship. And Mrs Sarkardi, I used to see her when she was visiting during holidays but it would be at two days or three. The truth is that I did help him whilst I was visiting before I went home should he have a lot of work to do on his premises, Mr Venter.

ADV DE JAGER: So you had a long relationship with Mr

Venter, not only a 14 days' relationship and then a few occasional meetings?

MR NGO: I am talking about the time I spent on Mr Venter's premises, it was 14 days and when I came back from College I sent my clothing in a briefcase to him and all the things that he must give to my sisters and brothers I used to pass his place when I was coming home, but I was not staying there.

ADV DE JAGER: And when did you work in the garden?

MR NGO: I don't remember, it would have been one of the weekends whilst I was just visiting him on a Saturday.

ADV DE JAGER: And when did you work in his mother's garden?

MR NGO: On Saturdays and I used to do that only half a day for two hours a day because she was just staying in a three-roomed house.

ADV DE JAGER: But when was that, during the 14 days when you were staying with him?

MR NGO: When I came for the weekends I was not staying with him, I was based in Pretoria, I would help him when I came visiting for the weekend.

ADV DE JAGER: And how often did you visit him for weekends?

MR NGO: I would visit him on Saturdays, I would help him normally on Saturdays.

ADV DE JAGER: How often on Saturdays, once a month, twice a month, how many Saturdays did you visit him?

MR NGO: I would go with him, to him a month and maybe skip a month or so.

ADV DE JAGER: And school holidays?

MR NGO: We were studying then.

ADV DE JAGER: Because Mrs Sarkardi says she when visiting her brother she found you there, during school holidays when she visited him or during a school holiday let's put it that way.

MR NGO: There was a time, perhaps once a month, that I would go there but I was not frequenting the place but during the six month period during which I managed to study I had to concentrate on my studies, I couldn't stay a week or three in his house because I had to study.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman the letter which Commissioner de Jager read from has a cover page addressed to T Thabethe and it's apparently a fax that was sent on the 19th of March 1997. We received it the same time as you did Mr Chairman, that is why I haven't referred to this before. You see the point now, on this issue, becomes very confusing because earlier today, am I correct, that you told the Committee that in 1986 you were assaulted and you were then taken to Mr Venter for refuge, is that correct?

MR NGO: Yes that's correct.

MR VISSER: And then you stayed with him for 14 days.

MR NGO: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Now first of all were you not hospitalised immediately after you were assaulted by your fellow scholars, your fellow students?

MR NGO: I took, I was taken by Lieutenant Erasmus on my way from Tswametsi Hospital.

MR VISSER: So you first went to hospital is that correct?

MR NGO: After being assaulted I was taken to hospital by Tswametsi(..this does not make sense).... and Lieutenant Erasmus and Tswametsi are the ones who took me there to Mr Venter's house, but the person who introduced me there is

Lieutenant Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Yes, how long were you hospitalised?

MR NGO: I was ditched and the same day I was taken away, I didn't sleep there.

MR VISSER: I see. And when you slept for those 14 days at Mr Venter's house in which room did you sleep, where, outside, inside the house, where?

MR NGO: He's got some outside rooms that he uses for his domestic servants and other people, that's where I was staying.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes, and did it take you 14 days to recover from the assault, from your wounds sustained in the assault?

MR NGO: After 14 days I felt much better.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR NGO: I could walk about and do everything.

MR VISSER: You see now Commissioner de Jager put these questions to you and what we would like to ask you is this, when did you manage, since 1986 to do all the things that this lady Mrs Sarkardi says in her letter, if you didn't frequently visit or stay with Mr Venter? Do you understand the question? You've had to have been there frequently to do the things which Mrs Sarkardi talks about in her letter, isn't that so?

MR NGO: From 1986 up until 1989 it's a long time, I had enough time to do all that.

MR VISSER: Yes. But would you concede then that you were a regular visitor to Mr Venter from 1986 at least?

MR NGO: I was not a frequent visitor because I was working and during 1986 I studied as well, where would I get all the time?

MR VISSER: Yes, I didn't intend to put to you that you went visiting him, but you went there to work in the garden and do things, in that sense, you frequented his premises frequently, that's what I am trying to put to you.

MR NGO: Not so many times as I have explained.

MR VISSER: Yes. The last point on the application form which I want you to reply to is at page 5, paragraph 10D. Now that paragraph asks the question, if I should first read C, the form asks,

"Did you benefit in any way financially or otherwise?"

and your answer was,

"Yes I benefitted financially".

And D says,

"If so explain the nature and extent of such benefits".

and you said this,

"I received R500,00 cash for performing successful operations for the Security Branch".

Now first of all would you explain whether the R500,00 which you talk about here was also for something other than eliminating Mr Venter, or was it only for eliminating Mr Venter?

MR NGO: That R500,00 I got it specifically for that operation that was successful.

MR VISSER: So the word "successful operations" is incorrect, it should be "this successful operation" is that what you intend to say?

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now Erasmus will give evidence and he will tell this Committee that you, as an informer while you

were still a student, received remuneration from the Police of between 2 and R400,00 per month depending on how valuable the information was which you conveyed to Erasmus. That was a long question. Must I repeat it or did you understand it?

MR NGO: You may repeat it Sir.

MR VISSER: Erasmus says that you earned between 2 and R400,00 per month as an informer of the Police.

MR NGO: No he is telling a lie.

MR VISSER: Well what do you say is the position then, did you receive any remuneration while you were an informer?

MR NGO: They were paying me amounts like R70,00 or R90,00, the maximum amount he ever gave me was R100,00 and I even signed for that. If he was giving me that amount of R200,00 or R500,00 he must produce documentary proof to that effect, because I signed for all the amounts he gave me.

MR VISSER: What did you do with the R500,00 which you got, according to you, for eliminating Mr Venter?

MR NGO: I used it. I bought clothing and I bought alcohol and drank it.

MR VISSER: Well it will be denied that you were instructed in any way to eliminate or do anything to Mr Venter or that you were paid any amount of money in that regard.

MR NGO: I was paid, I got the money.

MR VISSER: Now Mrs Sarkardi mentioned something about you having been suspended at the time of the death of Mr Venter, did you hear that when Commissioner de Jager read to you from her letter, did you hear that, that she says so? You were suspended.

MR NGO: I am not aware of any suspension, I was arrested.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo I want to take you back to the day when Mr Venter died, okay, do you understand?

MR NGO: Yes.....

MR VISSER: Were you suspended from your services in the police at that time?

MR NGO: I was never suspended when Mr Venter died, I was arrested and thereafter I got my money whilst I was in prison. No official came to tell me that I was suspended as a police official. I was just arrested and I appeared in court. Nobody approached me about suspension till today.

MR VISSER: Are you talking about being suspended for the death of Mr Venter, is that what you are talking about? I am talking about before Mr Venter was assassinated, when you were in Bloemfontein from Pretoria, was that a time when you were suspended from your duties?

MR NGO: Suspended what for?

MR VISSER: For assault.

MR NGO: For the assault of who?

JUDGE MGOEPE: But why should this be a problem, just tell us whether you were suspended or not, it doesn't matter for what reason, whether for the assault of A or B or C, the question is simply at the time when you left Mamelodi to come to Bloemfontein were you suspended, it doesn't matter for what reason, we first just want to know whether you were suspended?

MR NGO: I hear him talking about suspension and I'm not sure what he is talking about, maybe he should tell me what it was in connection with, I am not aware of any suspension.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I am asking you, were you suspended at the time?

MR NGO: No I was never suspended.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Were you suspended at any time prior to that at some stage?

MR NGO: I was just arrested and until I was sentenced.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And thereafter were you not suspended from

the police?

MR NGO: I stayed as a prisoner until I was sentenced. No official came to me after I was arrested. I appeared in court and then I was sentenced. I don't know what procedures they followed but they never approached me, and they didn't even give me any form to sign. I was never suspended, I was just arrested.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Did, after that case, after serving your jail term did you resume police duties?

MR NGO: I'm a prisoner at the moment, I never worked thereafter.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Ngo you know that I am asking you in relation to the time before the killing of Mr Venter, don't you know that? You are aware that I am asking you whether you were suspended at any time before the killing of Mr Venter, you know that?

MR NGO: No I was never suspended.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Now what is the assault that you are talking about?

MR NGO: I am not the one who spoke about the assault, he is the one who spoke about the assault, he said I was suspended about an assault, I never made mention of any assault.

JUDGE MGOEPE: What is the arrest that you are referring to, the arrest that you are referring to?

MR NGO: I am talking about this very same case that I was arrested for.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But why tell me about the arrest of this case when I am asking you about the period before the commission of the murder?

