Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the position, counsel appearing for Mr Ngo is not present today, due to a misunderstanding as to his instructions. I wish to make it clear that those are not the instructions that he was to derive from an attorney, but from the Legal Aid Board or the Deputy State Attorney, acting on behalf of the Police Force.

There is a second problem, and that is that a Mr Motsamai who is also due to appear before us to seek amnesty later this week, was told that he need not be here till Thursday, despite the fact that the evidence given during the course of Mr Ngo's application, may be extremely relevant with regard to his application.

Is that correct, Mr Mthembu?

ADV MTHEMBU: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I further understand, having discussed the matter with the legal representatives and the evidence leader, that it will not be possible to make arrangements to have those people here today, it is possible that Mr Motsamai may come later, but it is no more than a possibility and I do not think it right that the members of the public who have already wasted the whole morning sitting here, hoping for proceedings to start, should have to wait here longer in the expectation of something happening which may or may not occur.

In these circumstances, we have decided that we will adjourn the hearing till nine o'clock tomorrow morning in the hope that by then the missing Advocate and applicant will be present and will be ready to proceed.

I understand that all the other parties who are present, who have been here throughout the morning, will be ready to come back tomorrow, as will certain other attorneys who have already communicated with us and indicated that they have instructions to appear but in the light of what happened today, they would not be of any relevance till tomorrow, they will also be here. So we now adjourn this matter, till nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Does anyone wish to say anything?

ADV MTHEMBU: Not from my side, Judge.

ADV BRINK: Not from my side, Judge.

ADV MEMANI: We have nothing to add Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What stage have we reached - who will now be leading evidence or what?

ADV BRINK: The evidence will be led by a Mr Memani who is appearing for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be recorded that we are now starting this hearing at 09:30 on Tuesday, the 2nd of September. The Committee consists of myself, Andrew Wilson, Judge Vernon Ngoepe and Mr Chris de Jager. Will the parties appearing, please announce themselves.

ADV BRINK: I appear as evidence leader for the Committee Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: I appear on instructions from Mr Mthembu on behalf of the applicant, and my name is Adv Memani.

MR MTHEMBU: I am Mr Mthembu, the instructing attorney for Mr Ngo.

MR STANDER: I am Hennie Stander, I am appearing on behalf of Shadrack Oliphant, a victim.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may it please you. I am instructed by Messrs Wagener, Muller & Du Plessis of Pretoria. I appear for a list of people implicated and who have an interest in the matter, which list has now grown to 22. Perhaps I could quickly place that on record, I believe that I should do so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And your name, I don't think you've placed that on record.

MR VISSER: My own name is Louis Visser, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I appear for A.H. Coetzee, J.P.P. Erasmus, T.G. Shaw, L.S. Lesale, L.A. Letseho, M.S. Mamome, Z.P. Mbanjani, P.K. Mininqwa, M.D. Morakile, R.M. Mtyala, T.H. Ramoseu, D.S. Sesedinyyana, J.P. Tsoametsi, and the new ones that I added since we arrived here in Bloemfontein this week Mr Chairman, are L.M. Jantjie, D.D. Thula, L.D. Sefatsa, H.J. Bester, M.A. Mokalake, K.H. Somela, P. van den Berg, M.J. Mmelesi and S.P. Kopi. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BRITZ: Mr Chairman, my name is Willem Britz, I am from attorneys Strydom, Britz incorporated in Pretoria. I appear on behalf of two implicated persons, it is Colonel Flip Loots and Sergeant Hendrik Bokaba. Adv du Plessis of the Pretoria bar will join us a bit later this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude the introductory portion and can we now proceed Mr Memani?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, this is a continuation of the application of Mr Ngo. Mr Chairman, you will recall that at the conclusion of the previous hearing, it was directed that a pre-hearing meeting would be held.

The pre-hearing meeting was held at Pretoria on Monday, the 18th of August 1997 and was chaired by the Honourable Member of the Committee, Mr De Jager. I believe that you have minutes of the pre-hearing before yourselves and I wish to refer you to page 3 of the minute.

The offences referred to under paragraph 2 therein, that is 2.1, the murder of Mr Venter and 2.2 the kidnapping of White Mohapi, have been dealt with and completed. At the time of the adjournment we were busy with the application in respect of the offence listed as 2.7, the murder of the UDF activist Papie.

We propose that it would not be practical to simply continue from where we stopped and that we should just proceed de novo with this application as if no evidence was led at all.

We have also singled out offences 2.5 and 2.6 as being non-gross violations and we propose that no evidence be led here in respect of these matters and that you hear these matters and determine these matters in Chambers.

There is of course the difficulty that it is denied by certain members of the police who would have given these instructions, that these instructions were given within the course and scope of duty and we do not know then how you would deal with that as the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it not be more convenient to deal with them here if there are disputes in fact, as to the instructions? Can that be dealt with in Chambers?

ADV MEMANI: I am in the hands of the Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think they should be dealt with here as they will be the same as I understand it, the same conflict in respect of these as in respect of the other cases where the applicant states that he received instructions to commit the acts.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I suppose you may, if that would be convenient for you in that regard if there is a number of them, you may perhaps just dwell on the question of -on the disputed aspects when you deal with them. That is the instructions.

What I don't understand though, if I could go back to 2.7 is, I don't understand, what should happen with previous evidence on this aspect? What is the status of the previous - why are we to hear evidence again in respect of the same thing? We have the evidence on record surely?

ADV MEMANI: The difficulty is that the witness can't recall where he stopped and it is just difficult for him to continue where he stopped.

We are not saying that the evidence should be disregarded as if it was not led, what we are saying is that for practical purposes, we will start afresh.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But didn't you take some notes?

ADV MEMANI: Yes, we did Mr Chairman. But when we consulted it seemed the better thing to do to sort of start with him afresh.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I see.

ADV MEMANI: Yes. Mr Chairman, then after the Papie matter, we will ...

CHAIRPERSON: That evidence was led on the 15th of May, wasn't it?

ADV MEMANI: Yes, but my instructions were that we did not finish dealing with Papie.

ADV DE JAGER: Evidence was recorded on the record on page 132 up to page 136.

ADV BRINK: Mr Chairman, if I can be of assistance. If you look at page 136 of bundle A, it appears that Mr Memani on that day had some problem with the papers, he said he was battling. It was partially dealt with - this aspect of the application is partially dealt with.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on from the stage, he had given evidence as to how they killed the man.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, indeed it appears at page 134 that that would have been the end of the incident. I think then what happened, the conversation which follows at page 136, related to us dealing with the next matter, rather than with completing Mohapi.

Yes, Mr Chairman, and then the answer follows at page 136 which says -

"Yes, it was part of our work during the state of emergency, that is the method we used during the state of emergency."

It then follows that this was the end of the evidence and what was following here, was not related to Mohapi, as the Chair pleases.

ADV BRINK: Sorry, should not the witness be sworn in first, Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: I was still addressing the Committee Mr Chairman.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: It will be recorded that the applicant was duly sworn in.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases. Now, Mr Ngo also applied in respect of certain incidents which would have taken place in Pretoria. We propose that we will deal with those matters after we have finished all the local incidents.

It was our understanding during the pre-hearing meeting in Pretoria, that the Committee proposes to deal with them here despite the fact that they occurred in Pretoria. I call the applicant to deal with offence 2.13, the assault and torture of comrades at Bloemfontein during 1986.

ADV DE JAGER: On the pre-trial minute, we are dealing now with number?

ADV MEMANI: 2.13, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: The assault and torture of comrades at Bloemfontein?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, okay.

EXAMINATION BY ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo, do you have the application in front of you?

MR NGO: Do you mean the application which talks about 20 to 25 comrades?

ADV MEMANI: In Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: Yes, I have it with me.

ADV MEMANI: Would you please tell the Committee about that incident?

MR NGO: It was in 1986. During that time it happened that there was certain comrades who were arrested in Ladybrand. They were trying to skip the country. They were arrested by the South African Defence Force.

They handed them over to Ladybrand police station, where they were interrogated by the Security Branch. After they were interrogated, they transferred them to Bloemfontein police station.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, could you kindly assist us? Refer us to the bundle please? In the bundle, where is this matter dealt with, page what?

ADV MEMANI: This matter is dealt with at page 27 of the bundle, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

ADV MEMANI: May the witness proceed Mr Chairman? You may proceed Mr Ngo.

MR NGO: When we reported at work at Bloemfontein, at the Security Branch offices, we met two policemen who came from Ladybrand Security Branch. That is Warrant Officer Sefatsa and Constable Jantjie.

They explained to myself and Sergeant Mamome and Constable Motsamai that that group of comrades whom they have brought were trying to cross the border when they were arrested by the South African Defence Force. Sergeant Mamome said to me that we should go and look who those people were.

ADV MEMANI: Before you proceed, at which police station did this take place?

MR NGO: They were transferred from Ladybrand, it was at Fountain, those are the Security Branch offices.

ADV MEMANI: Okay.

MR NGO: When we arrived, we saw those comrades. I was able to identify some of them. That is Joel Makhubelo, Petrus Monase, Baba Khusela and a certain girl whom I knew only as Dawn.

After we have examined them, we went to the parade in the morning. When we arrived at the parade, we were told by Colonel Coetzee about the intentions of those comrades, that they wanted to cross the border to be trained outside the country.

Colonel Coetzee instructed Lieutenant Erasmus and Lieutenant Shaw that they should divide the members of the Security Branch into two groups. One of those groups should be led by Lieutenant Erasmus and the other one should be led by Lieutenant Shaw.

He said that even that group of comrades should be divided into two groups. Colonel Coetzee and Colonel Stevenson came and instructed those two groups that they should go and assault or beat those comrades and interrogate them in the following way.

Firstly who was the organiser, that they should cross the border? Secondly, who advised them that they should cross the border? Who transported them from Bloemfontein up to Lesotho? Who was their contact person in Lesotho? How many of them skipped the country in that way or before them?

After we received those instructions from those two Officers, we went to them, we asked them those questions. When they denied to respond to those questions we assaulted them with plastic sjamboks and with our fists and kicking them inside those rooms.

When they denied to respond to those questions again, the way we were assaulting them, we changed our system. We started to electrocute them on their private parts - those who were males.

Whilst we were shocking the others, we were suffocating other comrades who were waiting for the chance to be interrogated and be assaulted. Warrant Officer Tsoametsi and Warrant Officer Ramoseu called me and Constable Mtyala that we should bring 2,5 litres of water.

When we arrived with those litres of water, they said we should try to force everyone that they should drink each two litres of that water. After we made them to drink those litres of water, we forced them to do frog jump exercises and do the push ups on the ground and the high jump, whilst we were assaulting them and kicking them on their stomachs with our feet.

And we were forcing them to answer those questions. After some time ...

ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo, I don't know if you can hear the interpreter. Will you give the interpreter the chance to complete his interpretation before you proceed.

MR NGO: Okay. Whilst we were continuing, some of those comrades lost their strength, they could even feel anymore, or they were numb. Some of them started to sleep on the floor whilst we were assaulting them with those plastic sjamboks.

Some of them complained to Colonel Stevenson that they were hungry, then he said they should not be given food unless they do the confessions which he wanted them to make.

After we have assaulted some of them, Colonel Coetzee and Colonel Stevenson said some members of the Investigation Unit should take statements from those comrades. And they then tried to change some of the comrades to be State witnesses against their fellow comrades.

And some of them, we should try to recruit them to be the informants of the Security Branch. If some of them denied to be the informants of the Security Branch, they should be assaulted again. Those who were regarded as the leaders of the comrades were taken to the Special Investigation Unit which was led by Captain Du Plooy, Lieutenant Tereblanche, Warrant Officer Nick Swanepoel, Constable Kopi and Constable Mmelesi so that they should be assaulted again and then their cases should be investigated further.

Some of the comrades who were there, that is comrade Monase, comrade Baba Khusela, comrade Joel Makhubelo, and Shadrack were bleeding through the ears because of the severity of the beating by the members of that Unit.

The police who took part in the assault were organised by Colonel Coetzee and Colonel Stevenson to assault those comrades. Those who took part in the beating were Lieutenant Shaw, Warrant Officer Swanepoel, Warrant Officer Cronje, Warrant Officer Koka, Warrant Officer Ramoseu, Warrant Officer Tsoametsi, Sergeant Mamome, Constable Motsamai, Constable Mtyala, Constable Mininqwa, Warrant Officer Killian and Constable Nelson.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo, did you have any personal grievance against these people?

MR NGO: Do you mean against the comrades?

ADV MEMANI: Yes, did you torture these people because they had personally offended you?

MR NGO: They were arrested in the office and I had no complaints against them.

ADV MEMANI: When you tortured them, did you torture them for personal gain?

MR NGO: I tortured and assaulted them because of the instructions I received by those Officers who were seniors to us on that day.

ADV MEMANI: And it is common cause that those seniors were policemen in the Security Branch?

MR NGO: That is true.

ADV MEMANI: When these persons were tortured, were you acting within the cause and scope of your employment as a policeman?

MR NGO: That is true, Sir.

ADV MEMANI: Did you receive any personal reward for torturing these people?

MR NGO: No, I was never awarded for that.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, that concludes this application.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Stander, is that Mr Stander?

MR STANDER: That is me, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The person you are appearing for, is that the one who is the victim in this instance?

MR STANDER: That is correct, Your Honour.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What is his version, does he confirm that this incident did in fact take place?

MR STANDER: He confirms that, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

ADV MEMANI: The next incident that we will deal with, is incident number 2.14 of the pre-hearing meeting, the torture at Botshabelo. This is at pages 31 to 35 of the bundle, Mr Chairman.

Have you got it, it is number D in your papers, at page 9. The acts of offence - torturing comrades at Botshabelo in 1986, do you have that in front of you Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: Yes, I have it Sir.

ADV MEMANI: Will you tell the Committee about this incident?

MR NGO: It was in 1986, when the Botshabelo sub-Unit of the Security Branch ... (intervention)

ADV MEMANI: Hang on Mr Ngo.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. The members of the Committee might have missed what you have said. Can you then start afresh.

MR NGO: It was in 1986, the members of the sub-Unit of the Security Branch who were stationed in Botshabelo police station were together with the following police: Warrant Officer van den Berg, who was the sub-Commander of that Unit and Warrant Officer Mbanjani who was the assistant Commander of the sub-Unit and Sergeant Smith and Constable Lesale reported to Colonel Coetzee in Fountain at the Security Branch office in Bloemfontein, about the students of Kohu High School that they were politically active and they were recruiting people or students from other schools in Botshabelo to join them in their struggle.

And because of that recruitment, the situation in Botshabelo was beginning to be out of hand. After he received that information, the two senior Officers, that is Stevenson and Colonel Coetzee instructed members of the Security Branch to report at 3 am at the Fountain Security Branch offices.

When we arrived there, Colonel Stevenson and Coetzee they briefed the members that we are going to Botshabelo, we are going to detain those comrades from Botshabelo.

At the time when we were detaining those people, we were supposed to be helped by the members of the Riot Squad and the Special Constables who were stationed at Botshabelo police station because they knew the area very well, more than us.

ADV MEMANI: Now, before you proceed Mr Ngo, you told us that the people were recruiting others to join their struggle, what struggle was this?

MR NGO: They said the comrades from Botshabelo at Kohu High School were recruiting other students from other schools to join their struggle in Botshabelo.

ADV MEMANI: What struggle were they supposed to join?

MR NGO: I believe maybe they struggle meant to take part in the demonstrations and boycotts which they were engaged in, as students. May I continue?

ADV MEMANI: Yes.

MR NGO: After they have briefed us, we left, we went to Botshabelo police station. When we arrived there, we met with the members of the Botshabelo police station. We then went, proceeded to detain the comrades. We detained plus minus 40 - 45 comrades from different houses.

At the time when we were busy arresting or detaining them, we broke the doors from various houses and the window panes of those house from those we didn't find them in the houses. We assaulted or beat members of the families so that they should tell us the whereabouts of those we wanted and they were not in the houses.

After we detained them all, all those comrades, we took them to Botshabelo police station, where we detained them at the controlled yard at Botshabelo police station.

Warrant Officer Mbanjani as the person who was working in Botshabelo, was the one who was identifying those he thought were leaders of the comrades, among those who were detained. Colonel Stevenson asked those comrades who were detained as whether they would govern Botshabelo.

When they didn't respond to his questions, he said members of the Riot Squad should bring the plastic sjamboks. When they arrived with those plastic sjamboks, Warrant Officer Mbanjani instructed those comrades to undress themselves and that they should be naked in other words.

And that they should form a circle. And then again, members of the Riot Squad should form a circle and that the comrades should run around that circle, whilst they were beaten with those sjamboks. They were beaten on the head, on the body, everywhere where we able to beat them.

After they were tired to run around and after we have assaulted them for some time, Warrant Officer Killian and Warrant Officer Koka said we should change the method of assaulting or beating or torturing.

He said we should tie the knots on the ends of those sjamboks. After we have tied those knots, we should hit those comrades on their private parts. Because of hitting them with those knots on the private parts, some of the comrades were bleeding on their private parts.

Some of them, their private parts were swollen. Whilst they were screaming and holding their private parts, Warrant Officer Mbanjani said we should instruct them to make exercises and then each comrade should do 100 push ups and frog jumps and other kinds of exercises which we are able to make them do.

If they are not able to complete 100 push ups, we should start again to beat and kick them. If all those comrades were beginning to be weak and not able to continue, and lying on the floor, he said we should pour water on them and leave them there so that they should be detained and be able to make a cover up for those torture.

The members of the Security Branch who took part in the torture of the comrades in Botshabelo, the list is as follows: It is Lieutenant Shaw, Lieutenant Erasmus, Warrant Officer Ramoseu, Warrant officer Tsoametsi, Warrant Officer Killian, Warrant Officer Koka, Sergeant Mamome, Warrant Officer Cronje, Warrant Officer Swanepoel, Constable Motsamai and myself and Constable Mtyala. That is my testimony in that regard.

ADV MEMANI: Will you please turn to the next page.

MR NGO: I have got the page. The comrades I am able to remember whom we were torturing on that day is comrade called Juluka, who was staying at A section at Botshabelo. He was doing standard 9 in Kohu High School. He was injured on the eyes because of the beating.

The second one is Mokoto, who was staying at D section. He was doing standard 7 at Goreotuto High School in Botshabelo. He was injured on the private parts.

The other one is Mkhusenku, his other name is Thabangu, he was staying at A section at Botshabelo. The girl was Maleshoane Molekane, who was staying at 1869, A section.

The police who took part in the torture are as follows: Captain Tsomela, Warrant Officer van den Berg, Warrant Officer Mbanjani, Constable (indistinct)Katake, Sergeant Smith, Constable Thula, Constable Simon Senyane and Constable Lesale.

To explain well, Constable Tsomela whom I have mentioned, was the Station Commander of Botshabelo at that time. That is a person who arranged that we should arrive there.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I take instructions? Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ngo, did you torture these people as a result of any personal grievance that you had with this people?

MR NGO: No Sir.

ADV MEMANI: The people who were acting on the instructions of and together with whom you were acting, were they policemen in the South African police force at the time?

MR NGO: That is true.

ADV MEMANI: Did you act within the cause and scope of your duties as a policeman?

MR NGO: Yes Sir.

ADV MEMANI: Did you torture them for any personal gain or reward?

MR NGO: We were instructed to torture them as they were trying to rule Botshabelo.

ADV MEMANI: The question was did you torture them for personal gain or reward?

MR NGO: No, I was not torturing to get any gain.

ADV MEMANI: I think the answer should be I did not torture them to get any gain. Now, that concludes the application listed as 2.14, the torture at Botshabelo and we will now proceed to the application in respect of the unlawful use of gangsters at 2.15. It appears to pages 36 to 43 of the bundle.

Mr Ngo, this is at page 14 of your pages and it is incident E, it is acts of offence - the use of gangsters to attack political activists. Do you have that in front of you?

MR NGO: Yes, I have it.

ADV MEMANI: Now, will you tell the Committee about this application?

MR NGO: It was in 1986, around 1986 and 1985 when we were posted for a special duty with members of the Security Branch in Brandfort who were Warrant Officer Ramoseu, Warrant Officer Bester, Warrant Officer Cronje, Warrant Officer Swanepoel, Constable Tax and myself.

The work of the sub-Units as was set by Colonel Coetzee was as follows: to observe and monitor political activists in Brandfort and to open up groups of gangsters who would work with the Security Branch, to plan and support the attacking strategies against the comrades and to plant seeds of propaganda in the townships and to recruit political activists to be members of the Security Branch.

To explain under the first one which is observation. It was instructed that we should, we were instructed by Colonel Coetzee to monitor the speeches of Winnie Mandela and the people who were her close contacts in Brandfort.

The things which we were doing were bugging the telephones and even at Winnie Mandela's house so that we will be able to hear her conversation together with her close friends.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose telephones did you bug?

MR NGO: Winnie Mandela's friends and her contacts and her telephone was also bugged.

The things which we were listing at Brandfort police station, there was a machine which we used to listen which was controlled by bands. If people phoned her or she phones them, because we were using the earphones.

We were doing this because we wanted to gather evidence so that we will be able to charge her in court if there is any evidence gathered to make a charge against her.

In the gangsters, as we were instructed by Colonel Coetzee, three gangsters were supposed to be established in Brandfort. The first one is Eagles Club, the second one is Anti-comrades and the third one is Three Millions.

When Eagles Club was formed by members of the Security Branch, by recruiting students who were doing standard 10 in the schools, or in the Masidiso High School in Brandfort, they were sent to SADF base where they were given indoctrination courses and those courses were done by members of the Intelligence in Roodewal.

The objective of the Intelligence Members services to conduct those courses, was to teach those students the strategies and the way of suppressing students and student bodies like COSAS and Student Representative Councils, which were there in the schools and to replace them with bodies called the Prefect System.

And teachers were used who understood or who liked the Prefect System to support the Eagles Club in the school. The teachers who were recruited, were instructed to strengthen those Clubs. If they found that the teacher is supportive, he was given courses by the members of the Intelligence Service or the South African Defence Force members in Roodewal.

ADV DE JAGER: Where is Roodewal?

MR NGO: It is your way to Botshabelo, there is a place just after you've left Bloemfontein on your way to Botshabelo.

In general the work of the Eagles Club was to destruct and to disorganise COSAS and SRC's in schools or at meetings which were held in schools in regard to politics. And members who were active, who belonged to SRC and COSAS, were victimised by the Eagles Club and the cooperation they received from that particular school.

Those members of the SRC were supposed to be dismissed or be suspended because of their political activity and the members of the Eagles Club would receive protection from the police and to be armed by them to proceed with the work in schools and to disrupt the meetings.

The people I know who were recruited to continue with that objective who were members of the Eagles Club was Papie Mokalake, Butie Sentso and the other one I know him only as Sello and Search Kotoane and all these members were informers of the Security Branch who received monies from us at the Headquarters in Bloemfontein.

The other group which we were able to establish, was Anti-comrade which was formed by members of the Security Branch together with Morgan Phehlane who was a Councillor in Brandfort.

In this group we used people who were criminals. They were recruited from prison. They were recruited by a certain Sergeant, called Sergeant Mokalake who was working with this Anti-comrade gang so that they should join this gangster. He was the senior person in that Anti-comrade group together with the Security Branch.

The work of this gangster as it was formulated by the Security Branch, was to deal with political organisations like United Democratic Front and Civic Organisations which were in that area. And these people were supposed to confront these people in their recreational facilities and in shebeens and in disco places where many members of political organisations were drinking.

If there is a fight, members of the Security Branch would find a chance to take part in that fight so that they would find an opportunity, people who were regarded as the enemy, and that they would do the cover up for those cases by using members of the Anti-comrades so that they should be given arms and knives and plant them on the bodies of those people, so that they were able to cover up those murders.

Other incidents which I am able to remember, done by the Anti-comrade group was the murder of Papie Steyn, who was killed by Sergeant Mokalake and his son who is Papie Mokalake. That I would call a joint attack, which was done by members of the Anti-comrades and members of the Eagles Club.

After they had killed Papie Steyn, members of the Security Branch covered up the case. Because Warrant Officer Ramoseu instructed the Investigating Officer who was handling the case, that he should try that this case should not succeed so that it would put Sergeant Mokalake in danger.

They paid the legal cost, so that they should help Sergeant Mokalake in court. Because of that plan which they have done, Sergeant Mokalake received a suspended sentence on that murder.

ADV MEMANI: Before you proceed. You said that Warrant Officer told the Investigating Officer to derail the investigation of the case. Now, for what purpose did you say he did that?

MR NGO: They see that if the investigation went well, that would make Sergeant Mokalake to go to prison, but if he doesn't get the correct evidence, therefore Sergeant Mokalake would not be convicted.

ADV MEMANI: You may proceed.

MR NGO: The members of Anti-comrades whom I know who partake were as follows: Sergeant Mokalake, Papie Mokalake, Jack Menera and Disco Mothege. That group were established, it was of criminology. That group was operating on a part time basis.

That gangster, it was operating on part time from Brandfort, they were operating on part time basis from Brandfort. It was called by Sergeant Mokalake so that the members of the Security Branch when there was a need for reinforcement in that structure which was established, they originated from Kroonstad.

Another thing that happened, it was the coordinating meetings which were held in Brandfort police station where the leaders of the gangsters were gathered together with the members of the Security Branch to discuss the strategies, to attack with the members of the Security Branch and to have money, tobacco and alcohol from Security Branch.

ADV DE JAGER: You mentioned the name of Jack Menera as being a members of the Anti-comrades gang.

MR NGO: That is true.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether this Mr Menera was involved in the killing of Susan Phehlane?

MR NGO: That is the one Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: And Susan Phehlane was a member of the local council?

MR NGO: Susan Phehlane?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes?

MR NGO: I know nothing about Susan Phehlane, I used to know Mr Morgan Phehlane. I don't know Susan Phehlane, but I didn't meet her before.

ADV DE JAGER: I want to put it to you that Mr Menera applied for amnesty and he alleges that he was a comrade and in fact he was the leader of the SDU in Brandfort?

ADV MEMANI: If I may be of assistance to the Committee. The Honourable Member of the Committee will recall that his evidence was that prior to him being a comrade with the Youth structures of Brandfort, he had been associated with a group of people who had been dubbed Anti-comrade. Later on he joined the Youth structures of Brandfort and it was during that time then, that he participated in the killing of Mrs Phehlane.

JUDGE NGOEPE: On my copy his name was scratched out. I notice though that you do mention him, but it seems at some stage, you wrote his name down, then scratched it out and then today you are bringing it up again. Why was his name initially scratched out?

MR NGO: I didn't know how to spell his surname, I was supposed to write it aside, that is why I scratched the name.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well Jack is there, it is visible there, it is clear that you have not misspelt it.

MR NGO: I didn't know the spelling of his surname. I was going to erase that surname. Instead of writing Jack Menera, I was thinking Jack Monene instead of Jack Menera.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why didn't you write it in later?

MR NGO: I forgot to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: There are a number of other surnames in this document of yours, that you seemed to have misspelt. You didn't scratch them out, did you?

MR NGO: Like which one, Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Cronje.

MR NGO: That is the way I understood it, I thought I have written it correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: Koka and others. Carry on, carry on.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo, if you could go back to page 41. Can you tell the Committee about the incidents recorded on that page?

MR NGO: What is the heading?

ADV MEMANI: It is page 19 of your papers.

MR NGO: According to my document, there are no labels. Where am I supposed to start?

ADV MEMANI: Yes, now look at page 19. During 1985, Warrant Officer Ramoseu ...

MR NGO: Should I continue from there?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct.

MR NGO: In 1985, Warrant Officer Ramoseu, Warrant Officer Bester reported to Colonel Coetzee that a group of comrades were holding meetings at Winnie Mandela's house in Brandfort. And again some of those comrades were sleeping there. They are using the clinic.

ADV MEMANI: This is the incident involving the burning of Mrs Winnie Mandela's house, the clinic?

MR NGO: That is true.

ADV MEMANI: Now, let's go back to the unlawful formation of gangsters. When you participated in the activities of the gangsters, did you do so within the cause and scope of your employment as a policeman?

MR NGO: That is true, Sir.

ADV MEMANI: Were you acting on instructions from you superiors within the Police Force?

MR NGO: That is true.

ADV MEMANI: Did you do so for personal gain?

MR NGO: No Sir.

ADV MEMANI: Did you receive any personal reward for so doing?

MR NGO: No, I didn't receive any reward Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: This would apply to all the incidents you are now about to give evidence about, you were acting in the scope of your employment, on the instructions of your seniors and you didn't get any remuneration nor gained from the incidents?

MR NGO: That is true Sir.

ADV MEMANI: Now, in the incident that you referred to regarding the burning of the house of, the clinic of Winnie Mandela, that is now incident number 2.4 and the burning of the Ford Cortina of Jani Mohapi, that is 2.5. The burning of the minibus of Elia Mohapi, 2.6, were there any people present in the house, the clinic and the vehicle concerned?

MR NGO: There were no people in those incidents, in the car, in the clinic, in the house and in the cars.

ADV MEMANI: And when you, how did it come about that you were involved in the various acts of arson and malicious damage to property in those instances?

MR NGO: We were sent that we should burn those houses and those cars.

ADV MEMANI: Who sent you to, let's deal with them one by one. Who sent you to bomb the clinic of Winnie Mandela?

MR NGO: That is Colonel Coetzee.

ADV MEMANI: Where did he give you the instruction to go and bomb the clinic of Winnie Mandela?

MR NGO: In Fountain, Sir.

ADV MEMANI: The offices of the Security Branch, you have referred to before?

MR NGO: That is true.

ADV MEMANI: Now, as far as the burning of the Ford Cortina of Jani Mohapi, who sent you to burn that car?

MR NGO: Those were instructions from Colonel Coetzee. All those instructions are from Colonel Coetzee.

ADV MEMANI: And was it, were all three of these incidents arising out of your duties as a policeman?

MR NGO: That is true.

ADV MEMANI: Just one second. Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Can I interrupt you. If we didn't do this in the beginning, maybe we should do this now. The document that you have in front of you Mr Ngo, was it written by yourself? This long document, handwritten one, with several pages? From which you have been apparently reading?

MR NGO: I wrote it after I received a letter from the Amnesty Committee that my application is not complete, so this is a copy I sent to them to given them a full explanation of the incidents.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So do you confirm the truth of the contents of this document, it starts from page 1 to 25? It starts from page 1 to page 25.

MR NGO: Yes. On the report I have, the last page is number 20.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, I am going to show you page 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, then tell me if that is also part of your document and if what stands in there, was written by yourself and if it is the truth.

MR NGO: Yes, that is my handwriting.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you confirm that what is written there comes from you and that it is the truth?

MR NGO: That is so, Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I suppose with that Mr Memani, you can then just highlight, pick up whatever important points that you want to pick up from the document.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we should also just for the sake of clarity, I think it was recorded earlier, but not very clearly, when you made your original application, the Prison Authorities undertook to type out your statement, didn't they?

MR NGO: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was the original document, annexed it was a typed document?

MR NGO: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And you then later received notification from the TRC offices that the application, the original application which had been dated the 25th of August 1996, was not in order and you wrote out by hand this other long statement, and you sent that with an application on the 7th of March 1997?

MR NGO: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why we have two applications from you before us, and two statements?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo, we are now going to deal with matter number 2.8, the attack on the house of Nino Gint.

ADV DE JAGER: That is on pages 43 to 44?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct Mr Chairman. It is page 21 in your papers Mr Ngo. Mr Chairman, I think he has recently indicated that his pages run up to 20.

ADV DE JAGER: Have you got a copy Mr Memani?

ADV MEMANI: I should have.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, give it to your client so that he could give evidence.

ADV MEMANI: I cannot understand why that should attract the ire of the Committee, it is not through my fault that he hasn't got and I was going to suggest that I must go, the matter stand down, so that I can give him a copy.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, if you've got a copy, try and descend it to him so that he can give his evidence.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases.

ADV BRINK: Mr Chairman, I am happy to lend the applicant my copy.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo, do you have page 21 now in front of you? There should be two numbers ... (intervention)

MR NGO: Yes, I have it.

ADV MEMANI: Now, the next incident there is the acts of offences petrol bombing and attempted murder in Mamelodi, 1987 to 1988.

MR NGO: Yes, I see that.

ADV MEMANI: Now, can you tell the Committee about that incident?

MR NGO: It was in 1987 towards 1988, when I was based in Mamelodi police station as a member of Reaction Unit, working with the members of the Security Branch and the SADF to oppress the political activists in Mamelodi.

When I committed the following incidents. It was twelve midnight, myself and Hendrik Bokaba, Dannyboy Selahla went to A1 section to a house belonging to a member of Mamelodi Youth Organisation namely Louisa Mbongo.

We had two petrol bombs. On our arrival at the house, I personally threw two petrol bombs at the house while Hendrik Bokaba assisted me to light the bombs when I was setting the room of the house alight. Throwing those petrol bombs, their sitting room was burnt and the furniture.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chair, this appears to be a convenient time.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all he is going to say about this incident?

ADV MEMANI: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it be more convenient to finish his evidence on this issue. It doesn't take very much longer, does it?

ADV MEMANI: May you proceed.

MR NGO: The following day, the next door neighbour of Louisa and also a member of MYO held a meeting at their place where he suggested that they should hold a protest march against those members who have bombed their houses.

Captain Loots instructed that the house should be bombed. Myself and Hendrik Bokaba, we went to that house, that member of MYO, it was known as Nino Gint, it is a four roomed house, it was next to Louisa.

Myself and Hendrik Bokaba threw petrol bombs from the front windows. Then Nino Gint's house was burnt down. After that we heard that she died in hospital. I really don't know whether it was because of the heart attack or not.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chair, it seems that that is in essence the end of the incident. I don't know if it is a convenient time?

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a short adjournment now.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, my learned colleague would like to put something on record.

ADV MTHEMBU: Mr Chairman, I would suggest that the witness be warned that he is still under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: He has been giving evidence now for about two days, hasn't he, I think he should recollect that he is under oath.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I just want to put on record that during the intervention I was instructed by Oupa Makhubelo, also a victim, via the Legal Aid Board and I am from here on also going to appear on his behalf, being a victim in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Makhabala?

MR STANDER: I believe it is Makhubelo, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What is his attitude towards the incident in question?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, you will find it on page 27 onwards. You will recall it is the matter wherein comrades were taken back from Ladybrand to Bloemfontein and they thereafter tortured here in Bloemfontein, that was the very first matter that Mr Ngo was testifying about this morning.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Would he confirm that?

MR STANDER: He would confirm that, yes.

EXAMINATION BY ADV MEMANI: (cont)

As the Chair pleases. Now Mr Ngo, we were dealing with page 44 and you had just finished telling us about Nino Gint's incident. And you were about to tell us about the Rebecca Mothokoane and Sandra Mathabathe. Now, may you proceed with the application in respect of Rebecca Mothokoane only.

At this stage Mr Chairman, I may mention that my instructions are to withdraw the application in respect of Sandra Mathabathe which is narrated on page 45.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be noted that the application in respect of the attack on the house of Sandra Mathabathe has been withdrawn.

This attack allegedly took place in 1988.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Mr Ngo, you may proceed with the application as it is contained at page 44.

MR NGO: It was at 3 am in the morning. Myself and Hendrik Bokaba and Dannyboy Selahla, we drove to that four roomed house in B3, section A in Mamelodi, where Rebecca was staying, armed with two petrol bombs.

When we arrived at that house, myself and Bokaba we entered into the yard. We looked through the window to see whether we will be able to recognise Rebecca inside the house, where she was sleeping. When we looked through those rooms, we saw three women lying in that room. Hendrik decided that we should throw the petrol bombs through the windows and then ran away afterwards.

The next day when we were looking around, investigating about the similar petrol bombs, we realised that Rebecca's arms were burnt. And the property in that house was destroyed even in the sitting room.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo, on whose instructions did you burn the house of Rebecca Mothokoane?

MR NGO: The instructions were given by Mr Loots.

ADV MEMANI: Now, Mr Ngo, you then at the bottom of page 45, gave certain information about the victims. That is the last paragraph.

MR NGO: What is it in that paragraph?

ADV MEMANI: The last paragraph, do you want to repeat it for the record, where you say the house telephone number was where ... I want you to read that evidence into the record. The last paragraph at page 45.

ADV DE JAGER: It is the bottom of page 23.

MR NGO: Am I supposed to read which paragraph?

ADV MEMANI: The house telephone number ...

MR NGO: Okay. I found that the house telephone where the two victims could be found, or to be contacted, that was Louisa and Nino Gint, to confirm the following. That was 012-8054288.

The residential address appears on the Transvaal Directory book of 1987 towards the end of 1988. To contact those two, Sandra it was easily to be available, because she was known in (indistinct).

JUDGE NGOEPE: So Rebecca, why was she identified as a victim, rather why was she identified as a target?

MR NGO: I have written that as one of the victims, that is how I explained according to the Investigating Officers, where to find those people. That was the impression which I received from the Investigators from the TRC.

That is how I explain it, why she could be named the victim, but for us she was a target.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why was she identified as a target, what did she do? Was she a teacher?

MR NGO: She was in the similar group with MYO, they were together with Nino Gint in the same group.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What is this MYO in full?

MR NGO: Mamelodi Youth Organisation.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

ADV MEMANI: The next incident is incident 2.12 on the pre-hearing meeting which is the attack on a security guard. Now this is page 46 of the paginated record and it should be 24 on your papers.

MR NGO: I see it.

ADV MEMANI: Now, will you tell the Committee about this incident.

MR NGO: It was while we were working at night, when we were doing night duty. Myself and together with Hendrik Bokaba in Mamelodi West.

Hendrik stopped next to a certain person who was wearing a uniform of the security guard. Then he said he is one of those people who are offering security or those who are providing a safe accommodation for MYO members.

Then he said we should try to kidnap him so that we should be able to interrogate him. I left the car and I called him. He saw Hendrik Bokaba and he started to run away. I pulled my gun, I shot with many bullets whilst we were chasing him. Then he ran to a certain complex which is Papama Bottle Store.

He fell among people there. Hendrik said we should leave him, then we have already shot him. The following day whilst we were observing the situation, we found that he was admitted at Day Hospital which is only for day care, health centre for Mamelodi people. And nothing was investigated against us in regard to that incident.

ADV MEMANI: Now, this concludes this application Mr Chairman. The next application is that of ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on, you are asking for amnesty in respect of what here?

ADV MEMANI: It appears to me to be attempted murder.

CHAIRPERSON: All that appears at the offences set out in the pre-trial conferences is attack on security guard, but you say should be attempted murder?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Why did you shoot at the security guard?

MR NGO: The objective was that we wanted to detain him, then when Hendrik alighted from the car, since he knew Hendrik, then he started to run away, then we started shooting at him. The purpose was that we should detain him, but he ran away.

CHAIRPERSON: So you decided to kill him? Why?

MR NGO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You said we were shooting at him as he ran away in the dark.

MR NGO: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: And what weapons were you using?

MR NGO: 9 mm guns.

CHAIRPERSON: If you hit someone with those, you can kill them, can't you?

MR NGO: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: How many shots did you fire at him?

MR NGO: I shot only twice.

CHAIRPERSON: And Hendrik?

MR NGO: He was shooting from behind, so I am not able to tell how many times did he shoot.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you shoot at this man who was trying to run away?

MR NGO: Normally when we want to arrest a suspect, if he runs away, we wanted to arrest him because of a certain objective. We used our own common sense, how can we find, we found him, then we said if we can shoot him, then we would be able to detain him.

CHAIRPERSON: He was wearing a uniform of a recognised security guard company, wasn't he?

MR NGO: The reason for him to wear a uniform, didn't have any value to us. He would wear that uniform and at the same time he would do things which we would regard as illegal, that is why I had to shoot him because I didn't want him because he was a security guard, I wanted him to be detained that he should be interrogated as Hendrik said we should detain him.

The fact is that we wanted to arrest him or kidnap him and interrogate him because he was providing a safe accommodation for MYO members.

CHAIRPERSON: For students? These were members of the Youth Organisation, so you decided although he might be working for a security company where he could be found, to shoot him, is that what you are telling us Mr Ngo? It was your decision?

MR NGO: This is not my own decision, we were supposed to detain him and the way we wanted to detain him was that he should be kidnapped and then he started to run away, then we decided to shoot so that we would be able to detain him.

ADV DE JAGER: And the next day he was in hospital, why didn't you arrest him then and detain him?

MR NGO: We didn't arrest him or detain him.

ADV DE JAGER: Why didn't you go to the hospital and arrest him?

MR NGO: We were going just to verify as whether he was admitted or as whether we shot him because it was dark, we didn't know as whether we shot him or not, so that is the reason why we went to the hospital.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, now you ascertained at the hospital that in fact he was wounded and he is at the hospital, wasn't it so?

MR NGO: That is true.

ADV DE JAGER: Why didn't you arrest him and detain him there if you really wanted to arrest him?

MR NGO: The question was to kidnap him, so that we would be able to interrogate him, then he ran away. So after he was wounded in that way, Mr Bokaba said we should leave him, so we left because he was my senior. When he said we should leave him, we had to leave him. If he could have said we should take him, we could have taken him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you go to a senior officer and say that this man that we were seeking to question, is now available at a hospital?

MR NGO: I don't understand the question, the Judge's question.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you go to one of your senior officers and tell them that this man who you wanted for questioning, was now available at the hospital?

MR NGO: No, I didn't. I don't know as whether Hendrik went, but I didn't. I was in Mamelodi and our senior officer was right in town, in Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, may I ask a question arising out of the questions that have just been asked?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases. Now as between yourself and Hendrik, who was the person responsible for the operation?

MR NGO: Both of us shot.

ADV MEMANI: Now as between yourself and Hendrik, who was the senior officer?

MR NGO: That is Hendrik.

ADV MEMANI: And is it correct that he would have been giving instructions to you?

MR NGO: He was working directly in the main office in Compol Building, I was in a sub-base in Mamelodi. So many instructions are received from Captain Loots, I received them through Mr Bokaba.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you telling us now that when you say you received instructions from Captain Loots, in some occasions, at some times, they didn't come from him, they were instructions that Bokaba gave you? Bokaba gave you and said they came from Loots, is that what you now say?

You say on many occasions when you have received instructions from Captain Loots, you received them through Bokaba?

MR NGO: In many cases we used to meet with him at Mamelodi police station. We were putting up in one barracks in Mamelodi. It happens that he should report in town, then I would go and report in Mamelodi police station.

If he received the instructions from Captain Loots, he would tell me what we were supposed to do in Mamelodi. In some other instances, we would receive the instructions directly from Captain Loots.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I propose to deal with the incident listed as 2.3. We should have dealt with it when we were dealing with the incidents in Bloemfontein, it is the bombing of the house of Max Makhubelo.

This incident is in bundle C, at page 12. It is your page 5 if you don't have paginated papers. Do you have the relevant paragraph Mr Ngo, it is where you say that on instructions of Colonel Coetzee, that time held the rank of Major, it is the fifth paragraph. Will you please tell this Committee about this incident?

MR NGO: Where should I start?

ADV MEMANI: You have told us that it is common cause I suppose, that you were instructed by Colonel Coetzee, that you are going to say that you were instructed by Colonel Coetzee.

Yes, now where did Colonel Coetzee give you these instructions and with whom did you go and what happened? This is what I want you to deal with.

MR NGO: He would give those instructions at Fountain. Do you mean in regard to Max Makhubelo or which paragraph do you want me to refer to?

ADV MEMANI: Tell this Committee what happened on the occasion when you say that you went to bomb the house of Max Makhubelo.

MR NGO: We received instructions from Colonel Coetzee, who then was the Major. It was myself, Warrant Officer Tsoametsi, Sergeant Mamome, Constable Motsamai, Constable Mtyala, we went to Max Makhubelo's house in Rocklands.

We came behind the house. When we arrived there, Motsamai and Mamome attacked the house with the petrol bomb. We returned running.

ADV MEMANI: Now, what have you discovered about the fact that the house which was attacked was the house of Max Makhubelo?

MR NGO: I knew that we, I don't understand that question correctly, I don't understand the question.

ADV MEMANI: Now, Mr Ngo, do you know anything about the bombing of the house of City Mzuzwana?

MR NGO: We arrived there and then attacked the house with a petrol bomb, then after that we explained, Motsamai said to me you were a student at that time, so the house which we attack is not City Mzuzwana's house, it is not Max Makhubelo's house, but it is the house of City Mzuzwana. That is the explanation he gave me after the attack that the house we attacked is not Max Makhubelo's house, but it was Mzuzwana's house. That is what he told me.

But the time when we were attacking the house, I knew that it was Makhubelo's house.

ADV MEMANI: Did you know or did you think that it was Makhubelo's house?

MR NGO: I didn't know those houses, I didn't know those people and those were the people who knew him, they knew those areas.

ADV MEMANI: So your application in fact is with respect to the bombing of the house of City Mzuzwana and not Max Makhubelo?

MR NGO: In terms of explanations after, yes. He explained this thing after I already submitted my application.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you spell the surname of City?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, City is spelt as City and Mzuzwana is Mzuzwana.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you give it to us again?

ADV MEMANI: Mzuzwana.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it Sergeant Mamome who told you this?

MR NGO: No, that is Motsamai.

CHAIRPERSON: Motsamai, sorry.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, then may paragraph 2.3 of the (indistinct) be amended so as to read that it is an application in respect of the bombing of the house of City Mzuzwana?

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know why you attacked the house, what did City do? What was he?

MR NGO: He was a member of UDF and RMC.

ADV MEMANI: What is RMC in full, do you know?

MR NGO: There is one signature million which was done that people should sign for a petition for Mandela's release which was under RMC, which is Release Mandela Campaign.

ADV MEMANI: So he was involved in the one million signature campaign?

MR NGO: Yes, he took part in the one million signature campaign.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, those are my questions.

CHAIRPERSON: So you have no other questions to ask him in chief?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct My Lord. My Lord, if I may have a moment, my Instructing Attorney is going through the notes to find out if there could be something.

Mr Chairman, it has been brought to my attention that the application in respect of the attack on the house of Louisa Mbongo which is at page 43 of the bundle, it is 2.9, has not been dealt with. It is page 21 of your papers, Mr Ngo. Mr Chairman, it is not clear to me. I thought that we have dealt with the matter. I don't think it will do any harm to repeat it, it is a relatively short thing.

Mr Ngo, would you please deal with the paragraph dealing, starting with at about twelve o'clock, midnight.

MR NGO: Which act?

ADV MEMANI: The act concerning Louisa Mbongo.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, I have got a note that you have dealt with it, but I may be wrong. But in any event, he has confirmed the whole written document under oath, so I think as far as that is concerned, it has been dealt with, it has been incorporated in the record. But you could repeat it if you want to.

ADV MEMANI: Can you tell this Committee about this incident? Do you have it in front of you, it is page 21 of your papers, or it is page 43.

CHAIRPERSON: I am quite sure that he has done it, I have a note and I can recollect him telling us about the protest march staged the next morning by her neighbours.

ADV MEMANI: That was just before the tea adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: That is so. You put it I think under 2.8 rather than 2.9, that may have led to some confusion.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases, then that concludes Mr Ngo's application, well the evidence in chief Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So he is not applying for amnesty for any offence he may have committed in connection with the death of Koboi?

ADV MEMANI: Which incident is that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 42, where he says he was with Warrant Officer Ramoseu, Warrant Officer Bester where they found two informers and they offered them R200-00 cash to kill a certain person called Kotoi, which was then done.

ADV MEMANI: That application was omitted in error Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may this matter stand down for a few minutes so that we may look at this application? It appears to have been omitted, it is not even deal with at the pre-hearing meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not been mentioned, which is why I asked you whether you are not proceeding with it.

ADV MEMANI: There was no intention to (indistinct), it must have been due to oversight on the part of all parties, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want us to adjourn for a few minutes, is that what you are saying?

ADV MEMANI: My instructions are to deal with it immediately Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo, do you have page 20 or page 42?

MR NGO: I have page 20.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I have a difficulty. I don't even know where this application starts Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, your client told us before tea time that he does not have pages 21 to 25.

ADV MEMANI: But Mr Chairman, he was given papers to supplement his papers.

ADV DE JAGER: So he can't find it, it is your client. You should see that he has the papers before him.

ADV MEMANI: He had the papers before him, he was given copies Mr Chairman. And I have difficulty with the fact that we get shouted at at every turn here.

ADV DE JAGER: Please see to it that your client is prepared to give evidence, that is why you have been instructed to act on behalf of him.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I have pointed out that due to error on the part of all parties, including yourself at the pre-hearing meeting, we did not deal with this matter.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, could I kindly tell you it is not the duty of the Commission to apply for amnesty on behalf of an applicant. He should prepare his application, you have been instructed, you get paid for it, in order to represent him and present his case.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases. May Mr Ngo then proceed?

MR NGO: It was in 1986 when myself and Warrant Officer - we went to Brandfort to meet our informers.

CHAIRPERSON: On the interpretation I was given, I didn't get the names. Who were you with? Who did you go to Brandfort with?

MR NGO: That is Ramoseu, Bester, Warrant Officer Bester and Warrant Officer Ramoseu.

The objective to go there was to meet our informers. That is Petso Polehlo and Swabole Muhloyani. When we arrived at Brandfort, we drove with them on the gravel road which is between Bultfontein and Hoopstad.

We drove there where we met those two informers between Hoopstad and Brandfort. After we got the information about United Democratic Front, Warrant Officer Ramoseu requested two informers. Then he inquired as to whether the will be able to kill a certain comrade called Kotoi. They said yes, only if we can give them money. Ramoseu gave them R200-00 cash. After some time, they phoned Ramoseu, that is Petso and Polehlo, they said to him Kotoi has died.

CHAIRPERSON: In your application you said it was on the following day, is that so?

MR NGO: I didn't understand your question sir.

CHAIRPERSON: In your application, your written application for amnesty, you said it was on the following day that Petso and Muhloyani told, phoned Ramoseu and told him that Kotoi had been stabbed dead. It was the following day that they told him.

MR NGO: It seems it is the following day.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ngo, could you kindly tell us in respect of what offence you want amnesty here concerning the death of Mr Kotoi.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, shouldn't the question be directed to counsel?

MR NGO: I was explaining the incidents which happened in my presence. I heard and I saw how it happened. I don't know as whether I was supposed to ask amnesty for those issues.

But I was just explaining those events which I saw and I heard.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn't yourself partake in the killing or the instructions given to the informers?

MR NGO: No, I didn't have a role, I was only present when they were given money and I was present when they were requested that they should go and kill Mr Kotoi. Then I got the information that he has been killed, when Ramoseu was phoned.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, to address your concern, it appears that the applicant says that Ramoseu asked the two informers whether they could kill a comrade called Kotoi for us.

This would prima facie involve a conspiracy to murder and that is what he would probably be found guilty of. And that is the application.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MEMANI: .

CHAIRPERSON: Right, who is going to start, Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, before further questions are asked, I wonder then subject to anything my learned friend Mr Visser or other colleagues have to say, that on page 2, paragraph 2 of the minutes of the pre-hearing conference, a paragraph 2.16 be added - conspiracy to murder, Kotoi.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't see the indications of objection anywhere along the line. Very well, we will do that, 2.16 and it give a means of identifying the incident.

MR BRINK: I don't know whether possibly Mr Stander would like to proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Thank you. Mr Ngo, I want to take you back to the incident that was dealt with this morning when you started. You will find it on page 27 of the bundle. That is regarding the two victims. A certain Mr Joel Makhubelo and Shadrack Oliphant. Tell me, have you got it in front of you?

MR NGO: I have it sir.

MR STANDER: Tell me, is Joel Makhubelo in this hall today, do you see him in the hall today?

MR NGO: Joel Makhubelo?

MR STANDER: That is it.

MR NGO: His other name is Oupa, yes, he is present.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, may I ask Joel Makhubelo or Oupa Makhubelo to stand, to rise? Is that the person you are referring to?

MR NGO: That is him sir.

MR STANDER: The other person, Mr Oliphant, is he also in the hall today?

MR NGO: Yes, he is present, I saw him in the morning.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, can I ask that Mr Oliphant rises? Is that Mr Oliphant?

MR NGO: That is him sir.

MR STANDER: Now, tell me, can you please elaborate on the torturing that happened in that incident on these two victims. What happened to them when they were in your presence?

MR NGO: If I may elaborate, the two of them including some of them whom I mentioned, were regarded as senior people whom we - it was alleged that they should be at that incident. Because of that we were instructed to assault them more than the others. We assaulted others as I explained. After they were tired they were taken to the Special Investigation Unit, where we continued with the assault.

MR STANDER: Was it only sjamboks that was used in the assault or were there also cricket bats involved?

MR NGO: We used many things, we were using sjamboks, we used batons and with planks. You would use anything which you may find. So there were many things which we used to torture or assault them.

MR STANDER: Were they assaulted only on their body or was there any other parts of their bodies involved in this assault, in other words, were they hit on the head also?

MR NGO: We were hitting them against the wall with their heads. We would hit them on the head, we would kick them, we would choke them. We would suffocate them with a tube.

MR STANDER: Now please elaborate on this suffocating process, what did you do?

MR NGO: We would handcuff them at the back behind the chair, then we will take a card or a tube, then we put them on the face, then we would pull it up to the time when we think that he may lose his breath, then we would stop. Then after he has inhaled, and after we have questioned him again, you would go to the next one, that is Oupa and the others, that is how we did that.

MR STANDER: Am I right if I say that they were firstly tortured in a group and afterwards the leader was taken away?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR STANDER: Can you still remember where Oupa Makhubelo was taken to?

MR NGO: They were taken to Colonel Du Plooy and others who were members of the Special Investigative Unit. Together with others like Erasmus. They were taken to the rooms which were separate. What happened in those rooms, we were not able to see because we were busy torturing others, so I don't know how they were tortured in those rooms.

MR STANDER: And Shadrack Oliphant, was he also part of the leader group that was taken away?

MR NGO: Yes, that is true.

MR STANDER: What made you people stop this torturing?

MR NGO: It was the time to knock off, we started in the morning.

MR STANDER: At what time?

MR NGO: We started around past ten.

MR STANDER: And you only stopped at knock off time, I take it that it was about four o'clock in the afternoon?

MR NGO: We stopped when they were supposed to be taken to various police stations, others were taken to Glen, others were taken to Brandfort. We spread them in terms of the police stations, it is then that we stopped.

MR STANDER: At what time was that, that they were taken to other police stations approximately only?

MR NGO: It would be between four o'clock and five o'clock. It was the time to knock off.

MR STANDER: Did you people do anything towards them in regards to the injuries they sustained due to this torturing, any medical, supplied medical services?

MR NGO: No, we didn't give them any medicine or health care, we would keep them at the police station and after some time, we would go and fetch them.

Or say for example, we would go and fetch Oupa, Shadrack and others, those who were regarded as leaders, then we would continue with the torture and then find out as whether they are not as yet ready to confess about other activities which they knew, then if they were swollen or they were injured, we would hide them so that the Doctor could not see them or other officials, or even their family members.

MR STANDER: For how long a time did you people hide them, can you still remember?

MR NGO: It took a long time, I don't remember well. It might be one or two months, but it was a long time.

MR STANDER: And the whole time, there was no medical services rendered to them?

MR NGO: As from the time of torture, I haven't seen, I don't remember as whether we took them to the hospital. What I know is that we would go and fetch them when we suspect that they know certain information, because we are using other comrades to take information from, then we would go and fetch them again on a regular basis to torture and then question them to verify the information we had.

MR STANDER: I believe that Joel Makhubelo had to undergo an operation on his right ear and according to him, he sustains that that was due to this torturing. Will you deny that?

MR NGO: I would not deny that, because these people were bleeding from their ears, noses. They were injured, others were severely injured. Because of the severity of the torture, I was part in that, I know how we assaulted them. I would hit them with the butt of a gun.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER: .

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, Visser on record. Perhaps I can continue with the questions that I have for the witness, until you wish to adjourn. It is now twenty to, unless you wish to take the adjournment straight away?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on for a while.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ngo, I would like to with your assistance, attempt to place a time frame around the incidents for which you apply for amnesty and as far as you are concerned. Is it correct that while you were at school in 1983, you became a police informant?

MR NGO: Yes, I did explain that.

MR VISSER: Just answer the questions. Is it correct that in 1985 the fact that you were an informer, became known amongst your fellow students and you were physically attacked?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: Is it correct that there was a criminal trial in which you were the complainant that followed that attack?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: Am I correct to say that you were in fact stabbed with a knife during the attack?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: Was one of your attackers a person by the name of White Mohapi?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: Is he the same person that you referred to in your application for amnesty at bundle A, page 23? That is your page 1, who was allegedly abducted? Is that the same person?

MR NGO: That is the person sir.

MR VISSER: Well, I may as well put it to you now, is it not correct that White Mohapi was - let me ask you this, how many accused persons were there in this complaint of yours about an assault that went to court? How many accused persons were there in that case?

MR NGO: If I remember well, there were four.

MR VISSER: White Mohapi was one of them?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: And you gave evidence as the complainant?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: And what happened to the four accused or were they all acquitted?

MR NGO: No, sir.

MR VISSER: What happened to them?

MR NGO: They were discharged.

MR VISSER: Yes. Was it because the court didn't believe you? You don't have to answer that. Can I put it to you ...

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the question must be answered.

MR VISSER: On the insistence of your counsel, was it because the court failed to believe you, was that the reason why they were discharged?

MR NGO: Because I was sent by members of the Security Branch to them at school.

MR VISSER: Are you satisfied? Mr Ngo, I put it to you that on the fact that you have just given us, you had a powerful personal reason to do something to Mr White Mohapi, didn't you? To take revenge on him for having stabbed you?

MR NGO: I didn't have that reason of revenge because I understood the reason why they stabbed me.

MR VISSER: And you had no revenge in your heart, is that correct, against White Mohapi?

MR NGO: I understood that I was mistaken, so that was the reason.

MR VISSER: Why don't you just answer the question. The question is and you had no revenge in your heart against Mr White Mohapi, that is the question.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the question was answered.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I hope that we are not going to go through the same procedure as we did last time. There was nothing unfair in the question which I put, I resent my learned friend interrupting cross-examination as he did last time. With all due respect, if he has a valid objection Mr Chairman, then fine. The question was not answered, that is why I repeated it.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, before you carry on. Who were the other three people, who stood trial with Mohapi? Who were acquitted?

MR NGO: That is Billy and then Maile. I don't remember the others, I have forgotten the names.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Now just please, answer this question. After you were stabbed by inter alia White Mohapi, and after he was acquitted, did you have any resentment in your heart against White Mohapi?

MR NGO: I know the person who stabbed me, White Mohapi didn't stab me, but instead Billy stabbed me. He was just holding me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think the question is do you have any resentment against Mohapi?

MR NGO: I didn't have any resentment against White Mohapi.

MR VISSER: But it is true that you alleged that White Mohapi took part in the attack on you, isn't that correct, because that is why he was an accused in the case?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: Right. Now, turning to page 23, Mr Chairman, your page 1, Mr Ngo, will you just explain to the Committee why White Mohapi was in fact treated the way you treated him?

Just tell us what was the point about White Mohapi. Perhaps you just want to tell us from your own memory, you said Lieutenant Shaw and Lieutenant Erasmus gave you certain instructions. Just forget about the document in front of you. What were those instructions precisely?

MR NGO: I don't understand your question, or the direction of your question.

MR VISSER: Yes, I know you don't understand the direction of my question, but my question is a simple one. What were you told by Erasmus and Shaw about what you had to do with White Mohapi? It is a very simple question.

MR NGO: We were instructed that White Mohapi should be kidnapped. The instruction was given to Mamome and Tsoametsi, then they kidnapped White Mohapi. We took him to that particular place. That is where we assaulted him.

MR VISSER: What was the purpose that Erasmus or Shaw had why Mohapi had to be kidnapped? What was the reason for that?

MR NGO: The reason given was that White Mohapi was a person who was problematic, I mean politically, that is the reason. They used to detain him many times for political acts, but every time after the detention, the lawyer was able to succeed to discharge him.

And they were angry.

MR VISSER: So it was really a question of revenge in a way, is that what you say because he got of scott free every time he was taken to court, even the time when you were the complainant? It is a question of revenge?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the applicant hasn't said that the lawyer was successful every time, including the time when he was attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what the evidence is, isn't it? He has told us that when he was attacked the accused were found not guilty, were discharged.

ADV MEMANI: There is not even evidence before you that the accused were represented by legal representatives, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think the real problem though Mr Visser is that, I am not so sure whether your statement is justified. I don't think if a person is being detained and released many times and no evidence could be found against him necessarily, the people who gave instructions, if they did give such instructions for his being kidnapped, necessarily were acting on the basis of revenge. It could be that they just wanted to clip his wings.

MR VISSER: That is why I didn't put it to him, that is why I asked him whether that was the situation, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What was the basis of that question?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, you will recall that this witness has given you no political objective for any of the matters for which he applies for amnesty. That will be our submission at the end of the day.

I am now Mr Chairman, asking him questions so that if he did in fact perform any of these acts which he says he did, for political motives, that he can tell us. Part of that Mr Chairman, is Section 22 (f) which says that if he acted from personal malice or for personal gain, as you will know Mr Chairman, then that is not a consideration which will make it a deed, an act - just allow me to finish Mr Chairman - committed with a political motive.

Here is a man who has been stabbed, he is the complainant in a criminal case. He goes to court, gives evidence, four people are discharged, found not guilty and discharged.

I now ask him what the exact instructions were from Shaw and Erasmus. He tells him two things. He says one, he is a political activists and two, every time he goes to court, he is acquitted.

On that score Mr Chairman, I submit that I am perfectly entitled to ask him was that part of the reason why you received the instructions, based on the fact that the people felt that they had a grudge against him because he was released every time, because it is not a political objective, clearly.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Visser, I have no problems with you asking him. Your questions was, you said you formed your question as follows, you said so the reason why this man was kidnapped, I have a problem with that. It is quite different from saying why was he kidnapped.

MR VISSER: If I did that, I do apologise and I do withdraw Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is in fact what he meant.

MR VISSER: I wasn't aware that that was the way I framed the question. Was this part of your instruction that related to the fact that Mr Mohapi was discharged whenever he was tried for his political activity. Was that do you think, based on personal malice towards him by Shaw and Erasmus?

MR NGO: I don't know as whether they had personal malice, because I was not in their heart. I would not even measure that kind of hatred or malice because they just said every time he was taken to court, because of his political activities in the townships, he was acquitted, as whether they had hated or not, I would not tell, because maybe they would tell you as whether they did.

CHAIRPERSON: What you did say though Mr Ngo, was that they got angry about his release.

MR NGO: Yes, they showed anger when they were giving us these instructions, they would show signs of anger, but I would not tell as whether they had hatred, but anger is something and hatred is something, or malice is something.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient stage?

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Adjourned till two o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ngo, may I just refresh your memory where we were at the adjournment.

You indicated to the Committee this morning that there were two reasons as you understood them, why Mohapi had to be kidnapped. The one was to gather evidence so as to be able to put him away, is that correct? And the other was that the police were angry because he was acquitted every time that they tried to bring him to court. Can you remember that Mr Ngo?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR VISSER: Just switch on your microphone Mr Ngo. Can you remember that?

MR NGO: That is right.

MR VISSER: Now you told the Committee at page 24, Mr Chairman, at the top of the page, your page 2, that as a result of this information which the police wanted on White Mohapi, you were given the task of monitoring all the illegal acts committed by White Mohapi. Do you remember that? And you had to report that to Erasmus and Shaw? Do you remember that?

MR NGO: Yes, that is true.

MR VISSER: All right. Now, you see the question which I asked you and which is not being answered is precisely what were your instructions. We know now what the reasons were, precisely what were your instructions about the kidnapping of Mr Mohapi?

MR NGO: I have already answered that question.

MR VISSER: All right, you are not prepared to answer it again?

MR NGO: I answered the question, then I explained the instructions are as I did explain before, it is not that I don't want to answer your question, I am just telling you that I did answer your question.

MR VISSER: All right, because you see I am going to suggest to you that nowhere in your evidence did you suggest that what you were told to do, was to kidnap Mr Mohapi and assault him.

MR NGO: I said I was instructed that we should kidnap him.

MR VISSER: But Mr Ngo, you took him out into the veld. You and Motsamai and others and you assaulted him with crowbars and hammers, did you not?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the evidence was that he was released and he was going to be (indistinct) outside somewhere in the veld, it was not that they took him out from the police station and took him to assault him at the veld.

MR VISSER: May I ask what was wrong with the question that I put Mr Chairman?

ADV MEMANI: What you said to the witness, what you put was that the witness together with others, removed the victim from the police station to go and assault him somewhere at a veld, and I am saying that the evidence is that he was released and he was (indistinct) and he was kidnapped there and assaulted at a certain point.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood the question, it was that you say you were instructed to kidnap him. You do not say that you were ever instructed to assault him, but you in fact took him out into the veld and assaulted him with crowbars and other things. Is that not the question Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: That was precisely the question Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the objection to that question?

ADV MEMANI: The objection is that the evidence in chief is that Mr Mohapi would have been released and were (indistinct) and were kidnapped.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the evidence not that this witness assaulted, the applicant assaulted, was one of the party who assaulted Mohapi.

ADV MEMANI: The objection is not that he assaulted, the objection relates to the suggestion that he would have removed him from the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: He never said the words removed from the police station, he said Mr Visser said, your instructions were to kidnap him and you were never instructed to assault him, but you assaulted him.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases, that is exactly my objection. Mr Visser is putting it that the witness would have removed him from the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: He is not Mr Memani. He is saying that he assaulted and he was never told to assault him, why did he do that.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases.

MR VISSER: I take it that the objection is then withdrawn Mr Chairman. Let me repeat to you what I have just put to you. I understood you to say that you had to kidnap Mr Mohapi in order to extract information from him. I think it is what you are saying, so that he could be put away, he could be successfully prosecuted, isn't that correct?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, again that is incorrect. That was not the evidence of the witness. The evidence of the witness in chief ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That was what was put to him three minutes ago and he agreed to it. The first question put to him after the adjournment was that, and he said yes.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I don't think we understand each other. Mr Visser is suggesting that Mr Mohapi was kidnapped so that he could be successfully prosecuted and that was not the evidence of the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what the witness agreed to a few minutes ago. If you didn't listen to the first question put, I can understand you not understand it, but that was as I understand it, the very first question Mr Visser put.

He put it in two parts and the witness agreed to it, is that no so Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that is what I attempted to do but if I misunderstood, in fairness to the witness, may I go a step back.

Mr Ngo, I want to give you one more opportunity. Why, what were your instructions? Why did you have to kidnap Mr Mohapi, what was the reason? What did you have to do with him once you have kidnapped him?

MR NGO: We've had instructions that we should kidnap him and hit him. We chose clearly on paragraph 2, that Mohapi should be kidnapped and be hit.

MR VISSER: At the top of that page, isn't it correct that you told the Commission that as a result, now that result is that evidence had to be gathered because he was released every time he was brought to jail, now you say as a result you were given the task of monitoring all the illegal acts committed by Mr White Mohapi. That is correct so far, isn't it?

MR NGO: Yes, the evidence appears that way.

MR VISSER: Yes. And the point was that you could gather evidence so that it could be used against Mr Mohapi, isn't that correct?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: Now, why would you have to kidnap him in order to achieve that purpose?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the witness hasn't said that he had to kidnap him in order to achieve the purpose stated in that paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: That is so Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Then the next question Mr Chairman, if that is correct, is that is it then not true that the kidnapping was solely for the purpose of assaulting him and for no other reason at all, because what else would you then have to kidnap him for?

MR NGO: I will not say anything other than what I said, that those the reasons that I have given, they were like that. I will not give any other reason, except those reasons I have given.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am afraid, I can't recollect. Will you tell me again please, what was the purpose of kidnapping him?

MR NGO: I will explain to the Chairperson this way. Mohapi was a leader or was active in politics. And he was troublesome in that township. He was organising political activities. And every time when he was detained and taken to court, his lawyer would succeed that he should be acquitted and then when he was detained under the emergency regulations, the lawyer would speak on his behalf successfully.

I explained that thereafter my seniors who arranged that he should be detained, so that he should not continue with his political activities, gave instructions that we should kidnap him. I believe that is the cause of his political activities, that he was kidnapped.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you hope to achieve by the kidnapping?

MR NGO: I believe that would be what we call in politics, that is political harassment, for political activists.

MR VISSER: So is it now your evidence that the reason why you had to kidnap White Mohapi, was to harass him and that is the reason also why you had to assault him? Is that now your evidence?

MR NGO: I give the answer because of the question asked by the Chairperson, but the person who is troublesome in politics, that would be the other method which we would use. Harassment would be the other method we used.

MR VISSER: And was that what was in your mind on the evening when Mohapi was kidnapped and you participated in the attack on him? Is that what was in your mind?

MR NGO: I did what I was instructed to do.

MR VISSER: Does that mean that that was not in your mind, that you attacked, you assaulted him merely because you were told to do so?

MR NGO: The instructions were that he should be kidnapped, then when we did that, then I had to take part in the assault. He was kidnapped, then therefore I participated in the decision that he should be assaulted.

MR VISSER: But you did not know why? You now say that you think it is because Erasmus and Shaw wanted to harass him?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, he said they kidnapped him and then I participated in the decision to assault him. Who took the decision to assault him?

MR NGO: They brought him. At that time when we arrived, then we alighted from the combi, then they said he should be assaulted, then I took part. I didn't know that when he was kidnapped, he was kidnapped to be assaulted, but at the time when he was supposed to be assaulted, I took part in that assault.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but they said he should be assaulted. Who are you referring to?

MR NGO: Those are the people who came with him, that is Mamome and Tsoametsi.

MR VISSER: And Mr Motsamai, not so?

MR NGO: He was kidnapped by two people, then they met us, then we took him to Bloemspruit. We took part only in the assault in Bloemspruit. We didn't take part in the kidnapping.

MR VISSER: Did Mr Motsamai participate in the assault on Mr White Mohapi?

MR NGO: Yes, he took part in the assault.

MR VISSER: Yes, with hammers and crowbars?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: When you were told to monitor Mr White Mohapi, you have told us - let me rather ask you - was that in 1986 or was that in 1985?

MR NGO: It is between 1985 and 1986, I don't remember well. That is why I gave those two years. It happened around 1985 and 1986, it is between those two years. It might be in 1986 or in 1985, I don't remember the exact date or the exact year.

MR VISSER: Were you supposed to monitor him as an informer or as a policeman after you had already become a policeman?

MR NGO: I returned to school to complete my standard 10. I joined the Police Force when I was doing standard 8, then from there I returned to do standard 10.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, let me repeat. Were you tasked to monitor Mr White Mohapi as an informer or as a member of the police?

MR NGO: I started to monitor him whilst I was with him at school. But when the kidnapping took place, I was a policeman.

MR VISSER: Is it correct that you finished school at the end of 1985?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: Yes. And is it also correct that after the attack on you by Mr White Mohapi and Billy and the others, it was arranged that you went to school in Ladybrand?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: Can you remember from what month that happened?

MR NGO: I don't remember well.

MR VISSER: Is it further correct that you then indicated that you wish to become a policeman and that in fact took the oath as a Constable, as a student Constable I think is what they call it, on the 11th of March 1986? Mr Chairman, I can give you the references.

You will recall that at the last hearing we handed in some documentation which we found in the police file, which we obtained from Pretoria. If you look at bundle C, I am sorry B, for bravo, at page 65, you will see here Record of Service, signed by Mr Ngo, taking the oath and his accession to office on appointment and enrolment is what they call it, is dated 11 March 1986, which is at the bottom over the word Bloemfontein. I don't know whether you can find that at page 65 of the bundle B.

And there is a photograph in the right hand top corner of Mr Ngo. If you turn the page Mr Chairman, to page 66, you will see a repetition of that date, the top left hand column and you will see where he was placed, his station was and I am going to put those questions to him right now.

Is it correct that after you became a student-Constable, you were placed at Batu police station, immediately on the 11th of March 1986? Would you agree that that would be correct?

MR NGO: No, I was never stationed at Batu police station.

MR VISSER: I see, so the record is wrong in that respect?

MR NGO: I want to explain to the Commission what happened. MR VISSER: Please go ahead if you want to explain something.

MR NGO: I was accepted in the Police Force. My pay-point was at Batu location, Batu police station. My pay-point was at Batu police station, but accommodation was at barracks at Batu police station. I was taken to Headquarters at Fountain in Bloemfontein. In other words, Batu police station I got there when I go to sleep or when I was going to collect my salary. If they are able to give you a record as to whether when was I accepted to the police station, they would - let them look for a duty book which would explain to the Truth Commission as to whether to whom did I report at the police station and under which officer and which branch.

Which will prove to the Truth Commission as to whether I was working at Batu police station or not. I was at Fountain, that is all I can tell to the Commission, I never worked at Batu police station. It was only used as a base for my accommodation and my pay-point. Even if you can take me to the policemen in Batu police station, they would tell you that I was never, I have never worked there.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, can I now complete what I was going to put to you. You were stationed at Batu police station and you were detailed to assist the Security Branch in Bloemfontein in pointing out political activists who posed a danger to society, is that correct?

MR NGO: I was never told to assist, I was told that I was working with the police. I started working with them up to the time when I was sent to police training college.

MR VISSER: Is it not true that information was received that you maybe in danger and that you were then transferred to Ladybrand in June, on the 19th of June 1986?

MR NGO: The reason which made me to be in Ladybrand is that I was a student. That time I was not yet undergone police training, so in that way I was given a gun which is 7.5 with 25 bullets.

I shot at Kwaggafontein, after using that gun there Captain Swart said because I was, I didn't have experience to use the gun and working among this kind of people, then that is why I was transferred to Ladybrand, that I should not be amongst political activists which would cause me that every weekend I would use the gun. That is why I was transferred to Ladybrand.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, Mr Chairman, I refer to page 63 of bundle B, I want to put to you that a letter was written in regard to yourself dated the 19th of June 1986, by Lieutenant Erasmus and directed to the Divisional Commissioner and it says in paragraph 4, this office has received information that the radical elements in the Black townships plan to act against the member, which is you, in the form of a necklace murder. That is what this letter says. Is this letter wrong or is it correct?

MR NGO: I really don't know anything about the letter because I haven't seen the letter myself.

MR VISSER: I am asking you whether what I have read to you, was in fact correct or was it incorrect?

MR NGO: No.

MR VISSER: No, it is correct, no, it is incorrect?

MR NGO: It is not correct, because nobody has approached me by necklace.

MR VISSER: Yes. And paragraph 5 of that letter then continues to say that this office, this is in Bloemfontein, Lieutenant Erasmus, advises that the member, which is you, must immediately be placed away from Bloemfontein to a district in a division where he is not known and it is suggested that preferably this should be the Ladybrand district. You were in fact placed at Ladybrand in June 1986, I think you have conceded that?

MR NGO: Yes, I conceded that because of the reason I have given that I was taken to Ladybrand not the reason which appears on that letter. The reason was that I didn't have the experience to use a gun, that is why I was transferred. Whatever is there, I don't agree with that.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, in fairness I must also refer you to page 64 where paragraph 2 bears out the fact that he was immediately transferred to Ladybrand, and that letter is dated also the 19th of June, thank you Mr Commissioner.

At any event, you see the point I am trying to put to you here is this, Mr Ngo, whatever you may or may not have done as a policeman, as a student Constable in Bloemfontein, must have happened between the 11th of March 1986 and the 19th of June 1986. Will you agree with that statement?

MR NGO: I said that is between 1985 and 1986.

MR VISSER: I am putting it to you that as a policeman, you could only have participated in incidents in Bloemfontein, between the 11th of March 1986 and the 19th of June, 1986.

MR NGO: I was not keeping the records and the dates, I only remember the years. When I was there, which place or which month, I don't remember.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But wouldn't you know for how long, more or less, you worked in Bloemfontein before you were transferred to Ladybrand?

MR NGO: That is a long time. As I say that I was accepted in the Police Force with a standard 8 certificate, then later I went back to complete standard 10.

So between 1985 they have already completed my applications with a standard 8 certificate, so I don't remember the duration.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But I thought the questions are on the premise that you could only have started working as a member of the Police Force, from February 1986, March 1986?

MR NGO: That may be possible, because I remember I stayed only for a month in Ladybrand.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, but in terms of these letters you must have spent only about four or maybe three months in Bloemfontein before you were transferred to Ladybrand.

MR NGO: It maybe four or so, but in Ladybrand I arrived in Winter.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The question which Mr Visser asked you was that whatever you did as a policeman in Bloemfontein or around Bloemfontein, must have been between March and June when you were transferred to Ladybrand?

MR NGO: You mean before I was transferred or after I was transferred? Do you mean that incidents happened before I was transferred to Ladybrand?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, then that must have been between March and June?

MR NGO: That maybe so. I have forgotten the dates and I don't remember well. But I remember White Mohapi we kidnapped and assaulted him before I was transferred to Ladybrand.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Doesn't that mean that it can't be otherwise. I mean, if you started in March as a policeman and you were based here, and then you assaulted Mohapi before you were transferred to Ladybrand, then surely those things must have happened in the period that we are talking about between March and June?

MR NGO: I would explain to the Judge that I was attacked, then after I was healed in 1985, then they made me to fill the forms to be accepted as a police.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am not talking about that period. I am talking about from March 1986. Don't take me back to a period before that.

MR NGO: It maybe so, I will take it as that.

MR VISSER: I am indebted to you Judge Ngoepe. Just to continue from the last reply you gave where Judge Ngoepe asked you a few questions, you said you were in fact in Ladybrand as a policeman for about one month.

Do you remember you said so?

MR NGO: I said I think I may have stayed there for a month, but I haven't said a long time. I didn't say specifically it is a month.

MR VISSER: Yes. Well, incidentally you are correct, because Mr Chairman, if you will look at page 66 of bundle B, it will appear that he was admitted to the police college from Ladybrand on the 4th of July 1986.

The next point here which arises from this page Mr Chairman, is that he passed out on the 4th of December 1986. All of that appears from page 66 of bundle B. Have you found it Mr Chairman, page 66?

So you see Mr Ngo, when I started asking you questions I said let's try to work out a framework within which you could have acted and we now know that you were in Bloemfontein as a policeman for three months in Ladybrand...

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I didn't want to interrupt my learned friend. I have got a problem, not that anything is going to arise from this, my learned friend is bringing evidence before you by him reading what is contained in this record, as if it is evidence which has been accepted and this has not been put to the witness to see whether he agrees or not, or doesn't agree with what is stated in this record.

And that is problematic.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think he is just using this for purposes of cross-examination.

ADV MEMANI: Yes, My Lord, but my point is that he now proceeds to the next point and he states, it seems that he accepts it as correct that during the time recorded on this form, the applicant was at Hammanskraal and this has not been put to him to see whether he agrees with what is contained here or not.

MR VISSER: May I put it to the witness now Mr Chairman. Would it be correct or do you deny that you were admitted to the South African Police College at Hammanskraal on the 4th of July 1986?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: Is it correct that you passed out as a police Constable on the 4th of December 1986?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: Is it correct that you were immediately appointed to a station in Mamelodi, Pretoria, Unit 19 as part of the Riot Squad?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: So we don't have to argue about that any longer? Just coming back to finish off with Mr White Mohapi, you told this Commission earlier today that you heard from Mr Motsamai that the house which you thought belonged to Oupa Makhubelo, that you petrol bombed, in fact belonged to a person by the name of City Mzuzwana. Did I understand you correctly?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: When did Mr Motsamai tell you this?

MR NGO: During this hearing.

MR VISSER: Did Mr Motsamai come to visit you in jail?

MR NGO: No.

MR VISSER: Why did Mr Motsamai tell you that the house belonged to City Mzuzwana, were you discussing your incidents with Mr Motsamai?

MR NGO: I showed him my statement.

MR VISSER: I see. And did he show you his statement?

MR NGO: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: And did you compare notes between the two statements?

MR NGO: No, he was not showing me that we should compare, he was just showing me his statement.

MR VISSER: For what purpose Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: Because I told him that I was asking for amnesty.

MR VISSER: Surely he knew that, you didn't have to show him a form to prove it to him?

MR NGO: He didn't know the contents of my application before I told him.

MR VISSER: Why should he have to know what the contents of your application was Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: He didn't know the contents of my application. The reason is I told him and I was explaining to him, then it came to him that even the house whom we were together, which one we petrol bombed was not Makhubelo's house, it was City Mzuzwana's house.

We didn't tell you then, because during that time you were a student, that is what he explained to me.

MR VISSER: I see. Isn't it true that you were comparing notes Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: We were not comparing notes. I was telling him what I was going to tell this Commission.

MR VISSER: And he was telling you what he was going to tell the Commission?

MR NGO: I was telling him on what reason I was going to mention his name.

MR VISSER: And was he telling you what he was going to tell the Commission?

MR NGO: He didn't tell me.

MR VISSER: I see.

MR NGO: I saw his statement.

MR VISSER: And while Mr Motsamai is now reading through your statement, he comes across I presume your evidence about Mr White Mohapi, not so? He must have, because you showed him the statement.

MR NGO: I showed him his name on my statement, that I am going to talk about him.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is what I am talking about now. Because you have implicated Mr Motsamai as a person who together with Mtyala and yourself inter alia, beat up Mr White Mohapi with crowbars and hammers, isn't that so?

MR NGO: Yes, I mentioned those people. Those are the people I was with during that incident.

MR VISSER: Did Mr Motsamai say anything about the fact that he was implicated by you in this attack on Mr White Mohapi, when you spoke to him here at the Commission?

MR NGO: He didn't say.

MR VISSER: He didn't say a word about it? Well, you see, the strange thing Mr Ngo, is that Mr Motsamai has applied for a whole list of incidents but he never applied for any attack or assault or kidnap or anything concerning this incident, regarding Mr White Mohapi.

MR NGO: I don't know why. I was coming to tell the Commission what I did, not what Motsamai did or what he wanted to tell or what he didn't want to tell. I don't know those things. I am coming to tell the Commission about my own activities.

MR VISSER: But if I were to put to Mr Motsamai that he was present when Mr White Mohapi was assaulted and he denies it, he would be lying, wouldn't he?

MR NGO: As I have replied that I am coming to speak on my own behalf, whether he would deny or accept, that will be up to him. I will not tell the Commission as whether he is lying or telling the truth. I am just telling this Commission I did this with whom.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, you told this Commission under oath, that Mr Motsamai and yourself amongst others, assaulted Mr White Mohapi with crowbars and hammers, am I right so far?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: If Mr Motsamai denied that he participated as far as you are concerned, he will be lying, isn't that so?

MR NGO: The true fact is that I verify before this Commission that he was present. If he is going to deny that, he will know what he will be talking about.

I am not the one who should tell this Commission whether he would say yes or no, or whether he would be lying, but I am just saying he was present.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But according to you he would not be telling the truth? If he were to come here and deny that he was involved, according to you he would not be telling the truth?

MR NGO: I would say that, because I was with him.

MR VISSER: I think perhaps the Commissioner has a clearer way of putting questions than I do Mr Chairman.

If Lieutenant Shaw and Colonel Erasmus came to this Commission and told the Commission that they never gave you any instructions to kidnap or assault Mr White Mohapi, would they be telling the truth?

MR NGO: I wouldn't understand how they would not tell the truth, because those are the instructions which they have given me. I received those instructions from them.

MR VISSER: Well, actually it is quite simple, I put it to you ... (intervention)

MR NGO: As I said about Motsamai, if they would come and deny like him, it will be the same incident that they will be telling a lie.

MR VISSER: I just want to simply put to you Mr Ngo, that Shaw and Erasmus and Mr Mtyala, will all of them deny that they had anything to do with either the kidnapping or any assault perpetrated on Mr White Mohapi at any time. What do you say about that?

MR NGO: They were present.

MR VISSER: Now, seeing that you are so certain about that, I am going to give you the opportunity to tell this Commission exactly everybody's name who was involved in this kidnapping and assault.

We know that you told the Commission that Erasmus and Shaw gave instructions. Am I right so far?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: We know that Mr Motsamai and you assaulted Mr White Mohapi, is that correct, four people so far?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: And you mentioned the name of Mr Mtyala.

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: Was there any other policeman that you remember who participated in that attack?

MR NGO: Other than Cronje who was supervising what was happening, who didn't participate in the assault, he was only there to supervise what we were doing.

MR VISSER: Now, when did you happen to remember that Cronje was also involved? When did that occur to your memory? Just now, or earlier?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the question is not fair, Cronje was mentioned in chief.

MR VISSER: Where Mr Chairman?

ADV MEMANI: In the evidence, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Cronje has never been mentioned in connection with White Mohapi, unless I am terribly mistaken. But Mr Chairman, the record will speak for itself, I don't want to waste your time.

Let me go on. Apart from Cronje, was there any other person that participated in this attack?

MR NGO: No other person.

MR VISSER: Now, I wish to refer you Mr Ngo, to bundle C, Section A, page 12. Have you got that document in front of you? It is the typed written document which you completed when you applied for legal assistance.

It is typed page 5, the numbered page 12 and I want to specifically refer you to A(a) on that page. Have you got it in front of you? Mr Ngo, will you please reply to my questions.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, he is badgering the witness, the witness is still looking for the paragraph.

MR VISSER: Would you like to reply to the question, have you got the page in front of you?

MR NGO: Yes.

MR VISSER: Okay, now he is badgering me. Would you please do me a favour, Mr Chairman, it is bundle C, it is the one which has the different sections, A, B, C, down to F and it starts with contents application of M.N. Ngo, letter by applicant, police report, it goes on to indictment summary of facts, judgement, judgement, decision of the indemnity committee, that one.

You haven't got it Mr Chairman? I think it is the one in front of you. In Section A, Mr Chairman, there is a page 12.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 5?

MR VISSER: Page 5 typed and page 12 marked. You haven't got yours marked? I am sorry Mr Chairman, I didn't realise. Page 5. It has A, during 1986 Bloemfontein and then (a).

I want you to just look at the second sentence, the word during this incident, let me read it.

"During this incident which occurred during the 1986 student uprisings, I was accompanied by Warrant Officer Tsoametsi, Sergeant Mamome"

and then you mention Mtyala and Motsamai.

Firstly, in this whole paragraph Mr Ngo, not a word of Cronje. Would you agree with me?

MR NGO: Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: So why didn't you mention Cronje here if he oversaw the whole exercise?

MR NGO: I gave names which I remembered.

MR VISSER: Yes, and you told, well you stated that Warrant Officer Tsoametsi was also involved.

MR NGO: Yes, he was present.

MR VISSER: But today you didn't tell you anything about Tsoametsi being present Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: Yes, I spoke about Tsoametsi. I said it was him and Mamome who kidnapped him and then we met them, then we took that person between Brandfort and Bloemspruit and Shennel(?).

MR VISSER: All right, Mr Ngo, but you are not going to get off that easily. If you look at page 2, page 24 of bundle A, would you please show the Commission where in that, where you were asked to explain more fully what your application was, where you mentioned Tsoametsi in that document?

MR NGO: Which page is that?

MR VISSER: You can choose any page, I would suggest you look at page 2.

CHAIRPERSON: In the last paragraph, and during the process of delay Lieutenant Shaw instructed Warrant Officer Tsoametsi and Sergeant Mamome ... (intervention)

MR VISSER: I do stand corrected Mr Chairman, you are absolutely correct, I apologise. I withdraw that question.

Yes, you are absolutely correct, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ngo, let us continue while we are in bundle C, Section A, with the other incidents which you referred to there. First of all, is there any explanation which you can give this Committee why you did not refer to the assault on the members of, or the political activists which were arrested and which assault took place here at Bloemfontein as well as the one at Botshabelo?

Can you give an explanation, or let me ask you this, did you refer in that document, page 5 or page 6, page 5 to 6, did you refer to the incident, to which you referred to today as the incident at page, your page 5, page 27 of bundle A?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the record speaks for itself. That is not mentioned in this application.

MR VISSER: All right, now it has been conceded on your behalf. Can I ask you why did you not mention that incident in this typed written page before you, this document before you?

MR NGO: It was like this. I wrote the first statement. I gave them to prison officials for them to be typed. I signed them all after they were typed, when I was supposed to write other statements and to compile them for them to be typed, they posted the first statements before I included other statements.

Then I wrote the matter back, then I sent them to the Truth Commission.

MR VISSER: I am not quite sure. Please just a simple answer, why did you not include the assault and torturing of comrades in Bloemfontein in this document? Just repeat the reply I didn't understand it.

MR NGO: They were not included because the secretary of prisons is the one who was typing for us. While she was typing those, he thought that it is a complete document and he sent them, then whilst I was preparing other documents, then those documents were sent already.

MR VISSER: I see. So he really made a mistake, the person who was typing it, it that what you are saying? He thought it was the full document, and it wasn't?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: I see, and is that the same explanation why the incident mentioned at page 31 of bundle A, that is the torturing of comrades at Botshabelo was also left out of the document, the typed document before you now?

MR NGO: Yes, all of them.

MR VISSER: And the same would apply to the unlawful use of gangsters?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: The killing of Kotoi?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: All right. Then you just told the Committee that you signed that document, did I hear you correctly?

MR NGO: Which document Sir?

MR VISSER: The ones that you said you signed just now, included this typed document, Mr Ngo.

MR NGO: Every statement you do, you have to sign for it.

MR VISSER: Yes, but when you signed it, did you read through it to make sure that it was correct?

MR NGO: Which one, do you mean other documents? They have signed, the record office is different and then the typing office is different. So the typist type them and then I sign them at the record office.

MR VISSER: Well, did you sign the typed written ... (intervention)

MR NGO: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: Now staying with that typewritten document, not talking about another one, did you read through it to make sure that it was correct before you signed it? You don't have to look at it.

MR NGO: Hasn't signed.

MR VISSER: All right, have you now decided to say that you didn't sign that document?

MR NGO: I signed the ones which were handwritten, so they typed the typed one, then they sent it like that. If you look at all these copies, it doesn't have my signature, except there and there.

MR VISSER: Is that the reason why you say you didn't sign it, it is because it isn't on our copies, is that the reason?

You see Mr Ngo, I have ... (intervention)

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the statement being put is not justified, that is not what the witness is saying. He is not saying that the thing is not signed because the copies before the Committee do not have the signature, he says he did not sign the typed statement.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, two seconds ago he said, he told us twice, that he did sign it.

ADV MEMANI: But Mr Chairman, an explanation was given that I wrote that statement, I signed that statement and then the typist took that statement and typed that statement and that statement he says, is not signed.

The typed statement is not signed, it is the manuscript that is signed. That is the evidence.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am not going to waste time, the record will speak for itself. Can I ask you this ... (intervention)

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, it is either he withdraws the question, he can't go on saying he is not wasting time, we must know what his theory is, what we have to deal with and what he is suggesting to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand, he is suggesting to the Committee that your applicant is being evasive in his evidence and has changed his story. He says we can verify that be looking at the record where this appears.

ADV MEMANI: But it is not a matter of wasting time. I am saying that each time he is met with an objection, he says he is not going to waste time, and this is undesirable.

It maybe correct at some points to say I am not going to waste time with this, we will deal with it at a later stage, but it is habitual here.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani, Mr Visser is entitled to present his case, to represent his clients' interest, the way that he thinks it is proper and the way that he wants to. I don't think it will be proper for us to try, if he wants to withdraw a question or abandon it, whether he does it habitually, I don't think we are entitled to prescribe to him what he should or shouldn't do.

ADV MEMANI: What I am saying Mr Chairman, what I am objecting against, is the fact that he has made a wrong, he has put a wrong statement to the witness, but when it is pointed out that that statement is wrong, he doesn't abandon the statement, he just says I am not going to waste time on that.

CHAIRPERSON: You say it is wrong, he says he is not wrong. He says that that is the proper inference to be drawn from what the witness said. You say it isn't.

He said he is not going to waste time arguing that now, when we get the record, one or other of you will be shown to be right.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can you just explain this so that we can understand it, are you saying - let me ask you this way - what document did you give to the typist to type? Was it the document which later came to hand and which is now part of the bundle and part of the documents before you, in bundle A from page 10 onwards, Mr Chairman?

Is this what you gave the typists to type or was it some other hand written document?

MR NGO: All the documents I wrote them by hand, then from there I would hand them over to the typist who would type them.

Then I would write them by hand then I would give them to the typist.

JUDGE NGOEPE: There is something wrong with the interpretation, those who can follow both languages. I have difficulties in understanding some of the questions which this witness is giving.

For my part, Mr Mthembu, this witness is not answering questions. Is there something wrong with the interpretation?

ADV MTHEMBU: I must say occasionally there is something wrong, but generally there is nothing wrong Mr Chairman, with the interpretation.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, Mr Visser, repeat that question, let's hear what the answer is.

MR VISSER: I am trying to find out Mr Ngo, whether the document from which you led your evidence today, which is before you, the hand written document, whether that is the document which you gave to the typist to type and that is now before us as the typed written portion in bundle C? Or was it some other hand written document that you have her and which she typed as this document, this typed pages in bundle C?

I am not sure that I can put it clearer than that?

MR NGO: There were other documents except this one.

MR VISSER: Well, I still have the problem Mr Ngo, that you are not answering the question. Did you, is the typed written pages a transcript of the document, the hand written document, which you gave your evidence from today?

MR NGO: Maybe I would explain it this way. I wrote a statement, the first one. I wrote it by hand, then I gave it to the typist. On that handwritten statement, they made the typed statement. Then later I wrote again the issues which were left behind, by hand again to make them included in the first statement.

MR VISSER: And were those ones that you later wrote, were they also typed?

MR NGO: No, they were not typed.

MR VISSER: All right. Mr Ngo, can one assume that when you made application for amnesty, that you would have thought very carefully about the facts relating to every incident that you applied for, can we accept that or assume that?

MR NGO: I don't know how to answer your question.

MR VISSER: Well, did you think carefully about what you put down in writing or did you just write down without thinking almost?

MR NGO: When you write things, you know you try to write what you know. You are not being able to remember each and everything.

And the Truth Commission, if you have written an application form or filled an application form and sent it and remember later that there are things which you forgot, which you want them to be included, you have the right or you had the right to do so. To include the things which you've left behind.

MR VISSER: Did you think very carefully and make sure that you were right when you implicated other persons in the incidents which you applied for amnesty for?

MR NGO: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: And you realised that by implicating persons in your application, you were telling the world as it were, that they are criminals and that they participated in criminal acts, you realised that?

MR NGO: I was not telling the world that they were criminals or they participated in criminal activities. I was telling them what I know.

MR VISSER: Would it be fair to say Mr Ngo, that on your evidence in regard to all these incidents that you testified about before this Committee, your evidence was not that you personally had a political objective which you wished to accomplish but that the reason why you perpetrated these acts were because you were instructed to do so. Would that be correct?

MR NGO: I was instructed to do so, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes. You didn't have any personal reason why you wanted to do any of these things?

MR NGO: Yes, I didn't have.

MR VISSER: Now, would I be correct in saying that although you cannot remember dates clearly, that all the incidents which you applied for for amnesty, were perpetrated before 1989? You see because you were arrested on the 9th of February 1989, so all of them had to take place, had to have taken place before that time, isn't that correct?

MR NGO: That may be so. Many things have happened before 1989, I was arrested in 1989 after they have happened.

MR VISSER: Yes. Is it correct that you filed an application for indemnity with the Indemnity Council, Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: And that application we know from papers before this Committee, appears to have been heard on the 8th of February 1994. Would you contest that or would you agree that that is probably correct?

MR NGO: Yes, I requested amnesty in a different Committee.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR NGO: Then I received reply in that regard.

MR VISSER: Before you made the application for amnesty, did the Prison authorities explain to you that you could now apply for indemnity and how you should go about it?

MR NGO: No, we did it on our own.

MR VISSER: How did you hear, how did you come to hear about the fact that you could apply for indemnity, Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: There were forms which were given to people.

MR VISSER: Who gave the forms, Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: Certain people who came from the Amnesty Committee.

MR VISSER: Yes. You must please understand I am not talking about the present Amnesty Committee Mr Ngo, I am talking about the Indemnity Council when to whom you made application for indemnity before the 8th of February 1994, do you understand? I am not talking about the present Amnesty Committee, okay.

MR NGO: They were people who brought the forms to us.

MR VISSER: Were they people from the Prison authorities or were they people from outside?

MR NGO: I believe they came from outside. We were given by Prison officials that he was given by somebody else.

MR VISSER: And did whoever gave you the forms, explain to you what it was about and how you can go about applying for indemnity, did they tell you?

MR NGO: They gave us those forms and then we read to ourselves the contents of those forms.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, is it not correct that you applied for indemnity for only one incident, that of the murder of Mr Venter, murder, robbery and the illegal possession of a firearm relating to Mr Venter. Would that be correct?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: Why did you not apply for all these incidents for which you now apply for amnesty?

MR NGO: The Act for the indemnity was not the same as the Act for the Truth Commission.

MR VISSER: Well, you see, that is exactly where you are wrong, with due respect Mr Ngo, because the 1992 Act brought in the definition of crimes committed with a political objective and that has remained exactly the same in the present National Unity and Reconciliation Act, so to cut a long legal argument short, I will put to you that the basis upon which you could ask for indemnity, was only on the basis of politically motivated criminal acts, and by and large, that is the same still today in terms of the new Act, so that answer is not correct.

Now I am asking you why did you not apply for all these incidents which you now apply for, when you had the opportunity of doing so in 1994?

In the definition, if you have the Act before you Mr Chairman, Section 1 and then Section 2 as well. I am sorry, Section 3 is the Section that deals with indemnity.

Do you wish me to address you on that issue right now Mr Chairman? I have the Act here.

CHAIRPERSON: I see no reason.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The answer which I think we are waiting for Mr Ngo, is simply this, is there any other reason which you can advance, apart from the one you have just given as to why you did not apply for the incidents apart from that of the killing of Mr Venter, for which you apply here today before this Committee?

MR NGO: I would say I did include them, if there is a document or a copy, you would find that I have included them.

MR VISSER: Well, then Mr Ngo, I put it to you Mr Ngo, that what the Council dealt with was merely the murder of Mr Venter and that according to the papers certainly, which have been provided to this Committee, that is the only issue that was relevant at the time of the consideration of your indemnity application. You did not, in other words, apply for all these other incidents.

Mr Chairman, the reference is again to bundle C, and this time it is the last section, Section F and what we have there is a report of a hearing. We haven't seen a judgement, but this is the report of the hearing before three judges, Judges Terry Steyn, Judge Mohl and Judge Solomon.

CHAIRPERSON: The 1992 Act related only to people who have been already convicted, sentenced, did it?

MR VISSER: With respect, not Mr Chairman. There are various sections. In fact there are three sections.

CHAIRPERSON: The Act, the heading of the Act says

"To make other provisions for the release of certain prisoners serving life or other imprisonment and to make provisions for the granting of indemnity".

MR VISSER: Now, if you continue, you will observe Mr Chairman, if my memory serves me correctly, that Section 2 deals with the first category and Section 3 will deal with the granting of indemnity Mr Chairman. And then there is a Section 4, which will deal with articles or objects which are also dealt with by the Act. The point about the Act was that there were three categories for which a person could apply whether he was a prisoner or not.

Certainly if you were a prisoner, you would not have been prohibited or precluded from applying in terms of Section 2, but in terms of Section 3 Mr Chairman, you didn't even, that dealt with the situation where you committed an act with a political objective and you could obtain indemnity.

And there was also another category Mr Chairman, that was temporary immunity and the background was of course that there were a lot of people who were abroad and who were considered to be necessary to be brought back into the country to take part in the negotiation process prior to the first democratic elections Mr Chairman.

And that was really the purpose of Act 151 of 1992, is to deal with those issues temporarily.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But will this point avail you if in terms of the then Act, for some reason or another and not on the strength of a superficial view of the Act, if in terms of that particular Act, he would not have qualified for indemnity in respect of all these things?

Of what use would that have been for him to have included them? If for some reason because of his own advice or someone else's advice he would not have received indemnity, what would be the purpose for him to have applied?

MR VISSER: I hear your question Mr Chairman, and if you remember I made a specific point of asking Mr Ngo, whether he received any help, any advice or whatever, so he said he didn't. He saw a form, he applied. The question then Mr Chairman, is a question of credibility. We now ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Except that he said to you that these Acts are not the same.

MR VISSER: I take the point Mr Chairman, I take the point, but I believe the rest would be for argument. But the point is this, here is a man sitting in jail, he his now given an opportunity to apply for indemnity, he applies only for one incident.

The question is simply this, why didn't he apply for all of them? He has given us an answer, he said it is because it is a different Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it also commonsense Mr Visser, he has been charged with only one offence, he has been arrested for only one offence. That is the one he is worried about. There, as far as I know, were no other prosecutions pending against him. There were no suggestion that there were going to be. Isn't it the normal reaction for somebody in his position - I just want to get this 25 years from around my neck?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, what I am doing at the moment is I am placing whatever evidence we know about before you for your consideration. If that is of course at the end of the day what you decide, then so be it Mr Chairman, but it still remains our duty to place it before you and to ask the witness, give him the opportunity of giving an explanation if he feels like doing so.

I will certainly argue at the end of the day Mr Chairman, when we deal with this matter fully if that moment ever arrives, that - I wasn't trying to be flippant, Mr Chairman, but I will certainly argue that that was the time when if anything he says today can be taken as being the truth, he would have applied for those incidents.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, my instructions from Mr Mthembu that at the time the Act provided for application for indemnity only if a prosecution was actually pending.

MR VISSER: Really Mr Chairman, it is a matter for argument.

Now, Mr Ngo, we spoke about the kidnapping of Mr White Mohapi where you implicated Mr Motsamai. In fairness to you, you also implicated Mr Motsamai in the attack on the house of Max Makhubelo, but you explained that this morning by saying it was really the house of City Mzuzwana. Are you with me so far?

MR NGO: Yes, I am with you.

MR VISSER: Now, I am asking you this. Were there any other instances where you implicated Mr Motsamai where he did not place himself on the scene or where he himself did not apply for amnesty? I will tell you why I am asking you this. It is because I am going to suggest to you as I did before, that you were swopping notes. He saw your application. So, are these the only two that you implicate Mr Motsamai in, as far as you can remember?

MR NGO: We did many things with Motsamai. We were working in one Unit, we bombed houses with him, cars with him and clinics.

MR VISSER: Alright.

MR NGO: Those are the things which I can mention to you.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, let's just take a few instances. The burning of the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela, do you remember you applied for amnesty for that? That is bundle C, page 12 Mr Chairman and bundle A, page 41. Do you remember that?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: Now, let me tell you that Mr Motsamai also applied for amnesty in regard to which seems to be the same incident. That is bundle A, page 158 Mr Chairman, and bundle A, page 146.

Now, what I want to put to you is this, who gave you instructions to go and attack the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela?

MR NGO: The instructions came from Colonel Coetzee and then they would follow the protocol. He would tell other officers who were senior to us like Ramoseu. Everybody knew how the instructions of communications were working in terms of instructions.

The clinic was bombed after Ramoseu reported, so the person who gave instructions is Coetzee, Mamome, Ramoseu and we knew therefore that we had to bomb that clinic.

MR VISSER: Were you personally present when Coetzee gave the instruction or were you not personally present?

MR NGO: If you may understand well, Coetzee said it after he was given a report from Ramoseu that the clinic was used as a safe house for comrades. Then he decided that we should bomb that clinic. I was present, I knew I was working with Ramoseu, we would go with him to Brandfort and come back.

MR VISSER: I see. So you were present when the instruction was given by Coetzee, is that the short answer?

MR NGO: The report was given in my presence, then Coetzee said if the clinic was used as a base for comrades, therefore it should be bombed. I was present after he received the report of the activities within the clinic.

MR VISSER: Who else was present?

MR NGO: I speak about my report and Mamome and Tsoametsi.

MR VISSER: Mamome and Tsoametsi?

MR NGO: And Bester.

MR VISSER: And Bester?

MR NGO: We reported from Brandfort.

MR VISSER: Now at the risk of standing corrected again, can I refer you to page 19 in front of you, that is page 41 of the record, Mr Chairman, and I want to put to you that at that page, unless I made another misreading mistake ...

ADV DE JAGER: I will make sure that you are not.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, I have got to put it as I've got it and I am putting it to you that you did not mention Mr Mamome there.

MR NGO: Even though I haven't spoken about Mamome.

MR VISSER: You have just spoken about Mamome a moment ago.

MR NGO: I said Bester, Ramoseu.

MR VISSER: Okay. Was Mr Mamome a participant in the attack?

MR NGO: Yes, he took part but when the clinic was attacked, he was with the Unit which Motsamai was a member. So they had a role to play in the attack.

MR VISSER: What precisely did Mamome do?

MR NGO: When they took petrol bomb, he was together with Motsamai and others with a combi.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, did he throw a petrol bomb, is that what you say, Mamome?

MR NGO: I haven't said he has thrown a petrol bomb, I said he went together with Motsamai and others. I was with Ramoseu and Bester when the clinic was going to be bombed. When the role he played, when they arrived there, he was together with the Unit which Motsamai was a member. They went there to bomb that clinic.

MR VISSER: Are you saying you don't know what he did? You didn't see it?

MR NGO: There was an incident which we were supposed to bomb the clinic on our own, that is myself, Ramoseu and Bester.

Then there was another incident by Motsamai, Mamome and others who were in the combi, who went there to bomb the clinic.

MR VISSER: Are you now saying that the clinic was bombed on two separate occasions?

MR NGO: Yes, it was bombed twice.

MR VISSER: You see, because the way we understand it from the applications of you and Mr Motsamai it appears that the house was first of all attacked and later the clinic. And as far as we could ascertain Mr Chairman, there was an attack on the house. It is on the same stand, it may even be adjoining buildings, but the one was used as a clinic and the other was used as a residence Mr Chairman. The residence was attacked between the 12th and the 13th of August 1985, 1986.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, if it is going to be their version, let him put it so to the witness. If he disputes that the clinic was bombed twice, let him confront the witness with that.

MR VISSER: I will do that Mr Chairman. I will do that. I am just informing the Committee as to the evidence.

It was either 1985 or 1986 Mr Chairman. But what is, this is the basis of what is now being put to the witness. I want to put to you that my understanding is that first the house was attacked ... (intervention)

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, he must put his instructions, not his understanding.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why can't he do that? Why can't he put his understanding to the witness so that the witness can disillusion him of his understanding if it is wrong?

ADV MEMANI: As the Member of the Committee pleases.

MR VISSER: Would it be correct to say that first the house of Mrs Winnie Mandela at Brandfort was attacked and later the clinic was attacked, or does that not coincide with your understanding?

MR NGO: I don't know much about the houses whether it was bombed. The instruction which was given to us was about the clinic where it was used as a safe house.

Maybe another unit was given instructions to bomb, I don't know. I haven't talked about the house. I only bombed the clinic. I took part in the bombing of the clinic.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, am I correct in the evidence which you have from your handwritten statement, page 19 before you, page 41 Mr Chairman before you, you mentioned Bester, Ramoseu and you have mentioned also Mamome now.

And you mentioned a person by the name of Brigadier Liebenberg. Do you remember that? It is at page 41 Mr Chairman, the second paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he mentions Colonel Coetzee as well, doesn't he?

MR VISSER: Yes, indeed Mr Chairman, he does. He was the one that gave the instructions.

ADV DE JAGER: At the stage when the bombing took place of Mrs Mandela's clinic and house, were you already a member of the police or were you still an informer at that stage?

MR NGO: I have already made an application to be accepted in the police and it has been sent, but during that time I was going with them to work until up to the 11th when they brought me to Fountain when they instructed me about the whole process.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but you weren't a member of the police yet? It was before you went to college and before you were appointed as a member of the police?

MR NGO: I was a recruit by then.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Ngo, can we just investigate that because it is rather important. Was that after you took the oath to become a policeman that you went to Brandfort to bomb the clinic of Mrs Mandela or was it before that time that you went there?

In other words, as Mr De Jager has asked you, did you go along as an informer or did you go along as a policeman?

MR NGO: I went there as a policeman. I had a gun.

MR VISSER: Who is Brigadier Liebenberg?

MR NGO: He was one who they were used, he was a member of the Intelligence Service as far as I can remember. He was a person who was printing pamphlets about propaganda. If you wanted to smear other person's name, then you would go and print them somewhere. Then from there he will return with them. Then during the night, he would distribute them in the township to implicate a certain person whom we wanted him to be isolated by the community. If he does not want to cooperate with the Special Branch. That is a person who would give us the explosives.

MR VISSER: So he was busy with propaganda and explosives? Is this the person in fact, who gave the explosives, because that is how I understand your page 41? He gave the explosives to whom?

MR NGO: He was a direct contact of Colonel Coetzee, so I haven't spoken to him. I only saw him bringing the box, then he was taken to a room. Whether he, what extent of the contact, I don't know but he was a member of the Intelligence Service of the South African Defence Force.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, were you present when explosives were handed by Brigadier Liebenberg to Colonel Coetzee, were you present, did you see it?

MR NGO: He brought them to him, I was present. I saw him.

MR VISSER: What did these explosives look like?

MR NGO: I don't know how they looked like, it was Bester who was using explosives, they were in a box. I didn't open the box to look at them, or use them.

MR VISSER: When you went to brandfort, did you take that box along with you?

MR NGO: Yes, we take it along with us.

MR VISSER: In a motor vehicle?

MR NGO: Yes, that is true.

MR VISSER: How big was this box?

MR NGO: It was a small box.

CHAIRPERSON: And who went with you to Brandfort?

MR NGO: That is Bester and Ramoseu.

CHAIRPERSON: Just the three of you?

MR NGO: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: And you didn't meet anyone else there, it was just the three of you throughout the operation?

MR NGO: We who was supposed to go there, was myself and Bester and we didn't meet any person until we arrived at the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't meet anyone at Brandfort when you were doing the operation?

MR NGO: I would say it is Warrant Officer Swanepoel, but we met somebody. If I remember well, or if I remember his name well.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you meet him? I am looking at your statement and I am trying to find reference to anyone else and I cannot find any. You've got your statements in front of you Mr Ngo, have you? You have been reading from it, on page 19 and page 20.

MR NGO: We didn't meet him about the operation. We passed him at the police station because before we went there, we passed the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking you about the operation. Were there just the three of you concerned in that operation?

MR NGO: It was the three of us, that is myself, Bester and Ramoseu up to the clinic. Nobody else.

MR VISSER: Well then, please would you explain what you stated at page 5 of bundle C in paragraph (c)? I am going to read it to you.

"On instructions of Colonel Coetzee...

now listen carefully,

"...Warrant Officer Ramoseu, Sergeant Mamome, Constable Motsamai and Constable Mtyala and I, now that is, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 persons, went to the clinic of Mrs Winnie Mandela in Brandfort...."

etc, etc. Now how does that tally with the reply which you just gave Justice Wilson that you were only three?

MR NGO: The first operation we were three. As I said, we went to Brandfort two times.

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Ngo, I want to put it to you that there is nothing in the application or in your evidence until this moment, that suggested to any of us sitting here that you were talking about two separate incidents.

I am suggesting to you that you intended only to apply for amnesty in regard to one incident, not two as you now wish to testify.

ADV DE JAGER: Could there be a confusion because they have attacked the house at one occasion and the clinic on the other?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it is a valid question and we went into this issue very carefully. And it is quite clear Mr Chairman, if you look at Motsamai's application, that what he deals with is an attack on a house and is an attack on a clinic and when Mr Ramoseu, our client gives evidence, he will tell you that he was stationed at Brandfort at the time and there were in fact two separate attacks. The one on the clinic and the one on the house.

In other words, Mr Chairman, there is room as Commissioner De Jager points out, because of the proximity of the buildings, certainly, and we do bear that in mind, but at the end of the day Mr Chairman, if you look at Mr Ngo's application for amnesty, he is applying for only, in our submission, one incident, not two. His counsel Mr Chairman, was present at the pre-trial conference, the minutes of which reads at paragraph 2.4 - the bombing and burning of the clinic of Winnie Mandela. No indication was ever given at that time although it was specifically discussed that there were two incidents that Mr Ngo was applying for instead of one.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, this submission is not entirely correct. If one looks at the summary of incidents in respect of which Mr Motsamai applies, there is a reference to two times house and clinic. This led to some discussion during the pre-hearing meeting and we undertook to take instructions to clarify the matter whether the house was burnt twice or whether it was once.

MR VISSER: So what is the result of the instructions, Mr Chairman? Nobody has given you any feedback on whatever the result is, but the argument is incorrect Mr Chairman.

If you go on with the pre-trial minute, to where Mr Motsamai's application is discussed, it is quite clear Mr Chairman, and that is the reason why this was discussed, in paragraph 6.2 and 6.3, that Motsamai is applying for two incidents. That was why we raised the issue of Mr Ngo whether it is one or two incidents at the pre-trial minute.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, what was discussed was the incident relating to Mr Motsamai. It says that he is applying for the house twice and once for the clinic. It is not true that Mr Ngo's application was discussed at that stage relating to the number of times in which the house would have been bombed.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps, Mr Ngo, could clear it up. What did you in fact bomb at Brandfort at Mrs Mandela's place, the clinic or the house?

MR NGO: The first time if the Judge would look there, when Ramoseu and Bester ... (intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: It is a straight question, please Mr Ngo, I don't want to look elsewhere, what did you bomb at Mrs Mandela's place?

MR NGO: Our target was the clinic, we went to the clinic.

ADV DE JAGER: Okay, were you ever involved in a bombing of Mrs Mandela's house?

MR NGO: No, I took part again in the operation for the clinic. I never took part in the bombing of the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say the clinic was bombed twice or attacked twice?

MR NGO: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Have you ever heard rumours or are you aware that her house has also been attacked?

MR NGO: I heard those rumours, but I don't know how and when it was attacked and I didn't take part in that.

ADV DE JAGER: I see.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It should be perfectly simple shouldn't it, to check whether the clinic was attacked twice.

MR VISSER: My instructions are it was attacked only once, Mr Chairman. But you will hear that evidence when my people give evidence.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, Mr Memani, part of your problem is that your client is never able to say I don't remember and I don't know.

ADV MEMANI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: May I point out to you just a remark in regard to the burning of the motor car of - I am sorry Mr Ngo, I forgot something about the clinic or the house of Mrs Mandela, you can choose whichever, are you quite certain that on at least one occasion explosives were used to attack whatever you want to call it, the clinic or the house? Let's call it the clinic, are you quite certain that explosives were used?

MR NGO: In terms of my knowledge it was Bester and Ramoseu who bombed and I was in the car, looking at them when they went there. What they did there, I was able to see when they throw things and then I see that the clinic caught fire. I don't know as whether they used those explosives which they were given by Bester or what. I was just an escort there, I was not directly involved in the operation because I was a student then.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, I asked you specifically and you told this Committee, that when you went to Brandfort you took the box with explosives along with you. Did you say that or didn't you?

MR NGO: I said that Sir.

MR VISSER: When you arrived there, did you open the box of explosives and take out the explosives?

MR NGO: They took the box.

MR VISSER: They didn't open it?

MR NGO: They went with it to the clinic.

MR VISSER: Are you saying that the box was not opened in your presence so that you could see what was in the box?

MR NGO: I don't know, they took it with them. They didn't open that box in the car.

MR VISSER: So to this day, from your own personal knowledge, you don't know what was in that box?

MR NGO: No, I didn't open the box, I didn't even handle the box.

MR VISSER: Why did you then tell this Committee that Liebenberg brought explosives to Mr Coetzee, page 41 Mr Chairman?

MR NGO: He said he has brought the material.

MR VISSER: So much the more then, how did you draw the inference from a little box which was handed by a certain Liebenberg who was a member of the Intelligence Services, to Colonel Coetzee, that it was explosives that was in the box?

MR NGO: That is the language Colonel Coetzee used. He explained to him.

MR VISSER: So when Colonel Coetzee wanted to refer to explosives he spoke of material, is that what you are saying?

CHAIRPERSON: Please in fairness to the witness, will you read the previous sentence? Colonel Coetzee then said he will make arrangements for members of the Intelligence Services and the SADF so that we can get explosives to bomb the place.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And he says one morning while we were in, before we came to Brandfort, Colonel Coetzee then phoned Brigadier Liebenberg. It would appear that Colonel Coetzee had mentioned to them explosives before and that he would obtain them from the Defence Force.

MR VISSER: I think I take your point Mr Chairman. In other words, where in the second paragraph there is a reference to material, it is the word taken by the witness himself not necessarily, yes, I think that is a fair interpretation and I would accept that Mr Chairman.

Alright, point of the matter is this, who of the three of you or five or how ever many, went to Brandfort was an explosives expert? Who could work with explosives?

MR NGO: That is Bester.

MR VISSER: Well, you see, you've picked the wrong man, because Bester sat yesterday consulting with me and he assured me that he has no knowledge of explosives and he, I am putting it to you, also told me that he would never travel in an ordinary motor car with explosives in the car. It would be far too dangerous. So Bester was not an explosives expert, that is all I am putting to you.

MR NGO: As I am not an expert in explosives, if you give me a handgrenade and say if I remove the pin and throw the house, I know what a safety pin is, you don't have to be an explosives expert to kill a person with a handgrenade or something like that.

MR VISSER: I see, so it is as simple as that? Alright. The point here is this. The question which I would like to hear your reply to and which I think you can't give us, is was it ordinary commercial explosives that was used or was it a handgrenade or something of that nature because you see, there is a difference?

Can you help us or can't you help us? If you don't know, please say so.

MR NGO: I am not able to help the Committee because I have never opened the box to see what was the contents therein.

MR VISSER: You told the Committee that you went to bomb the clinic twice, is that correct or am I wrong?

MR NGO: I went there twice.

MR VISSER: The explosives, was that the first or the second occasion that the explosives were used?

MR NGO: That was the first occasion where explosives were used.

MR VISSER: Okay, what was used on the second occasion?

MR NGO: We used petrol bombs.

MR VISSER: And when you talk about a petrol bomb, will you just explain to us exactly what you mean by that? Is it a bottle with petrol in with a rag on the top which you light and which you throw in and break the bottle, is that a petrol bomb?

MR NGO: They bought petrol, a two litre petrol, that is Motsamai and others, it might be a five litre. Maybe they formed those petrol bombs on the road, I don't know. That is what I know that the petrol bombs were going to be used.

MR VISSER: I don't understand, with all due respect to you. Were you present on two occasions when the clinic was attacked? Were you present personally or are you saying something today which you heard from somebody?

MR NGO: I was with Ramoseu, Mamome, Motsamai, Mtyala to go there. People who were making those petrol bombs were Mamome and Motsamai. I was just protecting them when they went there to throw those petrol bombs.

MR VISSER: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the second occasion?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: Now, were Mamome and Motsamai making the petrol bombs in the vehicle while you were travelling to Brandfort from Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: They bought petrol, they formed those petrol bombs on the road, they were travelling with an E20, we were using a Toyota Sprinter. They were driving an E20.

MR VISSER: I just want to know where they made the petrol bombs?

MR NGO: Maybe they formed them in the car or anywhere else, I don't know. The only thing I know is that they had petrol bombs. I only saw them when they were buying a five litre petrol and they put it in the car.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, was the five litre petrol can, was that the petrol bomb you are talking about? Is this what you refer to as a petrol bomb, a can of five litres with petrol in, is that what you refer to as a petrol bomb, or are you referring to petrol bombs which were manufactured with the petrol in the can?

MR NGO: It was said that the clinic should be hit with the petrol bombs. They bought a five litre petrol and put it in the combi. I don't know where they formed those petrol bombs, whether in the car or what place, I don't know, but when they arrived there, they hit the clinic with petrol bombs.

MR VISSER: Why don't you know Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: I was on guard and it is not the same as participating. You must escort those people whilst others were attacking, you should ensure that no person should interfere with the operation.

MR VISSER: In regard to that incident, what are you asking for amnesty for? Just explain that please, the second attack on the house, what are you asking for amnesty for? What did you do?

MR NGO: People were burning the house with petrol bombs, I was having a gun and looking for any person who would interfere with the operation and shoot him. So if any civilian came there to interfere with the operation, I was supposed to shoot that person, or anybody who was interfering with the operation, I was supposed to use my gun, therefore I could have been prosecuted for that.

MR VISSER: Did Coetzee order you to do that? Or did you just decide to do that, just shoot anybody that came in the way?

MR NGO: Those instructions came from Mr Coetzee.

MR VISSER: I see. When did he give you those instructions?

MR NGO: It was a known fact that we should bomb the clinic. I went together with them because I knew that it was long said that the clinic should be bombed for the second time. It was a known fact because he has given those instructions long before.

MR VISSER: I am asking you when did Coetzee instruct you to shoot anybody while you were burning the clinic, who got in the way?

MR NGO: He didn't instruct us to kill a person. He said we should bomb the clinic.

MR VISSER: You just told us that Coetzee told you to shoot anybody who got in the way.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, that is not the evidence. He said that if anybody would have interfered, I would have shot the person, he didn't say that Coetzee said he must shoot anybody who interferes with the operation.

MR VISSER: He specifically said so, I asked him the question. But perhaps we are going to take the adjournment and sort it out overnight.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't we rather clear up what was used on the second occasion Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: I would like to if you would allow me. I see it is four o'clock, I would like to just round this off Mr Chairman.

So, why do you say Mr Ngo, that petrol bombs were used? Is it merely because petrol was bought in a can or did you see that they threw petrol bombs at the clinic?

MR NGO: I was somewhere above on the street and where I was standing I saw the house burning, then I made an inference that the petrol was used. Whether they just throw that petrol from that five litre container or they made petrol bombs, but I saw the clinic catching fire, then I thought petrol bombs were used.

MR VISSER: So the short answer is, you don't know how they burnt the clinic? Is that correct, you don't know?

MR NGO: The way the operation was done, I was not directly in the full view of what was happening. What I would say is that they had petrol with them, then I was doing the surveillance that no person should interfere with the operation. It may happen that petrol bombs were used or maybe they just poured the petrol to the clinic.

MR VISSER: What time of the day or the night was this attack?

MR NGO: It was during the day? If it is not Thursday, it is Friday.

MR VISSER: During daylight? The attack took place during daylight?

MR NGO: It was at night.

MR VISSER: At night? More-or-less what time at night?

MR NGO: I don't remember well what time was it, but it was at night. It might have been around twelve or one o'clock.

MR VISSER: Okay, were there people moving around in the streets?

MR NGO: It was quiet.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, I think perhaps at this point, unless there is something else you wish to ask.

CHAIRPERSON: What I wish to ask, Mr Ngo, you have told us in some detail how petrol was used, that you said they either made petrol bombs or they poured petrol into the building.

MR NGO: What I would tell the Judge is that I saw them buying petrol and then they put it in the combi and then the way we decided or the way they discussed is that they were supposed to petrol bomb the clinic. When I was there, I was given the responsibility to do the surveillance so I don't know as whether they did those petrol bombs or whether they used the petrol, but I saw the house burning or the clinic burning.

CHAIRPERSON: What is a phosphorous grenade?

MR NGO: The way I know that is the way they explained it to me. It is a grenade used to ignite fire or to threaten a person.

CHAIRPERSON: You see in your application which was typed and submitted you said we guarded Warrant Officer Ramoseu while he threw an incendiary device. As far as I could ascertain, it was a phosphorous grenade, into the clinic when the clinic started burning, we left the scene. Now, you haven't told us one word today about Warrant Officer Ramoseu throwing this incendiary device, this phosphorous grenade, have you?

MR NGO: Ramoseu threw the grenade, he wanted to throw those grenades in the clinic together with Bester. The way I thought is that those grenades which they went together with in the box I was talking about, those explosives, which were in the box.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that when you went there on the first occasion that you are talking about the explosives in the box? That is when you went on the first occasion with Bester and Ramoseu?

MR NGO: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: But you told, Mr Ngo, you are talking here in your typed application about going there with Sergeant Mamome, Constable Motsamai, Constable Mtyala and I. You make no mention of Bester. If five people went, will you please explain now how it is that suddenly you have five people there on the first visit? Because you say, you have now just told me that this grenade you thought were thrown, it was with the explosions in the box. Can you explain Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: That is what I explained that Ramoseu and Bester threw then.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are dealing here in your typed application with the five of you going to the clinic and Bester was not one of that five when you say the grenade was thrown.

MR NGO: That is why I explained about the grenade, when I described those grenades which were there, I described the grenades which were in the hand for the certain instance when we were together with Ramoseu, petrol was used.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngo, that is not what you had said in this, you have said one paragraph of your attack here and it relates to one incident.

When you were questioned earlier by Mr Visser, you tried to get out of difficulties you had with him by saying oh, there were two different visits.

I was talking about the first visit and the second. You can't now say you are talking about both of them in one paragraph Mr Ngo.

MR NGO: It may happen that I explain in a different way, but I don't know what kind of an answer I would give but the hand grenade were used in the first attack at the clinic. For the second attack petrol was used.

So if I explain it that kind of a false or maybe a wrong explanation, I am explaining now that ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well, when you gave your evidence here Mr Ngo, about the first attack, you made no mention about a hand grenade.

When you gave evidence before us today about the first attack, you made no mention of a hand grenade being used, did you?

MR NGO: I spoke of explosives.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, if I may remind you, it was agreed that the merits of this will not be dealt with and what was dealt with in chief was the source of the instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, we will leave it then. Mr Visser, you put it to the witness I think, and his counsel objected, that he had not mentioned Cronje as having participated in the attack on Mohapi?

MR VISSER: I believe that is correct, Mr Chairman. I think I have just switched off your microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: And you said, as you have said on many occasions, which counsel objected to, well the record will prove who is right. If you look at the typed copy of the evidence of the 14th of May, which we were given today, you will see that at page 30, Mr Ngo said he was asked were you alone when you kidnapped Mr Mohapi and he said no, it was Tsoametsi, Mamome, Mtyala and Cronje.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The reply to you is of course, I haven't got that evidence yet. I haven't seen that evidence. But certainly I have no reason to doubt that you read me the correct evidence, but I wasn't aware of it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS