Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, we have adjourned till nine o'clock this morning and we were going to continue as I understood it, with the cross-examination of the victims who gave evidence yesterday. Are they present?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I am terribly sorry to have to tell you that even though I have told the prejudiced yesterday that they must come to me that I must take their affidavits, as I understood to do and although I have made an appointment with them for this morning, they have not come to my offices, they never showed up. I am terribly sorry about this, but this is as far as I can take the matter.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Stander are they truly anxious to take part in these hearings or do they just show up here to come and say something?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, the impression that I got was that they truly want to contribute to these hearings. It might be just a transport problem, they come here together.

I can't give you any information on that. Mr Oliphant was here early this morning, he has already been cross-examined. I have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with him and find out what the problem was. I couldn't find him outside when I was looking for him.

CHAIRPERSON: And the other 11 victims whom you represent, have not seen it fit to attend the hearings?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I have not seen the others since the last time we had a hearing in September.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, doesn't that confirm what my colleague has said, that they appear to be totally disinterested? You haven't seen them since last September, you haven't consulted with them, you haven't taken affidavits from them, they haven't been to see you to ask what was happening and they haven't bothered to come to the hearing?

Are they interested parties at all?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I got the impression that they wanted to contribute. I cannot take the matter any further than that, I am terribly sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, can you tell me, did you ask them to come to your offices to make affidavits?

MR STANDER: Yes, indeed I did that.

CHAIRPERSON: And they just ignored that?

MR STANDER: Nobody showed up. The people who showed up, their evidence was led yesterday.

But yesterday afternoon after the adjournment I once again spoke with them, and I was told that the rest of them would be at my offices this morning at seven o'clock, but they never showed up.

CHAIRPERSON: So they show no interest at all? Very well, I think we should go on with the cross-examination of Mr Khoja?

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, he is here and he is present and he is prepared to give evidence now.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, we are unfortunately not ready to proceed with the cross-examination of Mr Khoja.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not, Mr Memani, you have had since we adjourned yesterday to prepare?

MR MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chairman. Yes, My Lord, but we had those volumes to go through overnight and we still haven't finished doing that.

CHAIRPERSON: You have an Attorney to assist you?

MR MEMANI: Yes, My Lord, he he's had his share of the record to go through. You will recall that we only got these things yesterday and there was also the record?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I have looked at them Mr Memani - 99 percent of them do not relate your client at all, you can just flip down through the pages. You don't have to read them all, do you? Have you looked through them?

MR MEMANI: You have to go through them in order to see that they are not relevant, indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And that takes a second or two.

MR MEMANI: Well, it has not been the case. As far as I can recall ...

CHAIRPERSON: And you in fact were not here when we resumed at nine o'clock this morning, were you?

MR MEMANI: I was here My Lord, what I was told was that the proceedings were not going to start because there were no victims. I then went to fetch my phone from the car. I was told that we were not going to start now.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you think, he says he is not ready. How long do you think you are going to take to go through this Mr Memani? Everything is delayed now.

MR MEMANI: Unfortunately it is not because of me, but it could take about two hours.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you tell me how many of these papers you have gone through already?

MR MEMANI: I have gone through about half of the papers.

ADV DE JAGER: And if you will need another two hours, it means that you spent two hours on going through the rest?

MR MEMANI: Not necessarily My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Which papers have you gone through?

MR MEMANI: I have finished pages 1 - 117.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the one volume of the occurrence book?

MR MEMANI: Yes. And I am about quarter way in pages 118 - 274.

CHAIRPERSON: And have you done the pocket books?

MR MEMANI: I haven't done the pocket books and the register.

CHAIRPERSON: And what has your Attorney done while you have been going through this one?

MR MEMANI: He was going through the evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: The evidence? What? The transcript?

MR MEMANI: That is correct My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: When did he get that?

MR MEMANI: He got it last night.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't he make arrangements to get the transcripts earlier?

MR MEMANI: He did make arrangements earlier, but we never got the records earlier.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you get the transcript from?

MR MEMANI: We got the transcript from Mr Brink.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you ask him for it?

MR MEMANI: We asked for the record some time last year.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell me when?

MR MEMANI: My Attorney is going to go through the correspondence My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: You were present at the previous hearing and your Attorney was present. Did you make notes of the evidence?

MR MEMANI: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: You could work on them as one normally does?

MR MEMANI: Yes, one can work on them, but the point is that I have not finished the pocket book.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but the point is we adjourned to enable you to do that, why did your Attorney not assist you in working on these documents?

MR MEMANI: The notes, the reserves are not complete My Lord, you know, this is something that occurred last year, about three or four months ago and the evidence is lengthy.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but we adjourned particularly for this matter to be proceeded with this morning, didn't we?

MR MEMANI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Not for the whole of Mr Ngo's evidence to be analyzed this morning, for us to proceed with the cross-examination of a single witness.

MR MEMANI: It is not, we are not, it is not because my Attorney has not finished reading the evidence that we are not ready to proceed. It is because I have not finished going through the pocket book.

CHAIRPERSON: If your Attorney had gone through while you went through one volume, he had gone through the other, noting the references to your client, you could have done it in the same space of time.

MR MEMANI: But as I have already indicated, the notes are not perfect and I needed his assistance on the evidence as well.

CHAIRPERSON: What notes are not perfect?

MR MEMANI: My notes of the evidence that was led.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you going through the evidence, are you telling us now? I understood you were going through these documents so you could question the Police Officer who had given evidence about them?

MR MEMANI: My Lord, I am preparing cross-examination broadly My Lord, it is not going to be limited to what is in the books.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you could have prepared that before you came here Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: I could not prepare it without getting the occurrence books and the pocket books My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, I consider this a complete waste of time, I think you and your Attorney have failed to prepare properly for a hearing you knew was going to take place and now you want another two hour adjournment.

MR MEMANI: Well, My Lord, that can be fair on us. How could we have prepared before if we did not get the books before yesterday My Lord?

CHAIRPERSON: You could have worked on these books last night, you and your Attorney. You could have prepared the evidence on your notes of the evidence as what counsel normally do during the course of a trial.

MR VISSER: May I repeat this on record Mr Chairman? I have Colonel Erasmus here. I may just say Mr Chairman, with great respect that perhaps it might be more acceptable to allow Mr Memani time so that we can continue, have some kind of continuity Mr Chairman, we've already got three witnesses standing down for cross-examination, this is the fourth.

I am afraid if I may suggest it with respect, we are going to get entangled into stuff that is being left.

CHAIRPERSON: As against that, we are never going to finish if we take adjournments. Yesterday we started at two o'clock, today we have to start late because counsel isn't ready.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, you are absolutely right. I can't but agree with you. I am just trying to be practical about it.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no doubt that when Colonel Erasmus has given evidence, we will have applications for adjournments to take instructions.

MR VISSER: Absolutely.

ADV DE JAGER: I think we should perhaps tell counsel that if they are not ready to cross-examine, we will seriously consider whether we shouldn't decide that they waived their right to cross-examination and that we will treat the evidence of the person who gave evidence, in the light of he is not being cross-examined and what weight do we attach to the evidence.

But we must proceed, we can't keep on adjourning and adjourning, it is costing money. You are being paid by the Department per day and we can't go on wasting the public's money, taxpayers' money. We are proceeding as though we can carry on for years and years with hearings. We must finish our task, the Act compels us to finish before the 30th of June.

You are making it difficult for us to obey the Act.

MR MEMANI: May I speak please. Mr Chairman, I don't know why I am being blamed for today's delay. Today's impossibility of these proceedings to proceed is primarily because the victims are not here. If the victims had been here, we would have been able to proceed with them and secondly if we had got the records on time, we would have been able to, all the documents that we had, we would have been able to prepare. We have been asking for them I think from around November, we have been asking for these things, but we never got them.

Why is it us who is wasting time?

ADV DE JAGER: They've been given to your Attorney off record. When did your new Attorney file his name as Attorney of record and why didn't you take the trouble of seeing that you got the documents on which he was in possession?

MR MEMANI: My Lord, it was due to the inefficiency of the Commission. My Attorney had already served the terminations of mandate to the TRC, it is because of the non-working of the system of the TRC, that these things were sent to Mr Mthembu. At that stage we had told the TRC that Mr Rapadana is now the Attorney of record.

It was not our fault that they were sent to Mr Mthembu.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I, I don't want to lay another egg here, but what is important that the Committee takes into account and which I want to place on record is we've arranged for Captain Khoja to be here. He is writing Police examinations later this week, he has to attend classes on Wednesday, it is tomorrow.

He has to attend classes apparently on Thursday and he is writing exams on Friday. We never expected that this situation obviously will develop. We expected that we will carry on with his cross-examination and that he would be finished. So we have a difficulty in that if we don't finish it today, I will have to request the Committee for Captain Khoja to be back only on Monday.

And that is the position we find ourselves in. Furthermore Mr Chairman, I want to state categorically that I find it extremely strange that no steps were taken at least in the week before the hearing to make phone calls, to arrange to get the documents by way of courier, etc.

My Attorney and I have been in similar situations lots of times last year, we've always arranged that we get the documents and I find it strange that my learned friend is not ready to proceed with cross-examination.

MR MEMANI: My Lord, we did contact the TRC last year, last week.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems that for the sake of Captain Khoja, we ought to do what we can to get him disposed of today so we propose to adjourn now, at the longest for two hours, but we don't think it is necessary to take two hours. If you look at the evidence of Captain Khoja, it is about 20 pages and he refers to a very small number of entries.

And in my view you can go through these documents very quickly. Will other counsel mean while do what they can to find out if their witnesses are here and what has happened to them. We will adjourn for two hours at the most.

MR MEMANI: My Lord, why don't we release Mr Khoja until Monday and then we proceed with the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he is here now and we are going to go on with him now. If we release him till Monday, I can see some application being made on Monday for a further adjournment.

You said you can finish in two hours, we are going to finish in two hours.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Brink.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, this matter was adjourned for a period of two hours. It is now twenty one minutes past eleven. Captain Khoja is here to be cross-examined by Mr Memani who appears not to have arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: Does anybody know where Mr Memani is? Is he using an office in this building?

MR VISSER: No, we saw him driving away Mr Chairman. I didn't see him, my Attorney saw him drive away.

CHAIRPERSON: And nobody saw him drive back?

MR VISSER: May I suggest Mr Chairman, to save time, perhaps to use the time more fruitfully, some of Mr Stander's clients are here now that stood down from yesterday. Can we continue and deal with them?

CHAIRPERSON: Can we dispose of them, yes.

MR VISSER: The only thing is Mr Memani might have an interest in that cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Memani should have an interest in attending the hearings or have the courtesy to inform someone if he is delayed.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. We can call them in any order that Mr Stander wants to call them.

CHAIRPERSON: Should we call them in the order that they gave their evidence in chief?

MR STANDER: That is acceptable thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Jwayi, then. Mr Chairman, thank you very much. Mr Jwayi is present in the hall and I ask him to come to the front, so that he can be cross-examined.

Mr Chairman, before I start, on behalf of my clients I want to apologise for the fact that they weren't here this morning.

I was informed that there was a problem with their transport and that was the reason why they were late. I apologise to the Commission and to all the other people involved for this delay.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Jwayi, you gave evidence yesterday and you took an oath to speak the truth, do you remember?

MR JWAYI: That is correct.

JOHN JWAYI: (still under oath)

MR VISSER: Can I ask you, were you present and did you attend any of the previous sessions of the hearings of the applications of Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai in the other hall up in Bloemfontein North, did you attend any of those hearings?

MR JWAYI: No sir.

MR VISSER: Not once?

MR JWAYI: I attended one hearing, then I was supposed to go somewhere, then I left, I didn't stay long.

MR VISSER: The question is really, did you hear either Mr Ngo or Mr Motsamai or both of them give evidence in regard to the incident to which you testified at Bloemfontein?

MR JWAYI: I heard them speak on TV, but when they were appearing in that hearing I was not present, because of the reasons I gave.

MR VISSER: All right, let me ask you this. Were you aware before you came to give evidence what they said about what happened there at Fountain Street in Bloemfontein, regarding this group of people who wanted to leave the country? Did you know what they said?

MR JWAYI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And was what they said, correct in your view?

MR JWAYI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, I think we should place on record that Mr Memani has now joined us.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I also be told what is happening because the matter was adjourned for two hours at twenty five past eleven and the time is now 25 past eleven, and we find proceedings in progress?

CHAIRPERSON: It is later than twenty five past eleven, Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: I beg your pardon. Well, it is only twenty eight minutes past, according to my watch.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Did you know a person whose name was George Mmusi?

MR JWAYI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did George Mmusi have anything to do with the fact that you were leaving the country in April of 1985?

MR JWAYI: I don't believe so. What I know is that we were hiding at his place.

MR VISSER: Now, let's just get to your evidence about how you were assaulted. If I understand you correctly, you said that you saw Mr Motsamai and Mr Ngo together with members of the Security Police in a guard of honour, is that what you said?

MR JWAYI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you were then asked who assaulted you, and your reply if I have my note correct, is that Killian assaulted me more than the other policemen, is that what you said?

MR JWAYI: I don't know the spelling, but I know him as Killian. I just wanted to correct that first. Secondly is that he is the one who was responsible for my assault.

MR VISSER: I see, now you have just said something slightly different, with respect.

Was he the only one that assaulted you?

MR JWAYI: That is not correct.

MR VISSER: Who, each and every person who assaulted you, could you give us the name of each and every person who assaulted you in April 1985 at Fountain Street, Bloemfontein?

MR JWAYI: I spoke of Killian, then I spoke of Kopi. Kopi assaulted me on the second day. What I explained is that when we were assaulted as they were using the tube, you would not see who took part or who were present but you would feel that, you will make a sense that people who are assaulting you is not only one person, but many people.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, will you just forgive me for a moment, I have a base in my earphone. Mr Interpreter can you just say something please?

MR JWAYI: Because we were blindfolded, you would not know how many people took part in your assault.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Can you tell this Committee, in that building where precisely were you when you were assaulted by either Kopi or by Killian or any other person? Was it in the kitchen, was it in the passage or was it in an office or was it in some other place?

MR JWAYI: Killian assaulted me in his own office and Kopi assaulted me in the passage just next to the kitchen.

MR VISSER: And you also told the Committee please stop me if I am wrong, that Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai were in the kitchen, is that what you said?

MR JWAYI: I didn't say that.

MR VISSER: You didn't say that?

MR JWAYI: I didn't say that.

MR VISSER: I think the interpreter is saying I didn't say that. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Did Mr Motsamai assault you in any way?

MR JWAYI: On that day, he didn't assault me.

MR VISSER: Mr Jwayi, with all due respect to you, I am talking about the whole incident of April 1985. I am not talking about that day. I am asking you did Mr Motsamai on that occasion when you were arrested with 18 or 19 or 25 or 27 other people, I don't know how many, assault you, that is the question?

MR JWAYI: I said he did not assault me.

MR VISSER: Yes. And Mr Ngo?

MR JWAYI: He did not assault me also.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Will you please think back if you will, and tell the Committee exactly in what way you were assaulted throughout that whole period, if you can remember that? What did they do to you?

MR JWAYI: They did many things. One thing which I may firstly assault is they slapped me, then if you don't cooperate with them, they would kick you.

If you are adamant, they would press you against the floor, then they would handcuff you, then they would blindfold you with that tube. Then again, they would continue with the kicks and being assaulted with different assortments. There is a certain black plastic which they would put on your neck, you would jump over and then you would be kicked. I would say you would be suffocated when they used that plastic.

Those are the assortments they used in the assault.

MR VISSER: If somebody were to say that you were made to do exercises, would that be wrong?

MR JWAYI: I don't remember that somebody would make you do exercises without to do so, I would take that as part of torture.

MR VISSER: But were you compelled to do exercises, that is really the question?

MR JWAYI: I explained that they did those things without my permission.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, were you asked to do push ups, so-called push ups?

MR JWAYI: They would instruct you, not request you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, did they instruct you to do push ups?

MR JWAYI: I would say it was an instruction which was forceful.

MR VISSER: You see, because this is where I was coming to. Who instructed you, forced you, if you will, to do push ups?

MR JWAYI: That is Killian.

MR VISSER: Quite sure of that?

MR JWAYI: I spoke that Killian was the one who assaulted me more than any other person.

MR VISSER: That is why I am asking you, who all instructed you, forced you to do push ups? Can't you remember?

MR JWAYI: I said it is Killian.

CHAIRPERSON: He answered your question and he said it was Killian. How can you then say to him can't you remember.

MR VISSER: With respect Mr Chairman, he added a little tail to it and he said Killian was the one who did it more than others, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: He said I told you Killian was the one who assaulted me more than others. Carry on.

MR VISSER: Were you forced to do any other form of physical exercise, than push ups?

MR JWAYI: I said they would put me on a black plastic, then you would be handcuffed at the back, then you are forced to jump and you would be kicked.

MR VISSER: If anybody said that you were forced to do frog jumps, would that be wrong?

MR JWAYI: Yes, they forced me to do frog jumps without my permission.

MR VISSER: You know Mr Jwayi, I am going to argue to this Committee that I find it very strange that you didn't tell the Committee any of this until you were prompted in cross-examination.

Do you have any explanation for the fact that you just didn't tell the Committee this in the first place?

MR JWAYI: I wouldn't regard them exercises because I didn't want to do those things, I would regard them as torture.

MR VISSER: But so much the more, why didn't you tell the Committee that you were not only slapped and kicked and blindfolded with a rubber tube, you were also forced, tortured by being forced to do frog jumps and push ups, why didn't you tell us that?

MR JWAYI: I was not asked to say that.

MR VISSER: Yes, I am going to suggest to you the reason why you didn't say that, it is because it didn't happen. It never happened, you were never assaulted, you were never forced to do anything.

MR JWAYI: The most important thing is about time, you would not answer for something you were not asked.

MR VISSER: Yes. You were asked whether you were assaulted Mr Jwayi, let's leave it at that.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, with respect the witness was asked whether he was tortured, he has told us this time and again. I don't know where my learned friend is taking us. The witness has repeatedly said what was done to him. It was done in order to save time and the witness has already given a more detailed explanation than what was expected. Perhaps my learned friend can tell us where he is going.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think Mr Visser wanted to know why the witness, when you led him yesterday, why he did not tell us that he was forced to do some physical exercises.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I hear what you are saying Mr Chairman, but the problem is as the witness has already told us, it is part of the so-called torture, that is why he didn't mention it. Because he used the collective name.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think that is a point for argument. I don't see anything wrong personally with the question which was put by Mr Visser.

ADV DE JAGER: He did give evidence or testified that he was hit with fists, with a belt and with the pipe, but he said nothing about forced exercises, and that is the point Mr Visser is making, whether it is correct or wrong, that is another matter.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, that is not what my argument is. My argument is that this morning he told us exactly what was done.

ADV DE JAGER: You can use that in your argument if that is your argument, but let's proceed with the cross-examination.

MR STANDER: As it pleases you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Kopi is here, he has heard your evidence and he says that you are talking nonsense. He never assaulted you, although he was present while you were in detention, he never assaulted you. Do you have any comment on that?

CHAIRPERSON: Who was that?

MR VISSER: Kopi, I am sorry Mr Chairman.

MR JWAYI: They are used to denying things they did.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is a sweetened statement. Can you identify Mr Kopi in the audience? Do you see him?

MR JWAYI: He is not present.

MR VISSER: If Mr Kopi is in the audience, would you just stand up please. It seems he isn't yes, I am sorry for wasting your time, I thought he was here Mr Chairman.

I have no further questions. I am sorry Mr Chairman, my Attorney thinks I should ask this. Yes, of course Mr Chairman, and it is my fault that I slipped on this.

Mr Kopi will also tell this Committee that none of you were assaulted when he was present, he never saw any assault on you in addition to the fact that he denies that he assaulted you, he says he never saw anybody assault any of you.

MR JWAYI: They would dispute that, many of them, but they were present when the assault took place. He was present, he knows very well that it happened.

MR VISSER: I do think that is now my final question, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR STANDER: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: .

MR VISSER: My learned friend, Mr du Plessis, wants to know whether you can now interpose Mr Khoja. I have no objection to that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should. We put Mr Memani on terms so that he could get back to write his exams, and I think we should dispose of him so that he can go as soon as possible.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should place on record, it appears in the transcript that when the matter came before us last, Mr Memani pointed out that he would need time to take instructions from his client, as regards the Exhibit X which had been handed in by this witness.

This witness had not referred to anything else. I then said that I thought copies should be made from the documents, which should be made available and I said I propose to have copies made of certain of these documents which will be available for circulation, they will go to Mr Memani first for him to work on, and then they will be made available to others.

It appears that for reasons best known to those responsible, the documents were not sent to Mr Memani first, but it is quite clear that the adjournment was to enable him to look at those documents and that was some three or four months ago.

And he has now only got the documents, he tells me, yesterday. We will now be able to continue. Are you ready to proceed now, Mr Memani?

MR MEMANI: Yes, My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: You were the person to cross-examine the person next, I don't think anybody else was interested.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I think the witness is still under oath.

CAPTAIN KHOJA: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I should, unless anybody wishes

available later, return to this witness, the original documents.

Captain Khoja, can you take these documents back to where they came from?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I will return them sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I am returning to him the four pocket books, the occurrence book and the single quarters' register.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Mr Khoja, you were asked about Mr Venter and the question that you were asked whether you knew him and you said that you knew him very well.

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Can you describe Mr Venter?

CAPT KHOJA: Mr Venter was a status above mine, but not much.

MR MEMANI: And what else?

CAPT KHOJA: He is a white person, he is not as black as me, I would say he is a white person.

MR MEMANI: What colour was his hair? I am saying what colour was his hair?

CAPT KHOJA: It will be the same as Mr Britz' hair.

MR MEMANI: Where did you know him from?

CAPT KHOJA: I started to know Mr Venter when he phoned me

from Bloemfontein communicating with Constable Ngo, that is for the first time I started to know him, that there is somebody called Mr Venter.

MR MEMANI: Did you see him after he phoned you?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I saw him after the conversation on the phone.

MR MEMANI: How many times?

CAPT KHOJA: I saw him once.

MR MEMANI: And the colour of his hair was not Mr Britz' hair colour?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct, it was the same as Mr Britz' hair.

MR MEMANI: No, I am putting it to you that you are wrong, the colour of Mr Venter's hair was not the same as that of Mr Britz.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I would like to know the basis of my learned friend's statement. As far as I can remember no evidence about how Mr Venter looked like, was introduced before the Committee and I am not sure if my learned friend knew Mr Venter.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that his client who lived with Mr Venter for at least two weeks, could describe him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then he must put it on record on that basis Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Can you dispute that?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I dispute that because I saw the colour of his hair the time I met him. It was not an old person, you know that the colour changes through age, you can even change - Mr Britz can change his hair to black.

MR MEMANI: But he died only a few months after you saw him, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: I know that he died, but I cannot tell how many, after how long. After I saw him, I received a message that he died.

MR MEMANI: Are you saying that you don't know how long after you saw him, he died?

CAPT KHOJA: I don't remember well, but then I would remember, but now I am not able to remember after how many months, but I have knowledge that after I saw him, thereafter he died.

MR MEMANI: And you cannot say that you knew him very well, you saw him only once, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: I knew that person well, because he communicated with me many times. He was phoning in in my office looking for Constable Ngo.

MR MEMANI: And his car, what colour was his car?

CAPT KHOJA: I don't know which car you are talking about. Are you talking about the car which was left in the barracks or which car?

MR MEMANI: By whom was it left at the barracks?

CAPT KHOJA: It was with Constable Ngo.

MR MEMANI: When he left it, where did he go to?

CAPT KHOJA: The car was not left there by Mr Venter, it was brought by Constable Ngo to Mamelodi barracks.

MR MEMANI: And for how long did he keep it there?

CAPT KHOJA: Around three weeks or a month.

MR MEMANI: And you said that then Mr Venter arrived, looking for the car?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: How did he get to speak to you?

CAPT KHOJA: He sought me or he saw the Commander of the barrack, then he met me.

MR MEMANI: Were you the first person then when he communicated with when he was looking for the vehicle?

CAPT KHOJA: When he appeared, he came straight to me. I don't know as to whether he was directed by people, that the Commander's office is that one or he knew that it was PA3, I don't know.

MR MEMANI: You see, in your evidence in chief you told us that he went to Ngo's Commander who then referred him to you.

CAPT KHOJA: I am the Commander at the barracks, there is no other Commander at the barracks.

MR MEMANI: Ngo's Commander according to you, would have been Unit 19, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: At that time he was working under my supervision, then he came from Unit 19, we should not mix the two. He came from Unit 19 and then he worked under my supervision.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, sorry that I have taken so long to intervene here. My learned friend, Mr Memani stated that Captain Khoja testified that Mr Venter was referred to Captain Khoja by the Commander of Unit 19.

Now, we didn't have the record, we borrowed Mr Brink's record.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say he was referred by the Commander of Unit 19.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, the only place I can find in the record where there is reference to a Commander is on page 1125, where he says when he arrived at Mamelodi he requested and then it says indistinct Commander, then he was able to trace me, then he found me at the barracks, that was what Captain Khoja testified.

I just want to clear that up so that there is no misunderstanding.

CHAIRPERSON: It is part of the record. There can be no misunderstanding.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani is going to argue that what that means is (a), and you are going to argue it means (b).

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The witness has explained that he was the Commander at the barracks, and the person may have been referred to him because the indistinct, unfortunately nobody cleared it up at the time, may have been he requested the name of the Commander. Then he was able to trace me, it could be 101 things.

At the time, I don't think anybody thought it was of any importance and it was not investigated then.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I just want to show that the witness didn't necessarily contradict himself, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Mr Khoja, my instructions are that Mr Venter had dark hair.

CAPT KHOJA: That is okay, but I didn't see it as black, I saw it as the same as Mr Britz' hair.

MR MEMANI: And furthermore my instructions are that he was very slender and very short.

CAPT KHOJA: I agree with you, because I am short. I said he might be a little bit taller than me, as compared to me.

MR MEMANI: You are not very slender, aren't you?

CAPT KHOJA: I am slender. You see me.

MR MEMANI: I see your legal representatives are laughing at that suggestion.

CAPT KHOJA: I don't know, because I am slender.

MR MEMANI: And he was shorter than you?

CAPT KHOJA: That is not correct. If I remember well, the time I was standing with him, I was able to look up which means he was taller than me.

MR MEMANI: And I am further told that months before his death, he had a blue Cressida.

CAPT KHOJA: I don't know that one, I know the white Toyota Cressida.

MR MEMANI: What happened to the white Toyota Cressida?

CAPT KHOJA: It was driven by Constable Ngo, he used to come home with it, I don't know what happened.

MR MEMANI: Now, my instructions are that initially - I will retract the question for the time being to take instructions My Lord.

Now, Mr Khoja, when Mr Venter came and complained about his car, did he get it before he left?

CAPT KHOJA: He didn't get it, Constable Ngo was not present.

MR MEMANI: He obviously then left without the car. Now, how long after that did Ngo return the car?

CAPT KHOJA: He didn't take a long time because Ngo returned from work, then I gave him the information that Mr Venter wanted his car back.

MR MEMANI: Did he complain to you about ...

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, he was complaining to me, he told me that.

MR MEMANI: And he was saying that he took the vehicle without his permission, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: He said he gave him the car so that he should come to work, and then he must bring it back. He is surprised that Ngo is not returning the car.

MR MEMANI: I see. Then it was not correct to suggest to Mr Ngo that Mr Venter had complained that he had taken the vehicle without his permission?

CAPT KHOJA: They agreed from in Bloemfontein that Ngo would take the car to Mamelodi, when he arrived at Mamelodi, he must return the car on a particular date. That is the information I received from Mr Venter.

MR MEMANI: Presumably the fact that it was taken with his permission and it was an arrangement between Mr Ngo and Mr Venter that led to Mr Ngo being in possession of the vehicle, you did not record the fact of Mr Venter's visit in the occurrence book?

CAPT KHOJA: No, I didn't record the visit. It was not an official visit. In the occurrence book we register official occurrences, not anything which happens at the barracks.

MR MEMANI: But it would have been serious enough to warrant recording in the occurrence book, isn't it, if Mr Venter had complained that Mr Ngo had effectively stolen his vehicle and was keeping it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have to object against that. Mr Khoja testified now and he testified last time, he said Mr Venter explained to me that he has a problem, that he lent Ngo his car, that he is coming to Pretoria and then he was supposed to return the car on a particular day and the car was, I think it should have been, not returned.

Now, Captain Khoja never testified that he said that he had stolen the car.

MR MEMANI: The objection is ill-founded. I haven't said that this witness testified that. I did not say that he said that.

Secondly I am saying that the fact that there was an arrangement between the two parties accounts for the fact that it was not recorded in the occurrence book and all I need from him is a yes or a no.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MEMANI: You told us in your evidence in chief, that you met Mr Ngo immediately after he graduated from college.

CAPT KHOJA: That is not correct. Those dates are different, I would not say immediately after his completion of police training. There were dates, appointment dates, passing out dates, there were dates which were used for arrivals at the barracks. The dates are many which appear there.

MR MEMANI: In fact your evidence is that he started, he probably started living in the barracks where you lived in ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I interpose here.

MR MEMANI: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: I would like my learned friend ...

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I am saying something and this is not justified.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I would like my learned friend to indicate in the record to us where exactly does he get that evidence, because I am objecting against misleading the Committee, misleading the witness and misleading everybody else about what was testified previously.

CHAIRPERSON: Where in the record does he say it was immediately after he left the College.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I was about to put to this witness that his evidence was that Mr Ngo joined the barracks in February 1987.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MEMANI: And that is just soon, soon after he graduated from college.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you put to him that he said Ngo joined soon after he graduated from college. He didn't say that, did he?

MR MEMANI: No, those were not his exact words.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR MEMANI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you put it to him that that is what he said in chief. I was rectifying that when my learned friend interrupted me and I was saying that in fact his evidence was that he joined that barracks in February 1987.

CAPT KHOJA: He arrived at the barracks in February 1987, on the 5th.

MR MEMANI: And is it correct that your evidence is that he started working with you as from that time?

CAPT KHOJA: That is not correct. When he arrived on the 5th of February, he was coming only for accommodation when I allocated accommodation for him.

MR MEMANI: And at that time he worked with Unit 19?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Now, after that, he started working with you?

CAPT KHOJA: After the 5th of February, he started working with me. His arrival was recorded on the books.

MR MEMANI: Are you saying that Mr Ngo started working with you as from the 5th of February 1987 onwards?

CAPT KHOJA: No. On the 5th of February is when he arrived to look for accommodation at the barracks.

MR MEMANI: You see it was put to Mr Ngo by your counsel that during his stay at the barracks, he was no more than an assistant, a caretaker who saw to it that the barracks were cleaned and he collected mail.

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: But surely that doesn't accord with him working at Unit 19, does it?

CAPT KHOJA: May you please repeat your question sir?

MR MEMANI: Your answer doesn't accord with him working at Unit 19.

CAPT KHOJA: Let me try to explain it well. This person was a member of the Unit 19. He was brought to me to work with me, and he was under my supervision.

That is the situation. When he was under my supervision, he couldn't have been controlled by seniors in Unit 19. If I wanted to send him there to prepare some documents, I would write in the records that he should go there and prepare those documents.

MR MEMANI: Now, I want us to limit the scope of the disputes and perhaps to limit the extent of cross-examination and I want you to tell me clearly whether you are certain that as from the 5th of February 1987, Mr Ngo was registered with Unit 19 but he in fact worked with you at the barracks?

CAPT KHOJA: On the 5th of February 1987, he was working under Unit 19 and he was staying with me at the barracks, he was not working with me at the barracks.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you kindly explain, on the 6th of February, was he working under your supervision or since when did he start under your supervision?

CAPT KHOJA: It won't be on the 6th, I would say it was at the beginning of August or it might be July or the beginning of August of the same year, 1987.

MR MEMANI: May I have a moment My Lord. Mr Khoja, during the time when Mr Ngo worked with you, how was Ngo's typical day spent at work?

CAPT KHOJA: We were doing office hours, we start at quarter past seven up to 16h00, that is four o'clock. After hours Ngo would remain behind so that he would help people from Unit 19 with the arrangement at the barracks.

MR MEMANI: Now, what arrangements?

CAPT KHOJA: He was taking care that the policemen who were staying there had blankets and mattresses. They had bedding, their kitchen is clean, the toilets are clean, the showers are clean and the showers are clean.

MR MEMANI: But according to the occurrence book, that is what he would do during the day, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And in the evenings?

CAPT KHOJA: At night, we are not doing anything, we do those things during the day.

MR MEMANI: And I want to refer you to entry number 80, dated 14 September 1987 in occurrence book, pages 1 - 117.

CHAIRPERSON: What page are you referring to?

MR MEMANI: Page 18, My Lord, entry number 80.

CAPT KHOJA: Is it 18 or 80?

MR MEMANI: 80. Now you see, the entry says that "departure Warrant Officer Khoja to Mamelodi for court attendance."

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I see that.

MR MEMANI: Do you recall what case it was that you had to attend?

CAPT KHOJA: The case number appears there, it says CR515438/87. I don't remember what case was that, but those cases would be the crime that was committed at the barracks. Those are the cases I used to attend at court.

MR MEMANI: Now, I also want to refer you to page 25. That entry records that at 07h15 you reported for duty and there is no mention of Ngo having reported for duty.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I see that.

MR MEMANI: Do you recall why Ngo was absent?

CAPT KHOJA: The way it was written, it was not cross-indexed because something which is called absent register which we didn't find, it would be the one that will tell us where he went on that day.

MR MEMANI: In fact upon my reading of the entries, Mr Ngo was absent from the 29th of September 1987 to the 20th of January 1988. This is now at page 70 when he reported for duty at entry number 96.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I see that.

MR MEMANI: And I have said that he was absent from duty, but that is a misnomer, he did not work with you for that period, because if he had been absent from duty, you would have recorded that he was absent from duty and you would have referred the matter to his Commanding Officer?

CAPT KHOJA: I already stated that information of that kind, which all documents in the AR register, would be the one which will be able to tell us what happened. If I am on leave, it would record that on the AR, which is the Absent Register. Then they wouldn't write on the occurrence register saying absent for duty, absent for duty. It is recorded on the AR which is absent register.

MR MEMANI: Now, if Mr Ngo were absent from duty without leave, you recorded that in the occurrence book and secondly you recorded that you are going to report the matter with his Commanding Officer, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And we have to accept therefore that there was a lawful reason for him not working with you in that period because you did not make an entry amounting to a complaint of absence from duty without leave?

CAPT KHOJA: It won't be a reason because he was working with me. If he is on leave, they would put his name on the absent register. I would not write anything on the occurrence register, I would leave it open, because AR register is the one which controls the absence of the particular member.

MR MEMANI: Mr Ngo would not have been on leave from the 28th of September 1987 to the 20th of January 1988?

CAPT KHOJA: I don't agree with that, because I would have discovered that mistake. I am able even to discover two days, then therefore I would report the matter.

He wouldn't do any other work other than that he was on leave.

ADV DE JAGER: Captain, could it be that during that period, he was called up by Unit 19 for instance and sent to say Kroonstad on duty?

CAPT KHOJA: I would not tell you something I do not know, as whether it was possible or not possible. If he is absent, I would just write there that he is absent. If he went out with an official leave or official duty, then I would leave it open.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's not waste time, let's look at the pocket book number 2, which you have copies of I take.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I have it.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 37, Friday the 25th of September 1987. I am afraid I have difficulty reading the first word "(indistinct) on duty at Mamelodi police station at four o'clock that afternoon. He says reports on duty at Unit 19, then I can't read the next word - basis, inspected by somebody.

MR MEMANI: Let me take him through the ...

CHAIRPERSON: And later he was taken, reported to Church Street. It is quite clear, he was on other duty, isn't it? He was not on leave?

MR MEMANI: That is correct.

CAPT KHOJA: I am requesting the page you were referring to sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Pocket book number 2, you've got the original pocket books with you too, if you want to refer to them. Captain, they are laying next to you.

CAPT KHOJA: I see that.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we are just trying to determine if he wasn't on one of the courses, we are trying to get the correct document Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, that is not quite correct, we know he was on a course then, I am just finding the reference, trying to find the reference for it. It is in a P27 document, we are just going through them right now, Mr Chairman. He was at a course at Hammanskraal at the college during that year, we are just establishing the correct dates Your Worship.

MR MEMANI: My Lord, there must be order here My Lord. I am cross-examining and if Mr Du Plessis wants to re-examine, he can re-examine. We can't have a situation where Mr Visser and Du Plessis just jump in any time they want to do so.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it is at page 68 and it is Exhibit P27/6 and you will find an entry there it reads 18th of May 1987, Human Resources Management and then it goes College, Hammanskraal. I am not sure whether this is of any assistance to either Mr Memani or my learned friend, Mr du Plessis. Exhibit 27/6 in Bundle B Mr Chairman, and it is at page 68 of Bundle B.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Chairman, this really is not a justified interruption. May I proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: If there is a document that shows where he is, we will save a lot of time without speculating whether he was on leave and things?

MR MEMANI: I am not speculating My Lord, I am cross-examining and if I am wrong, he is entitled to re-examine as indeed he is referring you to a false document.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: Mr Khoja, if I may refer you to the pocket book, you did not work with Mr Ngo until, or you did not sign his pocket book until the 20th of January 1988. This is now at page, you signature appears for the first time at page 48.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not quite correct, it appears again for the first time,it appears earlier for the earlier period when he was working with him.

MR MEMANI: That is assumed to be understood My Lord.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, even again where there is a signature again, he was posted again. He is another member who went there, it is possible that he as at Unit 19 at that time.

MR MEMANI: At page 47, the entry just before your signature there is Tuesday, 1988, 01. I don't know what the date is there, it says that he reported on duty at Unit 19 and he was doing camp duty.

CHAIRPERSON: The date is the 19th.

MR MEMANI: I am indebted to His Lordship. Do you see that?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I do.

MR MEMANI: And do you see that on Wednesday, the entry at page 44 I think it is the 18th, he was on duty at Unit 19? Do you see that?

CAPT KHOJA: You say on the 18th?

MR MEMANI: You see the top of page 42, can you see that?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I see that.

MR MEMANI: I beg your pardon My Lord, I was looking at page 44. It is Wednesday, I think the 18th or the 13th. It must be the 13th.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I do see it.

MR MEMANI: He was working at Unit 19.

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And as from 30th September, that is now at page 39, he reported at Unit 19.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I see that.

MR MEMANI: And he was obviously then not on a course, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: The way it is, it shows that he was at work at Unit 19.

MR MEMANI: Now we see again that at entry 113, this is page 72 on 22 January 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 72 of what?

MR MEMANI: We are now in the occurrence book, My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Occurrence book, thank you. Entry number?

MR MEMANI: 113.

CAPT KHOJA: 113 refers to the 21st.

MR MEMANI: The 22nd of January 1988 according to the pocket book that I have. Oh, yes, lower down yes, it is 23 January 1988, do you have that?

CAPT KHOJA: I am still looking for it sir

MR MEMANI: Did I say 113?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am totally confused. Are we in the pocket book or are we in the occurrence book, page 72? That is how I understand it Mr Chairman. The date there on top is 25 January 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at entry 113, you will see it is under the date, Monday 23rd of January 1988.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: It must be the 23rd of January.

CAPT KHOJA: May you please give me your copy because I don't find it in my copy.

MR MEMANI: I think if one looks at the date on the top, it is Friday, January 22. Then the Monday must be 25 January 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: You have the original in your possession, you can look at that.

CAPT KHOJA: May you please be slow so that I will be able to give you the correct response, so be a little bit slower.

Yes, I found it sir.

MR MEMANI: Now, according to that entry Mr Ngo went to Unit 19 base to complete certain forms?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Were you a member of Unit 19?

CAPT KHOJA: No, I was not a member of Unit 19. I was the supervisor at the barracks.

I was working under Station Commissioner of Pretoria Central.

MR MEMANI: And you were not Ngo's Commander as you said, but his Commander was in Unit 19, wasn't he?

CAPT KHOJA: You must understand me well. If Mr Memani was to understand this correctly is that Ngo was transferred from Unit 19, I was saying his pay point was at Unit 19 and what I would say is a change. He would work under my supervision, it is my work to ensure that this person does his work so that when his Commander is not there in charge of this person, I should just leave him doing whatever he likes. He was working under my command.

MR MEMANI: Are we agreed that you were not his Commander but you were just the day to day supervisor?

CAPT KHOJA: The way you state that, Commander and supervisor are doing the same thing. The supervisor commands and the Commander commands. If you ask me of the Commanding Officer, if you ask me of a Commander, the Commanding Officer is in Unit 19, I was his Commander at the barracks.

MR MEMANI: But each time there was a disciplinary problem with him, you would refer the matter to Unit 19, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: I would refer him after I have taken some steps of discipline. After I have reported his conduct in the occurrence book.

MR MEMANI: Now, let's go to entry 142, dated 29 January 1988, at page 74.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I do.

MR MEMANI: It may not have been brought to your attention, but there was evidence that Mr Ngo applied to join the Security Branch and Captain Loots testified that Mr Ngo went to Kompol only once.

CAPT KHOJA: I would not say his application was saying he was going to the Security Branch, he was just making application for a transfer. I don't know as to whether he was making a transfer to come back to Bloemfontein or to go to a particular place, but the way I see is that he was applying for a transfer.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Ngo says he was applying for a transfer to the Security Branch. Bokaba says that he accompanied him to Security Branch only once. Do you want to dispute that?

CAPT KHOJA: I would not dispute that because he did not inform me that he was applying where or to be transferred to Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you putting it that Mr Ngo went to the Security Head Office only once?

MR MEMANI: No. I am saying is he disputing the evidence by Bokaba and Ngo that he was applying for a transfer to the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you were saying something about going there once?

MR MEMANI: Well, if I did mention it, it was not in the essence of the question. The essence of the question is is he disputing that Ngo, what Ngo and Bokaba said that when he applied for a transfer it was not for Bloemfontein, but it was for Security Branch in Pretoria.

CAPT KHOJA: I would not dispute something I do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you read your occurrence book, you were in charge of the occurrence book, weren't you?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I read the occurrence book.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, if you look at page 105 of the occurrence book, on Wednesday the 5th of April, do you see it?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Entry number 9 or 14 on the bottom of the right hand corner.

CAPT KHOJA: I see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Departure, Constable M.N. Ngo to South African Police Security Head Office Pretoria for interview.

CAPT KHOJA: May you please give me the serial number?

CHAIRPERSON: It is the bottom right hand corner of page 105. Departure, 07h20 in the morning.

CAPT KHOJA: I see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you see that entry?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: That he was going to the Security Head Office for an interview?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Look at page 108. Entry number 42.

CAPT KHOJA: I see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Constable Ngo to the South African Police Security Head Office, Pretoria for an interview.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I see that.

CHAIRPERSON: So here were two interviews a week apart?

CAPT KHOJA: I see those entries. There are two.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MEMANI: Now, does this remind you then that Mr Ngo applied for transfer to Security Branch in Pretoria?

CAPT KHOJA: It doesn't remind me that way, because Security Branch may call me for an interview. It may interview you about different issues, about your work, about any other thing. They do that with any other Department.

MR MEMANI: ... that I refer to in this line, spoke of him going there to collect forms, application forms? Therefore by necessary implication when he went for interviews now, it was in respect of his job at Security Branch.

CAPT KHOJA: I would not dispute what you are saying, because if I dispute that or agree with that, I would make a mistake. I would go there and collect particular forms which are confidential, because I wanted to work with confidential issues without even working there at the Security Branch.

MR MEMANI: His Lordship has already referred you to entry 42. If I may have a moment My Lord. I want to refer you to entry number 71 at page 112, dated Tuesday, 1988-04-19.

That entry speaks of you issuing a firearm to Ngo and explaining to him the provisions of the Firearms' Act.

CAPT KHOJA: May you please repeat the entry number?

MR MEMANI: 112, entry number 71, the date is the 19th of April 1988, at 07h30.

CAPT KHOJA: I found that.

MR MEMANI: Do you remember issuing the firearm to him?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I do.

MR MEMANI: For what purpose did you issue the firearm to him?

CAPT KHOJA: At the barracks we handle guns to protect the barracks in case it is attacked.

MR MEMANI: He had been there for over a year and there is no entry that he was issued with a firearm except this one and another entry when he was going to raid someone who was misbehaving at the barracks?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct, you are not compelled, you spoke of issues where I would give him a gun. I was not compelled to give him a gun all the time, the time where I feel that he should be given a gun, I make an entry of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could I go back to something which I should have put when I was putting these two interviews with the Security Branch?

Will you look at page 86 please, entry 136, top of the page?

CAPT KHOJA: Which page?

CHAIRPERSON: Page 86. On the right hand side of the page, on the top of the page, 136.

CAPT KHOJA: I see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Not on duty, and it noted that Constable Ngo had not reported for duty at 07h15 as he should have done, and that you had received no reports about his absence, and that the matter would be investigated and taken up with the Commanding Officer of Unit 19. Do you see that?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct, I see that.

CHAIRPERSON: And then at entry 138, at ten o'clock on the morning of the 22nd of February, Constable Ngo arrived and reported to the barracks that at six o'clock he had reported to Security Police Head Office to see Captain Loots about his transfer to the Security Branch, Pretoria.

CAPT KHOJA: I see that.

CHAIRPERSON: So that is a report that he made to you at ten o'clock on the Monday, the 22nd of February, that he was discussing his transfer to the Security Branch in Pretoria?

CAPT KHOJA: I see that.

CHAIRPERSON: So you must have known that he was being transferred to the Security Branch, mustn't you, if he told you that he had seen Captain Loots to discuss his transfer?

CAPT KHOJA: I see that here.

MR MEMANI: As the Lordship pleases, let me take him to the next entry that I would like to deal with My Lord. If I could have just one more moment, My Lord. If you look at entry number 115, this is now the second book, I am sorry, you see the occurrence book starting at 118 to 274, and I am referring you to page 128, entry number 115, dated 25 May 1988.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I see page 128.

MR MEMANI: And that entry says that at 07h30 a black male Madrad, at the office and reported that Ngo has gone to Security Headquarters Pretoria, reason unknown. The matter will be investigated, can you see that?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I do see that.

MR MEMANI: So as His Lordship has put it to you, you must have known about Ngo's association with the Security Branch?

CAPT KHOJA: Ngo is a policeman, I would not say I knew him association with them. He is a policeman, he was supposed to have an association with them.

MR MEMANI: I am sure that as the person directly responsible for him, you would have asked him why he had been absent and what he had been doing at Security Branch?

CAPT KHOJA: It was not necessary because the Security Branch Unit was not different from Unit 19.

MR MEMANI: You made an entry that you would investigate the matter. That means that you would have enquired from him and you would have enquired from the superiors at Security Branch to verify.

CAPT KHOJA: It was not necessary, I did not see it necessary that when a person when to Security Branch to ask him on his return, what he was doing, and I would not even send the superiors to investigate. I just wrote that he was not present. When he came back, I ask him and he gives me a reply where he was, I have to accept that and write in the book, not to ask him any further.

MR MEMANI: This is my point that you would have asked him why he went there?

JUDGE NGOEPE: What did you want to investigate? What did you want to investigate about his position?

CAPT KHOJA: I am referring to an information about a person who was not a policeman. It should be indicated the place where he went to.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I still don't understand what it is that you had in mind to investigate?

CAPT KHOJA: I think you will understand it very well now. When a person left and then the message came in that he was not present, then you would ask him where were you at this time, because it was reported that you were not present, then he would give his reason for being transport or any other reason.

Now, it would be accepted that this person was delayed because of the transport, and it won't be reported. Now, he went to the Security Branch, then it was not necessary to ask him any further if he told me that he met Loots, he was at the Security Branch, it was not necessary to ask him any further.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So all you wanted to investigate, or rather the reason you wanted to investigate was that you were given this information by somebody who was not a policeman, or who was not supposed to give it to you. Is that what you mean by investigating the matter?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It looks like you used very strong words to express what you wanted to do, because one gets the impression that when you want to investigate, one gets the impression that you really want to go into the matter, including as to why he went there to the Security Branch and so on and so forth.

You can continue Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: There is an entry which has escaped my flagging. According to that entry, you told Mr Ngo that he should report at his Commanding Officer at Unit 19 and that he should be in uniform.

CHAIRPERSON: There is an entry which doesn't refer to being in uniform. If you look at page 155, entry number 92 there is a complaint there that Constable Ngo left his residence without permission and took himself off duty at two o'clock in the afternoon. Have you got that entry?

MR MEMANI: I've got that entry My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: And then if you look at the next page, page 156, entry number 102, there is an entry that Constable Ngo left the single quarters for Unit 19 to explain to Lieutenant Haggard, to speak to Lieutenant Haggard in connection with his absence from duty on the two days of the 18th and 19th of July.

MR MEMANI: I've seen that My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: There you, when he was absent from duty, you didn't deal with him, he was dealt with by lieutenant Haggard of Unit 19, is that the position?

CAPT KHOJA: I put in the statement those who finalised the Haggard and them.

CHAIRPERSON: There are other entries aren't there that he had to go and report to Lieutenant Haggard on other occasions, hadn't he?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am not sure that the witness, Mr Memani wanted to interrupt and I saw the witness looking at Mr Memani. I am not sure that the witness understands that he has to answer the question. Perhaps we can just clear that up.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr Ngo have to go and report to Lieutenant Haggard is it, on another occasion or other occasions?

CAPT KHOJA: That is not so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You don't want to say I don't remember?

CAPT KHOJA: I would not remember, I think he went many times to Unit 19 when he was forced by reasons to go there, but I won't be in a position to tell whether he just went to Haggard.

MR MEMANI: May I proceed My Lord?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Thank you My Lord. Do you know a person who was then Warrant Officer Maritz, in 1988, of Unit 19?

CAPT KHOJA: I do not know him.

MR MEMANI: Now, that person must have spoken to you. If you have a look at page 135, entry number 47, dated 19 June.

CAPT KHOJA: Page what?

MR MEMANI: It is page 135.

CHAIRPERSON: Of the second volume?

MR MEMANI: Yes, My Lord. This is the volume starting from page 118.

That entry is signed by you and counter signed by Ngo and it says that Ngo must go and report at Unit 19 before twelve o'clock and he must report to Warrant Officer Maritz, and he must be in uniform.

CAPT KHOJA: I see that. I have written that.

MR MEMANI: Do you know why he had to report?

CAPT KHOJA: I don't remember now, though I wrote that entry and that he should wear uniform, I don't remember for what purpose.

MR MEMANI: I put it to you that Mr Ngo was being probably paraded for his transfer on this day to Security Branch. Do you have any comment?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it more likely to have been for his absence without leave, if you look at the previous page? Page 134, entry 45, single quarters visited by this witness and he found that Constable Ngo wasn't in his room. He was also supposed to be on duty at the same time.

The next entry, 46, Constable Ngo reported back to his quarters and said that he had been to court in KwaNdabele.

MR MEMANI: It is a matter for argument My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: He couldn't say what is the relevant MR, the matter is going to be investigated. And then on the next page they sent him off.

MR MEMANI: My Lord, there is also an entry on the 20th of July 1988, at page 156, entry number 102. There Mr Ngo is being summoned to explain his absence to Lieutenant Haggard, that is the parade I associate with the absence from duty.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the one I read to him. This is in July.

MR MEMANI: Yes, My Lord, and I am saying that he had been absent from duty and he said he was going to court. I am saying he was being paraded now on the ...

CHAIRPERSON: If you looked at the day before, he was absent from duty on the Monday, he was paraded on the Wednesday.

MR MEMANI: But My Lord, he was not absent from duty again from the day when he went, when he was absent until now, he goes to, he then goes to Haggard.

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at entry number 92 on Monday the 18th, this witness found that everything was in order except that Constable Ngo had left his place of residence without permission and taken himself off duty without leave. That was on the Monday it was discovered and on the Wednesday he was sent to Haggard.

And then we have on the previous occasion that he has discovered that he has been off duty, and he was sent to Maritz.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Khoja, after the 20th of July 1988, you did not work with Mr Ngo?

CAPT KHOJA: I would not remember except just looking on the entry book. I found that that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment when you come to a convenient stage.

MR MEMANI: It is a convenient stage, My Lord. It is a convenient stage.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take half an hour adjournment.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Mr Khoja, there is an entry which unfortunately was not flagged and I will give the reference tomorrow. That entry records that Mr Ngo left the barracks with members of the Security Branch and my instructions are that Mr Ngo was leaving with those members of the Security Branch because he was a member of the Security Branch.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I want to ask to see that entry. I may say Mr Chairman, that previously when we led the evidence and maybe I can do this now, there were one or two entries which we missed, which we told Mr Memani about last time.

I think the one entry was one of the visits to Captain Loots which I didn't lead evidence about, but which we told Mr Memani about, but this entry I am not sure about Mr Chairman. I may have missed it, but I can't remember that I saw such an entry.

CHAIRPERSON: I am afraid, I don't remember such an entry either. Can you say approximately when you say this happened?

MR MEMANI: I think it is one of the later entries in the second occurrence book, My Lord. But My Lord, it is not necessary to delay the proceedings by looking for the entry, it is one of many entries in the line which tend to show that he worked with the Security Branch and I am saying that I will look for the entry overnight, and I will produce it.

And if that entry is not there, I will also come back and say I am sorry, I was mistaken, that entry is not there. I don't see the reason why we should delay these proceedings for that.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't put it to a witness and you confuse the witness, and then you come tomorrow and say oh, there wasn't such an entry. That is what the objection is.

If the entry is there, I think as I understand it, it will be accepted any entry in the occurrence book will be accepted as a genuine entry, so you can use it in argument.

MR MEMANI: There is no risk of confusing the witness here, My Lord, nothing was going to be said about the fact that there is that entry, and that is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I still persist in the objection. My Lord, what the witness is requested to testify about now, is probably speculation about something that he doesn't know about, based on an entry in a book that he hasn't seen and that we are not sure exists.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the book he has seen, it is his occurrence book. He says he is familiar with it, but it is correct, there may not be such an entry or it may say something slightly different. I don't think it is right Mr Memani if we are going to put it to the witness as there being such an entry if you cannot refer to the entry.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Khoja, when a policeman is issued with a firearm, that firearm is recorded in the occurrence book, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And a supervising officer has got a duty to regularly inspect the firearm, if the officer doesn't hand it in at the end of the shift?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And that procedure is also recorded in the occurrence book?

CAPT KHOJA: The inspection of firearms is different. You might do an inspection and not record it, but when they load and unload it is a different inspection, it is not recorded.

There might be an inspection once or twice a month, the physical inspection.

MR MEMANI: ... in the occurrence book?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes.

MR MEMANI: And from the books that you have given us that stretch over a period of approximately 18 months, there is no entry that those firearms were inspected, or that you issued a firearm to Ngo?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, I don't want to object every time, but my learned friend referred just before lunch to a specific entry in respect of which Captain Khoja issued a firearm to Mr Ngo.

So if my learned friend just asks the question on the basis of the facts, it would make it easier for everybody.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Mr Khoja, there is no entry that at the beginning of 1987 right up to 1988, you issued a firearm to Mr Ngo.

CAPT KHOJA: It is there. I already told you that we do not use guns often at the barracks. We only use guns at a certain time when we realise that there are people that want to trouble us.

But just ordinarily we do not carry guns.

MR MEMANI: You issued a firearm to Mr Ngo and there is no entry that you inspected the firearm.

CAPT KHOJA: I look at the gun, because the gun was in the safe, I will look at the gun and check how many bullets are in the gun.

MR MEMANI: It is obvious that I am referring to subsequent inspections, not the inspection you carried as you were handing the firearm to him.

CAPT KHOJA: Are you referring to inspections made by Inspectors?

MR MEMANI: Twice a month at parade?

CAPT KHOJA: That inspection will be conducted by an Inspector. The inspection that I do, I told you that there are different inspections. The inspection that you are referring to is done by the Inspectorate, not by me.

MR MEMANI: What are you referring to, earlier on I spoke to you and I put it to you that when a policeman is being issued with a firearm, that firearm is inspected by a supervising officer regularly and you said yes.

You then added that that is not done daily, it is done at parade once or twice a month. That is what I am referring to now. I am saying that you were Ngo's supervising officer, you never at any stage inspected a firearm issued to Ngo.

CAPT KHOJA: I would inspect this gun time and again because it is kept with me. But even before I give him the gun, I will check the gun and then pass it on to him.

MR MEMANI: But you told us that the fact of inspection of a firearm is recorded in an occurrence book?

CAPT KHOJA: When I conduct a parade for the police, I would write it even at the SAP book where I record the property and I will indicate that I took charge and I inspected all the properties of the SAP.

Then we issue out a card and it will indicate that there was an inspection conducted.

MR MEMANI: You said earlier on, it was your evidence that that fact is recorded in an occurrence book?

CAPT KHOJA: I don't understand what you want me to say.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Ngo instructs me that the reason why there is no record that his firearm was inspected at any stage, or that a firearm was issued to him, in the beginning of his career at Unit 19, is that he was issued with a firearm by Unit 19 and the people who were responsible for that firearm were based at Unit 19 and you are not responsible for that firearm.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, would it be just to clear it up, is it your case or your evidence that Ngo had a weapon when he arrived at Mamelodi, at the barracks? If so, can you tell me was he issued with a second weapon and why was the other one given back, what is the position? Can you kindly explain it why he should have been issued with a second weapon if he had one before?

Mr Ngo didn't give evidence about it, so we don't know what is your client's version about it.

MR MEMANI: My instructions, Mr Chair, is that Mr Ngo had a firearm at all times, that that firearm is not reflected in the Mamelodi barracks book, because it was not within Khoja's domain but it was within the domain of Unit 19 but at all times he carried a firearm.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, we've got a firearm recorded in the occurrence book, so that would be a second firearm?

MR MEMANI: That is correct Mr Chairman. And I will deal with that in due course.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just make a point here. On page 118, of the occurrence book, 3 May 1988, number 12 and that is an entry that my Attorney has picked up now, only because started looking for it now, it states there, number 12, inspection single quarters by A.O. Khoja and Constable Ngo, firearm box in order, kitchen and sleeping quarters in order.

CHAIRPERSON: That appears in entry after entry after entry, the firearm box, not the firearm, it is the firearm box that is in order.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am not sure if it indicates firearm and box or if it indicates ...

MR MEMANI: My Lord, my learned friend is not testifying and he must wait for re-examination if he wants to raise these issues.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if it is correct that my learned friend has put something to the witness that there isn't any entry about inspection of a gun, and there is an entry that indicates, there may possibly have been an inspection of a gun, My Lord, it is important that I ...

MR MEMANI: You are entitled to raise that during re-examination.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, My Lord, if my learned friend is putting something that is not true, then I must raise it so that the Committee take note of it, otherwise my learned friend is cross-examining on wrong facts.

My Lord, I can refer you furthermore to number 39 on page 120, that is 7 May, 121, 7 May 1988, there it says again single quarters visited by Warrant Officer, the following was inspected and found in order, the kitchen and the vicinity thereof, sleeping quarters.

MR MEMANI: My Lord, (indistinct) journal that is kept at the police station, it is an officer's firearm.

MR DU PLESSIS: Number 42 on the next page, there it refers again inspection single quarters by Warrant Officer Khoja and Ngo. The following were inspected and found to be in order, firearm, kitchen, sleeping quarters and they were found in order.

So there are entries in the occurrence book referring to an inspection of a firearm. That goes on almost as far as we ...

CHAIRPERSON: One, two, three and number 56 we got back to firearm boxes?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, My Lord, the only point I am making is if my learned friend says that there are no entries in the occurrence book referring to an inspection of a firearm, he is wrong. That is the point I am trying to make. It may be that those other entries refer to firearm boxes, but some of them don't refer to the box, so I am not sure in those instances if it is a firearm box or a firearm in a box.

I have never heard of a firearm box My Lord, I don't ...

MR MEMANI: My Lord, arms in a police station are kept in a big trunk, those are references to that big trunk, they are not references to arms issued to a particular officer, particular policeman.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, we've been pointed out that there is also references to a firearm and not to a big trunk. Only the firearm.

MR MEMANI: That clearly is an error My Lord. First of all the witness himself has said that he never records these things in an occurrence book, he records them in a SAP15.

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, he ...

MR MEMANI: That is a contradiction which he made and I brought it to his attention that he had said that it is supposed to be recorded in an OB, so this can't be correct.

Hence I say there are not witnesses.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if I understood the evidence correctly, the witness said that he would have made an entry if he inspected the firearm and my learned friend said to him, why aren't there any entries in the occurrence book.

Now, my learned friend is putting quite the opposite, so I don't know if my learned friend perhaps wants an adjournment Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: I think perhaps we should carry on.

MR MEMANI: I don't need no adjournment. Now, Mr Khoja, your evidence is that you never inspected the firearm of Mr Ngo, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: The gun is put in a trunk. When I inspect the guns in the trunks, but the one which I gave him to use, I make an entry in an occurrence book, so that I have given him a gun.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is, after you have given him that gun, do you ever inspect it again? You would go to him and say produce your gun, let me examine it?

CAPT KHOJA: No, I don't do that.

MR MEMANI: But it was your evidence earlier on that you do that and that is done at the parade?

CAPT KHOJA: Let us not confuse these issues. I have already said we work office hours. When people are working in shifts, those things are examined or inspected at a parade.

If I have Mr Ngo as an assistant caretaker, when I give him a gun, I make an entry because I only issue that gun once after a long time, we don't issue guns to people like that all the time.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Khoja, I will take you back to the beginning of this whole thing. I put it to you when we started, that when a person has been issued with a firearm, that person must produce the firearm for inspection regularly by the supervising officer, and your answer was yes.

You also said that regularly would be once or twice, or twice or thrice a month and that was, and you said you would record the carrying out of those inspections in the occurrence book. Now, we are speaking here about firearms issued to the particular officer.

CAPT KHOJA: That is not the case.

MR MEMANI: The trunks are new evidence. You did not refer earlier on to firearms that were kept in a trunk.

CAPT KHOJA: I don't know how can I reply to that question, because truly you know the truth. You try by all means that the truth shall not be there.

I said to you in the barracks we are not using guns as like people who are working in the police stations. I issue only a gun if there is a particular reason which we are supposed to finish that time. I inspect the gun before I issue that gun to that person.

I look at the gun before, then from there I explain to him how to use that gun. The guns which were put in the safe and which were in the trunks, I inspect them daily so that I will be sure that I put oil and clean them. That is what I said.

I do not know why do you want me to change the truth to be a lie because here we are in sought of the truth.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You said in your evidence, when asked about the recording or non-recording of inspection of the gun, I thought you said that there were two types of inspections and I understood you to say that the one kind of inspection was the recordable one, in the OB and that there was another type of inspection which was not a recordable one?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And I got the impression that you said that you did carry out the non-recordable type of inspection with regard to this particular firearm and you must tell me if I misunderstood you.

I am intervening here just in the interest of progress.

CAPT KHOJA: The gun is put in a safe. When I inspect other guns, I would check as whether they are oiled, then from there I clean them, then I check as whether they are complete.

When I take that gun, then I inspect that gun first.

JUDGE NGOEPE: He was referring to inspections subsequent to the issuing of that particular gun and let us not talk about the trunks and the like and confuse things, when in fact you shouldn't do so.

You are talking about the firearm that you issued to Mr Ngo. You were asked whether you subsequently inspected that and you said there were two types of inspections, as already explained to me. And then I have told you that I got the impression that you said you did carry out an inspection of this particular firearm, but the kind of inspection that you carried out, was the non-recordable one.

If I misunderstood you, you must say so.

CAPT KHOJA: You, I think you are correct. It differs when you issue a gun to the barracks and to issue the gun when the barracks is on leave, you should record that gun on the occurrence book, and that I've inspected the gun.

JUDGE NGOEPE: After issuing this firearm to Mr Ngo, did you from time to time inspect it?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I inspected the gun.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you record that any where?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I did record.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Where did you record that?

CAPT KHOJA: On the occurrence book.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, thank you Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: I am indebted to His Lordship. How often did you inspect the firearm?

CAPT KHOJA: On the day I issue the gun, I inspect the gun, I would not say how many times. But the day I issue the gun, I inspect the gun.

MR MEMANI: And thereafter, how often do you inspect the firearm?

CAPT KHOJA: If I have not issued that particular gun to a particular person, I put it in a safe and we do not make an entry.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, we've got the record, you've given Ngo a gun because there was something expected at the barracks, and you considered it necessary to issue a gun to him, is that correct?

CAPT KHOJA: May you please repeat your question?

ADV DE JAGER: You've issued a gun to Mr Ngo because he, in your opinion, he needed a gun at the barracks at a certain time?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that gun taken back again?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: How long after you issued it? The same day, a month later or a year later, or can't you say?

CAPT KHOJA: At times I would take it on the same day when he knocked off, but at times he knocks off late, then I leave him with that gun.

ADV DE JAGER: So if you've issued a gun this morning, you will take it back this afternoon?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And the next morning, you will issue it again?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct. If it is necessary to do so.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, what puzzled us is that there is no entry that you have taken back this gun?

CAPT KHOJA: It might be like that that it is not there, because I don't see it myself. They have not showed me the page. But when he knocked off, I would take the gun back. If it is necessary to leave the gun with him, I would do so. But at the time I would take it back when he knocks off.

If it is not a personal issue, I would take it back from him.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, now in this case was it a personal issue or not?

CAPT KHOJA: It was not a personal issue.

CHAIRPERSON: In this specific case you set out in detail the number of the firearm, the ammunition you are giving to him, and as I understand it, you got him to sign for the receipt of it? Is that correct?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: A very formal handing over?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And yet you say then when he knocked off, you just took it back?

CAPT KHOJA: It would depend on the circumstances as to whether shall I take it back or leave it with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we want to know about this gun.

CAPT KHOJA: It was taken back from him and it came back to me.

CHAIRPERSON: And no entry was made, you didn't sign for receipt of the gun, he didn't sign as the person who handed the gun over?

CAPT KHOJA: There is no entry of the gun, I haven't looked clearly. But it should have been there.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I have looked, I think counsel have looked and I don't think anyone has seen an entry indicating that you had taken this gun back, counter signed by you and proper official entry.

CAPT KHOJA: I will not dispute that. I would accept that because I am a person, I am liable to mistakes, but under normal circumstances I would issue a gun and take it back again. I am a person, I am liable to err. If I've given a gun not under personal issue, I should take it back.

MR MEMANI: May I proceed My Lord? Now my instructions are that Mr Ngo was issued with a firearm by Unit 19 and that he was always in possession of that firearm throughout his service at Mamelodi?

CAPT KHOJA: I do not know that, I discovered late when they wanted to find out as to whether didn't he tell you that.

MR MEMANI: My instructions are that Mr Ngo was involved in a shooting incident here in the Free State during 1988, he was in possession of that firearm which was issued by Unit 19 at the time?

CAPT KHOJA: I learnt of that late, because when he arrived he said that he did not have a gun, that is why I issued a gun in the barracks.

CHAIRPERSON: How long after his arrival did you issue the gun?

CAPT KHOJA: When he arrived there, I found out that he does not have a gun which was under personal issue, then I issued him a gun.

CHAIRPERSON: That was issued on the 19th of April 1988 and he had been with you at least since August 1987? Is that so?

CAPT KHOJA: I would take it like that as it has been seen on the records.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Khoja, he says that that explains why the fact that the firearm was issued by Unit 19, explains why there is no entry about you inspecting that firearm, because it was not within your domain, it was not part of your arsenal?

CAPT KHOJA: I tell you that when he arrived at the barracks, I found out that he does not have a gun under personal issue, then I discovered that it was necessary that I should give him a gun from the barracks.

As to whether he came with a (indistinct) to me, I do not know that.

MR MEMANI: You see, Mr Khoja, Mr Ngo instructs me that the firearm which you issued, the 9mm firearm which you issued with eight bullets, was issued for him specifically because he was going to be involved in an operation which involved the shooting of the unknown security guard at Pahama.

CAPT KHOJA: There is nothing like that.

MR MEMANI: And he will say that, I beg your pardon, he has spoken already, my instructions are that the reason why this firearm was not released was not returned in the occurrence book, was that it had been used unlawfully.

CAPT KHOJA: That is not correct.

MR MEMANI: And in one of the later entries, there is an entry where one of the Officers, policemen complained of a lost firearm.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, guns were lost which we issued other policemen. The guns which did not belong to the barracks, some of them. If it was a gun belonging to the barracks, I would report that, but if it was a gun from outside, I would not.

I remember one incident where one person lost a gun from the barracks, I recorded that gun.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Ngo instructs me that that was a false story. The firearm which was purportedly lost was the same firearm which had been issued to him and some explanation had to be given for its whereabouts.

MR DU PLESSIS: My Lord, I am not sure what entry my learned friend is referring to now. If he could just enlighten us in respect of that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Memani, just repeat that question first. I didn't get the last part of it.

MR MEMANI: Mr Ngo will say that the entry where it is alleged that a policeman lost his firearm, was a false entry designed to cover up his use of the firearm and that the firearm which was being reported lost, was actually the firearm which had been issued to him.

CAPT KHOJA: That is not the correct version. I would never one day do something like that, issue a gun which will not do under an unlawful operation. The gun which I issued to Mr Ngo, the gun which was lost, belonged to Mr Mgwoena, and Mr Mgwoena paid for that gun.

It is a different issue altogether, it is not Mr Ngo's gun.

MR MEMANI: Now, is it your evidence, is it still your evidence that Mr Ngo worked with you right up to his arrest?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, that is my evidence.

MR MEMANI: Now, where did you get the occurrence book from?

CAPT KHOJA: At the barracks.

MR MEMANI: Are you the person in charge of the occurrence book? I mean the old occurrence books where they are stored?

CAPT KHOJA: No, I am not responsible, I am being transferred to Supportive. Before I was responsible for that duty, but later changed to Supportive Services.

MR MEMANI: Up to when were you responsible for these books?

CAPT KHOJA: It seems it is either 1992 or 1993, when I was transferred to the police station.

MR MEMANI: And when did you see them for the first time this year, the occurrence books?

CAPT KHOJA: I see them for the first time today, because they were always here.

MR MEMANI: Didn't you see them in September, Mr Khoja? You were here in September, weren't you, didn't you see the books?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I saw them in September, but you have asked me about when did I see them for the first time this year, you didn't say last year.

MR MEMANI: I see, I beg your pardon. When did you see them for the first time in 1997?

CAPT KHOJA: I saw them the time when I received a message from the Commissioner's Office, when the lawyers demanded this document, that is Mr Britz. That is then I went from my post and I went to the barracks to look for them.

MR MEMANI: Did you find the books? How many books did you find when you went there?

CAPT KHOJA: These are the books I found, these are the books I found on the same day, I came to Bloemfontein.

MR MEMANI: Did the lawyers tell you which books to look for when you went to the barracks to look for these books?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, that is correct, they said they want occurrence books of particular years, and pocket books and relevant documents which relates to Ngo's services whilst he was under my supervision.

MR MEMANI: And did you take - also they told you to look for the books relating to Ngo's employment whilst he was under your supervision?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes. They said as from a particular year to a particular year where Ngo was working with me, the documents which relates to Ngo's duties, which shows that he was working under my supervision, that is the request they made to me.

MR MEMANI: So that explains why you don't have books relating to him perhaps thereafter? Pocket books which were issued to him before he worked with you, and pocket books which were issued to him after he worked with you?

CAPT KHOJA: Those are the documents I found in the barracks, yes.

MR MEMANI: Let me put it like this, as you understood it, your instruction was to get pocket books which related to Ngo's employment under your supervision?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And you were not supposed to bring pocket books relating to Ngo before he fell under your supervision?

CAPT KHOJA: I don't understand that question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani, I think the witness has said that he reacted in terms of his specific request to bring books from a particular period to a particular period, and he just complied with that request, and that is why he says he brought books relating to that specific period.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. May I take further instructions My Lord?

Now, Mr Khoja, are you aware that Mr Ngo was working primarily in Thembisa from May 1987 up to June 1987?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, that is correct, I knew.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you kindly repeat the dates, Mr Memani? From May 1987?

MR MEMANI: To June 1987.

CAPT KHOJA: I remember that he worked around Thembisa and Kempton Park whilst he was still at Unit 19. I am not able to put the dates correctly without documents.

MR MEMANI: And that was not recorded in the occurrence book, wasn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: I would not put it in the occurrence book, because that is the responsibility of Unit 19, it didn't start at my place, and when he went to Kempton Park and Thembisa, he was from Unit 19, not from the barracks.

MR MEMANI: You see Mr Ngo's instructions and it has been his evidence, that although he lived at Mamelodi barracks, and was registered as being employed by Unit 19, he was later transferred to Security Branch in July, I would say about July 1988?

CAPT KHOJA: I don't know that because he was under my supervision, he was brought to me, I don't know what he is saying.

MR MEMANI: And that should be correct Mr Khoja, because you told us that you brought pocket books which related only to the time when he worked with you, and you didn't bring those pocket books relating to the time when he was no longer working under you?

CAPT KHOJA: I do not know, because that evidence he is putting to you, I would not testify to that, I do not know it.

MR MEMANI: No, you told us that you were given instructions to bring occurrence books and pocket books relating to the period when he worked under you.

CHAIRPERSON: He has said, as my brother pointed out to you, that he was told to bring them for certain dates. Do you remember that Mr Memani? My brother pointed that out to you that he was told to go to the barracks and bring them from a certain date to a certain date.

MR MEMANI: And that period related to the period ...

CHAIRPERSON: That period related too, but he was told, his instructions were he was given certain dates.

MR MEMANI: My understanding My Lord, is not that he was told to bring from 1 June 1984 for instance to 10 June 1987, but he was told to bring books relating to the period when Ngo was working under his supervision.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you told certain dates, to bring pocket books and the occurrence books relating to certain dates?

CAPT KHOJA: I was instructed that books which related to Ngo's duties from the date he started working with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not, you were not given dates, you are now saying it was from the time he started working with you till the time he stopped, is that what you say you were told to get? You were not given dates?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MEMANI: And that is why you brought us the pocket books, let me see, and according to the reading of the pocket books, Ngo stopped working with you as from the 20th of July 1988?

CAPT KHOJA: I would not dispute that, it seems that is correct. If the book states that, I would take it as that.

MR MEMANI: So it is not correct to say that he was working with you right up to his arrest?

CAPT KHOJA: He was arrested whilst he was still working with me because the statement was demanded from me by the people who were working in Bloemfontein.

MR MEMANI: It cannot be correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When was he arrested?

MR DU PLESSIS: My Lord, that was in February 1989.

CAPT KHOJA: That is February 1989.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I haven't had a chance to go through this occurrence book as carefully as I would have liked, but it seems to me and I would like counsel please to guide me on this, that the entries, there are regular entries about Constable Ngo, until the 20th of July 1988 and then they stop?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, My Lord, I have gone through that book. Yes, the only reference after that is to a certain Constable Rammalo thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: My Lord, I can also state that maybe I should leave that for re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Good. Mr Memani, you may put it to him that the occurrence book does not mention Mr Ngo doing any work with him whatsoever after the 20th of July 1988.

MR DU PLESSIS: If I may help Mr Chairman, perhaps just to refresh your memory, you will remind yourselves that the evidence was that he was involved in a motor car accident in July 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he says he was working with him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, and he was taken up in hospital.

MR MEMANI: Now, My Lord, Mr Khoja, when a person becomes ill and he is hospitalised, you will record that fact in the occurrence book, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: I put it in the sick book report.

MR MEMANI: You also recorded that people were playing soccer, felt ill and sprained their legs in this occurrence book, isn't it? If I may repeat, there is an entry in the book that a certain policeman sprained himself while playing soccer and was therefore unable to go to work.

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Similarly if Mr Ngo had become involved in an accident, he was unable to work because of that reason, you would have recorded that fact in the occurrence book?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, if he was engaged in that accident within my jurisdiction, I would put it in the occurrence book, but if he is in a different area, I would put it in that police station where he experienced that accident.

MR MEMANI: Now, my recollection is that Mr Ngo was at, now Mr Khoja, the name of Mr Ngo doesn't appear in the occurrence book right up to December 1988 when Mr Ngo would have been back at work.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I agree his name does not appear. If he was in an accident in that particular place, that particular place is responsible to record in their occurrence book, because he said he stopped working with me (indistinct)

MR MEMANI: I did not say to you that Mr Ngo was hospitalised as from the 20th of July 1988.

CAPT KHOJA: You said he stopped working with me on that date and there is no entry which shows that he was working with me as from then.

MR MEMANI: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Memani, can I just, this other gentleman you must tell me, I don't have the records here with me, is it Rammalo, what is the surname that features, the new name that features?

CHAIRPERSON: Rammalo.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Rammalo, did he not come there to take the place of Mr Ngo, or rather did he not take the place of Mr Ngo duty wise?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, he took his place.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did he take Mr Ngo's place?

CAPT KHOJA: I went to Unit 19, but Mr Ngo was problematic. In many instances he was not reporting for work, I put it in the occurrence book many times that it happened, that I didn't see him in the barracks, then I went to Unit 19, then they gave me Mr Rammalo.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Isn't the position that from that particular period Mr Ngo was no longer there with you, and that is the reason why Mr Rammalo was brought in as a substitute to take his place?

CAPT KHOJA: That is not correct. He just left then I went back to Unit 19, but I don't see that person any more, then they brought Mr Rammalo.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So you never saw him from July, or the end of July onwards? I am referring to Mr Ngo?

CAPT KHOJA: I saw him being injured.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Should I also understand you to say that from the end of July 1988, when Mr Rammalo came in, you never worked with Mr Ngo any more, but instead you worked with Mr Rammalo?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But I am afraid I am a little confused. You see on the 21st of July 1988 you went on duty with Constable Ngo.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did your normal day's work.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, on that day of the 21st, it seems that there was a problem that we didn't complete our work normally as usual.

CHAIRPERSON: And yet at 07h15 the next morning, the 22nd Mr Rammalo is working with you?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The very day after Mr Ngo had been working there?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Hadn't arrangements been made that he was going to be transferred away and Mr Rammalo was to take his place, because that is what happened, isn't it?

CAPT KHOJA: I don't know those kind of arrangements if there were any, but I missed him for some time. I missed him for many instances and I was reporting many times. I didn't know where he was.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you did. There are entries quite clearly on the 18th, he wasn't at work, and on the 19th, he wasn't at work, so you reported him to his Commander?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did they arrange to transfer him away from you then?

CAPT KHOJA: I will not verify that as to whether he just left and then he was, he experienced an accident, but I missed him for some time.

MR MEMANI: Now, firstly, in your evidence in chief you said that you worked with Mr Ngo until his arrest. So that was not correct?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Secondly, you told us that Ngo deserted you, it was interpreted as he just left, but you used the Pedi word (indistinct) which would mean that he deserted you?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I put it that way, that is the way it was.

MR MEMANI: And if he had deserted you, then one would have expected you to have expected him on duty on the 22nd and you would have reported his absence from work on the 22nd?

ADV DE JAGER: But he recorded his absence on the 18th and the 19th and he had reported it to his Unit and I suppose his Unit then decided to replace him?

MR MEMANI: My Lord, if that were the case, his evidence would be I complained and they gave me Rammalo. He says that he deserted me and yet, on the 20th he was on duty and he went to, and again he was on duty on the 21st and he says he just deserted ...

ADV DE JAGER: Are we not playing with words really. What are we trying to look at, how relevant is that in connection with the application before us?

MR MEMANI: Maybe you should have ask them when they led the evidence in chief My Lord. You remember they said that he was not working with him.

CHAIRPERSON: But isn't the important thing that from the 21st of July 1988, he quite clearly was not working with him for what reason does it matter. It is quite clear he wasn't, was he?

JUDGE NGOEPE: May I just ask something for clarification from this witness? Captain Khoja, did you for one moment at any time think that Mr Ngo was arrested in July 1988?

CAPT KHOJA: I don't know as whether he was arrested then, I know that he was arrested in regard to Mr Venter's case. I don't know if he was arrested for any other case before.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am referring to Mr Venter's case. We have been told at the commencement of the hearing, that he was arrested in connection with Mr Venter's killing around February 1989, now what I want to know from you in order to have certain things cleared in my mind, I want to know whether at any time, you thought that Mr Ngo was arrested before or at the time when Mr Rammalo was brought there?

CAPT KHOJA: After Rammalo started working with me, he was arrested.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Throughout you have been aware of the fact that Mr Ngo was arrested some months after Mr Rammalo had started working with you?

CAPT KHOJA: I didn't understand your question clearly.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You have always been aware of the fact that at the time Mr Ngo was arrested in respect of the killing or murder of Mr Venter, Mr Rammalo had been working with you for some months.

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you Mr Memani.

ADV DE JAGER: May I just clarify too. After Mr Rammalo started working with you, and you have testified that at the time of the arrest of Mr Ngo he was also still working for you, in what capacity did Mr Ngo work at the barracks or was he under your supervision or wasn't he under your supervision when he was arrested?

CAPT KHOJA: This person ended under my control and Unit 19 did not know where this person was, that is why they looked for the duty statements from me. Because Unit 19 didn't know where he was, I didn't know where he was.

ADV DE JAGER: And then in January/February 1989 did you see him around, just before he had been arrested?

CAPT KHOJA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: But you thought he was still, he should still be working for you and that is why you say he had deserted or what? Because if he wasn't there since July, why do you say he was still working under you at the beginning of 1989?

CAPT KHOJA: When he disappeared, he was working with me. When I went to look for him at Unit 19, I didn't find him there, then that is why they said he was still under my responsibility or my supervision.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know what happened to Mr Venter's car? When was this removed from, when last did you see this car?

CAPT KHOJA: I saw him the time when Ngo brought it there and when he disappeared, he disappeared with the car.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Let me try to understand the way you perceived your relationship or absence of relationship with Mr Ngo after July 1988.

If somebody had come to you say in November or December of 1988, some months after Rammalo had already started working with you there, if somebody had come to you and said Warrant Officer Khoja, is Ngo still working with you, what would you have said?

CAPT KHOJA: I would reply to him in this way, that this person was working with me, he disappeared whilst he was still under my supervision.

Where he was from say Unit 19, they did not know where he was, so that would be my reply.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So you wouldn't have said, yes, he is still working with me?

CAPT KHOJA: I would say that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now, really you are confusing me because your first answer was in the past tense, you said you would put it in the past to say that he had worked with you, now you say you would say he is still working with you?

CAPT KHOJA: I would say that this person, before he disappeared, he was working with me. I would not say he is working with me whilst I don't see him around.

JUDGE NGOEPE: All right, I will leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, in your evidence in chief you said that you and Mr Ngo went to the barracks and he worked under my supervision, until he was arrested. He hadn't been under your supervision for seven months, had he?

CAPT KHOJA: Physically he was not under my supervision since his disappearance.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps, there is a misunderstanding, perhaps I myself was misunderstanding you. Do you try to convey to us that he had been under your supervision and he had never been released or legally ...

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I would put it that way that under normal circumstances, he was not under my supervision, but legally he was still under my supervision.

ADV DE JAGER: So he wasn't released from your supervision although he wasn't physically there? In order to leave legally, he should have informed you or somebody should have informed you that he had been transferred to another Unit and nobody informed you that he had been transferred?

CAPT KHOJA: That is exactly what I wanted to say.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But surely Captain Khoja please, when you were asked these questions last time, it was in the context of wanting to know from you about Mr Ngo's daily movements and you answered that question in that context of conveying to us, to try to convey to us that Mr Ngo was under your physical supervision with regard to the execution of his duties.

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, that is correct, that is so.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: Now, did you report to Unit 19 that Ngo had left the barracks?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I did.

MR MEMANI: Did you explain, did you tell them that he was no longer at the barracks and was no longer working with you?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I told them that I don't see him around the barracks.

MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Ngo was paid right up to the time that he was arrested?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with great respect, my learned friend can't just make sweeping statements like that. His statement to the witness is factually wrong. He was on suspension without pay at the time when he was arrested, you've got the evidence before you.

MR MEMANI: That is what Mr Visser has put to Mr Ngo. Mr Ngo has insisted that he was paid until his arrest.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, can I refer you to Exhibit 27. P27, Mr Chairman. You will find a note in an official letter there saying that he was on suspension without remuneration, I believe and I am speaking under correction, I think it was from December 1988. May I just find it for you Mr Chairman.

Bear with me for a moment Mr Chairman, I will find the correct page for you. It is Bundle B again, and it is at page 72, Mr Chairman. The form reads it is an application for transfer/discharge by purchase/notice and it is dated Mr Chairman, I am just looking for a date, oh, there is a date stamp, 17th of March 1990 and what it says - reason for application, already dismissed, Head Office and then there is a number, a reference number, and then it says Mr Chairman, the last words there Mr Chairman, under suspension since January (indistinct) ... So in fact Mr Chairman, you have positive evidence before you, and no contradictory evidence that he was not paid until the time, at the time that he was arrested.

ADV DE JAGER: Is it quite clear that if you are under suspension, that you are not paid?

MR DU PLESSIS: The letter says so, it is not necessarily so, but this letter says so. In his case. In his case he was not remunerated, that is what the letter says Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But surely does this really help us? I understand Mr Memani to say irrespective of what one hundred letters say, his client's version is that he was paid and he is putting his client's version to the witness.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with great respect, where did Ngo say ever that he was paid at the time when he was arrested?

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is what Mr Memani is saying.

MR DU PLESSIS: I am saying he is not sticking to the facts of the case, because let him then tell you where on the record it is. I can tell you where I have found a reference to this whole period of time, I have read through it and I don't think it is going to be of much assistance to you, but it is in the latest record Mr Chairman, at page 280 say from 282 onwards, where this period of time is dealt with.

Sorry, is it 260, I've just lost the place Mr Chairman, Mr Justice Ngoepe in fact started the questioning during cross-examining by my learned friend Mr Du Plessis, and it dealt with the period of July 1988 onwards. So that is the only reference that I can find on the record, with respect Mr Chairman.

I've gone through on the computer, I couldn't find any other record.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think really Mr Memani, is your client's version that he was paid during suspension?

MR MEMANI: That is correct My Lord, or maybe what I am sure of is that it has been put to him that he was suspended, and he said that he was not suspended and that in fact he was paid right up to the time of his arrest, including the time when he was in prison.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, if that is your instruction from your client, I mean the fact that we can't get reference on the record, it doesn't mean that it was so, it might not have been so, but really what harm has been done if counsel puts to the witness what his client's instructions are?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, but that wasn't the way in which the question was put otherwise I wouldn't have objected. He said I am putting it to you that he was paid up to the time when he was arrested.

He didn't say, sir, my client tells me, it is his version, that he was paid until, there is a huge difference between the two.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, just put that qualification in Mr Memani and then we will make progress.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Now, Mr Ngo says that he was paid right up to the time of his arrest, including the time when he was undergoing the trial?

CAPT KHOJA: I have no knowledge of that.

MR MEMANI: Now, tell me when they asked you for the duty sheet, what did you give them?

CAPT KHOJA: They didn't look for a duty statement.

MR MEMANI: What is a duty statement, how does it ... Okay, what is a duty statement?

CAPT KHOJA: A duty statement is a statement which is looked for if a policeman is in a problem, or he has committed a crime, they would look for an immediate Commander to give a statement that the day when this person committed this crime, was he on duty or was he off duty. That is the kind of statement I am talking about.

MR MEMANI: Now, why were you approached for the duty statement? Or let's leave that question, did you, what did you state in your duty statement?

CAPT KHOJA: I wrote that he was off duty when this thing was happening, when the crime was committed.

MR MEMANI: When did you say he last reported for work?

CAPT KHOJA: May you please repeat the question? I am working with him, he was not at work.

MR MEMANI: No, but this man had deserted you in July, now what did you say was the last time when he reported for duty when they asked for the duty statement?

CHAIRPERSON: Were you in fact asked when he last reported for duty or were you simply asked whether he was on duty at the time the crime was committed?

CAPT KHOJA: They asked me as to whether he was on duty when he committed this crime, then I replied by saying that he was not on duty.

MR MEMANI: Did you limit yourself to that?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, that is correct.

MR MEMANI: Now, were you called to testify at his trial?

CAPT KHOJA: No.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions My Lord.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI: .

CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask you to clarify something for me please. You have been referred to the passage at page 133, oh sorry, I think, page 128, you were asked about entry 115. Have you got that?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And it starts off black male Madrad at the office and reported. Who is this black male Madrad?

CAPT KHOJA: This is Madrad, a friend to Ngo.

CHAIRPERSON: So he reported that he was absent on that day, he had gone to the Security Headquarters? And if you look at page 133, entry 32, we have now gone from the 25th of May to

the 7th of June, and there you say you found that Constable Ngo wasn't at his room, and according to black fatman, he has changed now from black male, he is now black fatman Madrad, Constable Ngo had left the district without permission?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was this man Madrad doing hanging around Ngo's quarters?

CAPT KHOJA: He was helping him with his washing, I saw him doing his washing.

CHAIRPERSON: At 07h30 in the morning?

CAPT KHOJA: He was helping him with his washing on many times when they were together in his room.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he live in the barracks?

CAPT KHOJA: He was not staying at the barracks, he was close to the barracks. Because this police barracks was surrounded by hostels. We bought some of the blocks within the hostel itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. Any re-examination?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, but I am obliged morally to put the record straight. I was wrong entirely. My learned friend, Mr Memani was correct, Ngo gave evidence to say that he was paid his salary until the date of his arrest. I do apologise he was quite correct, I've just found it on the record.

I have no questions thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Capt Khoja, the pocket books that you brought with you, I am not talking of earlier pocket books, but the pocket book until the last inscription, I think that was in July 1988, was that the last pocket book that you could find relating to Mr Ngo? Let's just look at the pocket books? Could you look at them please.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps, we should place on record, that three of those pocket books have been in my custody since the last hearing and they are the ones that were photostatted as pocket book, the three pocket books. When we came here, I was handed the fourth pocket book. It was then photostatted.

I don't know whether it came from this witness or where it came from. No, it came from Mr Memani.

MR VISSER: It came from Mr Memani Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Or presumably from his client.

MR VISSER: No, Mr Chairman, we had four pocket books during the last appearance and for some reason or another, you took three and Mr Memani took one. I distinctly remember that I had four.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is all right then.

MR VISSER: That is probably how it happened. But in any event, my question Capt Khoja only relates to the latest pocket book in date, and that is number 4, that is the one that goes from May 1988 to 22 July 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: June.

MR VISSER: June, 1988.

CAPT KHOJA: I see July 1988 here, 22nd of July.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is right at the end, page 44, is that correct?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And what I want to know is, this pocket book, was this the latest pocket book that you could find where you looked for these pocked books referring to Mr Ngo?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Were, just to make it clear, were there any other pocket books referring to Mr Ngo's actions in late 1988 or early 1989?

CAPT KHOJA: I would not be in a position to explain that, because I don't have them in my possession. I don't have them, these are the only ones I have.

MR VISSER: Are those the only ones you found when you searched?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you look at page 77 of pocket book number 4.

What is the first word on that page, arrest? I am asking for guidance?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am just trying to get it. It is page 77 you are referring to?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the last page.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MEMANI: It is arrest, My Lord.

MR VISSER: It looks like arrest yes, and then something is scribbled.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the time it seems, something 45.

MR VISSER: Yes, and then it says blue Ford Cortina, five arms dagga.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it there is blue Ford Cortina and what seems to be a registration number, GTG656T.

MR VISSER: Yes, My Lord. Capt Khoja, could you just look at that please. The pocket book you had now is the one that we are referring to, the one that you had in your hand just now, page 77, do you see that?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Do you see the word there, arrest?

CAPT KHOJA: I see a blue Ford Cortina, oh, yes, I see arrest. I see that it is right at the top.

MR VISSER: Now, you didn't, this isn't your handwriting, or is it? Is this your handwriting?

CAPT KHOJA: This is not my handwriting.

MR VISSER: Do you know anything about this, does this pertain to anything that we have testified about now?

CAPT KHOJA: I do not remember anything regarding this case.

MR VISSER: Right, My Lord, I don't know if ...

CHAIRPERSON: It get's a bit more complicated on the next page where there are various addresses which may mean something and we have now got a Ford Cortina, GCM029T, colour cream white.

MR VISSER: I see that. Capt Khoja, turn to the last page, the last page, page 78, do you see that. Yes, the last page. You will see there are telephone numbers, it seems that the one is yours, the top one 8054251, do you see that?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, I see that.

MR VISSER: And then right at the bottom, the third line from the bottom, it says Ford Cortina, GCM 029T, colour cream white, do you see that?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Do you know at all if that was perhaps, does that have any relation to the vehicle that Mr Ngo drove? The vehicle of Venter, do you know, because you testified ...

CAPT KHOJA: No, I do not know anything about this issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's not confuse this witness further, perhaps enquiries could be made of the licensing authorities as to the details of these vehicles.

MR VISSER: We will endeavour to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: And perhaps in those circumstances, I better keep the pocket books.

MR VISSER: I would suggest so or we could keep that as well.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the occurrence book?

MR VISSER: Pardon My Lord?

CHAIRPERSON: The occurrence book, can that be returned or do counsel feel that that should be kept?

MR VISSER: I think it should be kept My Lord, I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, we can leave all the books.

MR VISSER: My Lord, I have a few further questions if you would allow me.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Capt Khoja, do you know of, or can you personally remember of any instance where Mr Ngo said to you that he was going to see Capt Loots? Did he ever tell you that he was going to see Capt Loots?

CAPT KHOJA: I remember.

MR VISSER: Was Mr Ngo ever transferred to the Security Branch formally?

CAPT KHOJA: Not.

MR VISSER: And is it possible that Mr Ngo could have gone to the Kompol building for any other reason, other than seeing Captain Loots, to deliver something or something, can you comment on that?

CAPT KHOJA: The barracks was distributing post to different Units, it was myself or Ngo himself.

CHAIRPERSON: It usually went, post is delivered that is set out in the occurrence book that you have gone to deliver post and the time of your return is recorded, isn't that so?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR VISSER: My Lord, if you will just bear with me. I just want to get instructions. Thank you My Lord, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. There is one matter, I don't know if it is of any importance, but in going through these documents, I noticed that time and again, the words and Ngo have been entered.

Look for example at page 20, I just happened to open it at that page, of the first volume of the occurrence book, entry 108. You see that somebody had written it out duty of Warrant Officer Khoja report off duty. Later somebody had added and Ngo.

If you look at the previous page, page 19, entry 87, top left hand corner, Khoja report on duty, and then they have added and Ngo.

MR DU PLESSIS: My Lord, maybe I can clear this up, I don't have the answer, but maybe I can ask Capt Khoja about that.

CHAIRPERSON: It struck me, it may simply be carelessness that Ngo was not regarded as a very important part, can you explain this Captain?

CAPT KHOJA: Ngo was my assistant and I was the person in chief at the barracks, he was the most important person there.

ADV DE JAGER: The question is can you explain why his name was put in later and not at the same time as the report was written?

CAPT KHOJA: I might have forgotten his name, or mistakenly skipped his name.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, what makes the whole thing totally confusing, is that if you look at page 74, entry 133, you see Ngo has been put in as an afterthought. 135, Ngo has been put in as an afterthought. 136, Ngo appears in full. 137, Ngo appears in full and 138, he is reverted to an afterthought again.

MR DU PLESSIS: Maybe I can ask a few questions about that, if you would allow me.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Capt Khoja, when you found the occurrence book and the pocket books, when you, after you found them, did you keep them in your possession?

CAPT KHOJA: No, I did not keep them with me. I found them and at the same time, I came down to Bloemfontein, I did not keep them with me.

MR DU PLESSIS: What did you do with them after you found them?

CAPT KHOJA: I took them and I gave them to the person who accompanied me down to Bloemfontein, and then we left from Bloemfontein.

MR DU PLESSIS: Who was that?

CAPT KHOJA: Captain Bokaba.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, now were you and Captain Bokaba together when you came to Bloemfontein?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you stay here together?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this is now for now and last year November? You came here together this time and the previous time, is that right?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you ever see, or can I ask you this, the places where Ngo is filled in on top of the line, whose handwriting is that? Let's look at the occurrence book, where His Lordship, Mr Justice Wilson referred to. The occurrence book, page 74, the date is the 28th of January 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: 28th of January 1988, Thursday.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you My Lord.

CAPT KHOJA: I have it here.

MR STANDER: Whose handwriting is that, where it is written and Ngo on top of the line every time, where it had been inserted?

CAPT KHOJA: This is my handwriting.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you write the words Ngo there at any time after you had found the occurrence books last year or did you write it in during this time in 1988, when did you make those inscriptions?

CAPT KHOJA: It was written on that same day in 1988, when I discovered that I skipped his name.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Now, My Lord, there is one other issue that I want to ask a question, one or two questions about, that my learned friend, Mr Visser, drew my attention to.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before you go to something else, let me just ask this witness about these entries. Captain, there are other pages other than the pages to which Judge Wilson had drawn your attention to, like page 78, page 90. It seems that very often you would forget putting in Mr Ngo.

Now, I want to ask you how reliable are your records relating to Mr Ngo?

CAPT KHOJA: My records are reliable because when I discovered that I made a mistake, at that same time, I rectified that mistake. You would not find an old record with straight information, some information had been rectified.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And where you did not discover your mistakes, then heaven help us?

CHAIRPERSON: Will you look at page 90, entries 176, whose handwriting is that?

CAPT KHOJA: This is my handwriting.

CHAIRPERSON: But it is not the same as the handwriting at page 74?

CAPT KHOJA: Yes, but this is my handwriting.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying these are both your handwritings?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I find it very hard to accept that someone would write an "s" so completely differently, but I see 177 you have an "s" in the same way as you had before, and 181, 180 you change completely? You say this is your handwriting, you are sure about that?

CAPT KHOJA: If that is 176, I think I printed at some stages. At 176 I printed, these are my handwritings. I have 176 here, which number is that that you refer to.

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at the duty at 176, duty on, the "d" appears to be written very differently from duty on on page 74, entry 133. It is a different formation?

CAPT KHOJA: Do you want to see my handwriting, can I write on a piece of paper so that you can see my handwriting?

CHAIRPERSON: If you say it is your handwriting, I am not going to argue with you, but I - if you look at page 90 for example, 184 the duty has the circle at the top, we go on to the next one, the next line, line 1, the duty has the circle at the bottom. If we go to line 3, entry 3 has the circle at the top again. So it appears that you change your handwriting frequently.

I am not arguing with you, if you say it is your handwriting, I accept it. Carry on.

MR DU PLESSIS: My Lord, I want to know if Your Lordship accepts it or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You will see that he makes these changes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I have been comparing it My Lord, and it looks different sometimes and sometimes it accords. The "s" for instance accords, and then it differs again.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: My Lord, I don't know, perhaps maybe one is written not under pressure and the other one is ...

CHAIRPERSON: But he says ...

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, he might be ambidextrous.

CHAIRPERSON: Could be, there is no evidence to the contrary, there is no evidence that anyone else filled these papers in, except some that I think was probably Mr Ngo himself.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I think there was evidence relating to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, leave that now. Have you got any more questions?

MR DU PLESSIS: Please My Lord, just pertaining to one issue. Capt Khoja, you testified that for a specific period until Mr Ngo was arrested, he wasn't physically at the single quarters working, is that right, he wasn't physically doing work, he wasn't there?

CAPT KHOJA: This person disappeared at a certain stage, but he worked at the barracks. I do not know whether I understood your question well.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, which version are you referring to? Are you referring to the version he gave us last year, or are you referring to the version which was elicited by Adv de Jager's question?

MR DU PLESSIS: My Lord, I thought that was cleared up but if Your Lordship perceives that there are two different versions, then I will have to deal with it properly.

Capt Khoja, you testified last year, I am reading from the record, page 1123, you said I knew Mr Ngo, you said I knew him because he was under my supervision at that time.

He worked under my supervision from 1987 when he arrived at the barracks, up to the time when he was arrested, that is what you testified. What did you mean by saying that he worked under your supervision up to the time when he was arrested?

The Committee wants to know what did you mean, did you mean that he worked physically there, until the day he was arrested, or did you mean that he was under your command or your supervision until the date he was arrested? Which one did you mean?

CAPT KHOJA: He was under my supervision until the time of his arrest, but he was not physically there. He worked under my supervision and then he disappeared and Unit 19 did not know his whereabouts, they ended up knowing that he was working under me.

MR DU PLESSIS: And when you testified last year, did you want or did you mean to testify what you have explained now?

CAPT KHOJA: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Then why didn't you say so? Why didn't you say what you meant? Because apparently what you are saying is that you did not supervise him until he was arrested, you never supervised him until he was arrested?

MR DU PLESSIS: My Lord, with respect may I just make one point, that is why I am dealing with this now. I thought it was cleared up in his evidence, there was clearly and I will argue that My Lord, there was clearly a misunderstanding when the questions were put to the witness, about this issue, and it has developed now into a situation where the witness is faced with allegations that he has made, has told under evidence, certain different versions, whereas I could clearly before my eyes see the development of the misunderstanding.

CHAIRPERSON: But you see, he goes on on the next page and says he worked under my supervision until he was arrested. Now, Captain, did you see Mr Ngo every day, Mr Britz's question, the answer that is true.

And where did he report to every day, he was reporting to me on a daily basis in the morning, and when he knocked off, he reported to me.

Why didn't he then say I didn't see him for seven months?

MR DU PLESSIS: May I just get the right place Mr Chairman, just bear with me.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it is an indulgence which I am asking Mr Chairman, I see that we are going on until half past, after twenty past three, I was wondering Mr Chairman, would it be asking too much to ask you whether we could possibly excuse the witnesses which I've got here until tomorrow morning Mr Chairman, we still have two witnesses to cross-examine.

There are some difficulties unfortunately.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Will you then accept that I will start tomorrow if all things being equal, first then with my evidence, thank you Mr Chairman.

My Lord, I see that in respect of that question, I thought that I had dealt sufficiently with that last time, but I see that I hadn't done so. I want to say My Lord, it was I who dealt with it, not Mr Britz.

But the question that you referred to now My Lord, obviously and I don't want to argue it now, but can be interpreted as a perhaps a loose question.

I don't think the question was clear to the effect that the question was that he saw Mr Ngo every day until his arrest, that issue wasn't dealt with in all fairness to the witness, perhaps not dealt with properly by myself in the evidence in chief, but I will have to argue that My Lord.

What I want to ask the witness relates to something that appears in the judgement of the criminal trial My Lord, and I am trying to get to that. Capt Khoja, you testified in your evidence in chief, you testified that you remember that Mr Ngo was in a motor vehicle accident, can you remember that?

CAPT KHOJA: I remember that.

MR VISSER: Now, I want to put to you what was stated in the judgement of Judge Betley in the criminal trial. My Lord, you will find that in Exhibit C, Bundle C, page 47.

What he says there is based on evidence of a Dr Van Niekerk. I am going to read that to you Capt Khoja, I want you to listen to it carefully.

The witnesses who gave evidence are part of the (indistinct). It was in the first place Dr Van Niekerk, accused 1 at Pelanomi Hospital treated there, during July 1988. Evidently after accused 1, that is now Mr Ngo, was in the motor car accident of which he testified himself, and in which he sustained certain injuries.

According to Dr Van Niekerk, the accused sustained back fractures as well as a neck injury. Due to the neck injury he was kept for a week at the trauma unit of Pelanomi Hospital.

After he had spent the week at the Hospital, he was released and was prescribed four weeks bed rest. During a later follow up consultation visit, it was determined that the fracture of the back for which the accused was operated initially, collapsed.

On the 21st of October 1988, an operation was done known as a Harrington Procedure, during which two steel plates, pegs, were placed into the accused's neck to pull his head straight.

Regarding Dr Van Niekerk, accused 1, that is Mr Ngo, was transported from Pelanomi Hospital or rather was released from Pelanomi Hospital during approximately November 1988.

Capt Khoja, if we take account of this, it seems that Mr Ngo was for most of the time from July 1988 to November 1988 in hospital? Did you know anything about that?

CAPT KHOJA: I only heard that he was injured and he was in the hospital.

MR VISSER: And is it possible that it could have been during this period when he wasn't there, on duty as we have seen here during the period July 1988 to November 1988? Would you concede that?

CAPT KHOJA: There is such a possibility.

MR VISSER: And then I want to put to you Capt Khoja, I want to put to you Capt Khoja, what Mr Ngo himself testified which you will find on page 282, page 282 of the record, Mr Ngo himself testified and that was his evidence when I cross-examined him he said I was never suspended, I was sick.

I encountered a motor accident, I was on sick leave from - then the case appeared and then it was not disputed by Mr Ngo that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in August 1988.

It was put during cross-examination in August, but it seems to be in July. I put that to you, do you have any reason to dispute that?

CAPT KHOJA: I don't have any reason to dispute that.

MR VISSER: Right, and lastly, Capt Khoja, were you ever officially told by anybody that Mr Ngo was transferred or to be transferred during that time he wasn't present up and until his arrest?

CAPT KHOJA: Nobody sir.

MR VISSER: Thank you, My Lord, I've got no further questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER: .

CHAIRPERSON: One final question to give Mr Khoja the chance if he can, page 1137, you were asked when you last gave evidence Mr Khoja, about entries in the occurrence book and you agreed that the last entry relating to Mr Ngo, was the 20th of July 1988.

You were then asked now Captain, yes, do you know what happened to Mr Ngo, then your reply was, yes, I know exactly because I was working together with him. I was his Commander, he was arrested.

Again, Captain, there is not mention of the fact that he had disappeared from working with you, that you hadn't seen him for months. You said yes, I know exactly what happened to him, because I was working together with him. Can you explain how it is you came to say that and didn't there say I don't know, he disappeared?

CAPT KHOJA: I understand that question, but you see if you have a person who is troublesome at work, such things appear because you would never get the right root of the problem.

Ngo was under my supervision as I indicated before until he was arrested, even during his disappearance until he was arrested, he was under my supervision.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your explanation, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: I would like to ask you one question, I know this happened about nine years ago, almost ten years ago. When Mr Venter turned up at the barracks and asked about his motor car, was he in a friendly spirit or was he annoyed because his car wasn't returned?

CAPT KHOJA: He was annoyed because he first called, he never got the car until he came in person. He was really troubled.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you know at that time whether he travelled from Bloemfontein to Pretoria in order to enquire about the car or what was the position?

CAPT KHOJA: I saw him at the barracks, asking about his car.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, and the later that day, you saw Mr Ngo after Mr Venter had been there, you saw him?

CAPT KHOJA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: If it wasn't on the same day, it may be a day or two later when you conveyed to him that Mr Venter was there?

CAPT KHOJA: I saw him days thereafter, when he was at the barracks.

ADV DE JAGER: What was his explanation for not returning Mr Venter's car?

CAPT KHOJA: He did not give me a reason, he said he would immediately return the car.

ADV DE JAGER: And do you know whether he in fact returned the car immediately thereafter?

CAPT KHOJA: He did not leave immediately to return the car, but I think the weekend thereafter he went home.

ADV DE JAGER: And do you know whether he was in a motor accident while driving Mr Venter's car?

CAPT KHOJA: I do not know in which car was he in when he was involved in an accident.

ADV DE JAGER: I would like, if you could assist me perhaps, was Mr Venter's car damaged in the motor accident?

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, that was in fact the evidence placed before you, during the incident of Venter. The recollection is that the car actually overturned while Mr Ngo was driving it and it was some way away from Bloemfontein, I can't remember exactly where, but I can get that for you if need be, and he was then hospitalised immediately.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, that is my ...

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

MR VISSER: Yes, My Lord, I don't think there is anything else, there is just one point I want to make please, and that is that Mr Memani placed, or put certain facts as his client's version which wasn't tested in cross-examination and which wasn't testified about by his client and in no way I am saying that he should have led that evidence, because he couldn't perhaps have foreseen that it was relevant.

However, My Lord, if that is in any way to be taken into account as Mr Ngo's version, obviously I would want to cross-examine Mr Ngo about one or two of those statements that were made.

I am just making that point My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) I just want to release this witness so that he can get back and prepare for his examination which I understand is imminent. Nobody has any objection to this witness being released at this stage?

I also think that we have been here for quite a long time and before we continue with any other witness, we should take a short adjournment. We will adjourn for five minutes.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, before the adjournment is taken, Captain Bokaba is here, I would like to put certain questions to him which arose out of our inspection of the pocket book.

May he then be asked to remain pending the application I will make after the adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR VISSER: ... reply to Commissioner De Jager's query about the record straight away before we go on. It is the query regards the motor car collision or accident in which Ngo was involved and whether it was Mr Venter's car as I understood the question.

Could I refer you to Bundle A Mr Chairman, of the evidence. Page, marked in pen, 70, typed written page 177. It is approximately two thirds down the page, the lines are not marked Mr Chairman. And it is during my cross-examination of Mr Ngo where you will see the following words -

"Mr Visser - I will leave out some words, and I say 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 says, that is when I capsized with that car.

Mr Visser, so I take it your answer is yes, there were times when 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.

I think that is perhaps what you were looking for Mr De Jager.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, what was it that you wished to raise?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, you will recall that Colonel Loots and I think he is a Lieutenant, I am not so sure, Loots and Captain Bokaba testified earlier on and in a sense they denied that Ngo would have been associated with the Security Branch and subsequent to their evidence you have asked for the pocket books to be produced. There are certain entries in one of the pocket books which tend to establish a connection between Security Branch and Mr Ngo, which I would like to put to Mr Bokaba.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he know anything about it, he hasn't had custody of these pocket books, he was just the messenger who brought them here, they are not in his handwriting are they?

MR MEMANI: I am not giving, I don't understand you, I want to put the contents of the entries to Mr Bokaba?

CHAIRPERSON: But what is the relevance of putting them to him?

MR MEMANI: That they suggest that he at some stage accompanied ...

CHAIRPERSON: You want to put them to who?

MR MEMANI: To Bokaba. Bokaba is the Captain who testified together with Loots.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, another witness you want to recall? Sorry, I was confused, I thought it was the present witness you wanted to put something more to.

You want to apply for the recall of Captain Bokaba?

MR MEMANI: That is correct My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that we can do at some other stage.

MR MEMANI: But he is actually driving the vehicle as far as I know, in which Khoja is travelling.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he leaving us now then?

MR MEMANI: I believe so.

MR VISSER: Yes, My Lord. They came together in a State vehicle, and Captain Bokaba has to drive Captain Khoja.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, what portion do you wish to put?

MR VISSER: My Lord, I think the same objection applies My Lord. At the end of the day Captain Bokaba was not involved in the pocket book or with the entry of the pocket book, I don't know where the questioning is going to go to.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what the pocket book says, that is why I want to see, if it is something that clearly Bokaba could explain, I think he is entitled to put it.

What passage, where do you want to go in the pocket book?

MR MEMANI: It is in the batch My Lord, that was in my possession. It is at page 23 to page 26.

CHAIRPERSON: This is something your client wrote, is it? He knew about it, he could have instructed you about it, why didn't you put it to Captain Bokaba?

MR MEMANI: Well My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't he know about it, wasn't your client able to instruct you?

MR MEMANI: We had instructions My Lord, we did put it that we are working with Bokaba and that at times he went to Kompol Building and there was extensive cross-examination on the issues, and what I am saying is that now we have got some documentary evidence, that I would like to put to Bokaba in the light of their denial.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think Captain Bokaba knows anything about it, because this is merely a report of paying a visit isn't it?

MR MEMANI: My Lord, the entries are, the first one says report at SA Police Kompol to see Captain Loots, you will recall that Mr Bokaba ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, there is on the next page, there is a reference to Captain Bokaba.

MR MEMANI: That is correct My Lord, and there was also a visit to Niewoudt or something at Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any objections?

MR VISSER: Speaking for myself, I believe my learned friend has the right to put this to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think so. It did, merely as it relates to an entry made by his client at the time and it does refer to, I didn't think the Loots one was particularly relevant, because the Captain wouldn't know.

MR VISSER: I am making no suggestion on the merit of it, I simply am saying that I am sure he is entitled to put it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you can put it, carry on.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I say something about this? I called Captain Bokaba as a witness and because he was implicated in one or two of the matters. My learned friend had an opportunity to cross-examine Captain Bokaba and I don't have a problem if my learned friend wants to put a different version than the version that he put during cross-examination of Captain Bokaba.

All I want to say My Lord, is this pocket book became available I think after Captain Bokaba gave evidence last time.

CHAIRPERSON: No, this was the pocket book that he had in his possession since the last hearing.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but the pocket books became available My Lord, after we were into the hearing at some stage, and I think Captain Bokaba gave evidence before we had the pocket books.

Now, the point I want to make My Lord, is I don't have any objection, this clearly corroborates Captain Bokaba's evidence that he took Mr Ngo to the Security Branch for the interview. All I want to say My Lord, in so far as my learned friend had an opportunity to put Mr Ngo's version about this, he had the opportunity.

If there is any other version that he is going to put My Lord, then clearly that is going to prejudice him and, but I don't have any objection My Lord, I just want to make that statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

HENDRIK BOKABA: (still under oath)

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Now, Mr Bokaba, may I refer you to entry number, do you have the pocket books in front of you?

CAPT BOKABA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I have given him the pocket book that you had Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: I am indebted to His Lordship. Now, Mr Bokaba, will you please turn to page 23?

Can you see the entry dated Thursday, 7 April 1988?

CAPT BOKABA: I see that.

MR MEMANI: And that entry reads that Ngo reported at SA Police Kompol to see Captain Loots?

CAPT BOKABA: I would say it is so, because that is what he says, and as I testified that I took him once to see Captain Loots, because I don't remember well of the date which I took him to Kompol, it might be that date which appears there.

MR MEMANI: If you turn again to page 26, there is an entry dated Wednesday, 13 April 1988. It says that at 07h00 Ngo went to SA Police Kompol for interview by Lieutenant Niewoudt.

CAPT BOKABA: I see that sir.

MR MEMANI: Would you have accompanied him on that occasion?

CAPT BOKABA: I don't know that. I even don't know Lieutenant Niewoudt he is talking about.

ADV DE JAGER: On the same page, the next column 07h00 to SA Police Kompol with Constable Hendrik Bokaba for place location.

MR MEMANI: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, there is an entry again on 14 April 1988, which says to SA Police Kompol with Constable Hendrik Bokaba for place location. Now my instructions are that place location is a form of orientation whereby a recruit is taken to various places to familiarise himself with the operations of the Branch and the area in which he is going to work?

CAPT BOKABA: I don't agree with that.

MR MEMANI: What would this have meant?

CAPT BOKABA: This entry which appears here, I don't agree with it. What I know, I did explain before, when I gave evidence that I took Ngo once to Kompol building when he went for an interview to Captain Loots, that is what I know, that is why I say I don't agree with this version.

MR MEMANI: This pocket book was written almost ten years ago, before Ngo knew that he would apply for amnesty one day.

CAPT BOKABA: I agree with you that it was written in 1988.

MR MEMANI: And he did not have any reason to make a false entry about you accompanying him for place location?

CAPT BOKABA: I am surprised why he made that entry that he went with me for place location. I am surprised why he made this entry and included my name that he went to do place location, because I was not working with him, and what I know is that I only took him to Captain Loots once and then thereafter I didn't associate with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree that place location is what counsel suggested to you?

CAPT BOKABA: I don't agree with him.

MR MEMANI: What is place location according to your version?

CAPT BOKABA: I am surprised, I don't even know that, I don't understand that. As to whether it is an orientation for new recruits in the Security Branch, I don't agree with that. I don't understand the meaning of place location.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairperson, those are my questions. I am indebted to the Committee.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't understand why you would dispute the definition of place location suggested to you, if you don't know what it means?

CAPT BOKABA: The way I understand him, is that it is an orientation course, the way Mr Memani explains it that a newly recruit to the Security Branch, should undergo that orientation. That is, this term I learn it for the first time today.

At Security Branch, there is nothing called, the orientation is never called place location, that is why I dispute that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I would have thought that you would have said well, I don't know what it means, but if some people say that is what it means, then I don't know.

CAPT BOKABA: I wanted to explain that I don't know it.

MR DU PLESSIS: My Lord, may I enquire if I understood it correctly? Did my learned friend put to the witness that Mr Ngo's evidence is in accordance with the pocket book, that he would have gone to the Security Branch to start with a course as part of the Security Branch, is that what he put?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Not a course, orientation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but My Lord, I have difficulty in this way of cross-examination, because I want to know what Mr Ngo's version is.

Mr Ngo has ten different kinds of versions and nothing has been put here, and I am placing this on record now My Lord, I don't know what Mr Ngo's version about these entries are.

Can we accept that this is in accordance with Mr Ngo's version, what is Mr Ngo's version? Did he go for a course, was he drafted into the Security Branch, was this when he joined the Security Branch, what is Mr Ngo's version My Lord?

If my learned friend doesn't want to put Mr Ngo's version, obviously then one can argue about it, because he put this morning that Mr Ngo's version was that he was transferred to the Security Branch in July 1988.

That is the reason why I want to know what is Mr Ngo's version with respect.

JUDGE NGOEPE: We can see what the diaries say, that is what he is dealing with the pocket book. He is dealing with the pocket book and we know what the pocket book is saying, and we know who wrote that pocket book.

MR DU PLESSIS: But My Lord, he hasn't stated that Mr Ngo says that, agrees with this and that this will be Mr Ngo's evidence, because Mr Ngo hasn't testified about this.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It doesn't matter Mr Du Plessis, really it doesn't matter. What Mr Memani is doing, is showing what Mr Ngo has written in his pocket book and he want the answers from the witness.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I accept that what is written in the pocket book, will be Mr Ngo's evidence about that as well, it will accord with his evidence, that he is not going to dispute his own pocket book, can I accept that My Lord?

JUDGE NGOEPE: I really don't have to answer that question, there is no need for us to answer that question. Mr Ngo has testified and this documents are produced subsequent to his evidence, and if his counsel decides to show the contents of those documents to this witness, he is inviting some comments from this witness, he is entitled to do that.

MR DU PLESSIS: My Lord, the only reason why I am raising this point with respect My Lord, is that I am going to ask for Mr Ngo to be recalled, and I want to give my learned friend, with respect, a chance to put Mr Ngo's evidence on record now, because I am going to argue if he doesn't put his version on record to any witnesses that he puts any version to, My Lord, that there is certain deductions that you make of it, but I am giving my learned friend ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Du Plessis, we don't need to be reminded by anybody as to what we will deal with any aspect of the matter if there is more evidence on it.

We don't need to be reminded of it.

MR DU PLESSIS: I know My Lord, I am just drawing your attention to it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, you don't need to draw our attention to that, we don't need that reminder.

CHAIRPERSON: No more questions?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't have any questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. May this witness also be excused. They can always come back.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, My Lord, if it is necessary we will make the witnesses available again on request of anybody.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, how many witnesses have you got available that we might be able to dispose of now?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, at this stage I have only Phahlane here who must be cross-examined, then I also have a Mr Molefi who has not testified at all yet. And also the two Lekethlane sisters who have not testified at all.

CHAIRPERSON: We should just dispose of the one witness who have testified, so that she does not have to come here again.

MR STANDER: As it pleases you. I then call Anne Phahlane to the witness stand.

MS PHAHLANE: (still under oath)

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I will attempt to be brief.

CHAIRPERSON: I trust that you will, do more than attempt.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: I don't want to prove your trust to be misplaced Mr Chairman. I will really make an attempt.

Ms Phahlane, have you notified the TRC of the fact that you consider yourself to be a victim, and if you did, can you tell us when you did that?

I am going to refer to page 140 of Bundle A, Mr Chairman, actually 140 to 141 of Bundle A. Ms Phahlane, did you hear the question?

MS PHAHLANE: I heard the question.

MR VISSER: Do you have a reply?

MS PHAHLANE: Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: Well, please will you do it then. Tell us.

MS PHAHLANE: May I ask the question, I did not understand your question sir?

MR VISSER: Did you at all notify the TRC of the fact that you consider yourself a victim of gross violations of human rights and if you did, can you remember when you did so?

MS PHAHLANE: I didn't come to the Truth Commission. I went to be fetched as one of the 19 people who were assaulted, I started with Legal Board last year in November.

MR VISSER: How did it come about that you decided to come forward as a victim, did somebody talk to you, discussed the matters with you?

MS PHAHLANE: I made a decision that I should come to appear before this Commission because I am one of the victims in 1986, after I learnt that the members of the Security Branch said that they did not assault us.

MR VISSER: I see. You didn't discuss this with anybody, did you?

MS PHAHLANE: Which people are you referring to sir?

MR VISSER: I am referring to one person, did you discuss it with Thandi Jacobs before you came? Before you came forward and told everybody (indistinct)

MS PHAHLANE: I went to him after, to her after I went to Legal Board.

MR VISSER: Did you compare your evidence with what she was going to say before you came to give evidence?

MS PHAHLANE: No sir.

MR VISSER: All right, we will return to that. Mr Chairman, I simply point out that the name of not one of these two people appear on the list which we have had all along during this amnesty applications. I make no further point of this.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, in fairness to the witness if some decision has to be taken about this fact, this is the list of victims based not on what people came forward, but on what victims that Mr Motsamai could recall at the time of making the list, and I think there is also a, there was at some stage mention of the fact that it is not an inexhausted list, it is a list of people that he can recall.

There were many people that were involved.

MR VISSER: I accept that Mr Chairman. I just thought that you should be aware of that, that's all.

Now, I just want to refresh your memory Ms Phahlane about your evidence. You told the Committee that you were arrested and that you didn't say so, but it is common cause that you were arrested in the area of Brandfort by the South African Defence Force, is that correct? I am sorry, Ladybrand, in the area of Ladybrand by the South African Defence Force?

MS PHAHLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You were then taken to the Security Branch in Ladybrand, and transferred to Bloemfontein?

MS PHAHLANE: That is so.

MR VISSER: Now, you then said you were taken to Ramkraal, then something which was translated to be you were not welcomed?

MS PHAHLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that a correct translation of what you intended to say?

MS PHAHLANE: We were not welcomed at Ramkraal, we were welcomed at Bakroad, but we were ultimately taken at Fountain. The people at Ramkraal said they were not going to take us in due to the reasons they had, and we were then taken to Bakroad.

We ended up at Fountain, and the Police were already waiting for us, these are the people who took us then.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, I should mention in fairness to the witness that the word she uses in her own language in English can be translated "not received", just as it can be translated "not welcomed".

MR VISSER: Yes. That is why I wanted to clear it up more on behalf of the witness, because both these witnesses said exactly the same thing, it was translated as the same thing, it didn't really make sense in English.

And that is why I gave her the opportunity and I do appreciate your input Mr Chairman. I can then move on.

Now, you gave a whole list of names ms Phahlane of policemen who were present at Fountains and you said Mamome, Mr Chairman, may I interrupt myself. As promised I did present a list to the person who is recording the evidence, I didn't discuss it with him, but it did occur to me that he is not a scenographer, that through the Chair, you could ask him that the list be passed on with the tapes, to the people who is going to type it otherwise it won't help giving him a list instead of spelling it, otherwise we will be reduced to spelling it every single time.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sure this will done.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. It is Mamome, Motsamai, Ngo, Tsoametsi, Erasmus, du Plooy, Mningwa, Mmelesi, those are names you mentioned. Do you remember and others?

MS PHAHLANE: Yes,I mentioned them and Mmelesi.

MR VISSER: What I want to ask you, is would you please tell us quite plainly who can you tell this Committee today actually assaulted you and if you can, just to tell us how exactly you were assaulted?

Let me explain one thing to you Ms Phahlane, I am not talking about one particular day, I am not talking about the first day or the second day, for however long you were there, I want to know who assaulted you if anybody had, and how were you assaulted?

MS PHAHLANE: That is Mamome, Mr Du Plooy, Erasmus, Motsamai and Ngo. I would start with Ngo, I went to the first office, I found Ngo, Motsamai and Mningwa. When I entered there, they interrogated me. I answered those questions, but Ngo didn't ask many questions.

He said to me I told you many times that we are going to meet one day, he got hold of me by the back of my neck, then he slapped me, then I fell on the chair. After that, others went out, Mningwa didn't do anything and Motsamai didn't do anything, he was just speaking on that day.

He was in the kitchen, he was slapping me.

MR VISSER: You are going a little bit quickly unfortunately. Can you just go slightly slower please, thank you Ms Phahlane, you were at the point where you said Mningwa didn't do anything to you and Motsamai didn't do anything to you. Will you please repeat from there onwards please? You were saying at the kitchen...

MS PHAHLANE: Mr Motsamai slapped me whilst we were in the kitchen because they were calling us one by one before we went to the various rooms of offices.

The first one which I entered as I said, that we were three, then Ngo entered again, then he did what I have already explained.

Thereafter I was taken back to the kitchen. Whilst I was in the kitchen during the day, Mr Mamome came. He called me to his office, then he interrogated me saying how did I join those people whilst they were assaulting me.

That day they found me with the people who were escaping, because I didn't camp with those people, I only joined them on the last day when we departed.

Then he took a tube, he put me on the chair, then he blindfolded me, then he took a cloth and put it on my face, then from there, he removed it, then somebody put a blindfold me with the tube, then he get hold of the tube, then he was fastening the tube whilst he was blindfolding me.

I am not sure how many minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: He, who was it?

MS PHAHLANE: I am talking about Mamome.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Ms Phahlane, I couldn't help noticing perhaps there is an obvious explanation for it, but I couldn't help noticing that there was some delay before you replied that Mr Mamome was the one that was doing this.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I think that is obviously his interpretation.

MR VISSER: I will accept that immediately Mr Chairman. All right, now we have it, I am sorry, I should ask you this, is something funny Ms Phahlane? Let's just concentrate in getting this job done.

We now know that Mr Mamome, Mr Ngo and Mr Motsamai assaulted you. Mr Ngo grabbed you by the neck, was that grabbed from behind or from the front?

MS PHAHLANE: From behind as I am demonstrating. I was sitting down, and he is taller, he just took out his hand and grabbed me.

MR VISSER: And he slapped you?

MS PHAHLANE: Yes, severely so with an open hand.

MR VISSER: Which side of your face?

MS PHAHLANE: This side My Lord. The left side.

MR VISSER: And you fell on the chair or off the chair?

MS PHAHLANE: I fell and the chair slipped away. I managed to stand and then I just kept quiet, putting my hand right where he slapped me.

MR VISSER: Then after a while you were taken to the kitchen, am I right?

MS PHAHLANE: You are right.

MR VISSER: And was it Mr Motsamai that took you there?

MS PHAHLANE: They said I should go and then I left for the kitchen. They were following me because when I entered the kitchen, they also entered, calling the others.

MR VISSER: No for what reason did Mr Motsamai then assault you in the kitchen, do you know?

MS PHAHLANE: I do not know.

MR VISSER: Didn't he say anything before he did so? Did he ask you any questions which you refused to answer, any reason at all?

MS PHAHLANE: I do not know, he just told me that I thought I was clever, and yet I was not. And that we have met early today.

MR VISSER: All right. Let's come to Mr Mamome. Before we go on to him, are those the only three people that you say assaulted you during the whole period of your detention in April 1985, after you were arrested by the South African Defence Force?

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct), she didn't say these were the only three.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am asking her whether they are, with respect.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, the problem that I have with this is that my learned friend - the consequences of the happening, he is taking them out of sequence. When he did the cross-examination, he asked them to mention all the names and the names were mentioned.

Then he started and took her out of the kitchen where the first assault took place, then he took her back to the kitchen and asked her whether those were the only persons.

ADV DE JAGER: With all respect Mr Stander, I have taken notes and that is not how it happened. He said mention what everyone did and his words were, I wrote it down, who were the people that assaulted you and how did they assault you. He started off with that, and when she mentioned the names, and then she started with Ngo what he did.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, (indistinct)

ADV DE JAGER: ... who assaulted her and what they did to her.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I am prepared ...

ADV DE JAGER: (Indistinct) leave it to the witness to give the evidence please.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I hear what you are saying, but I understood it to be that we are busy with a sequence of events.

That is why I am of the opinion that the same mistake would have been made by the witness and that is why I objected. If my learned friend will just put it to her, I am not only speaking of the events as they occurred, but the total events so that she can also understand it, then I will agree that he can continue with his cross-examination in this way.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ... what happened, and I think there is some point in what you are saying because after the witness mentioned all this people including Du Plooy and others, she started, she was caused to start describing the assault. Mr Visser said first let's start with Mr Ngo.

She started with Ngo, then moved to Motsamai and then moved over to Mamome and whilst she was still describing what happened with Mamome, at a certain point, according to my notes, Mr Visser interrupted and asked the witness, why did you take long to answer when Judge Wilson was asking you about who is this person.

And that was when Mr Brink explained that it was his interpretation. After that, Mr Visser actually took the witness back to Ngo's aspect. And then the witness described how she was assaulted and she fell onto the chair and then thereafter Mr Visser said are these the only people that assaulted you, something like that.

It wasn't fair to do it in that fashion.

MR STANDER: I agree, those are the grounds for my objections.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) when you said are these the only three, you had not given her the opportunity Mr Visser, I suggest you do so.

MR VISSER: I accept Mr Chairman, I am not here to fight I am just here after the truth. I accept what you say and I will accept your ruling.

The question was Ms Phahlane, we would like to know of everybody that you know assaulted you and how they assaulted you. You have told us about Mr Ngo in an office and Mr Motsamai.

MS PHAHLANE: About Mamome sir?

MR VISSER: About anything about assaults on your Ms Phahlane.

MS PHAHLANE: When I left Mamome's office, I went back to the kitchen. While I was sitting in the kitchen, Mr Erasmus came and he took me to his room and he was also interrogating me, asking me questions.

And we did not agree and I just heard a person blindfolding me, because you were ordered to sit on the chair, not to look on the sides, who is opening the door, who is closing the door.

I heard a person approaching, then they blindfolded me and I fell and kicks followed thereafter, and I could not see who was kicking me because I was blindfolded, I could not see what was happening.

When I regained consciousness, it was Mr Ngo and Mr Erasmus in that room. Thereafter, Ngo took me to the kitchen, I laid by my side, on my side in the kitchen, not knowing what to do.

I didn't want to do anything, I felt bruises in my body. I just wanted to lay on my side. The next day I was taken to Mr Du Plooy, he took photo's of me, he asked me questions, he slapped me with open hands, and he said you are refusing to give us the truth and he took me upstairs into the kitchen.

These are the people who assaulted me.

MR VISSER: And is this exactly what you told Mr Stander when you consulted with him about your evidence yesterday?

MS PHAHLANE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Well, please stop me if I am wrong, but it is my recollection that you mentioned nothing about the assault of Mr Mamome on you that you testified here today about. Am I right or am I wrong?

MS PHAHLANE: You said I should mention the names of all the people who were at the parade, you did not ask me a question about people who assaulted me, all the people who assaulted me.

I gave you all the names of the policemen who were there when we were brought to that place.

MR VISSER: Mr Phahlane, you know and I know that what you have just said, is not the truth. I have made it very clear to you that I am talking about people who assaulted you. I never asked you who were on the parade, so that answer of yours is untruthful.

What I am asking you is, yesterday when you were led in evidence in chief, you referred this Committee to a whole list of names, I have read them to you today, and now I asked you who assaulted you and now suddenly you come out with Mr Mamome after yesterday you only spoke of Mr Ngo, Mr Motsamai and Mr Du Plooy, am I right?

MS PHAHLANE: You are right.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser ...

CHAIRPERSON: Who did she say she spoke of yesterday?

MR VISSER: Yesterday she spoke, Mr Chairman, of three persons that assaulted her. The one was Mr Ngo, the other was Mr Motsamai and the other was Mr Du Plooy.

CHAIRPERSON: What about Mr Erasmus?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, if I can just assist you. My learned friend here next to me, and I am very grateful to him, have written down the names, while I was busy I could not write down the names, but he wrote it down and they started with Mamome, Motsamai, Ngo, Tsoametsi, Erasmus, Du Plooy and Mmelesi.

I can recall this specifically and my learned friend wrote it down specifically.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, according to my notes she said that she was assaulted also by Ngo and she mentions Ngo, Du Plooy who also took photo's of me, she said so yesterday.

MR VISSER: Motsamai and I have forgotten about Erasmus, she also mentioned Erasmus. She mentioned four.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, I was assaulted by Erasmus, Ngo, Motsamai, Mamome. Erasmus used the tube, the other thing which she said. Motsamai clapped me, Du Plooy also clapped me. I think she mentioned all of them yesterday as well.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with respect, my note and it may be wrong, reads as follows: My learned friend asks his witness, he is leading her, nobody is stopping him, he is leading her, the evidence that he wants to put before you. He says to her who were present. She says some of the names are Mamome, Motsamai, Ngo, Tsoametsi, Erasmus, Du Plooy, Mningwa, Mmelesi.

At the arrival we were taken to the kitchen is the next thing she says. Then to various places. I placed in brackets here, rooms, I think she might have said rooms or places. I was called to Erasmus' room, he interrogated and slapped me.

That is the one I missed. Then to another room ...

CHAIRPERSON: She then said on my note I was slapped by Ngo, Motsamai and Mamome.

MR VISSER: And Mamome Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, then I must beg your pardon, because that name I haven't got here. Is there a problem?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, my note is Mningwa.

ADV DE JAGER: But then the very next sentence, the next answer then she continued with Du Plooy photo's and she said she was detained for three days and then I've got a note here Erasmus, Ngo, Motsamai and Mamome assaulted me.

MR STANDER: That is the version I've got.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I will then withdraw that question, because quite clearly my notes is not as good as they should be.

ADV DE JAGER: Mningwa is not mentioned and in the first, she mentioned the name Mningwa as Mr Brink also pointed out, I've got that note too.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, again there may be some misunderstanding. We are working through interpreters and so on and if it is only Mningwa that is now falling away, I am not going to make a big point out of that Mr Chairman, with great respect.

The point I really want to put to this witness, that is important is the following: Colonel Erasmus tells me that he had absolutely nothing to do with the arrest, transportation or interrogation of the group of which you were on, that was detained at Bloemfontein in 1985. Nothing at all, he wasn't even there when you were interrogated, what do you say about that?

MS PHAHLANE: I know he was there, he was present.

MR VISSER: He tells me and this will be his evidence, that he was a Service Officer, is the best translation I could think of Mr Chairman.

INTERPRETER: Duty Officer.

MR VISSER: My Attorney tells me it is a Duty Officer, he was a Duty Officer at the time, he was not working with what was then known as the Black division, they had various divisions in the Security Branch, don't concern yourself about that.

But it was the Black Division, or the Black Unit that had to do with the interrogation and detention of you people, do you have any comment on that?

MS PHAHLANE: It was not my first time to be arrested on that day. I would not just mention his name out of nowhere, where would I have met him before, would I just come and create his name and say that he was involved with those activities?

He was among the people who fetched me at home, every day, every time he was at Fountain, I found him there.

MR VISSER: And you are quite certain he also slapped you?

MS PHAHLANE: I am certain.

MR VISSER: And the reason why you are certain is you say that because when the blindfold was taken off, Ngo and Mr Erasmus were in the room after you had been slapped, do I understand you correctly?

MS PHAHLANE: I do understand you.

MR VISSER: Alright. Where were you, where did you sleep after you had been interrogated at Fountains, where were you taken to spend the night?

MS PHAHLANE: We were taken to Glen, the police station at Glen.

MR VISSER: And you were kept for quite some time, kept in detention not so, it was longer than a week?

MS PHAHLANE: I spent months.

MR VISSER: Months?

MS PHAHLANE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Seeing that you know Mr Erasmus so well, did you see him visiting the female detainees together with another female police officer over the weekend, one weekend, more than one weekend, at Glen, did you see him there coming to visit you?

MS PHAHLANE: No.

MR VISSER: Now, he says that that is exactly where he came into contact with you. As Duty Officer he, together with a female police officer, who incidently later Mr Chairman, became his wife, visited you at Glen. You say that is not so?

MS PHAHLANE: I never saw him while I was in detention.

MR VISSER: But that can't be correct because you have just told us that he interrogated you and he slapped you?

MS PHAHLANE: Yes.

MR VISSER: But he didn't visit you at Glen to see if you were alright?

MS PHAHLANE: He did not visit us, they came to fetch us. Mamome and Mningwa. Mamome and the other gentleman who was called Davo, these are the people who used to fetch us. They did not visit us.

MR VISSER: I am not talking about anybody else, I am talking about Mr Erasmus.

MS PHAHLANE: He never visited us. I have never seen him while I was in detention.

MR VISSER: And those were the only ways in which you were assaulted? You were slapped and you were blindfolded with a rubber tube?

CHAIRPERSON: And kicked by many people?

MR VISSER: Was she kicked Mr Chairman, all right?

CHAIRPERSON: She fell.

MR VISSER: Who kicked you?

MS PHAHLANE: I could not see because my eyes were blindfolded.

MR VISSER: Alright, you were not made to do frog jumps, were you?

MS PHAHLANE: No. I was wearing a dress.

MR VISSER: And push ups?

MS PHAHLANE: No.

MR VISSER: No push ups? Were you ever assaulted in the passages of Fountains Building?

MS PHAHLANE: Yes.

MR VISSER: By whom?

MS PHAHLANE: Mamome and them.

MR VISSER: But I thought you have just told us that Mamome assaulted you in his room, isn't that what you told us?

MS PHAHLANE: We were put on the floor, everybody who was passing, gave us a kick. We were all at the passage, we were not supposed to be close to each other.

MR VISSER: Yes, well, let me round this off by saying to you Ms Phahlane, that Mr Mamome, Mr Erasmus, Mr Tsoametsi, Mr Mningwa, Mr Mmelesi, those ones, my clients, that you have implicated in any assault will come into the witness box, just give me an opportunity, and they will deny that you or anyone else was assaulted by any of them, or by anybody else in their presence. Now you can talk.

MS PHAHLANE: Some of the names you have mentioned are the names of people who did not assault me, but they were present.

MR VISSER: Will you just specify for us exactly who of these names, did not assault you? You have told us Mamome assaulted you, Motsamai, Ngo. Did Tsoametsi assault you?

MS PHAHLANE: No.

MR VISSER: You said Erasmus slapped you apparently once, is that right?

MS PHAHLANE: They cuffed me on the hands and they used a tube to close my eyes. That is why I said to you earlier on that I nearly fell in that room. When I went back to the kitchen I could not even sit.

MR VISSER: Is that an answer to my question whether Erasmus slapped you once? Is that your answer to that question?

MS PHAHLANE: I did not say once, I said he mentioned that I should not look on the sides, I should sit still on the chair. While sitting there, I heard a person approaching and suddenly I was blindfolded and I was kicked.

MR VISSER: Did this person approach through the door while you were in the room with Mr Erasmus, is that what you are saying? Please just explain this to us. You and Erasmus are in a room, is that correct? Are you alone or is there somebody else with you there?

MS PHAHLANE: Mr Ngo was present.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo was present. You are now blindfolded with a rubber tube, have I got this right?

MS PHAHLANE: I was facing the window side, the door was at my back, I was watching him as he was talking, demonstrating all those things.

MR VISSER: You were watching who, Mr Erasmus?

MS PHAHLANE: Yes, Mr Erasmus.

MR VISSER: And by the time you were blindfolded, nobody had assaulted you yet, is that correct?

MS PHAHLANE: It was after Mr Erasmus slapped me.

MR VISSER: So he first slapped you and then you were blindfolded or were you first blindfolded and then slapped?

MS PHAHLANE: He slapped me first, he asked me questions and then he told me to sit still, not to look on the sides and he stood up, demonstrating and he asked me who was driving the car, he wanted to know the driver of the car.

He wanted to know the person who was closing and opening the door and I told him that I don't even know the driver of the car, I just arrived and got into the car and left and then he gave me, he slapped me, he said you know the person very well, who was driving the car, you will just reveal his name.

MR VISSER: Ms Phahlane, then I do not understand your difficulty, because I understood and I may be wrong again, I understood your evidence to be that you were blindfolded, somebody may have come through the door and you couldn't see who slapped you. Now you tell us ...

MR STANDER: No Mr Chairman, that is not what she said. What she said was that when the tube was taken from her face, she had already been kicked, but there were two people in the office at that stage, so she couldn't say who it was that had kicked her.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the day may come when my learned friend might find himself in a witness box. In any event, I can see he is dying to give evidence.

I wasn't talking about being kicked. We all know that she said that she didn't know who slapped her, today she said here, because she was blindfolded, but I will leave it. The record will speak for itself Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not the note I've got. I've got the note that she said she was kicked after she was blindfolded in Erasmus' office.

MR VISSER: Yes. Thank you Mr Chairman. Then obviously the record will show that and I would be wrong.

Ms Phahlane, are you suggesting that while you were blindfolded, that somebody else also came into the room, is that what you are suggesting?

MS PHAHLANE: I think so My Lord.

MR VISSER: But you don't know who that might have been?

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the person who blindfolded you, somebody came from behind you and blindfolded you?

MS PHAHLANE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. All right, I think I have put it to you before, but if I haven't these clients of mine will deny that they had assaulted you or that you were assaulted in their presence, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, before you excuse the witness, I just have one question if I may.

Ms Phahlane, during the whole time that you were at Fountains, were there any female police officers present to look after the interests of the women who were there?

MS PHAHLANE: No, I have never seen female police at Fountain, I only saw males.

MR BRINK: Thank you.

MR STANDER: No re-examination, thank you.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER

CHAIRPERSON: That concludes the cross-examination.

WITNESS EXCUSED

I think the time has now come to adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

HEARING ADJOURNS