MR NGO: I explained that I was never suspended or arrested before Mr Venter's incident. I was arrested regarding this case and I was sentenced.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Now if you were never suspended, prior to this incident, when Mr Visser asked you whether you were suspended in relation to an assault, why do you have to first ask assault on who, why didn't you just simply say no I was never suspended? Why did you want to know who was assaulted? What was the need for that?

MR NGO: I did not understand as to why did he ask me whether was I suspended for assault and therefore I asked him assault on who.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But you knew, you knew that you had not been suspended at all.

MR NGO: I was just explaining that I was never suspended. I was thinking that he did not understand that I am saying I was never suspended.

MR VISSER: Let's go on to something else. The person Erasmus that you refer to as the person who gave you instructions, do you see him here in the hall today?

MR NGO: Yes there he is over there.

MR VISSER: Is it the person sitting with his shirt sleeves second from the left in the front row?

MR NGO: Yes he's got a white shirt on.

MR VISSER: The witness identifies Senior Superintendent Erasmus Mr Chairman, that is the person who has made an affidavit before you. Now that person, when we speak about Erasmus I'm going to talk about that person, you say you received instructions from him in January 1989 to kill Venter, is that your evidence?

MR NGO: I said ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: I'm sorry, February, no I am sorry I was right, January.

MR NGO: I did not say I was given instructions by Mr Erasmus, I said I was told by Colonel Coetzee with, and Colonel Shaw that I was to go and kill Mr Venter, that's what I said.

MR VISSER: You're quite right. But Erasmus was present, he was present at the time when you received the instructions from Coetzee?

MR NGO: Yes he was present.

MR VISSER: And that was in January 1989?

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

MR VISSER: Do you remember the date well, the month well and the year?

MR NGO: I cannot tell exactly when, whether it was in January, I did not give a precise date because I did not know.

MR VISSER: Would you agree that the murder took place, the assassination took place on the 3rd of February 1989 according to the court judgment which I've got before me, would you agree with that, the 3rd of February?

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

MR VISSER: Is it also correct that your evidence was that you came from Bloemfontein from Pretoria approximately a week before the assassination, do you remember that?

MR NGO: No Sir.

MR VISSER: Well when did you come through from Pretoria to Bloemfontein, did you come on the 3rd of February, or did you come before that time?

MR NGO: I came before that time. It was on a Thursday and I committed the murder on Friday.

MR VISSER: The next day?

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

MR VISSER: Well would it surprise you that Superintendent Erasmus will tell this Committee that he was on leave at the time and he only came back after Venter had been assassinated, he was at Hartenbos? Would that surprise you?

MR NGO: It will not surprise me because I found him there and usually they themselves, when there's an operation of any kind the senior officials are present, even if they don't issue instructions but they are just there to observe what is happening, and normally when he goes on leave such operations take place.

MR VISSER: Yes, and if Erasmus says he was not in Bloemfontein at the time he would be lying as far as you are concerned?

MR NGO: The day I arrived here he was there.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now a strange thing happens at this meeting between you and Coetzee and Shaw and Erasmus because according to the statement which I have in front of me which is attached to your application at page 1 Mr Chairman, the middle of the last paragraph, it's fairly illegible, it starts with "on my arrival I reported...", I read the following words,

"Colonel Coetzee introduced me to Lieutenant Shaw and Lieutenant Erasmus".

is that what you meant to say?

MR NGO: I was explaining there that he said I must greet them.

MR VISSER: Do you understand the meaning of the word "introduce"?

MR NGO: Yes, there are many words of introducing a person but he did say to me that here is Lieutenant Erasmus and Lieutenant Shaw please greet them.

MR VISSER: Why would he have to say that to you Mr Ngo please, and for what earthly reason would he have to say that to you?

MR NGO: It is because I haven't seen him for a long time, I'm not sure.

MR VISSER: And you didn't know to greet them from your own accord, somebody had to tell you to greet them, is that what you are saying?

MR NGO: They found me there.

MR VISSER: That's not the answer to the question.

MR NGO: I was going to greet them but the manner in which they walked in I was just told here is Lieutenant Erasmus and here is Lieutenant Shaw, greet them.

MR VISSER: And I am asking why was it necessary for Coetzee to tell you that, because you knew Shaw and you knew Erasmus from before that, not so?

MR NGO: There is nothing I can explain more than that, that is what he said on that particular day, I'm quoting him, that's what he said that day.

MR VISSER: You knew Erasmus from beforehand, he was your handler as a police informer from 1983, do you agree with that?

MR NGO: Yes I knew him.

MR VISSER: And you knew Shaw as well?

MR NGO: Yes I knew them.

MR VISSER: And I'm going to put to you that for some reason you are slanting the facts by creating the impression that you were introduced to these people on this day in

January 1989.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser if you read on,

"He then showed me a photograph as an informant with Lieutenant Erasmus we recruited our Security Branch informant with Lieutenant Erasmus".

wouldn't that indicate that he knew Erasmus before and that, I don't know exactly what the meaning of that will be but it could be that he tried to say well I've been introduced but I saw this photo and that was the one Erasmus showed me before.

MR VISSER: Commissioner de Jager is of course quite correct, we have problems with those words ourselves and that's why we were asking the questions. May we continue to exactly where Commissioner de Jager has read from. You see then the following strange thing happens, Coetzee, you say, shows you a photograph of Venter, apparently ringed, circled, was it circled with a koki pen, what, what was done with the koki pen on the photograph?

MR NGO: It was just his initials written on, P D Venter and nothing more.

MR VISSER: I see. So was it a photograph of Mr Venter alone or were there other people on the photograph?

MR NGO: We keep a photo album, we keep a photo of informers and a photo of suspects and whenever you deal with a person you are shown the photo. As to where they got the photo I don't know.

MR VISSER: But Mr Ngo as intelligent people Erasmus knowing that he took you, according to your own evidence, to Mr Venter, that you stayed with Mr Venter, that he gave you refuge, why would they have to show you a photograph? Didn't you say to them but are you mad, you know I know this man, I loved this man?

MR NGO: I got the explanation from Colonel Coetzee, he gave me the definition and the procedure used when you are going to do an operation on that person and you had to be shown the photo. That was the normal procedure we followed.

MR VISSER: Yes. And you see then the words ...(intervention)

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman I beg your pardon, there has not been any evidence that Coetzee was aware that Erasmus had informed the applicant that Venter was an informer, and if my learned friend wants to make the point that he seems to be making he must first establish whether Coetzee at that time was aware of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased.

JUDGE MGOEPE: On the same vein, wouldn't - I'm not so sure whether one can say that with regard to the issue which Mr Visser raised about the question of introducing I am not sure whether one can say that Colonel Coetzee was aware of the fact that the applicant and Mr Erasmus knew one another. I am not able to establish that on the papers.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman of course we have a problem with procedure here first the applicant has to give his evidence, Coetzee is here from Pretoria, from Krugersdorp, he will give that evidence Mr Chairman, but I've now got to put the questions otherwise it's going to be too late, but he will give that evidence. He especially came ...(intervention)

JUDGE MGOEPE: I'm talking about laying the basis for questions.

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman but the only basis I've got is the evidence that will be led later from Coetzee.

JUDGE MGOEPE: How can that be so? How can that be the

only basis? It depends on how you put the questions to the applicant.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I'm entitled to put questions to the applicant on the basis of what my instructions are from the witnesses, from my clients.

JUDGE MGOEPE: I'm not saying you are not entitled to put the questions, I'm saying your colleague is making a point that you should lay down the basis for questions that you want to ask.

MR VISSER: Well I am not certain that I understand the objection Mr Chairman, but I'll step off this question if it's an embarrassing question. Now the particular person whom you refer to as Coetzee do you see him here in the hall?

MR NGO: Yes he's dressed in the brown suit.

MR VISSER: That was the person who made the affidavit marked P12 Mr Chairman, Brigadier Coetzee. And he will give evidence to deny the allegations that he gave instructions to you regarding the elimination of Mr Venter. Now in your statement, the words which Commissioner de Jager read to you I want to read to you as well, when you were shown this photograph you say, you say,

"I also noticed that it was Mr Venter, the....."

and then I can't read, what I've got here it's blanked out, probably...

".... the one we recruited as Security Branch informant with Lieutenant Erasmus".

I don't know whether I should read on, whether the sentence ends there, I think I should stop there Mr Chairman,"...with Lieutenant Erasmus". Now the "we" that you refer to there does that refer to you and Lieutenant Erasmus? I've just

noticed that it's 4:30 Mr Chairman, 5:30.

MR NGO: It is - he was an informer of Lieutenant Erasmus, I knew him as his informer.

MR VISSER: You did not intend to convey by the word "we" that you had anything to do with recruiting Venter as an informer?

MR NGO: No I never recruited him as an informer.

MR VISSER: This is a convenient time Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well we have - there are certain other problems tomorrow morning and we will not be able to start at 9 o'clock as normal, it will probably be closer to 09H30. If we could ask people to be here at 09H15 because I warn you we may be held up.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry just before we adjourn Mr Visser, I'm not sure that it was in connection with this matter, can you just refresh my memory, did you say that the police or some people were opposing an amnesty, somebody's amnesty application?

MR VISSER: .... I am sorry, the opposition is on this basis Mr Chairman, that if this person, this applicant, I am sorry am I ...(intervention)

JUDGE MGOEPE: I just wanted to know that - that's all I wanted to know, I am not saying that you should justify it or not, but I just wanted to know - to consider your questions each time in their proper context, not that they are just merely coming to deny allegations, but in fact they are opposing the application.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION AT 14H00

MPEZELE NELSON NGO: (s.u.o.)

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Ngo, you knew then, during the trial, you knew that there was a real possibility of you being sentenced to death, not only you but your brother, especially your brother, Ari, as well.

MR NGO: Yes, I was aware.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And despite that you were not prepared to expose the police, your colleagues, you were rather prepared to run the risk of yourself and your brother being sentenced to death?

MR NGO: No, I was by told by my officials that they would help me. They would do all possible means, because I told them that I saw that this case was becoming very tough, and they said they would assist me with escaping and I tried to escape in Pelonomi but I was recaptured again.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But they never promised to help your brothers. You could see that they were not helping your brothers and they never in fact promised to help your brothers.

MR NGO: If I was sentenced to death, I was going to follow certain channels, I was going to be exposed of.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And what about your brothers?

MR NGO: I was going to tell them that they are innocent, I was going to expose and say, declare them innocent and tell how I did all that.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, did you?

MR NGO: No, I never got a death sentence.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And the many years to which your brother, especially your brother Ari was sentenced, that didn't

bother you, didn't that push you into thinking that well, you should expose?

MR NGO: We are no longer on speaking terms because of that.

JUDGE MGOEPE: In fact you testified against him and implicated him during the trial, isn't it?

MR NGO: That is so, Sir.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And firmly put him on the possibility of a death sentence?

MR NGO: That is so, Sir.

JUDGE MGOEPE: What kind of loyalty is that, Mr Ngo? What kind of loyalty did you have to the police, to the extent where you would be prepared to give false evidence, which could result in your brother being executed?

MR NGO: It is the sort of loyalty whereby if my brother had to train as a terrorist, I would have to kill him, because he would have been an opponent at that time.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But he hasn't done, this time he hasn't done anything, according to your version, he had not done anything to deserve to hang. Were you prepared to have your brother hang for something he had not done?

MR NGO: I knew, as I have already said, that I was going to expose before I become sentenced to death.

JUDGE WILSON: But you didn't expose before sentence was passed, and you might then - that sentence may have been a death sentence, you didn't expose, did you?

MR NGO: I did not expose until we were sentenced. Because they were promising me appeals and that I will succeed, but they never kept their promises.

JUDGE WILSON: Who were promising?

MR NGO: It is Major Coetzee and Lieutenant Erasmus and Shaw.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Ngo, you knew that the State was prosecuting you on a false charge and that your brother was going to give false evidence against you on behalf of the State, you have told us all this, how could you think they were going to help you?

MR NGO: I did not understand that question that you have just asked, Judge, please repeat it.

JUDGE WILSON: You have told us earlier that you thought your brother was going to give evidence for the State. He was going to be a State witness.

MR NGO: Yes, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: You knew that your brother was not there and any evidence he gave would be false evidence, didn't you?

MR NGO: Yes, I knew.

JUDGE WILSON: That is what the State was doing to you, leading false evidence against you. Policemen were lying, were going to lie at your trial, your brother was going to lie. That was the position you were facing, wasn't it?

MR NGO: Yes, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: So how could you expect the policemen you said were going to help you, to help you?

MR NGO: They assisted me with several things and their promises that they gave, I trusted that they would assist me with the appeal as well.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Chairman, before we are leaving, we have eight affidavits here that have been handed in, and on behalf of the applicant Mr Nemane would be entitled to cross-examine each and every one of these witnesses. I think perhaps the legal representatives should work out something and see how far we could get, because if we

continue with eight further witnesses in this case, and even the re-examination, I think perhaps other applicants are waiting in vain, we won't ever get to their applications, and I think to save costs then suitable arrangements must be made beforehand.

MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, the point is well taken, but my recollection, Mr Visser will correct me on this, was that the intention of Mr Visser's clients, was to put the more senior of the officers to testify and not all of them.

JUDGE WILSON: The point is that the applicant's counsel is entitled to cross-examine all of them, and that is what must be clarified. Does he wish to cross-examine all of them? That is what Mr De Jager is inviting counsel to discuss during the adjournment.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, before we adjourn may I mention that regarding the application, the second application, it was brought to me during consultation with the applicant, that the application contains matters of substance, slightly different from those contained in the affidavit that was in the statement that is before the Commission. That then makes it all the more important now that copies of those statements, of that statements should be made, and they be made available to the Commissioners, and perhaps to my learned friends here, M'Lord.

MR MPSHE: If they wish, that is their right, M'Lord.

Mr Chairman, may I suggest to Adv De Jager that we shall look into this during lunch time to save time.

JUDGE WILSON: We will adjourn for lunch.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MR MPSHE: The pending matter, may I ask the Committee's indulgence and refer back to the matter on Monday, 24th, No 3, that is a matter that is presently standing down, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee. Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, we received a faxed letter this morning, pertaining to this matter, it is a letter written by the attorneys to the next of kin to the victim. Mr Chairman, the contents of the letter are well known to us and I have discussed the same with my colleague, Ms Thabile Thabethe and she confirms that what is reflected thereon is correct.

Mr Chairman, without wasting the Committee's time,

we just simply want to State that the sister to the deceased, Mr Fourie, was indeed not properly treated and we - and that she was not informed accordingly and timeously and we ask for an apology in that regard.

Mr Chairman, still pertaining to this matter, my learned friend has informed me and also the Committee in chambers, that he is still going to need to recall all the applicants. Now we decided that on the strength of the letter, the contents of the letter and on the strength of a recalling of these applicants, that rather the matter be postponed, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe, it appears that an undertaking has already been taken that this application will immediately, be immediately adjourned.

MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, I noted that, I noted that in the letter.

JUDGE WILSON: Now I don't know who gave that undertaking. There are various problems that I think might arise, that I

think you should perhaps consider. Firstly, is the sister a victim as defined?

MR MPSHE: Could the Chair repeat that?

JUDGE WILSON: The sister, is she entitled to notice?

MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman. She is entitled to a notice, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Why?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, as the interested person, as the only next of kin to the deceased.

JUDGE WILSON: Where does one stop? She may not have seen her brother for 50 years. I can understand going up and down the line, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, but does one say that one must always notify brothers and sisters?

MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that may be so, but Mr Chairman, we are enjoined by the Act that interested parties in terms of section 19(4) are to be informed, Mr Chairman. The position whether they were in contact or not during his lifetime, Mr Chairman, this will not be known by us, we simply have to comply with the Act, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: But Mr Mpshe, the trouble is, I think what our Chairman is putting to you, you will never find the address of all the brothers and sisters of victims. They are not involved. You may find the addresses of the children. In this case we have also the children complaining so that is another matter. But how far could you define interested persons because if there is 12, 13 sisters, in a family, not children, for instance, should you try and find all their addresses? There is somewhere there should be a limit to, in a sort of what is interested persons and what is being meant by interested persons.

MR MPSHE: Yes, I ...

ADV DE JAGER: I don't think we need to discuss that at the moment.

MR MPSHE: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: There has been this agreement that ...

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, what worries me is I see in (c) it said that we will arrange that a transcript of the evidence has to be given, is to be made available to them.

MS THABETHE: May I respond, Mr Chair?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MS TABETHA: I spoke to Mr McClachlan this morning and he informed me that he would like the matter to be postponed, if possible. I said to him that he must write a letter, indicating all his complaints and I presented the letter to the Committee. I never made any undertakings, because I hadn't even consulted the chief leader of evidence, Mr Mpshe. So I couldn't make such undertakings, I don't have powers to.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, what are you going to do about a transcription? It is considerable expense. This must be considered, and I think as long as no undertakings, I think you should make it clear in your letter of reply, that no undertakings were given and it is not intended to make any, and then decide, as a matter of principle, in future, what you are going to do when someone hasn't been notified. Are they all entitled to come and say now I want a transcript of the evidence? It is a very dangerous precedent to establish.

MR MPSHE: Yes.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Then also, Mr Mpshe, you said in your observation, and I think this should be put right for the

purpose of the record. You said that Mrs Naude had indeed not been given notice. I don't think - well, that is what the attorney's letter says, but that is not what a member of the investigative unit is apparently saying. Who is Mthetu?

MS TABHETA: It is the TRC investigator.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Chairman, did you see what he says at the bottom of page 1 of his letter? He says

"I am not afraid to say Naude is lying when she says she heard about this on TV for the first time. What I can understand from her is that this came to her attention very late, as I only got hold of her when there were only about nine days left."

So I think we should be careful about simply saying that, making that kind of judgment, because it seems that we have got two conflicting versions. I think we need to be very careful before we say that Mrs Naude is right, she was never informed, when we have got a version to the contrary. Because it may cause problems later.

MR MPSHE: If I may respond to it. If I recall the contents of this letter, mention is made that she was telephonically contacted about the hearing going to take place. She was actually phoned twice and she was telephoned even on Monday. That is the contents of her letter and the fact mentioned by Mr Mthetwa that she was not informed. It is correct, she was informed, it is in the letter but she is saying that she knew for the first time that the matter is actually taking place, when she was told by a neighbour, Mr De Wet, who saw it on TV, but she does concede that she was contacted

telephonically.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Yes, but whats the difference about the ...

MR MPSHE: She was told.

JUDGE MGOEPE: ...she was not told, I don't understand the difference. How can she say I was told the matter was going to be heard and then later complain I was not told that the matter has actually commenced. What is the purpose of telling a person that the matter was going to be heard on such and such a date, is to tell her that the matter is actually going to be heard. You don't need two sets of notices. The first notice that the matter is going to be heard and then later require another notice to say that the matter has now actually commenced. I mean ...

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, with respect, in that very same letter, mention is made that she was contacted and further that we would, whoever would contact them, would revert back to her.

ADV DE JAGER: But I think the misunderstanding is this way. She was informed that the matter would start on Thursday. And then we started with the matter on Tuesday, so they were surprised to see it on TV, because this matter was brought forward from Thursday's roll to Tuesday's roll.

MR MPSHE: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: That would perhaps explain it.

MR MPSHE: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, shall we adjourn it? Do you agree we adjourn it? It will have to be adjourned to a date to be arranged. I would ask that counsel make arrangements for a date which is suitable, to counsel concerned and to all three members of the Committee and not to assume that they

can merely set it down on any specific date, without having made prior enquiries of all the members of the Committee. I also think it would be desirable if it is possible, I believe it has not been typed as yet, to obtain a copy of the judgment. I am told the record of the judgment is available, and I don't know whether the Attorney-General has been approached and whether he can assist because I think that before cross-examination is launched and before they are recalled, all documentary evidence that is available should be available and be made available to applicant's counsel as well. As I have said in other cases, does not mean that I am suggesting that you make a free copy available. You make - either at his request, provide him with a copy or make the document available which he can copy himself. But do you agree with me, it is desirable to have a copy of the judgment as well as that affidavit?

MR MPSHE: Thank you very much, I agree with you.

JUDGE WILSON: And I think we could also place on record at the present stage, that you have agreed it would not be necessary to call Mrs May as a witness, that her affidavit merely confirms ownership of property and that will be accepted.

MR MPSHE: That is so, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, this matter will now be adjourned to a date to be arranged. It seems probable it will have to be earlier. Thank you.

MR MPSHE: As the Chair pleases. May I be excused.

MR MPSHE EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

 

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may we, with the Chairman's permission revert back to Ngo's matter, Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, I think we should place on record that it has been agreed the whole of the application will not be proceeded with today, and not necessarily before the Committee as presently constituted. We will merely complete now the application as regards the Venter matter. As I understand it, his counsel would wish to question the applicant about allegations contained in the affidavits made by the police officers and perhaps question those police officers. It has been agreed that will be done at a later stage. Is that so?

MR NEMANE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: So you can confine yourself now to dealing with the matters that have been raised here as regards the Venter matter, but reserving your rights as regards the policemen and the evidence they might give, does that suit you?

MR MEMANE: That is correct.

MPEZELE NELSON NGO: (s.u.o.)

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANE: Now Mr Ngo, do you have the hospital reference number relating to the time when you escaped from lawful custody or when you were in hospital?

MR NGO: Yes, that matter was reported, it is in the hospital files. It is still there, if they can refer to that file in the hospital, they should get those details.

MR MEMANE: What is the name of the hospital?

MR NGO: The Grootvlei Hospital in prison.

MR MEMANE: And do you by any chance have the hospital reference number?

JUDGE WILSON: Is it in fact a prison hospital inside the

walls of the prison?

MR NGO: Yes, it is inside the prison.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, may I make a request that the relevant section of the TRC be requested to make endeavours to trace the file, and if it is found to bring it before the Commission and to my attention?

JUDGE WILSON: That can be arranged can't it, Mr Mpshe?

MR MPSHE: It can be arranged, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: That our investigative unit will make contact with the Grootvlei Prison and ask to have access to the records relating to this prisoner. When was he a prisoner there, when was this about?

MR NEMANE: May I direct the question to the applicant?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR NEMANE: Do you recall the period during which you were a prisoner - the period during which you were in the prison hospital?

MR NGO: I was on trial at that time. I escaped whilst I was on trial. From there the officials who arrested me, reported this matter to the hospital officals and they stressed that I shouldn't be allowed to go to hospital again because he had escaped, and they recorded that in my presence.

JUDGE WILSON: We know it was during the period while the trial was proceeding.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, just to respond to what the Chair has said, it can be arranged. I did not fully understand what was being said. But Mr Chairman, if it means going to the Grootvlei Prison and obtaining or having access to the documents therein, Mr Chairman, not to say that I am refusing that that should be done by the TRC, but I don't see any problem, anything that can stop the lawyer to have access to these documents, Mr Chairman, because the onus is on them, Mr Chairman. Otherwise we will be bouncing the onus left and right, Mr Chairman. He has access to the prison as well in his capacity as a lawyer, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, I am not quite sure he will get the same co-operation from the prison authorities as the TRC would. I think we can, although we are not creating a precedent, I think we can in the circumstances, do a favour by causing our investigative unit to phone up and ask if they have hospital records available appertaining to the prisoner for this period. This is the applicant who was a prisoner during this period, an awaiting-trial prisoner.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I won't take the matter any further, Mr Chairman, but I'm not satisfied ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: If we get that information it may be you can inform counsel to go and get a copy himself, but I think if we could find out, it will certainly make the initial enquiries, and ask them to make it available.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Nemane, what do you want to establish by this? It will only show that he did escape and they will never show that he escaped as a result of an arrangement by the security police, isn't it?

MR NEMANE: That is correct, Mr Commissioner, but my - I believe that it would provide corroboration for the fact of an escape and if there was some difficulties with his credibility, there would be that objective evidence that he did escape, and to some extent it might assist in determining whether the escape was arranged with the security police in the sense that we know that he has been in prison for about four years now, and he appeared in court and he has not been charged with escape.

JUDGE WILSON: Was the escape, the attempted escape investigated? Did any policeman come and take a statement from him?

MR NGO: Yes, I escaped whilst I was under the guard of the South African Police Force official, but he did not charge me, but he did go and tell the colonel that he did try, but it did not work out because the securities caught me. Col Coetzee said that he should not charge me but rather take me back to prison and he will make other means again.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may be of some assistance. You would have noticed that we did not dispute in our cross-examination the fact that he escaped. We are quite prepared to concede that he might have escaped, although we don't know, attempted to escape, although we don't know about it. So if that can circumvent the request for documents we will gladly make that concession.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, I think, as I understand the application, that the purpose of it, it is to show not only that he attempted to escape, but that there was official knowledge of this, that it was recorded on the Correctional Services records, but that nothing was done. That is what you want to get, isn't it?

MR NEMANE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, I don't know that you can go so far as to make that concession. You don't represent every policemen.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, I don't want to go on record with this, but it is our experience that when an attempted escape occurs, very seldom that a prosecution follows when there isn't an actual physical escape. When he is caught with in the yard, Mr Chairman, it is very difficult to prove that he attempted to escape and that is the reason.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, we have been told he escaped, not in the yard, but under the custody of a policeman. Right, carry on.

MR NEMANE: I want you to go back to the removal of the belongings of Mr Venter and the house at which the goods that were removed from Mr Venter were actually delivered. Now was it agreed between yourself and Erasmus or any of your superiors, that you were to remove the furniture?

MR NGO: Yes, in the report that we gave to Mr Coetzee, in Wilgerhof, we had not removed anything in the Venter house. But he said we must just move some more things to make this as if it is a robbery.

MR NEMANE: Now at the time when you removed the watch from Mr Venter, had you at that stage decided that you are going to keep the watch for yourself?

MR NGO: No, I was ripping off that watch so that he could see that something was done to him.

JUDGE WILSON: Who could see that something was done to him?

MR NEMANE: The investigating officers.

MR NGO: The investigating officers.

MR NEMANE: Do I understand you correctly if I say that you removed the watch not for purposes of keeping yourself, but for purposes of creating an artificial scene of robbery?

MR NGO: Yes, it was supposed to be like that. I took that watch from him and I went away.

MR NEMANE: Did you decide to remove the watch before you shot Mr Venter?

MR NGO: No, I shot him first and then when he fell down I ripped off the watch and left.

MR NEMANE: Is it your evidence that you decided that the

watch would be the object to remove after you had shot Mr Venter?

MR NGO: It was not my intention but I wanted this to look as a plain robbery.

MR NEMANE: You decided that you are going to take the watch to create the impression that this was a robbery?

MR NGO: Yes, according to Mr Shaw's instructions, he said I should operate like this. He gave me that instruction directly.

MR NEMANE: Did you - my question then is, did you decide before you had actually shot him, that you are going to remove the watch or did you shoot him and thereafter made up your mind that the thing I must remove the watch to create a scene of robbery is the watch?

MR NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR NEMANE: I think I am making two propositions. You must choose one. Did you decide after you had actually shot him that you are going to take the watch or did you decide before shooting him that you are going to take the watch?

MR NGO: The nature of the robbery was to take his watch and that they should think that he has been robbed of his watch.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you decide before you went there to shoot him that you were going to make it look like a robbery by taking his watch?

MR NGO: I decided that, and that is the thing that I saw that was on him.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, I missed the last answer, I beg your pardon.

JUDGE WILSON: I decided because that was the thing that was on him.

MR NEMANE: When did you decide to remove the watch?

MR NGO: Before shooting him.

MR NEMANE: And what did you intend to do with the watch after removing it?

MR NGO: I decided that in order for this to seem like a robbery, was to shoot him and take the watch, and go away with it.

MR NEMANE: And ...

ADV DE JAGER: And the next day, what do you want to do with the watch? The day after you shot him, did you keep the watch or what did you do with the watch?

MR NGO: It was still in my possession.

ADV DE JAGER: And on your arm or what did you do with it? Did you wear the watch at that stage?

MR NGO: No, it was still in my pocket.

MR NEMANE: Now at the time when you committed the alleged robbery of the - the robbery of when you removed - let me paraphrase this. At the time when you removed the furniture from the house of Mr Venter, where did you live?

MR NGO: Which time are you referring to?

MR NEMANE: At the time when Mr Venter, at the time when Mr Venter was killed, where did you live?

MR NGO: In Pretoria.

MR NEMANE: And what address did you regard as your home in Bloemfontein at that stage?

MR NGO: I was residing in the barracks.

MR NEMANE: Did you have a home in Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: Yes, my mother and my sisters and brothers were staying in Kwaggafontein.

MR NEMANE: And after how many days, how many days after the robbery were you arrested?

MR NGO: I do not remember clearly.

MR NEMANE: Was it on the following day or was it about a week later?

MR NGO: It can be three to four days, or more than that, I cannot recall clearly.

MR NEMANE: And where did you spend the three nights before your arrest?

MR NGO: At Botshabelo.

MR NEMANE: Now you will pardon me, I don't know this area well. Is the house where the furniture was kept, in Botshabelo?

MR NGO: It was at G55.

MR NEMANE: I think the house is said to be in K Section or S Section, that is the house where the informers were said to live. That is the house I am asking you about.

MR NGO: I never lived in that house, only informers did.

MR NEMANE: And where is that house situated?

MR NGO: In S Section.

MR NEMANE: Is that S Section also in Botshabelo?

MR NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR NEMANE: And how many, how far, where did you spend the three nights then, did you spend the three nights at that house?

MR NGO: No.

MR NEMANE: Where did you spend the three nights?

MR NGO: I was supposed to sleep at the barracks, but I went to my sister's place in G55.

MR NEMANE: And with whom did you stay at G55?

MR NGO: I was not staying there, my sister stays there.

MR NEMANE: And did you during the three nights use any of the furniture that was removed from Mr Venter's?

MR NGO: No, it is a far way off, it is quite a distance, it

is from here up to Ramkraal Prison or at the Jacaranda depot, bus depot.

MR NEMANE: Of which police station in Khemong?

MR NGO: If we can assume that that police station is here, my sister's house is 50 metres from the police station.

MR NEMANE: Now I know you have indicated that you have some difficulty with making estimations, but how many kilometres would it be from where you spent the three nights to the house where Mr Venter's furniture was kept?

MR NGO: I have indicated that I am not good when it comes to indicating kilometres.

ADV DE JAGER: How long would it take you to walk from the one place to the other?

MR NGO: Are you referring from there to my sister's house?

ADV DE JAGER: From the barracks to the S Section where the furniture was kept, or from your sister's house - ja, from your sister's house to where the furniture was kept?

MR NEMANE: I do not know how long would it take by foot but I only used a car.

ADV DE JAGER: How long would it take you by car?

MR NGO: I never took note of time when I drove there to.

ADV DE JAGER: Ag please Mr Ngo, you have got matric and you are trying to evade the questions, that would not be to your advantage. You should try and co-operate and give the full truth so that we could consider whether we could give you amnesty. But if you are not helpful in trying to assist us, we will not finish this case and it would be to your disadvantage. So please try and help the Committee.

MR NGO: I do not want to tell the Commission a lie, because I might give the wrong answer and say it is 10 to 15 minutes, because should you come back to me with the answer given and say how do I know, then I would be in a corner. I don't want to give controversial answers.

MR NEMANE: Mr Ngo, let me put the point which the Commissioner is putting in a more caring fashion. You see, if you don't - if you avoid answering the question, because you fear that you might put yourself into a corner, you are creating a difficulty that the Commission is unable to find that they are satisfied that you told them everything that you know about the incident. So even if it is difficult for you to make the estimation, you must make an attempt and say that it might be wrong, that will suffice, an attempt you must make. Now I will repeat the question that was asked by the Commissioner. If you are walking or you are driving, how long would it take you to get there.

MR NGO: It could be 15 minutes.

MR NEMANE: Is that when you are driving or when you are walking?

MR NGO: That is when you are driving at a higher speed.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Nemane, where did your client stay during the three days? I think I missed that one.

MR NEMANE: He said he stayed at G55 at his sister's place. Now during that you said you took, did you take that ring before Mr Venter died?

MR NGO: Those are rings that we took when we took those goods there. Sgt Mamume took jewellery and I took the ring.

MR NEMANE: And did you decide that you are going to take the ring before Mr Venter died?

MR NGO: No, I have never seen that ring on him. I just found it amongst the property that was in Botshabelo.

MR NEMANE: You mentioned that a TV set was taken by another person, who is the person that took the TV set?

MR NGO: It was given to those people because when they were paid, after I had taken the ring and Sgt Mamume took the jewellery, he wanted to know what are they interested in, they said that they will take the TV in order to be able to use it at the National Hospital where they work and he gave them that television set and R50,00 each.

MR NEMANE: Do you recall whether you were charged with or convicted of the stealing or robbery of the TV set?

MR NGO: Are you referring to these besides these charges?

MR NEMANE: During the course of the trial, did those items that were not taken by you, form part of the case?

MR NGO: Yes, all this list was added in my case.

ADV DE JAGER: He answered that the TV was given to "them", "they who assisted", could you kindly find out who they are?

MR NEMANE: I thought, Mr Chairman, he was referring to the informers that went with Mamume to the scene and stayed behind, but did not get into the house. But we might ...

ADV DE JAGER: (...indistinct)

MR NEMANE: As the Court pleases.

JUDGE WILSON: He said in his evidence they were taken with them to the National Hospital where they were. Didn't he?

MR NEMANE: As the Court pleases. Now as the Committee pleases. Mr Ngo, who did you give the - who are the "they" that you referred to when you said the TV was given to them?

MR NGO: Those are the people who assisted us in fetching the things, Khefi and Dan. They said they are going to use it in the National Hospital where they worked.

MR NEMANE: Was the TV recovered?

MR NGO: I saw it appearing in the exhibit list.

MR NEMANE: Were exhibits that were found in your possession brought to court?

MR NGO: No, nothing was found on me, but I was just shown a list of things.

MR NEMANE: Let me put it like this. The furniture was

probably not taken to - well, the furniture was probably not taken into the court room, but were the watches and the rings brought to the court room, as exhibits?

MR NGO: No Sir. I only saw the watch that they put on top of the table, I don't know what they did with the ring.

JUDGE WILSON: You said nothing was found on you, but is that correct? Wasn't evidence led at your trial, and apparently accepted, by Warrant Officer Pietersen, that at the time of the investigation you were wearing a gold watch on your arm, page 5, line 20? Did he find you wearing a watch?

MR NGO: No, he didn't find me having the watch on me, wearing it.

JUDGE WILSON: He gave that evidence, didn't he?

MR NGO: He might have been given such evidence but I don't know whether was he just trying to commit me or lie.

JUDGE WILSON: That he found you wearing the watch on the 9th of February, that's correct, isn't it?

MR NGO: The ring.

JUDGE WILSON: The watch. He said he found you wearing a gold wrist watch.

MR NGO: I would not wear that watch when I knew how I got hold of it.

JUDGE WILSON: But you were driving the car, weren't you?

MR NGO: No, that car was in the police station.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Where was the watch found?

MR NGO: In my pocket.

JUDGE MGOEPE: So something was in fact found on you.

MR NGO: Yes, I had a watch in my pocket. I have already said that since I took it, during my operation, and I was not told what to do with the things that I got, but I was

just instructed that I must make this look like housebreaking or robbery. I do not deny that he got the watch in my possession, but I did not have it on and the one other thing I took, again in those things, was a ring, when the rest of the people took jewellery and television sets.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, if the watch was found on you, then you shouldn't have said that nothing was found on you. You shouldn't have said that to us, you see.

MR NGO: The Judge asked me did Mr Pietersen find the watch on my wrist and I said no.

JUDGE WILSON: Because you had just said "nothing was found on me". You said that. I then asked you whether Pietersen found it on your wrist, as he said in evidence. You have now told us he didn't find it on your wrist, on your wrist, he found it in your pocket. So when you said nothing was found on you, as you did about two minutes ago, that was incorrect.

MR NGO: I was referring to the goods.

MR NEMANE: So you are admitting, as you have already admitted, that the watch was found in your possession, but none of the other items, like the TVs and the furniture were found in your possession.

MR NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR NEMANE: Now you said that you saw the watch put on a table. Which table were you referring to?

MR NGO: The Judge's table.

MR NEMANE: At the trial?

MR NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR NEMANE: Was the jewellery brought to court?

MR NGO: No, they didn't know where the jewellery was, who

had it.

MR MPSHE OBJECTS: With due respect, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, I am really wondering about the relevance of this line of questioning, Mr Chairman.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, the theory that I am pursuing is that many items were removed from Mr Venter's house, and the applicant was found soon after the robbery. What exhibits were found on him, found in his possession, should have been brought to court, and he has said that only one exhibit was brought to court and that is the watch. I seek to submit later that it tends to corroborate his version that he was not involved in the operation alone and that he was working in conjunction with other people, who were policemen and those people were not arrested and no investigation was directed towards them and hence we do not find these exhibits in court.

JUDGE WILSON: You overlook the fact that the bulk of the exhibits were furniture, which were found on the State case in a building that he had hired. It is not my experience that furniture was brought into court. A list is produced and evidence is given as to the ownership.

MR NEMANE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Isn't that what the bulk of the stolen property was in this case?

MR NEMANE: I concede that much, Mr Chairman. However, I have also said to him were any items that could be brought to court brought to court, and his answer was that it is the watch that was brought to court. There were obviously other matters that could have been brought to court and those objects were not brought to court. I will be submitting, therefore, that it tends to corroborate him in that regard. If the investigation was conducted so soon then he should have been found in possession of those items, and no account is given of the rest of the items.

JUDGE WILSON: The State case involved three accused, didn't it?

MR NEMANE: That is so, M'Lord, but it is - the applicant has said that the only exhibit that he saw in court was the watch. If there had been other exhibits, he would have seen them, he would have said that I saw the watch, I saw the TV and so on, but he says I saw only the watch at court. Therefore we go by that evidence that only the watch was brought to court.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, with due respect, Mr Chairman, I don't see the relevance of whether exhibits were there or not. This is not a criminal trial where we are saying this man cannot be convicted because exhibits could not be produced, Mr Chairman. I think, I don't see how, really, the presence of the exhibits would convince this Committee that other policemen assisted the applicant in his operation. In his own evidence, Mr Chairman, he testified that after killing Mr Venter, he was assisted by members of the police who drove the bakkie into the house and got their askaris to help him load the things out of the house. I don't see how can a TV establish that another policeman was involved. I don't find this relevant at all, with respect.

MR NEMANE: May I answer, Mr Chairman? Mr Chairman, the point is not to establish that he cannot be found guilty or should not have been found guilty. The point is that he says that of all the things that were removed from Mr Venter's house, he only took the watch and the ring. The expectation therefore would be that the exhibits that were found at the house of Mr Venter or that were removed from Mr Venter's house, should also have been brought to court. Now ... (intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: I have already dealt with that. They do not bring large pieces of furniture into court. They ... (intervention).

MR NEMANE: But they do bring television sets.

JUDGE WILSON: ... gave evidence about it. They gave evidence about the motor car they said he was driving.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman ...

JUDGE WILSON: So I don't see where your argument goes. The television set was stolen by somebody. Somebody may have sold it six days later. The fact that it is not brought to court does not, in my view, show that it wasn't stolen.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman ...

JUDGE WILSON: Are you suggesting it wasn't stolen?

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, I am not suggesting that it was not unlawfully removed from Mr Venter's house. I concede that. It is part of the evidence of the applicant. But the theory that I am pursuing is that it seems, if you look at the evidence at the trial, and the theory that my learned friend seem to pursue before this Commission, is that the applicant acted for personal gain, and Mr Chairman, I am saying that how could a person remove, be involved in the removal of so many items alone, and only one or two items be found in his possession. I concede that the furniture could not have been brought to the court, that the car could not have been brought to the court, but there was no suggestion at the trial that he might have sold the TV or whatever, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, with respect, my learned friend has not taken this matter any distance whatsoever. The applicant himself testified that assistance was given by the askaris and the people were given clothing and R50,00 thereafter. Unless he is saying he is disputing what his own client has said to this Committee, I fail to see the relevance of all these questions, Mr Chairman (...indistinct)

JUDGE WILSON: What is ... (intervention). Yes?

MR VISSER: May I - sorry, Mr Chairman, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but may I add something. We have a document, Mr Chairman, it is at the office of the Attorney-General and it refers to certain attachments. It is a blue page which says (opsomming van wesenlike feite) - summary of the facts. In that document paragraph 8 says

"The accused returned to the house of the deceased, where they removed the items mentioned in Annexure A."

And Annexure A attached, and which is exactly what you have pointed out, Mr Chairman, it contains a list of the stuff that was stolen. And that's how they showed the list at the trial, as it is normally done.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, I think I am being misunderstood here. I am not denying that the list is correct. What I am saying is, that list is correct, and I am saying that it tends to corroborate the applicant when he says that some of the goods were taken by other policemen. Those policemen are not part of the trial and they were not investigated, and that would explain therefore, why those goods were not before the Court. Those goods that were found in his possession were brought to the court, that is the watch.

JUDGE WILSON: He does not say they were taken by other policemen. He says the TV set was taken by the two people who worked at the hospital.

MR NEMANE: M'Lord, he says that they were given ...

JUDGE WILSON: ...to those two.

MR NEMANE: Yes, by a senior, I think a warrant officer.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, on the State case his two brothers were concerned in the thefts. All it shows is that the applicant did not have the TV set.

ADV DE JAGER: And the radio cassette player was found in accused number 3's possession, i.e. John Ngo, the brother of the applicant. According to the judgment. I don't know whether he would agree with that.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, I think we would have to put that to him.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, put it to him.

MR NEMANE: As the Commissioner pleases. Mr Ngo, there was evidence led at the trial that the radio tape, a radio tape belonging to Mr Venter was found in the possession of accused number 3, do you have any knowledge - do you have any knowledge of that theft?

MR NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR NEMANE: And what is it that you know about the theft?

MR NGO: I have already mentioned that after they have held us, I personally gave them the radio and Sgt Mamume gave Ari some of the things that were taken out of the wardrobe and he gave them R50,00 each as their payment.

MR NEMANE: Now what are some of the things that he gave to Ari, to your brothers?

MR NGO: He gave them some clothing and R50,00.

MR NEMANE: So is it correct that your brothers were given clothing and R50,00 each and a radio tape only?

MR NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR NEMANE: Now during cross-examination you were asked why

when Pietersen arrested you, you did not say hey look, I did this thing, I am a policeman and I did this thing as part of a police operation. Your answer was that he did not work with us, is that correct?

MR NGO: Are you referring to court or when?

MR NEMANE: You see, I am trying to get you back to the stage when your evidence so that when Pietersen arrested you, you did not tell him that he must not arrest you, you are a policeman and you were sent by policemen to go and rob Mr Venter.

MR NGO: I was not supposed to tell him and he was not supposed to be aware of the operation. He is just working for Murder and Robbery squad unit. He is doing criminal cases and not security work.

MR NEMANE: Now during the course of your employment as a member of the security branch, what was the practice regarding the appearance of policemen when you were busy committing an act that would amount to a criminal offence?

MR NGO: This question is not so very clear. I cannot respond, because it is not very clear. Please repeat it.

MR NEMANE: Yes, I will give you an example. If you are sent as a Security Branch member to go and bomb a house, and whilst you are busy bombing a house, a member of the uniform branch appeared on the scene and approached you, what would you do?

MR NGO: The command is very clear. If you are on an operation, any attempt, even if it is a policeman or a member of the society, on completion of that operation you must eliminate that person in order to clear your way. There is no way that you can give yourself in. Those are the clear instructions that we understood. If anybody was

interrupting the operation, they had to be eliminated.

MR NEMANE: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, I am just going through my notes. When you were arrested, did you have the key to the house in S Section in your possession?

MR NGO: No, Sir.

MR NEMANE: Did you go back to the house in S Section after the furniture was delivered at that house?

MR NGO: I never went back there. I left it there and left the firearm of the askari with the askari.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, you said you left it there and the firearm with the askari, what was that "it", was that the key?

MR NGO: After having left the furniture, I went back there, after I had received my payment, to leave the firearm with them, with the askaris.

ADV DE JAGER: No, but in answering now just a minute ago, you said you left "it and the firearm there", when you were asked about the key, whether or not you had the key on you.

MR NGO: I didn't talk about anything else. There is nothing else that I left there other than the firearm.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, the answer that was given now, you clearly said "I left ..." - when you were being asked about the key, you said "I left it there with the firearm of the askaris", didn't he?

MR NEMANE: I wasn't really listening, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: You weren't listening to your client's evidence?

MR NEMANE: I was going through the notes, Mr Chairman. Now Mr Ngo, it seems that you have answered a question which I put to you by saying that you left "it" and the firearm, with the firearm there. Is it correct?

MR NGO: No Sir, I just left the firearm with them.

MR NEMANE: And Mr Ngo, the - yesterday a question was put to you, I do not recall what the question was, but it prompted me to want to answer this question, was being an informer a full-time occupation.

MR NGO: Yes, I was a political activist. Everything that was supposed to happen I was supposed to keep them informed.

MR NEMANE: Yes I now remember, it was specifically regarding Mr Venter. You were saying that Mr Venter was a police informer and it appeared to me it was being suggested to you that Mr Venter was in fact employed by the Railways, and what this - has prompted me to ask further is the fact that Mr Venter was employed with the South African Railways, incompatible with him having been an informer of the police at the same time.

MR VISSER OBJECTS: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, that was never placed in dispute by me. With all due respect.

MR NEMANE: Yes. Am I to understand that the State is now admitting that Mr Venter was an informer and at the same time was employed by the Railways?

JUDGE WILSON: That was not the State, that was Mr Visser who appears for certain policemen.

MR VISSER: And that was not the concession, Mr Chairman. I simply said that we didn't bring about that dispute which is now placed - put to the witness. But what our evidence will be and has been put, was quite clearly that Venter had no political profile, he was never an informer of the police, that these witnesses of mine know about. That was the point.

MR NEMANE: Now the next question, Mr Ngo. Is it correct that an informer who ceases to be an informer without the approval of the police, is regarded as being a threat to the security establishment?

MR NGO: Yes, it is so.

MR NEMANE: Is it correct that there is a kind of culture in the security establishment, that ... (intervention).

MR VISSER OBJECTS: Mr Chairman, I really must object, with all due respect. We had my learned friend lead his own witness. Mr Mpshe didn't lead him, he led him. He was supposed to make a full disclosure of all the facts to you. The points now raised do not arise from cross-examination. That is new evidence afresh, Mr Chairman. And with respect, the reason why we are objecting right now is there is now evidence of cultures which are apparently or presumably or ostensibly - pertain within the Security Branch. We have heard that when you are out to throw a bomb on an operation and a policeman comes around, he has got to be killed. We don't know where this evidence comes from, Mr Chairman, and it is creating a great embarrassment, and it is not founded on any positive evidence which had been given in-chief. We do object to this, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: It is difficult to say directly what it is founded on. There is a general denial of instructions having been given, whereas this applicant says the instructions were given for that very reason. I think he has already made the point. I don't see that it is necessary - didn't he say that in-chief? That that's why he was told to do the job?

MR NEMANE: That is correct, Mr Chairman. Now Mr Chairman, it arose again under cross-examination, in that it seems ...

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on. It was a very long and searching cross-examination and I find it extremely difficult at this stage to say that this may not have arisen from it. So let's just carry on and get finished with it.

MR NEMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Now was there a culture or a tradition of regarding ... (intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: I don't know you can go that far. This was a very junior policeman. To ask him about cultures or traditions of the police force. You can ask him what he believed but not to give expert evidence about cultures in the police force, can you?

MR NEMANE: As Mr Chairman pleases. At the time when you were arrested, had you come to learn about the fact that there is a notion that when one is an informer, one is always, must always remain so? Or remain aligned to the security establishment?

MR NGO: Yes, it is so.

MR NEMANE: When you were given instructions to go and kill Mr Venter, did you get the impression that he had become regarded as a threat to the security establishment? Or at least an undesirable element within the establishment?

MR NGO: According to the information I got, he was not cooperating anymore and he ran away with the payment that he got as an informer. And he had a role in the railway strike that was on. And they had tried to persuade him to co-operate, but he refused. Therefore I must go and kill him. The word used was "eliminate", I must eliminate him.

MR NEMANE: Is it possible that there was another reason for the killing of Mr Venter that you would not have been told about?

MR NGO: Not unless my official didn't make me aware of, but the only reasons I was given was his lack of co-operation and they gave me these instructions, because they knew I had an experience in that field.

MR NEMANE: Can you exclude the possibility that you had

told an incomplete story about Mr Venter?

MR NGO: I did not have personal reasons to kill him, but I was just told to kill him under the given reasons. I don't have any other reasons why I would kill him, myself.

MR NEMANE: Now yesterday you testified that after you being beaten up by students, after they had discovered that you were an informer, you went to live with Mr Venter. You said that Mr Venter had given you protection and one of the Commissioners took you to task about the fact, saying that you were a policeman, or worked for the police, how could you need protection. Can you tell this Commission, this Committee what you meant by saying that you needed protection, and protection from who?

MR NGO: They took me there because I was a student at that time and I was their informer and I was exposed as an informer and I could not stay in the areas where my fellow comrades would be aware of. The alternative was for them to hide me there at Mr Venter's house and I could understand their reason because I was defenceless at that time, I was not a policeman.

MR NEMANE: From whom did you need protection?

MR NGO: I have been attacked by people. And the policemen, because they were aware of my situation, they advised that I needed protection under Mr Venter, until they said I should go and further my studies elsewhere.

MR NEMANE: After killing Mr Venter, Erasmus gave you R500,00. Did Erasmus promise to give you R500,00 before you killed Mr Venter?

JUDGE WILSON: That was not interpreted. I take it it means no?

MR NGO: Yes, no, Mr Chairman.

MR NEMANE: Yes, M'Lord, I have been corrected. It is Coetzee who gave the R500,00.

MR NGO: It is a "no".

MR NEMANE: Now how old were your brothers at the time when they assisted you to bury the body of Mr Venter?

MR NGO: If I can remember clearly, John was 18 years old. I am not up to date with Ari's age, but I know he was older than me.

JUDGE WILSON: (Microphone not switched on).

MR NEMANE: As the Court pleases, I am indebted to his Lordship. And is it correct that you are 25 years of age then?

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

MR NEMANE: And when you joined the police force you already had a previous conviction. Is that correct?

MR NGO: Yes, I had.

MR NEMANE: And in respect of what was the previous conviction?

MR NGO: It was 1983, assault charges.

MR NEMANE: Resisting local arrest?

ADV DE JAGER: Surely this doesn't flow from any cross-examination?

MR NEMANE: Mr Commissioner, it might be, it might be that

I am stretching the point, but the ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Okay. Go on and stretch it but just finish at some time or other.

MR NEMANE: We have come to the end. Now Mr Ngo, what was the policy of the police force about employing people with previous convictions at the time when you were employed?

MR NGO: The people with the criminal record in the police force are not allowed, they cannot be employed.

MR NEMANE: And who was instrumental in your employment as a member of the police force despite the fact that you had a previous conviction?

MR NGO: It was Lieutenant Erasmus and Lieutenant Shaw.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, the point has come to its limit. No more questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEMANE

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Nemane, if this would be of any help to you, you will notice on page 13 of the record that in summarising the evidence of the deceased's mother, the Court noted that two items were identified, and in the context of your argument I would say only two items are identified by the deceased's mother. That was the wrist watch and the radio cassette player.

MR NEMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: You were arrested on the 9th of February.

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: By Warrant Officer Pietersen, is that so?

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: You were taken in a police vehicle?

MR NGO: Yes Sir, that is so.

JUDGE WILSON: Subsequently two credit cards or money cards from Santam were found pushed down next to the seat where you had been sitting. Do you know anything about these?

MR NGO: I know nothing about that, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: That belonged to the deceased.

MR NGO: I know nothing about those credit cards.

JUDGE WILSON: You heard the evidence being given though by Capt Gwala, I think you said that he looked and found them, on the next ...(indistinct).

MR NGO: That was the evidence given by Lieutenant Pietersen, but that was not found on me.

JUDGE WILSON: You told us also now in your re-examination that you shot the deceased first and when he fell down you ripped off his watch and left, do you remember that?

MR NGO: Yes, it happened exactly like that.

JUDGE WILSON: What about putting wire on his wrists, his ankles and round his neck?

MR NGO: I did not put any wires around his neck and arms.

JUDGE WILSON: You know nothing about that?

MR NGO: (Answer not interpreted)

MR VISSER: For what it is worth, Mr Chairman, I might refresh your memory, I did ask him that question and he denied that he did it. He added, if I remember correctly, that while he was loaded in the boot of the car, somebody else might have done it, one of the two policemen.

JUDGE WILSON: I thought your question is about strangling?

MR VISSER: And well wires, yes, strangling specifically, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: To assist the Chair, Mr Chairman, the applicant's statement at page 2 thereof, refers to what the Chair is having a problem with, the last paragraph, the sixth paragraph, "When he fell down I used the hanger to tie his hands and feet".

JUDGE WILSON: "A hanger to tie his hands and feet". You said in your statement that you submitted in your application, that when - that you shot Venter, with a single shot which hit him on the forehead and when he fell down, you used the hanger to tie his hands and feet. That is in your statement which you submitted in your application for amnesty. Do you now say you know nothing about it?

MR NGO: I don't remember me tying him up personally.

JUDGE WILSON: Please bear with me for a moment.

ADV DE JAGER: So this was your statement attached to your application. It is not evidence that you have given in court, it is your own statement, which we refer to as an annexure to your application, and this statement was given, I would say round about August, last year. So it is about six, seven months ago. Can't you remember writing that down?

MR NGO: I do not remember exactly what I said there, but I did mention that I took the watch. I was given two hangers to tie him up.

ADV DE JAGER: Now did you tie him up or didn't you tie him up?

MR NGO: If I can try and recall, I might have tied him up, but I don't remember doing that. What I denied was the fact that I didn't strangle him.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, with reference to the next of kin of the deceased, they are not here, but I refer, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, to the letter which was handed up yesterday which the members of the Committee made use of in putting questions to the applicant, and that sums up this application in respect of the Venter assassination. The letter dated 19 ...

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, I have difficulty with the disclosure that the writer of the letter is not going to appear before the Commission. Whilst at the same time the contents of her letter has been brought to the attention of the Commission, and obviously for no reason other than that, this Committee should have regard to its contents. It seems to me that it is an unfair way of dealing with the application, even if it might be said that there is relative informality in this applications.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But we will surely bear in mind that it was just a letter presented to us. We cannot attach to it the kind of weight, if at all, that it would not deserve. And of course, we will also bear in mind that the contents thereof were put to the applicant and he responded thereto under oath.

MR NEMANE: I am indebted to his Lordship.

MR MPSHE: Then, Mr Chairman, that sums up the Venter assassination and as agreed upon....

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, as foreshadowed in chambers, I have an affidavit with timesheets for leave, in regard to Erasmus, merely for the sake of avoiding to have to forward it, Mr Chairman, may I hand it up right now as EXHIBIT B26.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, I have a difficulty with the manner this said document is being dealt with. I have been shown the document.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I withdraw it, I will just mail it to you. It's as simple as that.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, this is fraud in open court. I am making an objection to the submission of a document and he promises you that he will mail it to you. Mr Chairman, I have looked at this document. I am not satisfied about certain matters arising out of the document. In my submission it is a document which should be authenticated by its writer and its writer should come and present evidence before court and be cross-examined on the contents thereof.

JUDGE WILSON: We are not holding a trial here, as you are fully aware. I have not seen the document, I don't know what it is, but if it is merely to place on record an extract from an official document somewhere, I cannot see why it should raise problems.

MR NEMANE: It is not an extract from an official document, it is a computer print-out, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, at least you have been made aware of it and I take it you will investigate it and when this hearing re-starts you will be prepared and you will have everything to your disposal. You have been warned now so that you can deal with this document.

MR NEMANE: Yes, Mr Chairman, the matter is not that simple. The applicant is sitting in prison. I am acting on the instructions of the Legal Aid directly. I am based in Johannesburg. I don't have an attorney, I don't have the means and the resources to come back and start investigating the matter again. And Mr Chairman ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Well, please apply to the Commission. You are aware of it, that the Commission could assist you, or recommend that you be assisted.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, this is not a matter which should be resolved by investigation. It is a matter of evidential nature, which requires that the writer thereof should be present in court and be cross-examined.

ADV DE JAGER: Wel, I presume he will be present. If you require to cross-examine him.

JUDGE WILSON: As you know, it has been already indicated that affidavits are handed in, but if you indicate you wish to cross-examine on them, the attestant must be available to be questioned.

MR NEMANE: And the admissibility thereof can be decided thereafter?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR NEMANE: As the Chairman pleases.

JUDGE WILSON: Hand it in.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

EXHIBIT B26 HANDED IN

MR MPSHE ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, as already agreed then, that this matter is not yet finalised, there are other incidents that are to be dealt with at a later stage. May then this matter stand postponed to a date to be arranged by the parties.

JUDGE WILSON: (Microphone not switched on).

MR MPSHE: And the Committee members, my apologies.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well. (Indistinct - microphone not switched on).

MR VISSER: May we be excused, Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, if the Committee would not take me to task, Mr Chairman, the next matter is the Jack Menera matter which I am ready to proceed with, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: How long will it take?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I am estimating one and a half hours to two hours, maximum.

JUDGE WILSON: Is there any point in starting now?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the point is that if we started it,

Mr Chairman, we shall have moved some distance and if we postpone then ...

JUDGE WILSON: We do intend to adjourn at 16:30 today. (Indistinct).

MR MPSHE: Then it wouldn't serve any purpose for me to start it, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, then we will start at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, if I may try to impose myself on you and your honourable Committee, Mr Chairman, is it not possible for us to start earlier than nine o'clock, Mr Chairman? It is a very, very noble and humble request. The interpreters don't have a problem, Mr Chairman, I always told them that we may start at six o'clock, they said they don't have a problem, please, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: (Indistinct).

ADV DE JAGER: On the basis that we will adjourn earlier, because it won't serve any purpose starting at six o'clock and adjourning tomorrow night at six.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the intention of starting early is that we adjourn earlier. The opposite cannot hold, Mr Chairman, with respect.

JUDGE WILSON: We will start at 08H30.

MR MPSHE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My learned friend says eight would have been suitable, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: (Indistinct).

ADV DE JAGER: (Indistinct).

MR MPSHE: Could we fine?

ADV DE JAGER: Could we fine those who are late (speaker's mike is off).

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I can give you my word that half past seven I will be seated on this chair, my learned friend will be here at quarter to eight. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR NEMANE: Is it eight o'clock, M'Lord? Is it eight o'clock, M'Lord?

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS