Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION ON 4 SEPTEMBER 1997

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

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I want to inform you that I’ve got two other victims also this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Can’t these people get away from you?

MR STANDER: It is Abel Choane, C-h-o-a-n-e, and his brother Norman Choane. I’m sorry, I cannot tell you in which incident they were involved because I’ve been consulted - trying to consult them whilst you were walking inside. I believe from my colleague that they were tortured in Bloemfontein.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you let us have a list - an up-to-date list of all the people you represent, at some stage that’s convenient to you? I’m not sure - if you can let us have a list of the names of all you clients at some stage.

MR STANDER: As the Chair pleases, I’ll do so.

CHAIRPERSON: We’re now proceeding with the Ngo application. It is Thursday, the 4th of September and Mr Ngo is being cross-examined still by Mr du Plessis.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ngo, before we go ahead I just want to place one thing for purposes of the record on record, and that is that Colonel Flip Loots and he’s now Captain Hendrik Bokaba, do not oppose your application for amnesty. I just want to make that very, very clear. We do not oppose your application for amnesty.

The only reason why I’m putting questions to you pertains to the involvement of Colonel Loots and Captain Bokaba according to you, in the incidents you apply for amnesty for. And the reason why I’m putting these questions is simply to test your evidence about their involvement and to put to you, the denial by them of their involvement in these incidents and also to test the credibility of your evidence in that regard.

That is as far as our involvement goes, we do not oppose your amnesty application simply because Colonel Loots and Captain Bokaba are also persons who applied for amnesty, they are in the same position as you are and they feel that they don’t have to oppose your application and they don’t want to oppose your application. Do you understand?

MR NGO: Yes, I do.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I don’t now how the Committee deals with this type of position but my difficulty then is that you get a situation where people who are not prepared to come and contradict a person, are given the opportunity to suggest that the person is or may be lying.

And it would appear to me that if it is their attitude, it would be sufficient for them simply to put it to him that they deny that they were involved and not to continue and suggest for instance that he was not a member of the security branch, that he was not stationed at Mamelodi and so on.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely you see that his credibility is very much in issue. If they can show he is not a witness who can be relied on, for example one you gives wrong names, it is relevant to their denial. That is how I understand of Mr du Plessis’s cross-examination.

MR MEMANI: But what worries me, is my sense of what you do on the right, you must do on the left. If you are going to say a witness must be cross-examined by people who deny their involvement, you must say that the people who deny their involvement must come and testify, if they want to discredit him and let us see if there’s any basis for the way in which they have discredited him.

For instance, it has been suggested that he was not at whatever place, Mamelodi and one of them needs to show through cross-examining them that their instructions on which he is discredited are wrong or false or improbable, now you loose that opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood they will be available.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But I think Mr Memani, you assume that they are not going to testify. The fact that they don’t oppose the application, does not necessarily mean that they are not going to testify to dispute certain things, certain allegations about themselves. You assume that they are not going to testify but that is not necessarily so, whether in the end they will in fact testify of course depends on them.

You can hardly be here to complain that people did not come and testify against you client. If they do not testify - if they choose not to testify in the end, it will be for us to decide the matter in the light of the evidence before us including of course the evidence from the applicant which was elicited by a cross-examination on behalf of these people. As I say, I think you assume that simply because they say they do not oppose the application, automatically they are not going to testify, we don’t know.

MR MEMANI: Yes Mr Chair, my concern is then that if they are allowed to cross-examine and they do not testify, do you completely disregard the statements that we put and the answers that emanated as a result of that cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: No, you evaluate the evidence of the applicant, as you do in any other legal proceedings.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I add here ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, we’ll take into consideration the fact that they didn’t testify and that you hadn’t had the opportunity to in fact test their - what was put to your witness, that would be a fact being taken into consideration. And it may be that we’ll decide to call them and to enable you to cross-examine them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman with respect, there’s no doubt in my mind, I will call Colonel Loots and I will call Captain Bokaba as witnesses in any event, so there won’t be a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood from Mr Visser where he put things, that his witnesses have put up affidavits - they might not be called to repeat all the evidence but they would be available for cross-examination if required.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that is in fact so. We have already made arrangement for every single person for whom we appear, to be available. He’ll go into the witness box, take the oath and confirm and then it will be for either the members of the Committee or any other of my learned brethren on my left, to either cross-examine him or say: "I’ve no questions to him".

CHAIRPERSON: What is your difficulty, Mr Memani?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Has it been solved?

MR MEMANI: That is correct Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I proceed?

Mr Ngo, we heard your evidence yesterday. There are a few aspects that I’d like to deal with and a few facts that I would like to put to you which will be also testified to by either Colonel Loots or Captain Bokaba. The first point that I would like to put to you relates to your evidence pertaining to the two motor vehicles you used when you were allegedly part of the security branch in Mamelodi.

I want to put to you that Captain Bokaba will come and testify that he always used during that time, from 1986 onwards, a yellow Colt Gallant motor vehicle with private registration numbers which belonged to the South African police but which could not be identified as a police vehicle. What do you have to say to that?

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

MR NGO: He was using the two cars which I’ve mentioned - which we used them regularly in Mamelodi. I don’t deny that he used to use the yellow car which he’s mentioned, that is true but the two cars which I’ve know and I’ve mentioned, that’s the cars I knew.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well I put it to you that he will deny that.

Mr Ngo, do you want to say something about that?

MR NGO: No, Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ngo, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, why didn’t you tell us about this yellow car yesterday when we asked you about what cars the three of you used?

MR NGO: The car I knew that he used, are the two cars which I’ve mentioned but I used to see him - I saw him once or maybe twice with that yellow car but it was not used regularly in Mamelodi, maybe he was borrowing it somewhere.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ngo, do you know at all who was in command of the security branch operations in Attridgeville?

MR NGO: No, I was never taken there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, I put it to you that the evidence will be that is was Lieutenant Henning Brandt in Attridgeville. And then, have you ever heard of Warrant Officer Johan van Wyk?

MR NGO: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: And of Warrant Officer Hlongwane?

MR NGO: No, I never heard of him.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Ngo, during the period that you testify you were part of the security branch in Mamelodi, Warrant Officer Johan van Wyk, Warrant Officer Hlongwane and Captain Bokaba and later on, Danny Selahla worked directly under Captain Hechter in Mamelodi as the security branch operation in Mamelodi, I put that to you. That will be the evidence of Colonel Loots.

MR NGO: I don’t know those people you have mentioned, I only know two people, that is Dannyboy Selahla and Bokaba but I don’t know others you have mentioned.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes you see Mr Ngo, what I find strange and I want you just to explain this to us, is although your evidence is that you were for more than two years, part of the security branch operations in Mamelodi, you only knew of Hendrik Bokaba and Danny Selahla.

Mr Chairman, may I just - while we’re dealing Danny Selahla, make something clear. You would have heard in previous applications, evidence about a man called "Slang", I don’t know if you recall that. Danny Selahla is the person called "Slang", who was involved in some operations with Captain Hechter and Warrant Officer van Vuuren.

Now Mr Ngo, to get back to the question, I just want you to explain this to us. I find it strange that although you were part of the security branch operations in Mamelodi for more than two years, you do not know anybody else who were part of the security branch operations in Mamelodi except Constable - or he’s now Captain but then Constable Bokaba or Danny Selahla.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, no basis has been laid for suggesting that in order for it to be true that you were posted at the security branch you would have had to know Captain Hech ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The cross-examination is eliciting that, we will then decide on the value to be given to it.

MR MEMANI: But Sir, what I’m saying is, there hasn’t been any prime suggestion that if he worked there, he should have known these people. No ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Counsel has just said that these three people worked under Hechter as the security branch in Mamelodi. Didn’t you say that about a minute ago Mr du Plessis? The questions now is: "I find it strange that you say you worked at security at Mamelodi and you didn’t know these people who worked there". What is your objection?

MR MEMANI: My objection for instance Mr Chairman, is not - it has not been suggested where they worked and why ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It has, it’s just been said that van Wyk, Hlongwane and later Bokaba, worked under Hechter as the security branch in Mamelodi.

MR MEMANI: But for instance, the physical premises where they worked have not been described. There hasn’t been a basis like ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Please, do you have to - he says he was security in Mamelodi, the question is: "Why didn’t you know the other people who were security in Mamelodi"? It is in my view a perfectly valid question.

Carry on Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ngo, do you want me to repeat the question?

MR NGO: Yes, may you repeat it Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you explain to us Mr Ngo, where you were part of the security branch operations in Mamelodi for more than two years, I find it strange that you only know of Bokaba and Selahla and you do not know any of the other people who were involved in the security branch operations in Mamelodi, such as Warrant Officer van Wyk, Warrant Officer Hlongwane and Captain Hechter. Can you explain that to us?

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Pardon?

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, sorry - apart from Loots.

MR NGO: Other security branch members, meaning Whites - they used to come there but they would not come to me or talk to me. They would come to Bezuidenhout and I didn’t know the content of their negotiations, that is why I wouldn’t mention or identify other people like that, so I only worked with those two.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where did you meet Danny Selahla for the first time?

MR NGO: I saw him many times in barracks because he was accommodated there, even in the office at Compol - he was working there at that time.

MR DU PLESSIS: As I understand - do I understand you correctly, he lived in the same barracks as you did and Bokaba did?

MR NGO: No, he used to sleep there but he was staying in the location or township.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. You see, on page 53 of bundle B, there is an affidavit of Danny Selahla and I want to refer you to paragraph 2 thereof. Page 53, bundle 2 - bundle B. Paragraph 2 thereof Mr Ngo says

"I learnt to know the applicant in this matter, Ngo, at the Mamelodi police barracks by seeing him there as I accompanied Hendrik Bokaba who resided at the premises".

Now, that seems to accord with the evidence - with your evidence that you saw him with Bokaba, is that correct?

MR NGO: When I met Captain Loots, he gave me - he handed me over to Mr Bokaba then we met Dannyboy Selahla, then I saw him at the barracks, then at times we used to lift with him from the barracks to Compol with him but he was staying in the township called - in Mamelodi, even if I don’t know the house number but he used to sleep at the barracks. The person who slept there all the time was Hendrik Bokaba.

MR DU PLESSIS: Exactly when did you start living in the barracks? - or staying in the barracks sorry, that’s more correct.

MR NGO: That’s where we were staying but I was not staying there all the time, I was staying there at the barracks and at times I was staying at the location, so I don’t remember when I started to stay there but it was somewhere around 1986.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Ngo, I just want to know from you, are you saying - do I understand you correctly, are you saying that what Danny Selahla is saying here, that he met you when he accompanied Hendrik Bokaba when they went to the police barracks, that that is wrong?

MR NGO: I met him with - when I was with Bokaba, I knew him through Bokaba. When I met Mr Bokaba with Captain Loots, I didn’t see him there but I knew that he was working in Mamelodi, then I started working with him there.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you meet him?

MR NGO: When I returned - where Danny Selahla showed me where he was staying at the barracks, that is where we met.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Now Mr Ngo, you see, I’m going to put to you what I will argue at the end about your involvement of the security branch and that is - and I want your comment on this please, that is that the only people of the security branch you knew according to their evidence, was Captain - Colonel Loots because you met him, you had an interview with him, Hendrik Bokaba because you lived with him in the barracks, Danny Selahla because you lived with him in the barracks. Those were the only three people you knew who worked for the security branch because those were the only three people in security branch you ever met.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, did Danny live at the barracks?

MR DU PLESSIS: He confirmed that Mr Chairman, now in evidence after the question of his Lordship, Mr Justice Wilson.

CHAIRPERSON: He said that he stayed in the - slept in the barracks sometimes but he lived in the location.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, well he slept in the barracks but that was the exact point that I wanted to make, that he slept in the barracks and that he met him through Bokaba.

Now, what I’m trying to put to you Mr Ngo, is that the only people of the security branch you met was Danny Selahla, Bokaba and Colonel Loots because you had an interview with him. And that is the reason why those were the only people you could name who were involved in the security branch because you met them outside the operations of the security branch.

MR NGO: That is not true, those are the people I knew because I was working with them.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis, can we simplify the question further to the witness? You see, this questions he’s saying to you: "It is not true that you were involved in any operations of the security branch, it is not true that you were part of the security branch because had you been part of the security branch, you would have known more than just the three people".

MR NGO: I was working there, I was working with some members of the security branch and whilst I was still a member of the unit 19, that’s why when I was taken to Mamelodi, I was supposed to work with those people. So, the operations which I did, I did them with those people. There were no other people whom I would mention that I took part with them in certain operations whereas I didn’t take part with them in any operation, I took part in those operations which I mentioned, with those people because I was working with them.

Those are the people I participated in these operations with, them which I’ve mentioned, no other person. I would not identify any person except them, even if I saw them when they were coming as I’ve explained but I didn’t have any contact or took part in any operation with them.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But the question goes further to say that, on your evidence you were there for three - two years and for a period of - for you to have been there for a period of two years, you surely would have known, even if you did not take part in operations with any other person, took part in operations with any other person, you surely would have at least known a few other names over a period of two years. What do you say to that?

MR NGO: I used to see them but there was nothing I would discuss with them, I would just look at them. I was - I didn’t have any contact with them. I used to see them - some members of the security branch and I’m not able to tell the names of those people except the three I’ve mentioned.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, I want to put to you further that Danny Selahla on page 53, says the following

"I was never in the same team at work with the applicant as he alleges during 1982 and 1988, I never worked with the applicant at the security branch and he was never a member of the security branch of Compol, Pretoria in 1987 during my employment there".

What do you say to that?

MR NGO: I’ve already explained that I was working there and I knew all the acts that we have done. He was there, I didn’t add his name by mistake, we have been working together.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Now Mr Ngo, before you joined the South African police force, do I understand the evidence correct, you acted as an informer for the security police in Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: That is so.

MR DU PLESSIS: For how long was that?

MR NGO: From 1983.

MR DU PLESSIS: And as I understand your evidence correctly, you implicated - sorry, let me ask you this, you only acted as an informer, is that right?

MR NGO: That’s so Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: And when you testified about the incidents you were involved in and I’m speaking of all the incidents you applied for amnesty for - if we look only at the index of bundle B, we see that you have implicated - sorry, Mr Chairman, that is actually page 1 of bundle A - and that also appeared from your evidence Mr Ngo, that you implicated a lot of policemen who were all involved with the security branch of Bloemfontein, is that right? If you look at the list it’s

Lieutenant Swan, Erasmus Tsoametsi, Mamome, Motsamai, Mtyala, Killian, Sefatsa

and there’s a whole list:

Colonel Coetzee, Stevenson etc.

Were they all part of the security branch in Bloemfontein, these people who are listed here as the implicated persons?

MR NGO: That is so Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you had a chance of reading the list? The list is two columns?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, my question related to - actually to the left column. Lets just look at ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But that’s not what you said ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, thank you.

Let’s look at the left-hand side, can you - is there anybody named in the left-hand side who wasn’t part of the security branch at Bloemfontein?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the first name was corrected, it’s supposed to read Lieutenant Shaw, not Swan.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Mr Chairman, it’s Shaw, that’s right.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, and the same goes for the last column - the third name Mimiswa is supposed to read Miningwa. That was also corrected.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it’s the - on the left column, the last section of names, you will see it starts with Cronje, Koka - Mimiswa was changed to Miningwa.

Mr Ngo, is there anybody who wasn’t ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, also the third - the fourth name from the top from Mr Shaw is Warrant Officer Mamome and not Mamome.

MR NGO: What is the question all about in that section?

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I ask you this, can you tell us is there anybody you do not identify who was part of the Bloemfontein security branch in the left-hand column. Is there any name that you cannot identify - that you do not know?

MR NGO: Sefatsa and Jantjie were stationed in Ladybrand, they were members of security branch in Ladybrand. Koka - I don’t know that name - the third from the bottom in that list. Koka - I don’t know that name.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, I think the Koka is the person who was referred to as Koch.

MR NGO: The first name in that list, Lieutenant Swan - I don’t know the guy.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is Shaw.

MR NGO: Lieutenant Shaw?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR NGO: I know Shaw.

MR DU PLESSIS: Take your time Mr Ngo, I want you to make 100% sure who was not part of the security branch.

MR NGO: No English translation.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, what is the relevance of the question to the case of the ...[intervention]

MR NGO: No English translation.

MR MEMANI: One second, Mr Ngo.

What is the relevance of this question to the case we are expecting to hear from Bokaba, Selahla and Loots?

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know, I’m waiting to hear but I imagine it may be that it’s a little odd that he can give 20 names from Bloemfontein where he was for a few months and only three names from Mamelodi where he was for two years. I don’t know what point Mr du Plessis is going to make but I imagine that is one of the points that can be made. Carry on.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Are there any other names in the left-hand column that were not part of the security branch Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: And Captain Tsomela.

MR DU PLESSIS: That’s the second-last one in the list Mr Chairman.

MR NGO: Those are the ones I could identify.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can you help me, I didn’t make a note at the time. Who were the two who were at Brandfort?

MR NGO: Not in Brandfort but in Ladybrand.

CHAIRPERSON: Who were they?

MR NGO: ...[inaudible] Constable Jantjie and Warrant Officer Sefatsa.

MR DU PLESSIS: Does that complete the list Mr Ngo? Can we go over to the right-hand side?

MR NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Let’s look at the right hand side. Let’s take the first name, Constable Khatlake, was he part of the Bloemfontein security branch?

MR NGO: He was in Botshabelo, we used to meet when we were there to assault people in the security unit of Botshabelo.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Mr Ngo I just want you to tell us where - in what unit he was, don’t go into detail about what you did with him. So, Khatlake was in Botshabelo, and Smith?

MR NGO: Also Mr Smith or Sergeant Smith.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Thula?

MR NGO: He was at Botshabelo.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was Smith in Bloemfontein? Botshabelo?

MR NGO: No, in Botshabelo.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. And Senyane?

MR NGO: He was in Botshabelo - Senyane.

MR DU PLESSIS: Lesale?

MR NGO: Bloemfontein.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, there might be a misunderstanding. I heard the witness to be saying Lesale instead of Senyane when he was asked the question about Senyane.

MR DU PLESSIS: He has already answered Senyane, Mr Chairman. Was Senyane in Botshabelo?

MR NGO: Yes, Samuel Senyane was in Botshabelo.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Lesale?

MR NGO: In Bloemfontein.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Bester?

MR NGO: He was stationed here in Bloemfontein but we were working together in Brandfort.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the next one - I don’t know if that’s a spelling mistake - Constable Tax.

MR NGO: He was stationed here in Bloemfontein but we were working together in Brandfort.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. And then Sergeant Mokalake?

MR NGO: Sergeant Mokalake, he was a member of "Bewaarder".

MR DU PLESSIS: So he was not part of the security branch? And then Warrant Officer Bester?

MR NGO: Bester was a member of security branch.

MR DU PLESSIS: In Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: He was working in Botshabelo but he was supposed to report here in Bloemfontein but we used to go together in Brandfort. At times he used to go to Bloemspruit to make some investigations.

ADV DE JAGER: There seems to be a duplication there about Bester.

MR DU PLESSIS: Oh yes, I see - thank you very much. All right, and then Liebenberg is the last one I want to ask you about?

MR NGO: He was a soldier.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. Now Mr Ngo, you see what I find strange of this is exactly what his Lordship, Mr Justice Wilson pointed out just now, is that when you were simply an informer of the security branch in Bloemfontein, you knew these many people who were part of the security branch in Bloemfontein but when you were part of the security branch operations in Mamelodi in Pretoria, you got to know in a period of more than two years, you only got to know the three last names mentioned in the second column, namely Bokaba, Selahla and Loots.

Can you explain to us how does it come - how does it happen that when you were an informer in Bloemfontein, you know such a lot of security branch people but when you were really part of the security branch and working for them in Mamelodi, you only got to know three - explain that to us.

MR NGO: The question is when did I say - in 1983 when I was an informer, I already knew those people, we have said so.

MR DU PLESSIS: Are you saying that you met these security branch people before you became an informer or what are you saying?

MR NGO: No, I didn’t know them before I was an informer, I used to know Lieutenant Erasmus, Coetzee and Shaw when I was an informer and the rest of these names, I didn’t know them because I didn’t even meet them before.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see Mr Ngo, your evidence was that he was - that you were in Bloemfontein for a short time acting as an informer and I just find it strange and I’m putting that to you ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: He said since 1983.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not activated.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] before he went to college.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, let me just get that right. For how long were you an informer in Bloemfontein, for two years?

MR NGO: I started in 1983.

MR DU PLESSIS: So, it’s approximately three years roughly. Right, in a period of three years as an informer Mr Ngo, you met all these security branch people in Bloemfontein and I haven’t counted it but it probably close to approximately twenty or more, twenty or thirty.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think he has said he "met", Mr du Plessis has he? He said he knew these people as security branch officers there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Which could well mean he saw them in the office, somebody said who they were.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes thank you, you’re right Mr Chairman, thank you very much.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I do not appear for Mr Ngo but in fairness to the witness, I think what Mr du Plessis does not know, is that this witness was also a student constable in Bloemfontein from March and till the 19th of June when he was transferred to Ladybrand and that period has not been included in the question of Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where you a student constable in the security branch?

MR NGO: That is so, Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: So when were you in the security branch in Bloemfontein? For what period? In what capacities did you act in the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: Initially in 1985, I started with them. I can’t remember whether it was in 1986 when they transferred me to Ladybrand and after that I went to the college but throughout I’ve been working with them as a constable.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do I understand you correctly, in 1985 you joined the security branch of Bloemfontein before you went to Ladybrand. For how long were you part of that security branch?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with all due respect, can I just tell my learned friend what the facts are. We’ve gone through this in the cross-examination - we’re just wasting time. He was at school in 1985 and he finished his matric at the end of 1985. From 1983 to 1985 he was an informer of the security branch in Bloemfontein. He then was ...[inaudible] on the 11th of March 1986 as a student constable, worked from that time until the 19th of June 1986 in Bloemfontein and he was then transferred to Ladybrand. He was then admitted to the college on the - either the 9th, 10th or 11th of July 1986.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, subject to the rider that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Subject isn’t it, to the fact that he was assaulted and stabbed in 1985 as I recollect it and was then moved from where he had been at school since 1983 and was sent, was is not to Ladybrand to finish his schooling there, so there was - he did not remain permanently in the same place from 1983 to the end of 1985, there was a jump for a few months and then he came back.

MR VISSER: That is in fact correct, Mr Chairman and we believe, as from August 1985 until the end of the year.

MR MEMANI: Also Mr Chairman, the witness - the applicant himself does not make a distinction as to when he ceased to be an informer and when he became a member of the security branch. The general tenor of his evidence is that he was recruited as an informer and he always worked with the security branch.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right Mr Chairman. May I just say Mr Chairman, that for purposes of this cross-examination and for purposes of my learned friend Mr Visser’s facts that he placed before the Commission, I want to get to the point of the question because the point of the question does not turn around the question: "when did he become an informer, when did he become a student", the point of the question is

Let’s accept Mr Ngo, let’s accept that you were either an informer or a constable in the security branch of Bloemfontein in 1983. For purposes of the question, let’s accept that.

My question to you and that’s what the question relates to - my question to you is, explain to us please, why it is that when you were involved in the security branch in Bloemfontein, partly as an informer and partly as a constable, why is it that you know of so many people involved in the security branch whereas when you were two years involved intricately with the security branch in Mamelodi, you came to know only two other people? Explain that to us please.

MR NGO: The main issue here - all the names that I’ve already mentioned here, I’ve mentioned them because I’ve been working with them. Because they were present in all the operations, I knew what they have done. I didn’t work with the people I didn’t know, even in Pretoria. The names that I’ve already given are for those people which I’ve been working with them.

I didn’t give other names whom I didn’t know or work with them, I just mentioned the names of the people I knew before. I can’t make a long list of people whom I do not know, that is the answer I have. This list of names I - we used to beat people with these other people there.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis you have asked this question, you are asking it for the umpteenth time. At some stage I even in fact said to you, let me simplify this question to the witness, I simplified the question to the witness, twice I did that and he gave an answer and you’re still going back to it. You started off by taking us through a catalogue of names, only in the end to make the point: "How come that you knew so many people"? A point and you live at that point so many times and I honestly think that you need to make progress on this issue.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I’m finished with this issue, the only reason why I keep on returning to the issue is because the facts change every time because of the interjections which were really irrelevant to the question, with respect Mr Chairman but I will leave it at that, I have made the point.

Now Mr Ngo, can you explain to us exactly how a security branch operation worked when you wanted to petrol bomb a house or you got instructions to petrol bomb a house. Explain to us exactly how did it come about, how did you get your instructions, how did you prepare usually for that and exactly how was the operation done, in general terms.

MR NGO: Concerning the houses that we have bombed in Mamelodi?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I’m referring to your applications for amnesty - your various applications for amnesty pertaining to petrol bombings. I want to know from you - you were part of the security branch for two years, you must know how these things came about, how did the orders come, what happened, how did you prepare, how did you usually go out and what did you do and who did you petrol bomb? Explain that to us please.

MR NGO: What I can explain to the Commission, we went there with our petrol bombs - if you want to know what a petrol bomb is, we’ve put petrol in the bottle and with some cloths concerning the instructions given by Captain Loots and the members of MYO, we knew exactly which houses were supposed to be bombed.

We firstly started with Louisa’s house in A1 section. We went there and lit our petrol bombs and threw them through the windows and the house was burnt down. We went to the second house ...[intervention]

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Now Mr Ngo, I’m not - don’t want you to give evidence now about the specific incidents, I’m just asking in general about the operations of the security branch because you were part of it and you must know about it. What I want to know from you is, how did an instruction come about to petrol bomb a specific house? Where did the instruction come, how was it formulated, how did that happen?

MR NGO: All the instructions were from Captain Loots. After we have been reporting to him about the conditions in Mamelodi concerning the politics and all other events in politics, he instructed us that we should petrol bomb the first house of which it was the Louisa’s house. After that their neighbours requested them to make some protests against what has happened against Louisa.

We went straight to Captain Loots, that Louisa’s neighbours, they’re trying to make some protest march about the bombing of the house. When we arrived at - to him, he told us to petrol bomb the second house.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the neighbour’s house who wanted to protest?

MR NGO: That is so Sir. They were sympathising and they were talkative when we first petrol-bombed Louisa’s house.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ngo, I want to go through the separate applications just now, so don’t go into detail about these applications. What I want to know from you in general because you were part of the security branch operations, where did the instructions come from ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He has told us that when they went and reported to Captain Loots, he got instructions from Captain Loots.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I haven’t finished the question, with respect.

You have told us that you received instructions from Captain Loots, was there nobody else that you ever received instructions from?

MR NGO: All the instructions were from Captain Loots, he was the one who has given us all the instructions and we went with Dannyboy and Lelahle to go there and bomb those houses, there’s nobody apart from Captain Loots.

MR DU PLESSIS: And how were the instructions given, personally, did you go to him, did he tell it to you, did he telephone you, did he give it in writing, was it orally? Explain that to us please.

MR NGO: We went to him when Dannyboy was explaining to him. It was our duty that if we have gathered some information about the conditions in Mamelodi, we were supposed to go and brief him. Hendrik Bokaba used to brief him with the political events in Mamelodi. According to his understanding he will give us instructions that we should go back and bomb those houses.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ngo, I’m going to Mr Loots’s office you told it was in Compol building, is that correct?

MR NGO: That is so Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you tell us on which floor for instance or where this office of Loots was?

MR NGO: I can’t remember but we used to use the escalators. I can’t remember the level of that floor but I just guess it was 3rd or 4th floor.

CHAIRPERSON: Why are there security guards on duty at the building Compol, did you have to produce identification to get in?

MR NGO: Yes, there was a guy who looks like a receptionist who used to work in the main entrance. He knew us very well because we used to come there frequently.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what kind of identification did you have to produce?

MR NGO: He could recognise us as policemen because we used to put the cards but at times we didn’t use them because he knew us very well. But even if he knew us as policemen, he used to give us some certain cards that we were supposed to put before we enter.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember how many floors there were in the Compol building?

MR NGO: I can’t remember Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember anything about the ground floor of the Compol building, any outstanding feature of the ground-floor of the Compol building?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman with due respect, my learned friend is going an a fishing expedition, it appears in one of their affidavits that the applicant would have gone to the building to see Captain Loots. This is really a fishing expedition Mr Chairman, it doesn’t serve any purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: There’s a vast difference surely, between going to a building once for an interview and going to a building on an almost daily basis as the applicant says he did and I think counsel is entitled - if he disputes it, I don’t know on what basis he does - to ascertain how much he knew about the building that he visited so often. Carry on Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Can you remember any outstanding feature on the ground-floor of the Compol building?

MR NGO: There was a museum there but I didn’t pay a visit in that museum. They used to say there is a museum in that building but I never visited the area.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Now Mr Ngo, did Captain Loots ever tell you ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, that is correct Mr du Plessis, isn’t it?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct Mr Chairman, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Ngo, did Captain Loots ever tell you exactly - when he gave instructions exactly what the reason was for a specific attack, did he give you any reasons or did he just give you the order?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, the question has been answered, the second bombing took place because the neighbour organised a protest march against the first bombing. It has been said time and again.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on. Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Should I repeat the question?

MR NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: When Captain Loots gave you orders, did he ever explain to you the reason of the orders, why did you have to target a specific victim or a house?

MR NGO: When we arrived there with Hendrik Bokaba, he used to explain to Captain Loots concerning the conditions in the township. After hearing that, Captain Loots will give us some instructions that we are supposed to go and bomb Louisa’s house. After that the neighbours, they decided to start a protest - that is Nono Girl, to support the family of Louisa. After that we went back to him, I explained the conditions that they are intending to plan the march and he told us to go back and bomb the second house of which is the Nono’s house.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ngo, I’m not sure if I understand the purpose of counsel’s questioning but I think he intends to ask you not only about these two bombing of houses but also of the general practice when Captain Loots gave you instructions. I take it he told you to do a lot of other things apart from bombing the houses.

MR NGO: ...[inaudible] We were given so many instructions. We were requested just to go to the township to see the political activities and if there is a suspect who is in that area, we are supposed to arrest so that we could question and send him to Mr Loots.

If there was anybody who was organising some activities which will provoke people to cause conflict in the township - maybe he’s a good organiser, we were supposed to arrest that person and send him to Colonel Loots so that maybe we could recruit and make him an informer or work hand-in-hand with us, so that we should get more information to know exactly what was happening in other organisations or even to trace them.

If we knew how good that person is in politics - where is he going afterwards to do some observations. There were so many instructions. All the active members in politics, we were supposed to know exactly what is happening with him, his contact friends and so on.

If there was a new member who will accompany him, we’d need to know exactly who was that person and then if we suspect that person is there for political motivation, we were supposed to arrest that person to know exactly his standing point concerning the politics. Our main issue, it was not just to petrol-bomb houses but we were tracing those people who were a little bit difficult, so we were supposed to harass them, especially those who belonged to certain organisations.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you just tell us during that time in Mamelodi, which organisations were there that caused all the problems? Can you remember?

MR NGO: There were so many organisations, there was UDF and Mamelodi Organisation, even COSAS, there were members of Trade Unions and Civics, there were so many.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can’t you remember any other organisations than those you’ve mentioned? Can you remember any other organisations?

MR NGO: Those are the ones I used to know because I used to visit them a lot, I was trained to get information from those organisations.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ngo, can you turn to page 10 of bundle A please? Right, now that is your amnesty application regarding the killing of Mr Venter, I just want to ask you a few questions about this. Can you remember exactly what the message from Major Jordaan was? What exactly did the message entail, what was the message?

MR NGO: Myself and who?

MR DU PLESSIS: What was the message of Major Jordaan that you received, explain to us.

MR NGO: He said I was supposed to report to Captain Loots.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Didn’t he say anything else, was that all that he said, that you should report to Captain Loots?

MR NGO: He just told me that Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then, did you report to Captain Loots?

MR NGO: Yes, I did.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alone, or with anybody else?

MR NGO: Yes, I was alone.

MR DU PLESSIS: And exactly what did Captain Loots tell you?

MR NGO: He said I must proceed to Bloemfontein.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that all that he said?

MR NGO: He said I should go to Bloemfontein.

MR DU PLESSIS: I asked, was that all that he said, I accept that that was all that he said, am I correct?

MR NGO: He requested that I must go and report in Bloemfontein.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Now, exactly what did you do then - after he said that to you?

MR NGO: I came to Bloemfontein.

MR DU PLESSIS: How did you get to Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: I was brought by Dan Bokaba.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you drove in a vehicle, is that correct?

MR NGO: That is Hendrik Bokaba, not Dan Bokaba.

MR DU PLESSIS: And in what vehicle did you drive?

MR NGO: That’s a Ford Sierra.

MR DU PLESSIS: What did you and Bokaba discuss when you were driving to Bloemfontein, can you remember?

MR NGO: We were talking about many things, I can’t remember what. I was playing my tape, listening to music.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did Bokaba discuss with you at all, the reason why you had to go to Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: No, he just received an instruction that he must bring me to Bloemfontein, he never discussed anything extra other than that.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. And do I understand you correctly, your application says that Bokaba dropped you off at the offices of the security branch in Bloemfontein, is that correct?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because I want to put to you Mr Ngo, that Bokaba will testify that he had never taken you to Bloemfontein and in fact that he had never been to Bloemfontein before, until this week.

JUDGE NGOEPE: [...inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Pardon?

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Until the 15th of May of this year.

MR NGO: Do you mean this year?

MR DU PLESSIS: This year, yes. Bokaba says he has never been to Bloemfontein until the 15th of May this year with this amnesty application - with your amnesty application.

MR NGO: I was brought here by Bokaba. Do you mean he has never come to Bloemfontein or what’s you question? I don’t understand the direction of your question.

MR DU PLESSIS: The point I’m trying to make is that Bokaba will testify that he never took you to Bloemfontein and that the first time he had gone to Bloemfontein in his life ever, was on the 15th of May 1997.

MR NGO: I was brought here by him, he knows Bloemfontein.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. And who did you report to? Colonel Coetzee, is that right?

MR NGO: Yes, that is true.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. And what happened to Bokaba after that?

MR NGO: He dropped me here and returned back.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Now Mr Ngo, is it correct that when you went to report to Colonel Coetzee, you didn’t know at all why you were going to Bloemfontein, is that correct?

MR NGO: Yes, that is true.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the first time you heard was when Coetzee told you, when he discussed the operation with you, that was the first time you heard why you had to go to Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do I understand your application also correctly that you were specifically singled out to go to Bloemfontein to execute this operation? Do I understand that correctly?

MR NGO: From Pretoria to Bloemfontein I didn’t know why I was brought here, I was about this operation when I arrived in Bloemfontein. Nobody told me why I was brought to Bloemfontein but they just said to me I must come here and report in Bloemfontein.

MR DU PLESSIS: What I mean is, you were specifically singled out ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What he is explaining is, he doesn’t know if he was, he just knows he was told to come here.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ngo, the way your amnesty application is set out, is that you were given instructions to go and eliminate Mr Venter by Colonel Coetzee. Now, what I’m trying to - or let me rephrase the question then, who else had to eliminate Mr Venter or were you the only person who was given instructions to eliminate Mr Venter?

CHAIRPERSON: How does he know, how does he know that Colonel Coetzee didn’t ask half a dozen other people to do it and they all refused? He cannot answer questions of that nature Mr du Plessis, he can only - you can only ask him what happened when he was there or what he has knowledge of.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, I’m asking him about what he has knowledge of Mr Chairman, that is the point of the question. The point of the question is Mr Ngo, were you the only person that you - let me put it that way, were you the only person that you know of who was given instructions to eliminate Mr Venter?

MR NGO: When I arrived here, I went straight to Colonel Coetzee and when I was with him, two officers arrived who is Shaw and Erasmus, they knew that I was supposed to carry out that operation. Those are the people I know that they knew - that they knew the arrangements of my participation in that operation to eliminate Mr Venter because I discussed with him about the operation together with Colonel Coetzee.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Ngo, and when Colonel Coetzee told you about Mr Venter you saw that it was the Mr Venter that you knew?

MR NGO: Yes, he showed me a photo that this is the one, the person we’re talking about, then the photo was written with a marking pen P D Venter, then I realised that this is the person that when I was attacked, Erasmus took me to him for accommodation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you ever told Mr Ngo, why you were asked to go to Bloemfontein specifically to be asked to eliminate Mr Venter, were you ever told the reason why you were decided upon?

MR NGO: Yes, I was told about the reason.

MR DU PLESSIS: What were you told?

MR NGO: The first reason - if I would generalise, one of them was that Mr Venter doesn’t co-operate with them anymore, he has severed the relationship with them and secondly he was involved with the railway struggles.

MR DU PLESSIS: But why you Mr Ngo, why you? Why were - did they ever tell you why they decided to use you for this operation?

MR NGO: I wouldn’t know because I was just called and given the instructions and I was given the reasons. I would never question the instructions which are given by my seniors. If I would ask them why the decided to use me, they would think that I was against them.

If you are given instructions, you just obey those instructions and you should do the way you were taught. Why he decided that I should do that operation, I don’t know - they knew the reasons why because they knew who is the right person to do the operation.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis, what does your client - what is your client’s interest in - have in the amnesty regarding to Mr Venter - ...[inaudible] of Mr Venter?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I’m not going further in the events of the - I’m not going to cross-examine further in the events of Mr Venter. It just turns around the question of Colonel Loots sending Mr Ngo to Bloemfontein and the probabilities surrounding that issue and all I’m asking is, I’m asking about the probabilities to establish the probability of Mr Ngo being the person who was identified to carry out this operation. And I’ve got one or two questions further questions further questions on this issue and then I’m finished with that Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well perhaps yes, you should because you’ve already spent quite a few days on the Venter issue.

MR DU PLESSIS: I know Mr Chairman, but this specific part where my client’s are involved was not dealt with fully. I know and I’ve read the record about those questions. I won’t go into the detail of the operation itself, I just want to establish the probabilities of Mr Ngo having being sent there. If you’ll just give me that opportunity please.

Now Mr Ngo, did Colonel Loots - Colonel Coetzee, did they know that you knew Mr Venter, did you tell them?

CHAIRPERSON: Erasmus was the man who took him to Venter, Erasmus was in the office. Wasn’t he?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, but ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. All right Mr Chairman. Now ...[inaudible]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis, you were present when we made a ruling in Pretoria that people implicated do not have an automatic right to cross-examine witnesses but we have never denied people implicated, the right to cross-examine but that must be - must remain within reasonable limits. You are no longer within reasonable limits with your questions.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, I accept that Mr Chairman, does that mean that I have to stop my cross-examination Mr Chairman?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Unless you can show why you should go into this issue of Venter - you’ve spent quite a number of days. In fact he has never said that Loots told him that he was to go to Bloemfontein to commit any crime, he has not implicated Captain Loots.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, but I had to establish obviously exactly what was told. Now ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You have.

MR DU PLESSIS: I have established that Mr Chairman, I know. That’s the reason why I asked those questions. Now the question is Mr Chairman, and I will then deal with the object of the cross-examination and ask the Committee if I should be allowed to ask these questions. The question arising from the ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, the learned member ...[inaudible] Judge Ngoepe, Mr Loots wasn’t implicated in any offence as far as the going to Bloemfontein is concerned, he conveyed the message: "Go to Bloemfontein". There’s no suggestion ever made that he - that Mr Loots knew that he was going to Bloemfontein to commit a murder or do something illegal at all but if you carry on maybe you’ll be - you’ll succeed in proving that, I don’t know.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the only question I wanted to ask ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the other difficulty that I have is that a Judge has made a ruling that my learned friend is out of order and that if he wishes to continue this submission with these questions, he must make submission as to why he is within reasonable limits. He chooses to ignore that and says he will explain later but he has not made submissions to justify why he should continue with this line of examination.

Now I propose that he must make those submissions and justify why he should continue with this line of cross-examination.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It’s not a ruling Mr Memani, it’s not a ruling by the Chair but obviously Mr du Plessis knows that. That is the problem that a member of the Committee has and I am sure he will bear in mind, if he wants to proceed on the question of Venter, he will bear in mind my views.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I be afforded the opportunity to explain why I want to ask one further question to the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, what is it you ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the only question or the only point that I would like to deal with, is the probability why Captain Loots would have sent Mr Ngo to Bloemfontein to execute this operation where Mr Ngo knew Mr Venter ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Are the probabilities not overwhelming, that Erasmus said: "the man to do the job is Ngo, let’s find him and get him sent back here".

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the probability turns around the question why a person who knows the victim and could be linked to the victim would be asked to execute the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he can get into the house and sit down with the victim sitting peacefully in the chair in front of him when he executes him, as he did.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, we know about evidence of previous incidents such as this, exactly how the operations of the security branch worked and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: And nothing whatsoever to suggest on the information set out here or anywhere else, that Loots was remotely involved. There was no suggestion of that sort and you go on and on. As Mr de Jager put, any moment you might step onto a landmine but let us not waste any further time on something that is totally irrelevant to your client. You are here representing certain implicated parties and as my brother pointed out to you, we have ruled that they are entitled to be heard within reasonable limits, not to investigate the entire story.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I accept that and I will then accept that I cannot ask any further questions about Mr Venter and I will not do so.

Now Mr Ngo, can you turn to page - Mr Chairman may I enquire, does that also mean that I cannot put anything else about the version of Colonel Loots and Mr Bokaba to the witness about Mr Venter?

CHAIRPERSON: Well if they say they didn’t send him to Bloemfontein, you can certainly put it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, because I wanted to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I just for purpose of completeness Mr Ngo, please take you to the affidavit of Colonel Loots, page 44 - that is Bokaba’s affidavit. Let me deal with that first. Have you got that?

MR NGO: Page 44, A,B,C, bundle A ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, that is bundle B Mr Ngo.

MR NGO: I have it Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ngo, what I’m going to put to you is that Bokaba says in paragraph 3.1, he denies that he was ever involved in the transportation of yourself to Bloemfontein. 3.2, he says that he - he denies that he ever received instructions from Colonel Loots to effect such a transportation of Mr Ngo. What do you say about that?

MR NGO: That is not true, he transported me to Bloemfontein.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, then if we turn to page 49, well it goes actually over to page 50, Colonel Loots says that he denies that he ever gave instructions directly or indirectly to you with reference to the Venter incident in Bloemfontein. He denies further that he sent Bokaba - gave Bokaba instructions to take you to Bloemfontein and he denies that he had any knowledge of any operation in Bloemfontein at that time. What do you say about that?

MR NGO: I was instructed by him, he told Bokaba to transfer me to Bloemfontein. Concerning the operation in Bloemfontein, really I know nothing about it because he didn’t tell me that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you very much. Can we turn to page 43 of bundle A please? Have you got that?

MR NGO: I have it Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you see it is - it deals with the application of Louisa Mbongo, do you see that?

MR NGO: I do.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Now, can you tell us exactly what did you know about Louisa Mbongo?

MR NGO: I used to know here as a member of MYO.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, and did you give any information about her to Captain Loots?

MR NGO: I knew here through Bokaba?

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you give any information about her to Captain Loots?

MR NGO: They knew about here already.

MR DU PLESSIS: So I accept you didn’t give any information, you personally about her to Captain Loots, is that right?

MR NGO: As I was monitoring her movements together with Bokaba to know exactly where she is and where does she attend the meetings, that is where we were involved and what was happening about her life.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. And exactly what was the instruction that you received pertaining to this incident?

MR NGO: We were instructed to go and bomb their house.

MR DU PLESSIS: Why was that, why did you receive that instruction, do you know?

MR NGO: She was problematic, she was a real problem. At school she used to organise other scholars at schools so that they should boycott schools. There were so many things that she was involved in, that is why when we continued reporting to Captain Loots, he decided that we should go back and bomb the house.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. And was that told to you by anybody when you received the instruction, was that told to you as the reason?

MR NGO: What type of reasons?

MR DU PLESSIS: I’m asking, were you told that what you’ve testified now were given as the reasons why you had to bomb her house?

MR NGO: They were real problematic because they were members of MYO. The very same organisation of MYO was problematic. We used to monitor them and report that to Captain Loots, to let him know exactly what are they doing in the township. There we got instructions that we are supposed to go and bomb the house. This was in connection of the information given to Captain Loots by myself and Bokaba.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now you see, if I can just put to you what Bokaba says about this. If I can take you to bundle B, page 45, all right, he says on page 45 that he denies that himself and Danny Selahla was involved in a petrol bombing in the Mamelodi district where you were present, he says that you were not a member of the security branch and never a trusted member of the operations of the security police, Northern Transvaal branch at the time.

He says, 3.4, that any of the houses where he was named by you, that you were supposedly involved in, he denies that he was ever involved in such a bombing. And he goes further and says, as far as his knowledge goes by the members of the security branch, Northern Transvaal. What do you say to that?

MR NGO: We were together when we attacked those houses and we have done all these events together. I can’t say anything more than what I’ve already said.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, and then what I want to put to you is what Colonel Loots says on page 51 of bundle B, paragraph 3.4, he confirms the correctness of what Bokaba says and then he says further he denies that he ever gave an instruction to Bokaba, Selahla or yourself to bomb any house referred to in your application. What do you say to that?

MR NGO: He gave us instructions.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. Now Mr Ngo, you don’t say on page 43 in respect of this application that you received an order from anybody, you only say in respect of the next application at the bottom of page 43, the third last line, you say Captain Loots then said we should petrol bomb his house too. That is the neighbour of Louisa Mbongo’s house. Now, can ...[intervention]

MR NGO: Page 43, bundle what?

MR DU PLESSIS: Bundle A, bundle A.

MR NGO: What was your question Sir?

MR DU PLESSIS: My question is, you say - you don’t say anything on page 43 about the attack on Louisa Mbongo’s house, about who gave you the order. The only thing you say is in respect of the neighbour of Louisa Mbongo who you attacked - you say that Captain Loots said - the second last line

"Captain Loots said we should petrol bomb his house too 3 weeks after the attack of the house of Louisa"

Now, can we accept that you never received an instruction from Captain Loots to bomb Louisa Mbongo’s house?

MR NGO: We were given instructions as I’ve already explained. According to the information given to him, he instructed us that we are supposed to bomb Louisa’s house.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see because your application doesn’t say that Mr Ngo.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] last sentence Mr du Plessis, what does that mean?

"Captain Loots then said we should petrol bomb his house too 3 weeks after the attack at the house of Louisa".

MR DU PLESSIS: That’s what I’m trying to clear up Mr Chairman. I’m trying to clear up if that refers to an order of Loots in respect of the first incident or not and what I’m putting to the witness is, it doesn’t say specifically - you have to deduct it from that but it doesn’t say specifically that: "We received an order from Captain Loots to bomb Louisa Mbongo’s house".

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, Louisa’s house.

MR DU PLESSIS: Louisa’s house, that’s what the question relates to .

ADV DE JAGER: Am I correct in saying, he’s saying that Loots instructed him to bomb the neighbour’s house?

MR DU PLESSIS: I understood him to say that Loots also said that he gave instructions to bomb Louisa’s house.

Did Loots give you instructions to bomb Louisa Mbongo’s house?

MR NGO: We were supposed to bomb Louisa’s house. Louisa and Mbongo is one person, Mbongo is her surname.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I know but my question is, did Loots give you an instruction to bomb Louisa Mbongo’s house - yes or no?

MR NGO: Yes. After bombing the house, he didn’t instruct us to bomb the second house but we were just supposed to bomb the first house. After bombing that one, the neighbours went away complaining. When we reported to him he told us to go back and bomb the second house.

CHAIRPERSON: In fairness to the applicant Mr du Plessis, don’t you think you should refer to his earlier application and at Exhibit C, bundle A, page 13 where he says

"The house of a MYO member known as Nono Gint, A1 section, Mamelodi West, the house Louisa Mbongo, section Mamelodi West, the house of Rebecca Mothokoane, the house of Sandra Mathabathe - we petrol-bombed all these houses on the instructions of Captain Loots of the security branch of Pretoria"

MR DU PLESSIS: But that’s the point Mr Chairman, I was coming to that. He says that in that application but in the later application, he doesn’t specifically say that there was an instruction from Captain Loots and that was the question I was coming to, why does he - why is there a difference between the two and is there a difference?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn’t it a dramatical difference, as my brother has pointed out to you when he says: "He told us to do this too", doesn’t that mean "as well"?

MR DU PLESSIS: Right Mr Chairman, I will accept that and leave it at that.

Mr Ngo, in respect of the application on page 45, can you - do you know the reason why this application was withdrawn?

MR NGO: May you repeat your question Sir?

MR DU PLESSIS: What is the reason why this ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: But Mr Chair, what is the relevance of the reason of why an application has been withdrawn if it has been withdrawn?

CHAIRPERSON: I consider it may well be relevant, he may well suggest that he has made applications for matters for matters that he knew might not be covered.

MR MEMANI: But ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It affects his credibility and whether he has made a full disclosure. Carry on.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Why was this application withdrawn Mr Ngo? It’s the application of Sandra Mathabathe.

MR NGO: Can you please refer that question to my counsel, he is the one I think who’s supposed to answer that question.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, because you see on page 45, the 4th line you say - 3rd and 4th line - well let’s read that, you say

"During 1988 a personal clash between me, Nelson Ngo with a MYO member named Sandra who accused my girlfriend at the time Efolia Dekgali, of having an affair with a policeman, caused me to bear a grudge against her which resulted me throwing his home with four petrol bombs because I personally requested two members of the riot unit"

And then it goes on. Now, it says that you did this out of a personal grudge, do you see that? Is that correct?

MR NGO: You have mentioned about gangsters, what is happening with them? What was the main issue with the gangsters?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Ngo, you applied for this incident, you say that you bore a grudge against this Sandra and then that you bombed the house as a result of the grudge. Now, is that correct or is that not correct?

MR NGO: That is true that there’s nothing I - which I would add. That’s how I explained to the Committee, that’s what has happened. Why should I say I received instructions if I did it myself because of the mistakes he did - she did against me and even the threats she did to my girlfriend.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Ngo, what I want to put to you is, I don’t know why this was withdrawn but the probability is that it was withdrawn because it was an incident as a result of a personal grudge and not resulting out of the political motivation. Do you agree with that?

MR NGO: I don’t know. I put an application telling this Committee the truth of what I took part in. Whether they - it was because of the grudge or what, that would depend on the Committee on their discretion to make a ruling or judgement in those incidents because nobody gave me any instructions to do some of those things. I just said somebody is threatening my girlfriend and because I was a police, I was supposed to do something to eliminate so that she should stop to continue harassing my girlfriend. Whom should I point - whom should I shift that responsibility to because nobody gave me an instruction to do that thing?

CHAIRPERSON: The point you make is, nobody gave you instructions so you didn’t say they did. You said nobody gave you instructions so you didn’t point to anybody here, it was something you did yourself.

MR NGO: Yes, that is true.

CHAIRPERSON: What’s Sandra’s other name?

MR NGO: That is Mathabathe, Sandra Mathabathe.

CHAIRPERSON: The person whom you referred to in your original application for amnesty which is bundle C(a), page 13, where you say

"It was one of the houses you petrol-bombed on the instructions of Captain Loots"

Can you explain that Mr Ngo? You have just told us you received no instructions and you couldn’t point to anybody but in your original - if you will look at bundle C, you know that you applied for amnesty and you said:

"We petrol- bombed all these houses on the instructions of Captain Loots"

MR NGO: I explained to the Committee that - how I petrol-bombed this house, so I would not change that.

CHAIRPERSON: In your application which was typed out which is before you if you want to look at it, you said you were given instructions to petrol-bomb this house by Captain Loots. You have just told us that that is not true, can you explain why you made this original statement?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, on my reading of A13, the - no, there is a reference to Mathabathe there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it’s quite clear. You have no answer Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: I have an answer Sir. I was making a list of the houses I petrol-bombed - if you look carefully, you will see that it is written. I was explaining what was happening, which houses I petrol-bombed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And you explained that you did so on the instructions of Captain Loots.

MR NGO: It appears like that but I explained later in the application that what did I do those things and the instructions from Captain Loots which he has given were meant for three people, the houses of three people.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn’t, you said the all - you put the four houses ...[intervention]

MR NGO: I agree with the Chairperson when he says to me, in the application I spoke that all the instructions I received from Captain Loots but I explained that the house of Sandra Mathabathe, I did that on my own because she was threatening my girlfriend.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So, what appears on page 13 is a mistake?

MR NGO: Yes, about Sandra Mathabathe, yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Are you saying yes, it’s a mistake?

MR NGO: Yes, on the name of Sandra Mathabathe.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why don’t you have the courage to admit a mistake where there is a mistake?

MR NGO: Yes, it is a mistake which I did to include Sandra Mathabathe on that list.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You should have said so when my brother asked you questions.

MR NGO: Okay.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why do you lack the courage to admit mistakes where you made mistakes?

MR NGO: I was explaining only that it was a mistake to include that house.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You come with ...[inaudible] answers instead of simply admit - saying: "I have made a mistake".

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ngo, if you turn to page 44, the second paragraph, you will see that you say there

"The other two members of MYO who had their houses burnt because of their political activities were Rebecca Mothokoane and Sandra Mathabathe"

Now that also conflicts with your evidence now that the house was bombed because of the fact that you bore a grudge, isn’t it?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it conflicts with he next page of his application, it’s not the same sort of change at all, he immediately in the application set out the motive for that, doesn’t he?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, it conflicts with the second page or the next page, page 45 as well Mr Chairman, it directly conflicts with that as well.

Can you explain that to us Mr Ngo?

MR NGO: I don’t understand how you say they were conflicting and which paragraph you’re talking about.

MR DU PLESSIS: On page 44 you say that you burnt the house because of the political activities of Sandra Mathabathe and on page 45 you say that you bore a grudge against her which resulted in you throwing the house with four petrol bombs. Now which one is true, was it because of her political activities or because of the grudge?

MR NGO: That’s a mistake I made to include her on that list, I explained that as the Chairperson was explaining that I was - I must accept that I made a mistake. Other three houses we received instructions but Sandra Mathabathe’s house, I petrol-bombed together with Duiker because she was threatening my girlfriend.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Mr ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: How did you convince your two - the other two members who were accompanied you to through the petrol bomb at Sandra’s house, what did you tell them? From where did you get instructions? Why were they prepared to accompany you in throwing bombs at Sandra’s house?

MR NGO: I took them as my escort and they knew that I was going to petrol-bomb that house because she was threatening my girlfriend, then I went there and I petrol-bombed the house and they didn’t take part in the incident.

ADV DE JAGER: But they accompanied you knowing that you’re going to bomb the house?

MR NGO: Yes, I told them that I have a grudge against her and they knew that I was going to petrol-bomb the house but I didn’t show them directly that - for them to see that I petrol-bombed that - a particular house but they were an escort.

ADV DE JAGER: Who were they?

CHAIRPERSON: Members of the riot unit.

MR NGO: Duiker and Nkune.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now you see Mr Ngo, on page 13 of bundle C ...[intervention]

MR NGO: Which page Sir?

MR DU PLESSIS: Page 13 in bundle C, you include this incident as an incident - page 13 - you see you say at paragraph B - paragraph A

"Within a period of three weeks, Sergeant Bokaba, Constable Selahla and I while working as a team in Mamelodi, petrol-bombed the houses in the following sections"

And then you include Sandra Mathabathe in that list but here on page 45 of bundle B, you don’t say that Bokaba and Selahla accompanied you. Now which one is wrong? Which version is wrong?

MR NGO: The mistake is one, is that I included Sandra Mathabathe’s name among the names of the list which I received instructions.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right, but you see the mistake goes further, the last paragraph on page 13, you say the following"

"I confirm that the above-mentioned include all operations of illegal nature that I had been involved in. I respectfully submit that none of these acts were done of my own accord or to my own advantage. All acts were committed in the time of my duty and on instructions of members of the security branch who held higher ranks me and whose instructions I was bound to obey"

So, must we accept that that was also a mistake, to have included Sandra Mathabathe in that list and the last paragraph is therefore not correct?

MR NGO: I was writing the way I knew. I was writing the way I wanted to explain to the Committee, I didn’t know then that I supposed to put it aside and make a different paragraph in that regard. I accept it that that is the mistake I made, I included that name. I would not tell the Committee that I committed that operation with an instruction though I didn’t receive any instructions to do that. I received instructions for other operations except this house, that is a different case altogether.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see Mr Ngo, on page 46 you repeated the mistake in your second application where you said: "I confirm" - the last paragraph

"I confirm that the above-mentioned including all operations of illegal nature that I had been involved in but were ...[inaudible]-convicted of all the acts committed. I respectfully submit that none of these acts were done of my own accord and to my own advantage, all the acts were committed in the time of duty and on instruction of members of the security branch who held higher ranks than me and whose instruction I was bound to obey"

So, is it correct that the mistake was repeated in your later application?

MR NGO: What I would explain is that I was writing an application legally as I explained. If it happened that I included that incident as I said, I included it by mistake in that list and in my application, that is the mistake I accept. I would not change that thing I received instructions, it’s a different case as to other cases.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ngo on page 13 of bundle C, you say in paragraph B - A, in the middle of that page, you say

"Within a period of three weeks Sergeant Bokaba and Constable Selahla and you petrol-bombed the houses"

Now, that was in 1987 to 1988, is that correct? Do you say that there?

MR NGO: Yes, I said that. I was making an estimation of the period which I thought it was right, I was not cocksure of the period but we started in 1987. It was the period I have given.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, and then on page 10 of bundle A, the fifth line from the bottom - page 10, this is the application of Venter which was committed in January 1989, - the fifth line from the bottom, you say

"I was transported to Bloemfontein by Constable Hendrik Bokaba with a state vehicle"

Do you see that? You say he was a Constable in 1989 but in your first application you say he was already a Sergeant in 1987 to 1988 - in bundle C. Was that also a mistake? ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, I don’t think that he says that he was a Sergeant already then - what is fair to put is that you refer to him as a Sergeant, why do you refer to him as a Sergeant?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that’s fair.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He consistently refers to Colonel Coetzee in his application when he has time and again in his evidence said that at that time he was a Major.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I’m pointing that out for purposes of the improbability of him being involved in the security branch. He would have known when he worked with Bokaba, according to his own evidence for more than two years, he would have known when Bokaba was a Constable and when he was a Sergeant. And according to this he was demoted, I’m just pointing that out for what the value of that was. The answer was however put into the witnesses mouth by my learned friend and I won’t take it further than that unless the Committee wants the witness to answer to this.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ngo, could you kindly tell us why did refer to him as a Sergeant in 1987 and as a Constable in 1988?

MR NGO: It happened that whilst I was writing I would make mistakes about people’s ranks. That is just a question of a mere mistake but I knew the name of the person.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Now Mr Ngo, ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: What is Mr Bokaba’s rank now?

MR DU PLESSIS: He’s a Captain now Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: When did he become a Captain?

MR DU PLESSIS: Recently Mr Chairman, as far as I know. I will just get 100% instructions, I know sort of, I just want to make 100% sure. Mr Chairman, I see it’s 10 past 11, perhaps Sir, if we can take the tea break I can give you the exact dates of his - of the ranks that he held at what time.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, we’ll take the adjournment now.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

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

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ngo, can you turn to page 46, bundle A please and page 13 of bundle C.

MR NGO: Page ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Page 46, bundle A and page 13 of bundle C. Have you got that?

MR NGO: I’ve got it.

MR DU PLESSIS: This is the application pertaining to the security guard officer and I want to ask you a few questions about that. What was the reason Mr Ngo, why the security guard had to be picked up?

MR NGO: We were told that he provides security for people who are members of certain organisations in the hostel. He was identified by Hendrik Bokaba when we were together.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now, on page 13 of bundle C, you said that

"You got out of the minibus, started chasing him but he ran into the Pubma bottle store"

You said:

"Sergeant Bokaba said we must shoot him, we fired several shots at him and he fell and stand up, run through the bottle store"

Is that correct, is that what happened?

MR NGO: I said he told us to shoot him, I didn’t say he shoot him.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right, but you see what you say there in page 13, bundle C, you say

"Sergeant Bokaba said we must shoot him, we fired several shots at him"

That is what you said there, is that not correct?

MR NGO: We shoot in his direction.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now, did you fire shots or didn’t you fire shots?

MR NGO: We did shoot at his direction.

MR DU PLESSIS: And where was he when he fell?

MR NGO: He was running towards the bottle store after we fired at him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see, because you say in Annexure C, page 13, you say

"We started chasing him but he ran into Pubma bottle store"

And then you say:

"Sergeant Bokaba said we must him and we fired several shots at him, he fell and stand up and run through the bottle store"

Now, the way you set it out, he was already in the bottle store when you fired shots at him and he fell and he ran through the bottle store, is that not correct?

MR NGO: He was running facing to the bottle store but he didn’t enter into the bottle store.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did he never enter the bottle store or did he enter the bottle store at some stage?

MR NGO: He didn’t enter the bottle store.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now you say on page 13, you say

"and stand up, run through the bottle store. Sergeant Bokaba said we must leave him"

Is that not correct then?

MR NGO: He passes nearby the bottle store. I’m not an English speaking person. I didn’t manage to write a perfect English. If it might happen it’s a mistake when I was supposed to explain that he just passed by the bottle store, I made a mistake of language.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, because in your later application on page 46, you say

"when I got out of the motor vehicle, I called him and then - and when he recognised the man, ran away, I then picked out my firearm and shoot to his direction and he run to the direction of the shopping complex in Pubma bottle store in Mamelodi and fall amongst the peoples there and Hendrik then said we must leave him anyway, we have hit him"

Mr Chairman, that’s not my English, I’m reading from the statement, I just want to make that clear.

Now Mr Ngo, we see in your application you don’t say anything about him running through the bottle store or that he ran into the bottle store, now was that a mistake here in your first application?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, this is not fair, he hasn’t previously said that he ran into a bottle store, he’s explained that the use the word through massive imperfect English.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, all right. Now, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think what counsel was putting to him was what he in fact said in his previous application which was, he ran into the bottle store and he ran through the bottle store. He says in his application, he ran into the bottle store. Have you not read that?

MR MEMANI: Yes, but he says - he does explain that he never actually got into the bottle store.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s what counsel is really asking him about that explanation. What he originally wrote in his written application was, he ran into the bottle store and then he says, he ran through the bottle store and that’s what counsel’s asking him about. Carry on Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can you explain to us Mr Ngo why you referred in your - in the written application, bundle C, that you ran into store and through the bottle store and why didn’t you say that in your later application?

CHAIRPERSON: Well hasn’t explained that he says his knowledge of English is such that he may have written the wrong thing down?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I just want to make sure what the explanation is Mr Chairman.

Or let me put it to you there’s a difference, can you explain it to us?

MR NGO: He was running towards the bottle store and he fell among the people but stood up and ran away again. That is where Bokaba told me not to pursue him any longer, we thought we have shot him. Even today, I didn’t know whether we have managed to shoot him or not because we didn’t examine him afterwards, what has happened.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see Mr Ngo, I find that strange because you say in your - in both versions you say

"Upon our follow-up we found out that the man was admitted to hospital in Mamelodi and no trace of this case was made against me"

So you found out that he was admitted to hospital? And you said in bundle C, you said:

"We found out that he was has been admitted to Mamelodi hospital with hand and leg injuries"

That’s contradictory to what you testified now.

MR NGO: I say we saw him, he was admitted because we went there but we didn’t enter into the hospital to see where he was shot so that we should confirm or know exactly where we have shoot him but definitely he was admitted at the hospital.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr du Plessis, is the purpose of your cross-examination to show that your client was not involved in the shooting, or is the purpose of your cross-examination in fact to go further to show that the incident never happened?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the purpose of the cross-examination goes further to the extent that my client denies that such an incident ever took place where he was involved in. I’m not saying that the incident never took place, all I’m trying to do is I’m trying to place a question mark upon the evidence of the witness so as to be able to argue at the end of the day that where he says that my client was involved in this incident, cannot be true.

If certain other aspects of his evidence in doubtful then it also becomes doubtful if my client was ever involved in this matter. And I’m simply pointing out contradictions to be able to argue to you at the end of the day that the probability that Bokaba was involved, is next to nothing Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, but then I think you should know what the purpose is and limit yourself to that because I - whether the person ran through the bottle store or out of the bottle store, I don’t thing that - if you client was not involved in the incident at all, whether for example the chap ran through the bottle store or not, I don’t see that having any bearing on it.

But I just think that we’re not sure now whether you want to argue that this incident did not take place at all, in which case we should know why you say that, or you are just asking questions generally.

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, I’m trying to point out that there are certain discrepancies in his evidence. To be able to say that at the end of the day when he testifies that Bokaba was present at that incident, he cannot be believed in respect of that point. Now, if there are contradictions in his evidence pertaining to this whole issue, it points simply to the credibility - his credibility also on the question, was Bokaba present?

But I will leave it, I’ve made the point Mr Chairman, I won’t go further than that. I do not - I have no factual basis on which I can dispute that this incident took place, the only dispute I have with this witness is the fact that he says that Bokaba and Selahla were present, which is denied.

And I want to put to you Mr Ngo, that both Mr - both Bokaba and Selahla in their affidavits and I don’t think that I have to go back to the affidavits, deny that they were ever present with this incident. I put that to you, what is your answer to that?

MR NGO: They were present. I can’t even think who were there unless if I can tell you the two gentlemen who were there - Bokaba was there, we performed that incident together.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, and what I also want to put to you Mr Ngo and that is simply something that I will argue, is that I find it improbable that what you say on page 13, bundle C that

"All the petrol bombings you were involved in with Bokaba and Selahla happened within a period of three weeks"

Where you worked with them together for more that two years. I find that improbable.

MR MEMANI: That’s a matter for argument Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, now what I want to put to you is the evidence of Bokaba will be that he became a Constable in the South African police in 1982, that he became a Sergeant in 1990 and that he became a Captain in July 1997. I put that to you, do you dispute that?

MR NGO: I really don’t know when he was promoted that Bokaba, but the first time when he was introduced to me they told me it’s Constable Bokaba and I accepted the matter as it was, I didn’t take his identity card to know exactly in which rank he was but we were working at the same rank, that is how I used to knew him. I didn’t know when he was promoted, that is something new in my understanding.

CHAIRPERSON: From that, do I understand that he was a Constable until 1990 - all the time he could have worked with this applicant, he could only have been a Constable.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, that’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that he - who told you that he had become a Sergeant?

MR NGO: Personally, I knew him as Constable Bokaba. After a while when I phoned Adjudant at barracks - it was my ID book where I was supposed to have my money, he told me that is Sergeant Bokaba. In other words, I knew after I’d been sentenced because I was supposed to get my ID, that is when I knew that he was Sergeant Bokaba and I was phoning from prison during that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Ngo, I’m going to put to you simply that - for purposes of clarity, that Bokaba and Selahla deny that they were ever part of any petrol-bombings with you and that Loots denied that he ever gave any instructions for you to be involved in any petrol-bombings at all. I put that to you, what is your reaction?

MR NGO: If I’m supposed to explain - we shouldn’t have go and attack various houses without obtaining instructions. Understand that when you get instructions from the officers it’s verbal that we are supposed to go and do some - certain activities, it’s not been written so that it must be used as statement or affidavit so that we’re supposed to sign.

That in such a day we went to Colonel Loots to be given instructions, what is happening here. Those people were not arrested because of those incidents. I came here to the Truth Commission and they realised that they are going to deny all those activities if myself as Colonel Loots, I’ve given the instructions and knowing that it was wrong to petrol-bomb houses while they were asleep.

I shouldn’t have agreed with those instructions and even Ngo won’t be able to prove that I’ve given those instructions because they refused those activities. I’m really surprised how will I volunteer to attack those houses in Mamelodi and even here in Bloemfontein making those petrol bombs for my own benefit or reward, what was the main purpose of that? That is the only thing I can give to you so far.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Ngo, Captain Loots and Bokaba are applying for amnesty for incidents which are far worse than these petrol-bombings that you are mentioning here and I just put it to you that it is improbable that they - where they have applied for amnesty in respect of all the incidents they were involved in, they would not have applied for these incidents. So, I put it to you that it is improbable that they were ever involved in these incidents that you applied for amnesty for.

MR NGO: Captain Loots has given us some instructions and we did follow those instructions together with those people I was working with them. I’m not here in front of the Commission saying Captain Loots petrol-bombed the houses but he has given us some instructions to bomb the houses and even providing us with suitable reasons.

CHAIRPERSON: If you are going to carry on with that argument, we should get copies of the application shouldn’t we, we should arrange for the copies of these applications to be made available.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, the applications have been handed to the Truth Commission, we don’t have the applications with us now obviously but that can be arranged - there shouldn’t be a problem with that. Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman, I won’t be long.

Mr Ngo, I just want you to help me in regard to the - to clarification of matters relating to Mr White Mohapi. You’ve told

the Committee that Mohapi was a source of considerable irritation to the security branch because of his political activities, is that correct?

MR NGO: That is true.

MR BRINK: And if my memory serves me correctly, you said he was arrested from time to time.

MR NGO: That is true.

MR BRINK: Are you able to tell the Committee, as far as you remember, how many times he was arrested?

MR NGO: I’m not able to tell the Committee how many times he was arrested but I would only explain to the Committee that he was arrested for public violence during the state of emergency incitement and things like that, so he was arrested many times in regard to those acts I’ve mentioned.

MR BRINK: Four of five time?

MR NGO: It may be so or more than there, I’m not able to verify that.

MR BRINK: You say he was arrested for public violence and he was taken to court and charged with public violence?

MR NGO: There are other incidents where he was arrested and ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: No, no, please just listen to the question and we’ll get finished more quickly, just listen to the question and please answer it. How many times - you say he was arrested for public violence, was he taken to court and charged with public violence - either he was or he wasn’t?

MR NGO: He liked throwing stones and he was arrested, taken to the police station. I was not investigating that but I know that he was arrested for public violence, I don’t know as whether he was prosecuted for that or not but I know that he was arrested for public violence.

MR BRINK: Was he arrested for any other criminal offence to your knowledge?

MR NGO: Yes, that is true.

MR BRINK: What?

MR NGO: That is the time when they stabbed me.

MR BRINK: And he was acquitted?

MR NGO: No - yes, he was acquitted.

MR BRINK: Was he arrested for any other criminal offence to your knowledge?

MR NGO: Yes, he was arrested during the state of emergency. You are not taken to court during the state of emergency.

MR BRINK: No, no, no, please listen ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Mr Brink, let the witness finish, it may not be the right answer ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: I’m not prepared to allow the witness to evade the answer to my question, my question is a simple one and please answer it.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I think ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: Please, don’t interrupt me Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: Sir, I’m entitled to object ...[intervention]

MR BRINK: Please, do not interrupt me Mr Memani.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you objecting to Mr Memani?

MR MEMANI: I’m objecting to him inter - asking the next question before the first question - the answer is finished.

CHAIRPERSON: You have now objected on that ground repeatedly and I think on every single occasion, the applicant has confirmed that he’d already given his answer.

MR MEMANI: But on this occasion he was still answering.

MR BRINK: He was not answering me, he was evading my question. Please let me continue.

You have told us that he was arrested for public violence and you don’t know the outcome of that case, is that correct or is it not correct?

MR NGO: Yes, that is true.

MR BRINK: You told us he was arrested for assault in relation to you and he was acquitted.

MR NGO: That is true.

MR BRINK: To your knowledge, was he arrested in respect to any other criminal offence?

MR NGO: No, I don’t know.

MR BRINK: Well, now let’s get to the security arrests. How many times to your knowledge, was he arrested under security laws and detained?

MR NGO: Around ‘85 and ‘86, he was arrested.

MR BRINK: How many times, was my question?

JUDGE NGOEPE: He said he didn’t know, he said four to five times - he didn’t know, he can’t remember, he can’t say.

MR BRINK: Are you able to give any indication as to whether he was arrested under security legislation more than once?

MR NGO: I wouldn’t know, he was arrested in any instances. When I arrived I would find him detained in the cell with other officers except us. I would not know why he was detained or arrested, he was detained many times. I wouldn’t know the results of those detentions because we’re not only engaged in him, we were engaged with other people.

MR BRINK: But you’ve told the Committee he was detained on many occasions under security legislation.

MR NGO: Yes, I did say that. When he was arrested at Hilton police station, that was the other incident where he was detained under security laws.

MR BRINK: So, if he was arrested under security legislation on a number of occasions, it follows does it not, that he must have been released on a number of occasions.

MR NGO: Yes, he was acquitted in many instances and at times he was arrested for 14 days, then from there released. I didn’t know the people who were detaining him under those security laws, it was not myself but there were senior officers like Shaw and Erasmus. I was just helping them that he should be detained and be brought to the office, then they would continue thereafter.

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Ngo.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, who detained him on some of these occasions at least?

MR NGO: We would arrest him at times in the street together with Lieutenant Shaw. In many instances it was Shaw and Erasmus and Mamome, we would arrest him in the street, at time we would raid him in his house - where he - at home and detain him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: On whose instructions would you go out to go and arrest him?

MR NGO: We received instructions from Colonel Coetzee.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: When you were stationed in Mamelodi, were you the only member of unit 19 stationed at Mamelodi and sleeping at the barracks or where there any other members of the riot unit 19 also stationed there?

MR NGO: Some of them were doing special duties and many of

them were sleeping at the barracks, they were doing special duties.

ADV DE JAGER: Were there any of your colleagues from unit 19 permanently stationed with you at Mamelodi?

MR NGO: No, there was no other one except myself. They would go there to help there if there was a problem, then thereafter they would leave. We would give them an information that there is a problem or there’ll be riots, then they will be brought to Mamelodi, then from there they would leave.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, you’ve mentioned two names, I remember one was Duiker, I couldn’t catch the other one who assisted you or went with you when you petrol-bombed Sandra’s house.

MR NGO: Yes, that’s true.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they stationed at Mamelodi?

MR NGO: No, they were not stationed at Mamelodi.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did you find them to accompany you? Did you go to Roslind?

MR NGO: No, I did those petrol bombs at the barracks - I found them at the barracks.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they sleeping there at the barracks?

MR NGO: Yes, they were sleeping at the barracks.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they on special duty there or did they only pass by and sleep there?

MR NGO: They would leave and then at times they would come

back and sleep but at times they would leave for a long time.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, whilst we took the tea interval I got instructions from three other people, I’m sorry they are getting so many now that I didn’t have the time to consult properly with them.

In the meantime I phoned my office to give me a clerk to come and help me but please bear with me, I just want to make sure before the applicant stands down whether he knew of these people because they were also victims. So, have I got your permission to ask a few questions ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You don’t want to take further instructions first, you’re ready to go on are you?

MR STANDER: It seems to me that I need to have more time to take instructions Mr Chairman, but although I don’t want to take up much time. If it’s possible to give me at least 10 minutes just to consult with these people briefly, thank you very much.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I don’t know whether you plan to adjourn right now, I have foreshadowed the fact that I have one or two questions in relation to two of the exhibits which I handed in to Mr Ngo. It may a convenient time for me to put those questions now - they’re very short Mr Chairman, if you will allow me.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, would you please turn to page 35 of bundle A, that is your hand-written part of your application.

This refers to the bottom of the page Mr Chairman, there’s a list of names starting with 1 and ending with 8 so it seems. The first name Mr Chairman, just for your information, refers to Exhibit P64.

I just want to go through this with you quickly Mr Ngo. You said at page 35 did you not:

"Members of the security police and the riot squad police who participated in the beating up of all comrades arrested at Botshabelo were as follows:"

And the first name is:

"Captain Tsomela"

Now this Captain Tsomela, you told us today, was not a member of the security branch or did I misunderstand you?

MR NGO: Yes, he was not a member of the security police.

MR VISSER: Well, of what unit or division of the South African police was he a member?

MR NGO: He was a member of the uniform police. We found the police who were arranged - who arranged the raid that included special constables and riot constables, then we found him in that unit and then he was the leader or the senior officer.

MR VISSER: Well, but he couldn’t have been a special constable Mr Ngo because you refer to him as Captain Tsomela, don’t you?

MR NGO: That is the riot squad. You must understand the difference between the riot squad and the security branch. The security branch are people who were members of the security and riot squad are members of the uniformed police so I’ve included him as a member of the riot squad and some of them were special constables.

The objective of the riot squad and special constables was to barr the violence or riots in the townships, some of them were just mentioned as special constables but they were senior, so he was not a member of the security branch.

MR VISSER: Thank you for explaining that to us Mr Ngo. Will you just please tell us, who was the commanding officer of the riot squad, or don’t you know? At that time - I’m talking about at this very time when this incident took place.

MR NGO: We found Captain Tsomela who was senior, that’s the one I knew that he was - that station was under him. When we arrived, we found the police there. Whoever was the commanding officer then, I didn’t know, the police were many whom we found at that place but I knew that he was senior because he was a captain.

MR VISSER: Is it your evidence Mr Ngo, that Captain Tsomela also received instructions from Coetzee and/or Stevenson or from anyone else to beat up these arrested and detained persons, is that your evidence?

MR NGO: We found instructions - as we were members of the security branch, to assault those people from Colonel Coetzee and Stevenson. We were together with the members of the riot squad so Captain Tsomela was among of those people.

MR VISSER: Okay. And in fact you stated at page 35, that he was one of the people who participated in beating up of all the comrades arrested at Botshabelo, did you not? I just want to hear whether that is correct.

MR NGO: Captain Tsomela appeared there as a person whom we arrived who was - then he was leader of, or senior to those police who were present so the instructions to assault those people, we found them from Colonel Coetzee.

MR VISSER: Let me ask the question this way, is what you stated at page 35 in regard to Captain Tsomela, is that the correct evidence?

MR NGO: During the time of the assault, even members of the riot squad were assaulting people but Captain Tsomela - I never heard him receiving instructions form Colonel Coetzee that he should assault people and how he should assault those people and he was present with Stevenson and Coetzee when we assaulting those people.

I don’t say that he received instructions, the instructions were given to us. As whether he - how he assaulted people, he used his own discretion. Whilst we were assaulting those people he was present - yes, yes, he took part in the assault yes, he took part yes, he took part, even Colonel Coetzee took part in the assault.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Ngo, thank you very much, you explained that very well to us. The next person Warrant Officer van den Burg, would it be fair to assume that that is a reference to van den Berg?

I just want to ask you whether you can throw light on the aspect because we don’t know of a van den Burg. Would that refer to van den Berg, do you think?

MR NGO: That is van den Berg.

MR VISSER: Van den Berg, thank you Mr Ngo. That’s P63 Mr Chairman. And then perhaps with your permission if I may dare to do so Mr Chairman, ask one more question in regard to the evidence which he gave in reply to questions by Mr Brink this morning.

Is it correct that this morning, just a few minutes ago when Mr Brink was questioning you, you said that White Mohapi was arrested for having stabbed you, did you say so?

MR NGO: Yes, he was acquitted for that.

MR VISSER: Thank you. I just want to place on record Mr Ngo, for the assistance of the Committee, the evidence by some of my clients will be that White Mohapi was indeed arrested on more than one occasion, perhaps two or three occasions or even more under security legislation and clearly also released every time but that he was only arrested for one criminal offence and that is for the stabbing of Nelson Ngo.

MR NGO: Do they say he was just only arrested once for criminal offence?

MR VISSER: Yes, yes, Mr Ngo, and that was for stabbing you.

MR NGO: White was - they stabbed me after he was arrested many times. He was arrested whilst he was a student together with me in many things he did. Even when I was in the police, I used to raid him and arrest him.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, in fairness to the witness, may I record here that is only as far as we could only ascertain, it may well be and this is not a question of credibility questions to the witness. I want to make it quite clear that it may well be that Mr Ngo is correct but I just want to place on record that as far as we know, as we sit here now at this moment, he was only arrested for one criminal offence and that was the stabbing. We’ve heard what Mr Ngo says and he may well be right Mr Chairman, I’m taking the matter no further than that.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I think this ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want a short adjournment.

MR STANDER: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take an adjournment for a few minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: s.u.o.

MR STANDER: Thank you very much for the time you’ve given me in order to get my instructions in order - I did it as far as I could. Just before I proceed, I want to place it on record that I’ve been instructed on behalf of an Abel Choane and Norman Choane - I’ve written it down and you’ll get a list thereof, Mr Matthews Mzuzwana, Zwelabantu Mzuzwana and then a certain Mr Bobby Sebotsa also is - is apparently a victim only in Motsamai’s matter as well as a certain Jeff Mabila although I’ve still got to consult with them properly.

As far as the Mzuzwana’s are concerned Mr Chairman, there is a few questions I would like to ask the applicant as far as they are concerned.

MR BRINK: May I just say for the record Mr Chairman, with regard to Bobby - I’ve forgotton the surname, Sebotsa, my colleague has agreed to act pro-amica for this gentleman as he doesn’t qualify for legal aid.

MR STANDER: That is in fact true Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We are obliged to you for your assistance in that regard, thank you.

MR STANDER: You’re welcome Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Now Mr Ngo, do you know the two gentlemen by the names of Matthews Mzuzwana and Zwelabantu Mzuzwana?

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

MR NGO: Yes, I know them.

MR STANDER: I’d like the two gentlemen with the names of Matthews Mzuzwana - firstly Mr Matthews Mzuzwana to raise - he’s in the audience.

Mr Ngo, is that Mr Matthews Mzuzwana?

MR NGO: Yes, I know him, it’s him.

MR STANDER: Let the record them reflect that he referred to Mr Matthews Mzuzwana who raised in the audience. I’d like now for Mr Zwelabantu Mzuzwana to raise, he’s also in the audience.

Mr Ngo, is that Mr Zwelabantu Mzuzwana?

MR NGO: That’s him.

MR STANDER: So let the record again reflect that he referred to Mr Zwelabantu Mzuzwana who was in the audience and who stood up when his name was called.

Now these two gentlemen, how come you know of about them?

MR NGO: I will start with Matthews.

MR STANDER: Please proceed.

MR NGO: He was a student at Vulamasango high school and he was a member of COSAS, during that time he was a member of COSAS, so we worked together in COSAS to organise the students and to carry forward the objectives of COSAS.

MR STANDER: What about his brother Mr Ngo, that’s now Mr Zwelabantu Mzuzwana?

MR NGO: He was a member of United Democratic Front and Release Mandela Campaign, he took part in those two organisations. I used to go to Matthews and then we sought advices from Matthews if we didn’t know some of the things in our political activity.

MR STANDER: Was that after you became an informer for the security branch of the South African police?

MR NGO: Yes, I would say yes.

MR STANDER: Do you think he knew about your being an informer of the South African police by that time?

MR NGO: No, he didn’t know, he knew that I was a member of COSAS.

MR STANDER: Do you know anything about the bombing of the parental house of Mr Zwelabantu Mzuzwana and actually Mr Matthews Mzuzwana during the course of 1990 -1986, I’m sorry, Mr Chairman.

MR NGO: What I know is that I went there with Mr Motsamai to bomb the house which was called Max Makhubalo’s house - we were mistaken, it was Citi Mzuzwana’s house.

MR STANDER: Is it true that it was in fact the parental home of Mr Zwelabantu Mzuzwana that you wanted to bomb?

MR NGO: I knew that it was Max Makhubalo’s house the way Motsamai and Mamome identified that house. I didn’t know it was the parents of - I don’t know as whether it was the parents of - I don’t know as whether it was his house or his parents house.

MR STANDER: Would you contest then that it was in fact the house of the parents of Mr Zwelabantu Mzuzwana that was bombed during that time and not the house of Mr Max Makhubalo as you said? I beg your pardon, as Citi Makhubalo - Mzuzwana, I’m sorry.

MR NGO: I would not disagree with that because I knew only that the house was targeted, then we were supposed to bomb that house and we bombed that house, I only knew that it was Max Makhubalo’s house, then later I learnt that it was Citi Mzuzwana’s house, I would not disagree with that.

MR STANDER: Now tell me, at that stage Citi Mzuzwana was in custody, do you know about that?

MR NGO: No, I didn’t know that.

MR STANDER: Do you know of any incidents where Citi Mzuzwana’s car was also petrol-bombed by the security forces?

MR NGO: Many cars were bombed, I don’t know as whether his car was bombed, it didn’t come to my knowledge. Maybe it happened that - yes, it happened but I have no knowledge of that.

MR STANDER: Can you recall bombing a Toyota Corolla light deliver van, creamish of colour?

MR NGO: You mean Ford Cortina?

MR STANDER: According to my instructions it was a Toyota Corolla.

MR NGO: No, I don’t remember well?

MR STANDER: But it might so, you wouldn’t contest that, that it was the car - one of the cars that was bombed by either you or part of the security police.

MR NGO: We were in teams so we wouldn’t target only one car, we would hit political activists cars, so we were not working in one area, so other people bombed in other areas.

MR STANDER: Tell me, Mr Citi Mzuzwana as he was called at that stage, he was also a member of the ...[inaudible] Youth Congress - MYKO as it has been called?

MR NGO: I know that there was such kind of organisation, I started to know when he was campaigning for "Release Mandela" together with Curtis Nkonto and Terra Lacotta.

MR STANDER: Now tell me, as regards to Matthews Mzuzwana, he was shot in his head at some stage, were you involved in that incident?

MR NGO: I didn’t take part, I know it was arranged that with the riot squad unit that whoever was participating a march or who was a leader of COSAS, they would give information to the police or the riot squad that they should be shot when they can have that kind of an opportunity. I know that there was such kind of an instruction and that kind of arrangement from Colonel Coetzee but the time that he was shot I was not there, I know that he was shot.

MR STANDER: Now, please explain to this Committee, when was it arranged that he should have been shot?

MR NGO: That was the time when there were mass meetings when they arranged the meetings for all the schools. In many instances there were leaders who would move from one school to the other school to take the students out to go to those kind of gatherings. After that information was received, that is then that the arrangement was made that they should - those who were responsible for those mass actions - he was in a list, that’s Oupa Mohapi, Makhubalo, Monasi and etc., then they gave that list to riot squad members that they should know them and be able to identify them. That is the kind of information I know.

MR STANDER: By whom did you say was the instruction given?

MR NGO: Colonel Coetzee is the one who made those arrangements and then we would leave and go to members of riot squads like Bridge whom we knew that he was the person that was hating the comrades, then we’d show him the people who were targeted to be shot.

MR STANDER: Was he part of COSAS at that stage? I’m talking about Matthews Mzuzwana.

MR NGO: Yes, that is true.

MR STANDER: And being that, that he was part of COSAS, that was the reason why he was targeted to be shot at?

MR NGO: In Vulamasango he was the one and together with Oupa, people who were in the leadership who were organising COSAS activities and they were always in the forefront, that is why arrangements were made that he must be shot. It is because he was taking students from schools to hold meetings.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I’ve got no further questions as regard to these two people.

Just another further aspect that has been drawn to my attention Mr Chairman. Who accompanied you Mr Ngo, at the stage when the bombings took place?

MR NGO: Where, who’s house?

MR STANDER: The house of Citi Mzuzwana.

MR NGO: It was Mamome, Tsoametsi, Mtyala and myself.

MR STANDER: Was Mr Motsamai also there?

MR NGO: Yes, Motsamai was there.

MR STANDER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

CHAIRPERSON: Can we now proceed?

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Ngo, do you have Exhibit B in front of

you?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I interrupt please and obtain some indication from the Chair clearly some questions have arisen on our side from what Mr Stander has put to Mr Ngo now. I’m not sure which would be the correct time for me to put those questions to Mr Ngo but I would imagine it should occur before he’s re-examined so that it can be dealt with at one go.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t realise that you wanted to put anymore questions Mr Visser, if you do, you might as well put them now.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I didn’t suspect it either or expect it either.

Mr Ngo, you say that Colonel Coetzee gave instructions to the riot squad for them to shoot Mr Matthews Mzuzwana and did I understand you correctly?

MR NGO: No, he gave instructions to members of the security branch that they should point out people of the riot squad that who are the people in the leadership in the marches and in the organisations - in the activities of COSAS, so that the people of riot squad when the were going block those marches, they should know the targets whom they should shoot.

MR VISSER: So, do I understand correctly then, that members of the security branch were told by Coetzee to go to the riot squad members - was this while there were marches going on? - to identify the leaders.

MR NGO: It was a thing which was discussed then he informed us so that we should tell the members of the security branch - that’s the thing we knew. It was not only cause when there was a march, it was a thing which it was with us all the time, that if there is a march we should have already informed them about the identity of the leaders so they should be shot.

Those members of the riot squad didn’t know political activists, they were supposed to get that information from us about people who were problematic politically.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, did you yourself receive such an instruction and carry out such an instruction by indicating to members of the riot squad who targets were? You yourself, did you do that?

MR NGO: That is Sergeant Mamome who was informing them.

MR VISSER: Was he the only one who did that?

MR NGO: If it happened I was supposed - I was supposed to do that but I didn’t receive that instruction that I should do that. Mamome was instructed directly by Coetzee but I knew that was part and parcel of my responsibility to do that because as the thing he used to say, he didn’t say we should do it immediately.

MR VISSER: Were you present when Mr Mamome was instructed directly by Colonel Coetzee to point targets out to the riot squad?

MR NGO: Yes, he said that in a parade.

MR VISSER: Within earshot of all the members on the parade?

MR NGO: Yes, he was telling us but the person who was responsible for transferring that instruction was Sergeant Mamome - to the riot squad.

MR VISSER: Why were the rest of you not instructed also to inform the riot squad as to who targets were supposed to be?

MR NGO: He told Sergeant Mamome - I would do it if the opportunity arose but there was no situation which demanded me that I should inform the riot squad but the person who directly instructed was Mamome.

MR VISSER: But you knew who Matthews Mzuzwana was, why didn’t you tell the riot squad: "He’s one of the COSAS leaders, members of the riot squad and I think you should shoot him"? Why didn’t you do that?

MR NGO: Mamome has already identified though - the targets, they knew already, they knew all the time. They were just waiting for an opportunity to shoot him.

MR VISSER: How many targets did Mr - how many targets do you know of that Mr Mamome identified to members of the riot squad?

MR NGO: I wasn’t present when he identified those people.

MR VISSER: But how then can you give the evidence that he did, if you don’t know anything about it?

MR NGO: I say he was going to tell them. The time he was going to tell them, I wouldn’t know who were those people because I was not present so I didn’t say how many targets.

MR VISSER: Yes. Mr Ngo, I want to put it to you that this story of yours is precisely what it is, it’s a story which you dreamt up and doesn’t exist in fact.

MR NGO: If a person who doesn’t understand, who doesn’t know it’s you because I know how the security branch was working and the whole channels of our communications, how they worked. I know that if a person was supposed to be targeted, how he should be targeted. If you knew, if you were involved in my work you would know what I’m talking about.

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Ngo, you’re free to be personal with me if you wish but let me tell you what I’m going to suggest to you, you heard, did you not, or you read in his application that Mr Motsamai is going to apply for amnesty ...[intervention]

MR NGO: I didn’t say I read his application ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Just listen to me, just listen to me please, just listen. I haven’t finished, I’m allowing the interpreter to interpret to you. I say that you know that Mr Motsamai’s applying for amnesty for an attempted murder and I believe it is item 13 Mr Chairman, where he says that the riot squad was asked to shoot somebody and I’m just going to look for precisely which item it is. If I can just find Mr Motsamai’s application form. It’s bundle A and Mr Chairman, it would be - no it’s not item 13, item 7 at page 147 Mr Ngo, just look at that. Have you got that in front of you? Yes, you do.

MR NGO: Bundle?

MR VISSER: Yes, bundle A.

MR NGO: Which page?

MR VISSER: 147.

"I and Mamome also organised that members of the uniform branch should shoot Citi Mzuzwana’s younger brother - note, not Matthew, Zwelinzima Mzuzwana. The latter was a member of Mangaung Youth Congress and a COSAS organiser"

You knew that Mr Motsamai is applying for amnesty for that incident, didn’t you?

MR NGO: I’m reading this for the first time.

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Ngo, you knew that very well - I put it to you. And that’s the reason why you’ve come out with the story which you’ve just done. And let me put to you that you’ve got your characters mixed up because you are saying that this relates to Mr Matthews Mzuzwana whilst it seems that Mr Motsamai disagrees with you. He relates this to the other brother that has identified himself here today, isn’t that true?

MR NGO: I never said that there was an arrangement that Mzuzwana should be shot, I said how Colonel Coetzee arranged with us about the target. I never said myself, Motsamai or Mamome arranged that Mzuzwana should be shot, I’m telling you about the instructions which we received and about the thing I know, that this was organised by Motsamai. I don’t know how it was arranged that he should be shot but I know that there was the - the arrangements were given to us.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, in all fairness, wouldn’t it be possible so that I can get the correct names of Mr Mzuzwana, it might be possible that I didn’t get his second name and it might be perhaps the same person we’re talking about. I must confess that I didn’t take that name from him as being Zwelinzima but let - if you’ll bear with me, I can just ask him whether it’s in fact the same person.

Can Mr Matthews Mzuzwana just rise? Mr Mzuzwana, what is all your names please, will you just repeat that?

MR MZUZWANA: ...[inaudible]

MR STANDER: I didn’t hear, I can’t hear you.

MR MEMANI: Zwelinjani.

MR STANDER: Please come forward.

MR MEMANI: He said it’s Zwelinjani.

MR STANDER: That’s also what I heard Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you please repeat your answer, you’re full names please?

MR MZUZWANA: Zwelinjani Matthews Mzuzwana.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any further questions?

MR VISSER: Could he perhaps spell it Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell it?

MR MZUZWANA: Z-w-e-l-i-n-j-a-n-i.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: I didn’t hear it.

MR MZUZWANA: Zwelabantu.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know someone, Zwelinzima Mzuzwana?

MR MZUZWANA: No, maybe they misspelt my name, Zwelinzima is not my name.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible]

MR MZUZWANA: Zwelabantu.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I’ve got a list of the people I represent, unfortunately it hasn’t been duplicated but if I might help you I can hand it up so that the correct spelling can known to you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible]

MR STANDER: Do you want me to hand it up? Although it is written here Matthews Mzuzwana, it seems to me that it is the same person.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, I couldn’t care whether it seems to my learned friend that it’s the same person, we’re going on the evidence here and this man came to you and said it’s not my name.

MR STANDER: In all fairness Mr Chairman, it seems to me and I’ll make a suggestion to you that you’ll find that it is in fact just a misspelling of the same person’s name.

MR VISSER: That’s a matter for argument Mr Chair.

MR MEMANI: In fact Mr Chairman, my learned friend might have forgotten that it was mentioned that the applicant is not so certain of the name of this victim. At some stage he said it’s Zwelinzima or Zwelabantu, he was not so sure.

MR VISSER: Well this applicant hasn’t testified yet Mr Chairman, so I don’t know when he might have said.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps we should have a look, he says in paragraph 7

"I and Mamome also organised that members of the uniform branch should shoot Citi Mzuzwana’s younger brother"

Not his child or his son, Zwelinzima Mzuzwana.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman, I was coming to that very question right now.

I’m not sure that I can put this to you Mr Ngo because I don’t know whether you know but let me ask you anyway - we’ll ask Mr Motsamai, I can assure you. We were given to understand that these two gentlemen that identified themselves here today, are the children - the son’s of Mr Citi Mzuzwana. Is that how you understand the position?

MR MEMANI: No, it has never been said Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with great respect, my learned fried Mr Stander went out of his way to say: Mr Ngo you were wrong when you thought Max Makhubalo’s home, it was really the parental home of these two gentlemen, the home belonging to Mr Citi Mzuzwana". Now what else could that possibly mean?

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, what I really did say is: "It was the parental home of Mr Citi Mzuzwana", that I referred to. It might be so that I was mistaken at that stage and I take full responsibility for the fact that I must have misled my learned friend, but in fact the question was put that it was the parental home of Citi Mzuzwana.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it the parental home of the two persons you’re representing?

MR STANDER: That is in fact ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] as far as I know Mr Citi Mzuzwana, you’re representing his two sons. ...[inaudible]

MR STANDER: Mr de Jager, Mr Chairman, it is in fact so that Citi Mzuzwana is the same person as Zwelabantu Mzuzwana that I referred to. That we can clarify again if it needs be done.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You have cleared it up, you are saying if you had given the impression that you meant to convey that it was the parental home of you clients, that would have been a mistake on your part. And you are saying that you meant to say that - you didn’t mean that it was the parental home of Citi Mzuzwana, you didn’t mean to convey that.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman no, what I did say and I mentioned was that these two people, the Mzuzwana’s are in fact brothers and it was their parental home that has been bombed.

ADV DE JAGER: If it’s their parental home, was it their father’s home that’s been bombed?

MR STANDER: That is in fact correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Might somebody tell us what the father’s name is then Mr Chairman, so that we can sort out the characters in this play?

MR STANDER: I’m sorry to again confess that I don’t have the name of the father, perhaps they can help us if it’s of assistance to the Committee.

MR VISSER: And while my learned friend is going to find that out, perhaps he might consult to find out whether there are other brothers of the two gentlemen that are here now - unless we get confused again Mr Chairman because it seems to me I can’t continue on this basis unless we know what is exactly alleged, there’s no point in us wasting time and asking questions about it.

MR STANDER: Can I make a suggestion Mr Chairman, so that we can ask either one of the two brothers to come here in front of us where I did just now, so that they can testify to that effect if possible?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that this occasion they should come, they should take the oath and testify, not merely - I thought we were merely clarifying something but if we’re not, do you want to call them as a witness?

MR STANDER: I intend doing so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then, can the applicant just move and go

and...[inaudible]

ZWELABANTU MZUZWANA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Mr Chairman? Now, Mr Mzuzwana can you please tell us your full names?

MR Z MZUZWANA: Zwelabantu, nicknamed Citi Mzuzwana.

MR STANDER: And tell this Committee what was the name of your father.

MR MZUZWANA: Khosi Nakele Fani Mzuzwana.

MR STANDER: And your brother?

MR MZUZWANA: Matthews Zwelinjani Mzuzwana.

MR STANDER: Now Mr Mzuzwana, is it in fact true that your parental home, in other words the house of your father was bombed during the course of 1986?

MR MZUZWANA: Yes, that’s true.

MR STANDER: Am I also correct in saying that you don’t know the people who did it because at that stage you were in jail?

MR MZUZWANA: That is true.

MR STANDER: Is it also correct that during the course of 1987, your own home was also petrol-bombed?

MR MZUZWANA: That is true.

MR STANDER: And you also didn’t see the relevant people who did it?

MR MZUZWANA: That is true, I don’t know the people who bombed that house.

MR STANDER: What about your vehicle?

MR MZUZWANA: My car also, it was a van - it was a Toyota Hi-Lux. It was bombed whilst I was in prison and the car was in my house.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood the witness was being called to sort out the name problem.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I thought so but I thought also being that he is in the witness stand, we might as well lead his evidence as far as that is concerned because I’ll have to call him back again and I thought it was time consuming, that is why I did it now.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think we will confuse the record, I think we’ll just complicate proceedings.

MR STANDER: As the Chairman pleases, then I’ve got no further questions in that regard.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions? Any questions by anybody else?

MR VISSER: Visser on record Mr Chairman, may I just try to clarify something? How many brothers are you Sir?

MR MZUZWANA: All of us, we’re three.

MR VISSER: What’s the third brother’s name?

MR MZUZWANA: That Myekeni Mzuzwana.

MR VISSER: Will you just spell that for us please?

MR MZUZWANA: M-y-e-k-e-n-i.

MR VISSER: Is that the only name of this brother, he doesn’t have any nicknames or any other names?

MR MZUZWANA: Another one is Zachararia, he’s nickname is Bomba.

MR VISSER: Yes, that may be appropriate.

ADV DE JAGER: In order to - that there shouldn’t be any further confusion, what’s your house - what’s the address, the one that’s been bombed?

MR MZUZWANA: 9592 Booysen Street, Rocklands.

ADV DE JAGER: And your father’s house?

MR MZUZWANA: 1034 Mosheshwe Street, Rocklands.

MR VISSER: Now, just for the sake of the record, to make it absolutely clear, you are not a person that was shot in the head by anybody?

CHAIRPERSON: Are we clarifying names or are we proceeding with cross-examination? Now, we were told were we not, that Matthews was shot in the head.

MR VISSER: This is part of the identification Mr Chairman, I want to make absolutely certain that this is not the man who was shot in the head but his brother was, I’m just asking him that.

You were not shot in the head were you?

MR MZUZWANA: No, I was not shot.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR MZUZWANA: May I go Mr Chairman?

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: We will now once again revert to Mr Ngo’s evidence.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, things have now become clear as mud because we now know with respect, that Citi Mzuzwana is this gentleman who has just given evidence and we know that the application of Mr Ngo has been changed to the bombing of the house of Citi Mzuzwana, so that would mean this person’s house which he says was bombed in 1987.

So it seems to us Mr Chairman, on that basis I was just putting to the witness Mr Chairman, item 7 at page 147 and I think the question has been answered. He says he didn’t - he doesn’t know whether Mamome conveyed the instruction which he received from Coetzee to any member of the riot squad Mr Chairman, and I don’t believe that I can take the matter much further than that, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Can we now revert to re-examination?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Ngo, just to clarify, you’re applying for amnesty for the bombing of the house of Mr Citi Mzuzwana?

MR NGO: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: In Booysens Street?

MR NGO: I didn’t know the name of the street but it was somewhere in Rocklands and we went there during the night.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand from your evidence, you didn’t know whose house it was. Some considerable time after the bombing - I think you said after you’d been convicted, you were told it was Citi’s house, is that the position?

MR NGO: Yes, when we went there it was said it was Max Makhubalo’s house.

MR MEMANI: May I proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Now Mr Ngo, I was referring you to bundle A45, in fact we should start at 44. I beg everybody’s pardon, it should be B.

CHAIRPERSON: B44.

MR MEMANI: Now, that is an affidavit by Hendrik Bokaba, where he says that he’s read your affidavit, do you see that? - he’s read your amnesty application.

MR NGO: Yes, I do.

MR MEMANI: If you turn to page 45, paragraph 3.3, there he says the following, that he denies

"that myself and Constable Danny Selahla were involved in a petrol-bombing in the Mamelodi district where the applicant was present. The applicant was never a member of the security branch, Northern Transvaal and as such, was never a trusted member of the operations of the security police, Northern Transvaal branch at the time"

Now Mr Ngo, you yourself told us yesterday that the way in which you handled an informer depends on how much you trust the informer, is that correct?

MR NGO: I don’t understand the question Sir, may you please repeat?

MR MEMANI: You see, yesterday it was put to you that you would not have been taken - two people would not have gone to see to informers at the same time and your answer was that there was no straight jacket rule. Whether you go to see an informer alone or with other people, depends on whether you trust that person or not - on how much you trust the person, sometimes you could see a group of five people because that’s in the nature of things - you have to see them because they are a gangster.

Now what I want us to deal with is, how you would treat an informer if you did not trust the informer, would you let that informer know about members of the security force that worked with you?

MR NGO: I wouldn’t tell him the truth about the identity of all the members of the security police.

MR MEMANI: Would you take him to a place where he would be able to identify other members of the security police that you were working with?

MR NGO: I wouldn’t take him to that kind of a place because it will be unsafe. If you don’t trust him, it may happen that you think he will give you information and then he may transfer that information to the members of a certain organisation, then they would use that information to attack you or attack some members of the police security, so I would not tell him of their true identity and the addresses of other members of the security police.

MR MEMANI: So, if members of the Northern - of the security police Northern Transvaal did not trust you, they would not have introduced you to other members of the security police in the Northern Transvaal?

MR NGO: Yes, that is the police of the security branch. If you are not trusted they would not expose you to all the structures - the identity of some members of the security police, so that you may not be able to identify them later.

MR MEMANI: Could that be the reason why instead of you being stationed at a place where you’d observe other members of the security police, you were taken to Mamelodi police station at the office referred to as "horse".

MR NGO: It might be one of the reasons that - how I work and they were testing my trust before they can expose me to some members of the security police. They would test you in many ways.

MR MEMANI: Could that also be the reason why you worked only with Selahla and Bokaba?

MR NGO: That may be true.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I don’t want to object unnecessarily but it seems to me that the leading of the evidence of my learned friend here in re-examination, is exceeding the bounds but I’m in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, you cross-examined at great length about all these aspects, I think this certainly arises from it.

MR MEMANI: Mr Ngo, was it also your evidence that before you became trusted by the Bloemfontein security branch, you worked with Erasmus and another person only? I cannot recall who you said the ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, I think the objection really was against leading questions and so, please try and frame your questions so that you wouldn’t lead the witness in a way that he should answer yes or no on a question that you’ve put the facts to him actually.

MR MEMANI: It seems to me Mr Chairman, that the nature of the questions is such that I must lead, you cannot put it otherwise.

Now Mr Ngo, before you became - initially when you were an informer with the security branch, were you from the onset introduced to many of the members of the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: No, Sir.

MR MEMANI: After how long were you introduced to members of the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR NGO: I too a long time, I think it’s about a year. The way they were receiving information and that the things I was telling them was the truth when they investigated thereafter, so those were the conditions.

MR MEMANI: Those are my questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, in respect of the evidence of Colonel Loots and Captain Bokaba, I’ve discussed it with my learned colleagues here and we are all in agreement that nobody has an objection against the evidence being led now, so as to make the proceedings easier. And with your leave I will then ask permission to call Colonel Loots.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it should be placed on record that counsel discussed this with us in the light of the fact that we will be going onto another hearing, Motsamai’s, which is going to be run together with this that he can dispose of these witnesses now rather than make wait till the end. It was agreed subject to the reservation that should further evidence emerge at any stage during the hearing that necessitated their recall, they would be make available.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, we agree exactly with that. May I beg leave to call Colonel Loots? Thank you. He will give evidence in Afrikaans Mr Chairman.

MR LOOTS: Phillipus Johannes Cornelius Loots.

INTERPRETER: The speakers mike is not on.

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: May I proceed Mr Chairman? Thank you.

Colonel, I’m going to question you in Afrikaans and you are welcome to answer in Afrikaans as well. Colonel, would you please shortly explain to the Committee when you were at the security branch in the Northern Transvaal and in which capacity.

MR LOOTS: From December 1980 until end of 1989. I was originally part of unit A as was explained to you yesterday. It was the unit that worked with White and Coloured affairs and approximately a year after that, that was then ‘81, the beginning of ‘82 I was transferred to unit B where I took over as the unit commander of unit B which was concerned with Black affairs. That was up until my transfer till the intelligence unit at the end of ‘89.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, just to be completely certain, exactly when were you in unit B, for which period of time?

MR LOOTS: It was end of ‘81, start of ‘82 up until the end of ‘89.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right. Colonel, at the beginning of 1990, were you still there?

MR LOOTS: No, I had already been transferred at that stage to the - from the security branch to the intelligence unit.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, would you shortly explain - you said what was unit A and what B was, what was unit C?

MR LOOTS: It was the unit that worked with terrorist organisations.

MR DU PLESSIS: And unit C was divided in various divisions, is that correct?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: To explain this to the Committee and to make it clear to them with regards to evidence that was given earlier on, C1 was Vlakplaas and it later became C10, is that correct?

MR LOOTS: Yes, that’s correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And unit D?

MR LOOTS: Unit D worked with selections, not only selections with regard to members of the security branch but also selections of private individuals who were in key positions nationally. They were selected to degrees, it was "very secret" or just "secret".

MR DU PLESSIS: And unit E?

MR LOOTS: Unit E was the labour - can we just get some sort of an indication?

MR DU PLESSIS: Please could you slow down a bit. Unit E?

MR LOOTS: It was the unit that worked with labour issues.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right Colonel, let’s start with unit B. How many members did unit B have?

MR LOOTS: White and Black members - it depended either, it’s something between 18 and 23 came and went.

MR DU PLESSIS: And in 1986/87, that is when - according to the evidence of Mr Ngo, he was involved in Mamelodi. Who were members of unit B at that stage that you can remember?

MR LOOTS: Myself was the unit commander, I had people to whom I could delegate certain tasks with regards to Attridgeville, Shushungue and Mamelodi. I had an officer for each of these. Attridgeville was Lieutenant Brandt, Shushungue, we had Captain van Jaarsveld and for Mamelodi, Captain Jacques Hechter and specifically with regards to Mamelodi, Captain Hechter had personnel for the purposes of security work at his disposal amongst which was Johan van Wyk, Warrant Officer Johannes Shlangwane and also at that stage, Constable Hendrik Bokaba. And from the end of 1987, Constable Danny Selahla to whom is referred as "slang".

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, where were the offices of unit B?

MR LOOTS: We were restricted to the Compal building in the city centre of Pretoria, that’s where the police museum was as was testified earlier on. We were on the 2nd and on the 3rd floors, the building only had these three floors. I, myself was on the 3rd floor, each one of my personnel had an office - sometimes they had to share offices between two or three people but we never had any offices anywhere else.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did Captain Bokaba - we all know to whom we refer, did Bokaba and Selahla have offices there?

MR LOOTS: Yes, they did.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where did they report for their duties and how did it work when they’ve reported for duties?

MR LOOTS: I, as unit commander saw them each and every morning between 7 and half past 7 in my offices except when there were exceptional circumstances, where one or the other member could not come in, then he called me and said that he could not come but the normal rule was that he would come to my office between 7 and half past 7 and then they would see the unit commander. All these sub-heads with their personnel did this and this procedure was then repeated later on in the afternoon around about 4 o’clock.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, what were the general tasks of Bokaba, van Wyk, Selahla and the others?

MR LOOTS: They - we had a network of informants that we had to deal with. Their tasks were to liaise with these informants and to receive information, to get reports if possible, written reports that they could give to me at these times when they came to me to see me, whether it was half past 7 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon, if there were written reports these would have been given to me.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, were there ever any sub-branches or sub-offices in Mamelodi?

MR LOOTS: Never ever.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you have heard the testimony of an office called "goss", can you explain that?

MR LOOTS: Yes, there was a "goss" office, it - "goss" means joint operational centre and this centre was manned by members of the South African defence force, the South African police amongst which were people from unit 19, the riot unit or the riot squad. In this centre information was kept usually in maps on the walls about incidents in Mamelodi, if it was arson, riots or whatever, this information was kept there for the simple reason Mr Chair, that we did not get any information from the defence force.

We had the system of informants in Mamelodi and we received this information and this was given to the joint operational centre so that these people could plan for riots, meetings, boycotts or whatever the information was on. I am not saying that the people in the JOC never gave us any information, when something came to their attention they would naturally tell us about it but it was rather the exception than the rule, we were the people that gathered the information.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any knowledge of where the reaction force unit 19 was stationed?

MR LOOTS: Yes, there was an hotel - I think it was the Old Highway Hotel, it was somewhere in Roslind, that is where unit 19 was stationed.

MR DU PLESSIS: Judge Wilson is not from Pretoria, can you just explain to him how far that is from Mamelodi?

MR LOOTS: I would if I have to guess, say approximately between 20 and 25 kilometres, if I’m mistaken it must be to a very small extent.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What is that distance?

MR DU PLESSIS: 20 and 25 kilometres.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Between which places?

MR DU PLESSIS: Roslind and Mamelodi just roughly, I think it’s a bit further Mr Chairman but ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: It is at least twice that distance.

MR DU PLESSIS: I thought about 40 to 50 Mr Chairman.

MR LOOTS: I will settle for that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, can you please explain to the Committee, when and how many times you had something to do with the applicant, Mr Ngo and how it happened?

MR LOOTS: All right. Mr Chair, the true situation was the following, when I took over as station of unit commander at unit B, I was in the very unfortunate situation of inheriting two very old members who were given to Mamelodi. These were two Black members who worked for me in Mamelodi, these were Warrant Officer Leonard Dumira and Warrant Officer Hlongwane. The first was already old enough to leave the force and Hendrik Bokaba was identified by Hlongwane and that is how ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Colonel, could you please slow down a bit.

MR LOOTS: I hear what you are saying, thank you very much Mr Visser. In that way Hendrik Bokaba then became a member of the security branch but Johannes Hlongwane, Warrant Officer Hlongwane was quickly to follow due to his age and we had to look for somebody to take his place. Hendrik Bokaba, he was then Captain, ...[intervention]

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the translation was wrong, she said he was then Captain but ...[intervention]

MR LOOTS: He was not at that stage Captain, he was Constable at that stage and he is now a Captain.

MR DU PLESSIS: Just Bokaba please. Thank you very much.

MR LOOTS: Bokaba came to me early on in 1987 and he indicated to me that there was a man with him in the singles quarters at the Mamelodi police station, somebody who stayed there with him. The man was identified to me as the applicant in this amnesty application, Ngo - he was identified by Bokaba. I indicated that Hendrik had to make an appointment so that the man can come and see me, so that we could have an interview.

This interview did take place, Bokaba brought the man to my office in the Compal building on the 3rd floor where my offices were and also in the presence of Bokaba, I had an interview with Ngo so that he could be transferred to the security branch. The interview took approximately half an hour and the applicant Ngo, then left my office. Mr Chair, that was the first time in my life I ever saw Ngo and that was for half an hour, if it was a little longer I apologise but that was also the last time I ever saw him, I never saw him after that. I knew him for half an hour in my whole life.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, what was the result of the interview, did you ask him to do something?

MR LOOTS: That is correct, I asked him to return to the unit commander or the commander of unit 19 where he was stationed and to hand in an application there with a view to a transfer to the security branch.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know or do you have any knowledge of such an application?

MR LOOTS: I never received such an application from the unit commander up until today.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did Mr Ngo ever become a member of the security branch formally?

MR LOOTS: Definitely not Mr Chair.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, you have heard the evidence of Mr Ngo that he frequently went with Bokaba to get instructions from you and that he then reported to you, what do you say about that?

MR LOOTS: If that had been the case, he would have been with us at each and every conference, either in the morning or in the afternoon. He was never in my offices except for that half an hour.

MR DU PLESSIS: You also heard evidence Colonel, from certain bombings - alleged bombings that he was involved in with Bokaba and Selahla.

MR LOOTS: I have no knowledge of that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you see that as possible in any way?

MR LOOTS: No, it is highly unlikely - highly impossible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, you were not here when the evidence was led but you have knowledge of the fact that Mr Ngo also alleges that you were contacted by the Bloemfontein security branch to send Mr Ngo to Bloemfontein with regard to the murder of Mr Venter and that you then asked Bokaba to bring him to Bloemfontein and that Bokaba on your instructions, then brought him to Bloemfontein. What do you say about that?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, I never contacted Bloemfontein telephonically or any other way and I never Bokaba or ordered him to bring Ngo to Bloemfontein for any reason whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what was put to you was not that you contacted Bloemfontein but that Bloemfontein contacted you, can you clear that up?

MR LOOTS: I heard Mr Chair, there was no member of the personnel of any rank who ever contacted me with any request whatsoever with regards to Ngo.

MR DU PLESSIS: You also heard the evidence that a certain Lieutenant Shaw allegedly contacted you.

MR LOOTS: No, Shaw definitely not contacted me Mr Chair.

MR DU PLESSIS: With regard to this incident?

MR LOOTS: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know Shaw?

MR LOOTS: Yes, I know him very well.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, I would like you to comment on - from your perspective that is, on the possibility that somebody on the evidence of Mr Ngo who has not formally been transferred to the security branch, who had been a constable could be sent by you to Bloemfontein so that he could eliminate somebody.

ADV DE JAGER: The evidence was never that he had been sent to Bloemfontein as Mr Loots had been aware, to commit an elimination.

MR DU PLESSIS: I realise that Mr Chair.

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chair, the questions is actually concerning the probabilities that the Bloemfontein branch - let me put it this way, that the Bloemfontein branch would have put a request in view of the way in which the security branch operated in the country, that the Bloemfontein branch, with regards to a person in the position of Ngo would be sent to Bloemfontein in order to commit an elimination on a person whom he knew. What do you think the probabilities are?

MR LOOTS: I think it is completely unheard of, that is my personal view. I do not think that could ever have happened.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why do you say that, they have worked with him before.

MR LOOTS: Ngo was not a member of the security branch Mr Chair, and I never had contact with him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, they had worked with him before according to him, in Bloemfontein.

MR LOOTS: I hear what you say Mr Chair.

JUDGE NGOEPE: May you should say: "I cannot comment on that", the Bloemfontein people should answer that question.

MR LOOTS: I agree with you, thank you very much Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, are there any or is there any course in the security branch that you will have to complete before you could join the security branch?

MR LOOTS: Specifically with regards to the security branch in the Northern Transvaal we had an internal course, an orientation course that was aimed at making the members aware of the various units where the units were involved and specifically in my case, how to work with informants with regards to giving them orders and to get information from them. There was also a basic security course that was offered by the main office or main branch but it was a bit more involved.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, could you give the Committee some information about the security. What kind of security background did one have to join the security branch?

MR LOOTS: There was a top secret affidavit or statement on that memo.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. Mr Chairman, maybe just the last questions.

Do you verify the correctness of your affidavit

MR LOOTS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Visser on record, I’ve just got one question perhaps more from the sake of interest that anything else.

This interview with Mr Ngo, was it a successful interview, did you decide to appoint him?

MR LOOTS: I must tell the Committee, he did not make a bad impression on me.

MR VISSER: So, he did have a chance of getting the job?

MR LOOTS: The background search was done.

MR VISSER: The point is, we knew that he had a previous conviction for assault, did you know that?

MR LOOTS: Not at that stage. Let me answer the question in this way Mr Chair. In those years and specifically in those years, ‘86 or ‘87 and other years as well but especially those years, the unit commanders and unit heads were very concerned with their people, they were very involved with their people. It was difficult to get people transferred between units between districts and between various units. It would have been premature for me to do any background checks before I had something before me.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Loots you are a disciplined people, would you please talk a bit slower that the people can translate you and interpret you?

MR LOOTS: Can I just make sure, from where should I commence?

MR VISSER: Mr Loots, thank you very much, I heard what you answered. There are no more questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, before you called for him to come for an interview, you had not sought from anywhere else some information about him?

MR LOOTS: No.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was it only on the basis of the 30 minute interview that you said to him: "all right, go and lodge your application with your unit commander"?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Mr Chair.

MR STANDER: I’ve got no questions - Stander speaking Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER

ADV DE JAGER: Colonel you needed somebody at that stage, is that correct?

MR LOOTS: Yes, I did.

ADV DE JAGER: And here you had an apparent good candidate who made a good impression on you, is that correct?

MR LOOTS: Yes, that’s correct.

ADV DE JAGER: You told him to go back to him commanding officer and apply?

MR LOOTS: That’s correct.

ADV DE JAGER: You never heard anything of him again?

MR LOOTS: No, I never heard anything from him again, I never saw an application.

ADV DE JAGER: He was brought there by Bokaba?

MR LOOTS: That’s correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you tell Bokaba or ask Bokaba what happened to this good person we saw yesterday?

MR LOOTS: I cannot remember that far back but it might be possible that I asked Hendrik but I can’t remember it. It is very possible that I asked him but at a later stage.

ADV DE JAGER: But you needed somebody and you have a potential candidate and you don’t do anything to find out what happened to him.

MR LOOTS: I tried to explain to you how difficult it was to transfer people at that stage, I accepted that nothing would come of this application.

ADV DE JAGER: It was difficult to get transfers but it was also difficult for you to find somebody and one would accept that if you found somebody who is good, you would be eager to get that person.

MR LOOTS: I believe that I would have done that but I can’t remember it, one’s memory often leaves one in the lurch but there is merit in the question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you not think of putting him on a sort of trial basis. I know he was under the command of somebody else but would you just have taken him without first putting him on a trial basis to observe him and see how he does his job?

MR LOOTS: Then there would still be a process that had to be followed, he had to be selected, his background had to be checked and in the case of a private person, if he had a previous employee and his school had to be checked etc., and somebody like Ngo, we would have had to contact his commanding officer. No person can be appointed on a trial basis in the security branch but if he had been cleared yes, then we could appoint him provisionally.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What I wanted to find out was, normally if all those things happened, would you just - I mean if you interviewed him and you got good reports from the people that he previously worked with, would he first have to be put on a trial basis before he is formally appointed in the security branch.

MR LOOTS: I hope I understand you correctly, that if he had been selected and if he had been found all right, he would have been appointed provisionally.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he need clearance to join the riot unit, the riot squad?

MR LOOTS: I do not know how that unit worked, I cannot tell you anything about their internal operations.

ADV DE JAGER: In his interview, did he tell you that he had been from 1983 at the security branch at Bloemfontein?

MR LOOTS: Whether or not dates were mentioned, I cannot tell you. He did tell me that he worked with the security branch as well as - he also told that to Bokaba who was in my presence.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

Now Colonel Loots, it is standard procedure before anyone is employed in the police force that a clearance is done irrespective of the unit that he’s going to join, isn’t it?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And it follows then that if he had joined the riot unit that he would have had a clearance before?

MR LOOTS: The was a security clearance Mr Chair.

MR MEMANI: The clearance that is required to join the police force is a security clearance, isn’t it?

MR LOOTS: There is a difference between security clearance and

clearance. There’s a difference or a distinction between working in the security branch and there’s a different clearance that had to be done before a person could be sent to a training college, in other words, before he is accepted in the police.

MR MEMANI: The clearance that you get before you join the police force involves an enquiry into your background, the schools you went to, your family, whether you parents or any relatives of your have got any previous convictions and whether specifically, anyone one them have had any politically related criminal convictions.

MR LOOTS: All those things could be in there but I cannot remember the contents of such a clearance, I don’t have anything like that before me.

MR MEMANI: And the same enquiry is made in respect of people who want to join the security force, the security branch.

MR LOOTS: Yes, but much more intensive.

MR MEMANI: Now, during your interview with Mr Ngo, did he tell you about Coetzee?

MR LOOTS: No.

MR MEMANI: Did he tell you about Erasmus?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, I can make it easy, I think the only name he mentioned was that of Shaw.

MR MEMANI: Did he tell you that he had been working with Lieutenant Shaw as an informer in Bloemfontein and also as a policemen in a sense?

MR LOOTS: I cannot remember whether or not he named both or mentioned both - we talk about the beginning of ‘87, that’s 10 years back. It is very difficult to remember the contents or what happened at such an interview.

MR MEMANI: And if he had told you about Lieutenant Shaw, whom you’ve said you knew very well, you would have contacted him and found out about Ngo?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And Shaw would have told you that he was a very good candidate.

MR LOOTS: If that had been Shaw’s opinion, he would have told me, I don’t know.

MR MEMANI: And that opinion would have been based on his previous record with the Free State police?

MR LOOTS: We can accept that.

MR MEMANI: And that would have prompted you to be keen to recruit him?

MR LOOTS: Yes, if he had been that kind of material according to the people in Bloemfontein then he would have been an appropriate candidate.

MR MEMANI: And it is somewhat difficult to understand why, when you were short of a man in your unit - you said you were in an unfortunate position of having people who were about to retire, now you got a young zealous man who had worked with the police for 5 years or so and you just let the matter fizzle.

MR LOOTS: I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about that. I have said I requested him to put in his application and to see if it was approved so I could continue with that but such an application never reached my desk.

MR MEMANI: But then one would have expected that you would have asked him and said: "Mr, you’ve given a good impression of me", you would have spoken to Lieutenant Shaw who would have told you that he’s a positive man and you’d have been keen to recruit him, you would then have sent Bokaba back to him and said: "Bokaba, where’s the man you brought to my office"?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, with all respect, Advocate de Jager has already asked me that question and I replied that it would have been premature to run ahead of the process, to do anything before an approved application had been received.

MR MEMANI: Now, will you please have a look at Exhibit B66.

MR LOOTS: It is an SAP27, an enrolment.

MR MEMANI: There’s an entry of 4 December 1986 which says that he was at the riot unit, do you see that?

MR LOOTS: Riot squad head branch - yes, I see it.

MR MEMANI: Furthermore it says that later on he was at Hammanskraal head office.

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, that is not what it says.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, it’s for the witness to tell if I’m incorrect, he’s a policeman, he understands the record.

MR DU PLESSIS: With respect Mr Chairman, he’s not the author of the record but my learned friend should put the ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Well, is my learned friend the author of the record?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I’m not saying ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn’t the record clearly show that he was transferred from Ladybrand to the South African police college at Hammanskraal on the 4th of July 1986? He was transferred from the college to the unrest unit headquarters on the 4th of December 1986. Is that not what is reflected there Colonel?

MR LOOTS: That is quite right your Honour.

MR MEMANI: And what does the entry which says Hammanskraal, hoofkantoor?

CHAIRPERSON: It is from - if you look at the heading, it’s says from the college at Hammanskraal. The next column is headed 2 - Onluste Eenheid Hoofkantoor.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases, I interpreted that as two entries.

There is also a computer print-out - if I may have a loot at the index Mr Chairman, to get the document.

ADV DE JAGER: Page 68.

MR MEMANI: Have you got B68 now Colonel?

MR LOOTS: Yes, I do.

MR MEMANI: Let’s look at the last two entries, there’s the 4th of December 1986 which is visible policing unit, unit 19.

MR LOOTS: Yes, I do see it.

MR MEMANI: Is it correct that that suggests that he was with the visible policing unit, unit 19 during the period 4 December 1986 onwards?

MR LOOTS: That is how I see it your Honour.

MR MEMANI: And then on the 18th of May 1987 he would have been transferred from unit 19 to the college at Hammanskraal?

MR LOOTS: I see that it says before that Human Resources Management. If I remember correctly, it would usually be where a person would go to some sort of course or if he would go for training, then it is indicated as Human Resources Management, that is the extent to which I can comment Mr Chair.

MR MEMANI: You see, Mr Ngo was surprised to see that there was any suggestion that he ever went back to Hammanskraal or that he ever underwent any training course during that period.

MR LOOTS: I cannot comment on that.

MR MEMANI: And that coincides with the period when he says that he was working with the security branch of the Northern Transvaal onwards.

MR LOOTS: That is what he says.

MR MEMANI: You also told us that before a person was taken into the Northern Transvaal security branch, he would undergone an orientation course which would have included training him on how to deal with informers and so on.

MR LOOTS: I said that.

MR MEMANI: And Mr Ngo himself, had handled informers and had been an informer for a period of at least four years prior to him being at Pretoria.

MR LOOTS: I don’t know, that’s what he says.

MR MEMANI: Accordingly it would not have been necessary for Mr Ngo to be a useful - in order to be a useful member, to have undergone the orientation course.

MR LOOTS: I would probably have determined that if I followed up his application.

MR MEMANI: Mr Ngo will say that he was in fact - has said that he was in fact serving in the security branch.

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, that man never ever, not for a second in his life worked for the security branch in the Northern Transvaal. I repeat, not for a second.

MR MEMANI: Mr Ngo came from the Free State or we are in the Free State, left the Free State and went to Pretoria and he says that he participated in the attacks of various house at Pretoria. For what reason would Mr Ngo have attacked residences in Pretoria?

MR LOOTS: You are his legal representative, you’ll have to ask him that question.

MR MEMANI: He has given me instructions and he has told the Committee that he did so in his capacity as a member of the security branch.

MR LOOTS: The previous question that you asked me Mr Chair - the previous question you asked me, I told you that the man never worked a second for the security police in the Northern Transvaal.

MR MEMANI: Are you suggesting that for no good reason, Mr Ngo implicates himself in arson, murder and attempted murder?

MR LOOTS: I don’t know what his motivation and/or reasons would be.

MR MEMANI: Colonel Loots, you do not dispute that Louisa Mbongo’s house was burnt down, do you?

MR LOOTS: I cannot recall her as a person at all. When her name was mentioned here, I tried to place this person but neither her address nor her person I can remember, I cannot comment on that.

MR MEMANI: You also do not dispute that her house was burnt by Ngo, the applicant.

MR LOOTS: Could you please repeat that, I’m sorry.

MR MEMANI: You do not dispute and you cannot dispute that the house was burnt down by Ngo?

MR LOOTS: According to Ngo it was burnt. How can I comment on that?

MR MEMANI: And you cannot dispute that he did so in the company of Bokaba and Selahla?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, on what date was that house burnt down?

MR MEMANI: Mr Loots, I have asked you a question, you must answer the question. The question is, you cannot dispute that the house was burnt down by Ngo whilst he was in the company of Bokaba and Selahla.

MR LOOTS: That is what your client says, I cannot argue on that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, maybe I can just state for the record, the dates referred to on page 43 of bundle A, refers to 1987 to 1988. That is on the one hand, on the other hand in bundle C, there’s a reference to a period of three weeks. That is all that we have about the dates.

Mr Chairman, it is bundle C, page 13, paragraph B(a) and the heading there is also during 1987 ‘88.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes.

MR MEMANI: Colonel, you do not dispute that Nono Girl’s house was burnt down, do you?

MR LOOTS: If he says that, he burnt down the house. I was not at the scene, how would I know?

MR MEMANI: And you cannot dispute that the house was burnt down by Ngo who was in the company of Bokaba and Selahla.

MR LOOTS: Once again, that is what he said, how can I dispute that? I cannot comment on that.

MR MEMANI: And you’ve told us that you were the officer in command responsible for amongst others, Mamelodi?

MR LOOTS: That’s what I testified Mr Chair, that’s correct.

MR MEMANI: You would then have had access about Louisa Mbongo if she was an activist?

MR LOOTS: But of course yes, I would have had such information. I can just not recall it, whether or not I did or did not.

MR MEMANI: And when confronted with the application of Mr Ngo, you would have gone to the records and to see whether there was ever any activist in Mamelodi who was Louisa Mbongo?

MR LOOTS: It has repeatedly been testified before this Amnesty Committee that all record have been destroyed on Regional and on National level.

MR MEMANI: And you would have been able to verify at least from a local police station, whether such an arson took place or not?

MR LOOTS: One could perhaps go to their records but I did not go to that trouble.

MR MEMANI: And you also do not dispute that Mbongo was a member of MYO?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I don’t want to object unnecessarily but maybe Mr Memani can give us an indication if they tried to ascertain exactly from the information in the records at the police station, if such an attack took place.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the way I understand it, it would have been the investigating unit of the TRC which would have gone and sought to verify.

MR MEMANI: Mr Loots, you do not dispute that Louisa Mbongo was a member of MYO?

MR LOOTS: It is possible, I don’t know.

MR MEMANI: And you do not dispute that her house was burnt down and as a result thereof Nono Girl organised a protest march against the burning of the house?

MR LOOTS: I cannot comment.

MR MEMANI: And that Nono Girl’s house was burnt down because she arranged a protest march against the burning of Louisa Mbongo’s house?

MR LOOTS: Once again Mr Chair, I cannot comment on that.

MR MEMANI: Mr Loots, you have applied for amnesty?

MR LOOTS: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: For what acts have you applied for amnesty?

MR LOOTS: I think my legal representative ought to answer that Mr Chair.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I must say I did not know this morning that my attorney did have Colonel Loot’s application here, it is here and if you want me to, I can provide the information to you. It will take a little bit of time Mr Chairman.

MR LOOTS: Can I also please have the documents before me?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, maybe it’s easier for Colonel Loots to do it himself from his application, may I hand the application to him?

MR MEMANI: Mr Loots, I think we might save time if you might tell us those you can remember off the cuff and then we’ll wait for you to make sure whether you’ve mentioned everything.

MR LOOTS: I would prefer to look it up.

MR MEMANI: But it was your acts Mr Loots.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just enquire here what the relevance of this if, this is not Colonel Loots’s amnesty application and I will object if any questions are going to be asked to Colonel Loots about the contents of the application. I however don’t object against him telling us exactly for what incidents he has applied for but I don’t know where it’s going to take us.

MR MEMANI: If that is the case, then the objection is premature.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it’s difficult at this stage to come to any conclusions till one knows the acts which he has applied for amnesty for - which you indicated this morning, you’d have no objection to that information being put before us and once counsel has that information, he can then decide which questions are relevant and what are not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, you will in any event recall that Colonel Loots already gave evidence before the Committee about the Mutasi matter in which he was involved in and I can tell you know that that is one of the incidents that he does apply for, for amnesty.

Colonel, could you please just tell us what the incidents were, don’t go into your evidence?

MR LOOTS: Let’s start with the big thing. In the first place

"Murder of a policeman and his wife in Hammanskraal"

"It was an attempted murder on Father Shipo Smangaliso Patrick Makatshwa"

"Attempted murder on Advocate Ernst Dikgang Moseleki"

"Transgression of the Act on explosives"

"Transgression of the Act on arms and ammunition"

"Arson"

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that all"

MR LOOTS: If I left something out, it was not my intention.

MR DU PLESSIS: Colonel, can I just to make sure, there certain other lessor charges or lessor things that you mentioned ...[intervention]

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, if my learned friend wants to ask questions, he must wait for the time to re-examine.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what he’s trying to do is draw the witnesses attention to some other part of the document that he’d been invited to look at. Is this for offences other than gross violations?

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, these offences include offences which are not gross violations of human rights. All I’m trying to say is you will remember that our applications included all other criminal offences which could be competent verdicts under a specific crime and where he mention murder in the application obviously it could have mentioned assault etc., etc., and I’m just making clear that he just mentioned the one but it’s not necessarily the only one that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It covers all the alternative verdicts on that charge, is that all you were trying to say?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don’t think you need to tell the witness, you can just make that clear to us. I think we all know that is the position where you apply for one.

MR MEMANI: And the arson, in respect of what building and whose building was it?

MR LOOTS: Can I just make sure from my legal representative.

Can I respond to that question?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I didn’t hear the question properly.

ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me, the interpreters just want to - it might be that we can have a short break.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll take a short break.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

PHILLIPUS JOHANNES CORNELIUS LOOTS: s.u.o.

MR MEMANI: ...[inaudible] that you applied for.

MR LOOTS: Mr Chairman, can I just make sure from my legal representative?

May I continue?

It was a church building in the Mamelodi residential area Mr Chair, and it was known to me as Legodi’s Church.

MR MEMANI: Did you say that this house was in Mamelodi?

MR LOOTS: No, not the house, the church. I said it was in Mamelodi Mr Chair.

MR MEMANI: And did - do you know if Bokaba has applied for amnesty in respect of any of the matters you have applied for amnesty for?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I don’t really know. Bokaba is going come and testify, my learned friend can ask Bokaba about that.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think he can be expected to give evidence about what somebody else has applied for.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is it just in respect one instance of arson that you’re applying amnesty for?

MR LOOTS: That is correct Mr Chair.

ADV DE JAGER: There are no incidents of petrol bombings that you apply for?

MR LOOTS: It was specifically petrol bombs that were used in this incident but not any other incidents Mr Chair.

MR MEMANI: And where did the attempted murder of Dikgang Moseleki take place?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I object against this really. This is going into the detail of the application, that application does not even concern a gross human rights violation.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, he mentioned attempted murder but if you read the application itself, you will see that it wasn’t really attempted murder and that is why it was also not included in any of the hearings of any of the other amnesty applicants who were before you.

MR MEMANI: The simple question is, where was this? You were prepared to tell us that the church was in Mamelodi.

MR DU PLESSIS: I object Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the question - where was what?

MR MEMANI: Where did the attempted murder on Dikgang Moseleki take place?

Now Mr Chairman, I do not see the difference between telling me that the arson was in Mamelodi and telling me that the attempted murder was in Attridgeville or wherever it took place.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood it, the purpose of this question was whether these offences were connected with any of the offences before us.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I’m interested in a wider enquiry than you think, I am trying to say that the policemen in Pretoria committed acts of arson and other criminal offences in and around the area and I am trying to say - I hope I will be successful in doing so, that these things took place in Mamelodi.

And if these things did take place in Mamelodi, then it is somewhat probable that Ngo, being a member of the security police, would have participated in certain illegal activities in Mamelodi or surrounding areas.

MR DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman, for that purpose you have heard evidence in numerous applications of Cronje, Hechter, van Vuuren etc., where certain incidents took place in Mamelodi, including arson, murder etc., bomb attacks, petrol bomb attacks etc., in Mamelodi, you’ve even heard evidence of the killing of Doctor Ribero and his wife in Mamelodi, so I think that’s a given fact that such incidents took place and were committed by the security police in Mamelodi.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, on the basis of the evidence that’s been before you in other ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The evidence that has been given and has not been contested.

MR MEMANI: Well you see Mr Chairman, my learned friend mustn’t forget that I do not follow the TRC and that’s not the evidence in this application. So, should we accept it then that the answer was going to be that the attempted murder took place in Mamelodi?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR MEMANI: So then, what is the point ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What you can accept is, we are satisfied that there are numerous instances where the security branch - members of the security branch committed criminal acts of violence in Mamelodi, including arson, murder, attempted murder.

MR MEMANI: And including Loots?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR MEMANI: And including Loots?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, then we’re going to go into the detail of Colonel Loots’s applications. Colonel Loots ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, we’re arguing now for about ten minutes about this, is there really any objection of saying where this attempted murder or whatever it might have been on Advocate Moseleki took place?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: We can shorten the proceedings ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s mike is not activated.

ADV DE JAGER: I wouldn’t say you should but if it’s irrelevant, why can’t it be disclosed?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the nature of that application means that if he has to disclose it, he has to disclose the whole evidence surrounding that application.

CHAIRPERSON: Why can’t he just say where?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, would you then afford me the opportunity to go through the application, the contents of that application?

ADV DE JAGER: Couldn’t we perhaps call Mr Visser and he could tell us where - what he knows about it?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Unfortunately, I know nothing about it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, that’s exactly the whole incident that’s referred to and that’s applied for.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, once I get the place of where the incident took place, I will proceed to the next point. I’m not going to be asking him about the details of the attack and so on. And I do not see how this prejudices him differently from telling us that he killed a policeman at Hammanskraal, he bombed at a church at Mamelodi, what’s the difference?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, while I’m looking at the application of Advocate Moseleki, I see that Colonel Loots was wrong in saying that it was attempted murder. The application was made for conspiracy, lessor charges under the above and all other offences that might occur from the ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: The place referred to in the application under paragraph 9(a) III, is Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this to be carried out in Mamelodi?

MR LOOTS: No, at no stage your Honour.

MR MEMANI: Where was it carried out?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it relevant if it wasn’t Mamelodi? You told us the point of the questioning was to see if these offences were being committed in Mamelodi.

MR MEMANI: And I said surrounding areas?

Was it ...[intervention]

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, for that purpose one has to go into the details of the "sameswering" and exactly what took place, what was discussed, what was planned, what happened, where it was planned etc., etc.

MR MEMANI: Look Mr Chairman, this is a waste of time, I proceed to the next set of questions.

Now, do you in your application, implicate Bokaba and Selahla?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you’ll just afford me an opportunity. Mr Chairman, I haven’t perused Colonel Loots’s amnesty applications recently and I personally do not know what the answer to question is, so if that question is going to be allowed, I - or before I make an objection, I want an opportunity to peruse the applications ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Surely it is relevant without you perusing the application. If he used them in other things to commit this type of offence, it is surely relevant as to whether they did so in the sensitives.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, then the question must be in relating to the one incident of arson that Colonel Loots has applied for amnesty for - if Bokaba and Selahla was involved in that but that wasn’t the question Mr Chairman.

Colonel - Mr Chairman, may Colonel Loots be afforded the opportunity to answer that question because I don’t have any objection against that?

CHAIRPERSON: I cannot see that it should be restricted to the arson, the question that - the case that the applicant is seeking to make out is that this was a squad that was used by Colonel Loots to commit acts of violence. If it transpires that in his own amnesty application, he sets out details of similar types of acts of violence by the same squad, surely it is relevant.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Chairman, I then have no objection if Colonel Loots gives us an indication if "Slang" and Bokaba was involved in any of the applications that he has applied for.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the questions, wasn’t it?

MR MEMANI: That is correct Mr Chair.

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, I do mention their names.

MR MEMANI: And I want you to use the word "implicate" and not just "mention".

MR LOOTS: All right, I imply them in my amnesty application, I implicate them.

MR MEMANI: Mr Loots, what was the scope of your responsibilities? Maybe I should - you’ve already told us - I withdraw that questions because you’ve already told us that you were the person in the command in the area of Mamelodi, Attridgeville and Shweshanguwe. Is it correct that Hechter would have been a person reporting to you?

MR LOOTS: That is correct, that is what I testified.

MR MEMANI: And Hechter was the person directly responsible for Mamelodi?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: That officers of a rank that was junior than Hechter’s would have reported directly to him?

MR LOOTS: That’s correct, but there were instances where Hechter was not available and then the responsibility would be transferred to the next senior person. It could have been Warrant Officer du Toit or Hlongwane.

MR MEMANI: Is it Hlongwane?

MR LOOTS: Johannes Hlongwane.

MR MEMANI: H-l-o-n-g-w-a-n-e?

MR LOOTS: w-a-n-e, that’s quite right.

MR MEMANI: If there was a shortage of personnel in Mamelodi, the person directly affected by that shortage would be Jacques Hechter, is that correct?

MR LOOTS: And myself as well.

MR MEMANI: But the person directly affected would be Jacques Hechter?

MR LOOTS: If you want to put it that way, yes but exactly to the same extent it would affect me as well.

MR MEMANI: And Jacques Hechter would be the person that Bokaba would have told about a potential candidate?

MR LOOTS: Not necessarily, it depended whether or not Hechter had been available or not, if he had been available he could have told him that.

MR MEMANI: But a shortage of personnel is not a single day event, it’s a continuous thing?

MR LOOTS: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: Therefore, Jacques Hechter would have known about the shortage of staff?

MR LOOTS: But of course he would have known.

MR MEMANI: And Bokaba, as the person working directly under him would most probably have told Jacques Hechter about a new candidate ...[inaudible] was removed and working at Compal?

MR LOOTS: We will have to ask Hendrik where or not he mentioned this to Hechter, I don’t know.

MR MEMANI: And it is ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, I just don’t quite understand the position. Did Hechter have offices at Mamelodi, did he work at Mamelodi?

MR LOOTS: He did work at Mamelodi you Honour, but never ever in an office, there was only one office and that was our office in the Compal building.

MR MEMANI: And did you discuss the recruitment of Ngo with Hechter?

MR LOOTS: I cannot remember ten years back whether or not I discussed this with him or not.

MR MEMANI: But you were short of staff and a person was available in his area.

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, you must remember that - at some stage I asked a date, at the end of ‘87 I indicated to you at the beginning of evidence that Selahla joined us. At that stage I then had two people Bokaba and Selahla and I do not try to say by that, that that was sufficient.

MR MEMANI: The overwhelming probability is that you did not discuss the matter with Hechter.

MR LOOTS: I cannot comment on that, I don’t know.

MR MEMANI: And you did not discuss the matter with Hechter because Ngo was not recruited from Mamelodi barracks or unit 19 but because you came to know about him through Bloemfontein security branch.

MR LOOTS: I have testified under oath here that Bloemfontein at no stage contacted me telephonically or otherwise on you client or about your client.

MR MEMANI: And that is why you do not have sufficient explanation of why you did not follow the matter up when you were short staffed and you had what had impressed you within 30 minutes as a good candidate.

MR LOOTS: That is a statement that you are making, I cannot comment on that.

MR MEMANI: Now ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, what impressed you so much about this person you had never known before - within 30 minutes?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, it was clear to me that he had reasonable political insights, for example the United Democratic Front was known to him - the sub-structures thereof. For example the Congress of South African Students, COSAS, the Mamelodi Youth Organisation and I don’t want to say that he also mentioned the African Women’s Organisation but his insights into these organisations at that stage that were very active, he had insight into and he had good working knowledge thereof.

JUDGE NGOEPE: All those organisations and their activities were matters of public knowledge, anybody could have known about them, they were not underground organisations.

MR LOOTS: That is so but specific persons were involved in management positions or in positions of control and he knew their names.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes but what - anybody, any student would have known about the names of those leaders of those student organisations, indeed any resident of any township would have known about the names of the leaders of those organisations.

MR LOOTS: That might be so but let me put it this way, except for the fact that he knew their names - there’s a connection with the positions they held, he knew about their activities, for example, meetings they held. That’s what I’m trying to say.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, did he not he tell you that: "listen I’ve got this kind of background, I’ve been an informer in Bloemfontein, I had worked with the security branch in Bloemfontein", isn’t that what impressed you Colonel?

MR LOOTS: That might be the case, it did impress me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible] about his background?

MR LOOTS: Yes, he did, told me that he had been an informer and that he had worked with the security branch in Bloemfontein, in the presence of Bokaba. That’s what I testified.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And did you then - did you contact Bloemfontein?

MR LOOTS: Never, I never contacted Bloemfontein.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You just accepted his word that he had been an informer in Bloemfontein, he had worked with the security police in Bloemfontein?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, I have explained. I sent him away after he had impressed me and after I thought that he had a chance. I explained that he had to put in application with his commanding officer and if I received the application there would have been a certain process and in that process, I would have followed this up with Bloemfontein, otherwise I would have done all this work and his application is not approved.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now, before you ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you said earlier in your evidence that if he had mentioned Shaw’s name, you would have made contact with Shaw.

MR LOOTS: No, that’s not what I testified.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the questioning was on the basis of - if he would have mentioned Shaw, would he have contacted him, it was on that basis. It wasn’t on the basis that that was what factually happened, that he had contacted him.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it was on the basis that though that if Shaw’s name had been mentioned he would have contacted him in Bloemfontein.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And at that time when you interviewed the applicant, already you knew Lieutenant Shaw?

MR LOOTS: Yes, I knew him, I knew most of the security men in the country.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I find it improbable that he would not have told you - he would not have mentioned Lieutenant Shaw during the interview when he told you about his own background.

MR LOOTS: I have testified that he had mentioned Shaw’s name.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, did you contact Lieutenant Shaw?

MR LOOTS: No, I waited for his application as I had testified, I wanted to see if the application was approved.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why go so far as to say: "Go and lodge an application with your commander", before you took the trouble to chat a little bit with Lieutenant Shaw to verify what this gentleman is telling you?

MR LOOTS: The application is the beginning or the start of a process. The information of the application had to be tested and had to be followed up and verified and if an application had been approved I would have done this. If I had done all the other things before the application was approved, I would have done things senselessly. or uselessly.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible] been even more embarrassing of you to say to him: "Go and lodge your application with your commander" and later you spoke to Lieutenant Shaw and he told you something different?

MR LOOTS: Then I would have had to deal with that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is that how you handled the matter?

MR LOOTS: That’s correct, that’s how I dealt with it.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, you did say that you think you were asked: "Did he tell you about Coetzee" and you said you think the only name he mentioned was that of Shaw. You were then asked - it was then said: "If he mentioned Shaw, you would have contacted him so that he can express an opinion". That’s the evidence you gave earlier.

MR LOOTS: Yes, my evidence specifically was, after he had put in his application and after it had been approved, I would have contacted Shaw.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, that’s how I understood the evidence but the questioning - you will remember that the questioning was on a very hypothetical basis, it was on a line that if this would have happened, that would have happened, if this would have happened, that would have happened and I know now I wanted to object at that stage and I didn’t but I should have because it was on a basis which was very misleading. So, with respect Mr Chairman, I don’t think anything turns on this.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But it is now no longer hypothetical that the applicant mentioned the name of Lieutenant Shaw to him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is so and the evidence of Colonel Loots is that he didn’t contact Shaw but he would have contacted Shaw if the application had come through the process Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Now the ...[inaudible] which arises from your answers is, why would you contact Shaw after the approval of the application because the application - there must first be clearance and then the application is approved.

MR LOOTS: I have tried to explain Mr Chair, that division units, regional commanders and unit commanders kept people to themselves to a great extent. Applications for transfers were not easily approved, that’s why I sent him away so that I could determine what would happen with his application. Would his unit commander approve or reject his application before I could do anything more in the process.

ADV DE JAGER: If his commander - was it necessary that the unit commander would have to approve a transfer?

MR LOOTS: Yes, he would have to - the approval was with the main office.

ADV DE JAGER: Would transfer be able without an approval?

MR LOOTS: It could be but it not be the rule, it would be the exception. Whether or not he was approved, it had to be sent to the main office or head office, head office had the last say.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Loots, my question to you is, why wait for approval before you clear the man?

MR LOOTS: I don’t understand why you ask the question over and over again, I have answered it.

MR MEMANI: But you did not answer the question.

MR LOOTS: I told you that the approval is only part of the process, if I had completed all these other things after contacting Shaw and making enquiries, I would in any case have to make a recommendation. The divisional commander would have to make a recommendation so everything else had to wait according to the procedure I followed, until I got the application to see if it had been approved or rejected. If it had been rejected I would have done all the other things without any use.

MR MEMANI: But how could an application for the employment of a person in the security branch be approved without it first being ascertained that he’s a proper candidate?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, I specifically refer here to the recommendation as I have told you - the recommendation of his unit commander, is he willing to do without this man or not. It would be the exception and not the rule. If his commander had said that he can’t work without this man and his application was not recommended, it was unlikely that he would have been transferred from unit 19 to security.

MR MEMANI: On what basis could the unit commander refuse that he be transferred to security branch?

MR LOOTS: Personnel shortage in the divisions, in regions and in units.

MR MEMANI: But we know that Mr Ngo actually worked with security branch.

MR LOOTS: In Bloemfontein according to him yes, but not for a second in Northern Transvaal.

ADV DE JAGER: If he had not applied, would it be possible for him to be transferred?

MR LOOTS: Yes, with negotiations but he still would have had to put in an application to make it formal, that is how I see it.

MR MEMANI: Did you speak to his unit commander at unit 19?

MR LOOTS: No, I didn’t

MR MEMANI: But you were in desperate need of a man and here was a man who had impressed you and you did not contact his contacts in Bloemfontein and you never spoke to his unit commander?

MR LOOTS: That’s correct.

MR MEMANI: I put it to you that that is nonsensical, with due respect.

MR LOOTS: You can put to me whatever you want to, I can do my work as I see fit, if it worked for me like that.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chair, it seems that this a convenient time.

CHAIRPERSON: Well is it, we have a lot more work to get through.

MR MEMANI: I might ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: How much longer are you going to be?

MR MEMANI: I’m more than pleased to proceed, it was my learned friends indicating to me that they - it’s a convenient time but we can proceed until half past 4 I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we’ll continue.

MR MEMANI: Now, we have heard evidence that Ngo worked at Bloemfontein and he left Bloemfontein for Ladybrand and later he went to Hammanskraal for training and on his return he went to Pretoria. Now, you - it is clear then that Ngo would not have had intimate knowledge of activists in Mamelodi, do you deny that?

MR LOOTS: No, he had knowledge of persons, not only in Mamelodi but also on national level.

MR MEMANI: What I’m saying to you is that without Ngo having intimate knowledge of people or activists in Mamelodi - let me rephrase, Ngo having just come from Bloemfontein would not have had intimate knowledge of people or activists in Mamelodi?

MR LOOTS: Can I answer Mr Chair?

MR MEMANI: Yes.

MR LOOTS: During the interview with myself, he named - he mentioned the names in management positions like Judge Ngoepe put the question to me, in the same line, the same direction as you now asked the question.

MR MEMANI: But the point is, how could he have known these things without having been active with the security branch if he came from Bloemfontein?

MR LOOTS: He probably made it his business.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just interject here. Mr Ngo’s own evidence was that he was at the training college before that at Hammanskraal and he was for a considerable period already in Pretoria at that stage before he saw Colonel Loots and the evidence was also that he stayed in Mamelodi in the barracks.

ADV DE JAGER: What was the role of the anti-insurgents unit to which he belonged, section or unit 19? What was the role?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, visible policing in uniform as people are dressed in the back of the hall. Can one of you please stand up? That is veld wear or veld clothes. They wore something, a star, police star on their shoulders with a police star. They drove patrols in casspirs.

ADV DE JAGER: What were their functions, were they not riot control?

MR LOOTS: Unit 19’s name was that, there were various names, internal stability, riot squat, reaction unit, unit 19.

ADV DE JAGER: Unrest control is referred to here - unit 19. If he had worked there, with whom would he have had contact?

MR LOOTS: With the commanding officer of unit 19.

ADV DE JAGER: Against whom would he have acted?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, can I answer it in the following way, the information we gained from our informant network, we gave this to the JOC offices, we told them that there would be an illegal march or a meeting or a boycott or whatever. We gave that information to the JOC office and unit 19 took cognisance of what would happend. They had to act in a preventative fashion so that from that meeting or boycott or march, public violence would not result.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Would you also give them the names of the leaders?

MR LOOTS: Of course the people who had arranged or organised these. You are 1000% correct Mr Chair.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I suppose the essence of the questions was, could he not have possibly known the names of all these so-called political activists by reason of the fact that he was in unit 19?

MR LOOTS: It is of course possible, I will concede to that.

MR MEMANI: Mr Loots, the riot unit and that constabular rank were mainly concernd with the physical suppression of unrest and not with matters of information?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, I have already said it might be that some information accidentally came to people’s attention but their main task was the prevention of crime by means of visible policing with the use of patrols.

MR MEMANI: And the joint operation centre would have been a place where you would have members of intelligence from both the police and the army and members of the security branch, where they came together and exchanged information?

MR LOOTS: Not a permanent basis. There weren’t any people from the security branch on a permanent basis there, there were people from the SADF, the SA police, unit 19 and we had contact with the JOC offices. I myself also visited the JOC offices sometimes to go and see how information was kept there but we didn’t sit there on a permanent basis, not one security branch person.

MR MEMANI: It is absurd Mr Loots, to suggest that an office like the joint operation centre in Mamelodi would have had all the other ramifications of the security establishment except security policemen - security branch policemen.

MR LOOTS: If it is absurd to your mind, that might be the case but that’s how it worked.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Loots, the reaction unit which was the riot unit - I’ve alredy said to you, was mainly concerned with the physical suppression of unrest, it ws not an information gathering unit.

MR LOOTS: No, it wasn’t, I have told you that it wasn’t.

MR MEMANI: And members of military intelligence would have been more concerned with I will call, "higher matters of security" than an activist who was protesting against the police’s burning of a house.

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, the SADF was divided or was sent to help the police with prevention of crime in Mamelodi, they had a permament base. There were tents that were errected on the mountainside and they were under the command of a certain Captain Boshoff with whom I often and frequently had contact. Like unit 19 they drove preventative patrols.

MR MEMANI: This joint operation centre, between who and who was co-operation?

MR LOOTS: Between the police, the SADF and of course if there was something that the other intelligence disciplines had to know, we would have reported that to them but as far as I know, this office was only manned by the SAP and the SADF, no other intelligence branches or offices.

MR MEMANI: Mr Loots, I put it to you that the security branch would have had a stronger interest in the passing of information between the various establishments of the security branch than other units of the police and would therefore have been represented more than the reaction unit for instance would have represented in such a structure.

MR LOOTS: If you tell me that we were in command of the flow of information, I do agree with you 100%, that’s what I have testified. We dealt with the informant network, this intelligence was give to the JOC where necessary.

MR MEMANI: Now, if you’re heading this thing - if you were the persons who were in control then it follows that you should have had some presence in that structure.

MR LOOTS: But I have told you now, we didn’t have any people there on a permament baiss, we from time to time visited them. They were dependent on our information not - they weren’t dependent on our - we weren’t dependent on them.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How often did you pass this information to the other sections?

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, I have testified we met each other twice a day, that’s the various commanding officers, myself, reports were given to me, If we had to report information to them, it would have been informed. In certain circumstances we could not wait for the morning or the afternoon conference but intelligence of information had to be made available in the day. On that basis the information was evaluated and sent to the disciplines who had to take note of that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, I’m not sure you understand or whether we understand one another, are you talking about - I’m asking you about the intercourse between you and GOS, did it take place that often?

MR LOOTS: Only if we visited them.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How often did that happen?

MR LOOTS: Let’s say once a day, maybe sometimes twice or three times a day. Our people were throught in the residential areas, that is why for each residential area I had an officer. If in the morning half past 7 I have finished or completed the meetings, I could not leave these people just to go on with their activities until 4 o’clock, somebody had to be in control there and that was these officers who had to make sure that they did their work in the residential areas. The members that were deployed in the residential areas would the visit the JOC offices.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Where did these other sections - where did you meet to pass information to them, did you meet in Mamelodi with them or at ...[intervention]

MR LOOTS: In my office.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well sorry, what is this GOS - am I perhaps mistaken here, when you speak of GOS I thought you include the unit 19, the defence force ...[intervention}

MR LOOTS: It was an operational centre in Mamelodi at the police station but not involved in the normal things that the police officers of police did. JOC was centered there to see what intelligence we gave to them. JOC was in control of the defence force and also in control of unit 19. If we gave information to JOC, saying that there would be a riot or a meeting, JOC would inform unit 19 and the SADF. We did not inform the military, that was the job of the JOC.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And you met daily with GOS?

MR LOOTS: Yes, that’s the case.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you go to JOC on a daily basis or did Hechter go there or how did it work in practice?

MR LOOTS: It was not possible for me to go to the JOC offices each and every day, I depended on my officers and if they weren’t there, then the next person in command would do that. As low down as Constable Bokaba sitting there, it he had intelligence or information that he thought had to go there, I would not have any problems with him giving the information and informing me about it later on.

CHAIRPERSON: When you get to a convenient stage, I’ve been reminded that some of us have been working harder than most of us for the whole day and it’s been a long day for them.

MR MEMANI: Mr Loots, Mr Ngo told us that what occured at that office was that the various establishments exchanged information and that is more sensible than what you are trying to suggest that only the intelligence - only the security branch supplied information.

MR LOOTS: You will remember that I have testified before you Mr Chair, that I said that they not incidentally got information and gave it to us, it is on record that information was transferred but the primary task of the JOC was not to give us information, we gave them information to help unit 19 and the SADF who were repsonsible for prevention of crime, that’s what I’m saying.

MR MEMANI: And during 1985 ‘86 there was a particular crime that was going on which was a priority crime, that is political activity which was aimed against the National Party Government.

MR LOOTS: I hear what you are syaing.

MR MEMANI: And that priority crime would require that people be regularly present at that office of the JOC.

MR LOOTS: There were people throughout, there were people there 24 hours a day in the JOC office. It was manned every second of every day of every week.

MR MEMANI: And in contrast to you, Ngo is able to tell us that the people who represented security branch there were Selahla, himself and Bokaba.

MR LOOTS: Mr Chair, they never represented JOC, they worked for me, how could they work for the JOC? They were under my control, under my command, under my discipline, not under that of the JOC, JOC didn’t have any say over them. The JOC could not give them any orders.

MR MEMANI: Now, ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think or rather the impression I got was that Mr Ngo was saying that they participated in GOS, not so much that they were under the command of GOS.

MR MEMANI: That is correct, that is what I put to the witness Mr Chairman.

MR LOOTS: Represent perhaps, in the sense of transferring information.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don’t know if I understand you correctly, he has testified that they participated.

MR LOOTS: No, not at any stage.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But Colonel, you have just said that even Bokaba could attend the JOC.

MR LOOTS: No, he could transfer the information.

JUDGE NGOEPE: He had to be there in order to transfer information?

MR LOOTS: Yes, but he was not there under their command on a permanent basis, that’s what I’m trying to tell you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That’s not what I’m telling you.

MR LOOTS: That’s - if I misled you, that was not the purpose or my goal, then I apologise.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is it so that Bokaba at some times participated, took part in JOC meetings in the sense that he gave them information?

MR LOOTS: That might be possible Mr Chair, that is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was the JOC?

MR LOOTS: It was at the police offices in Mamelodi.

CHAIRPERSON: The GOS offices?

MR LOOTS: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: It’s a convenient time Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we’ll ajourn till 9.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, before you adjourn, could you give me one minute please Mr Chairman? Mr Chairman, I was wondering whether the Committee might consider adjourning tomorrow at 1 o’clock. There are some of us Mr Chairman, who have been here all week and who do have some problems which we have to attend to elsewhere at our home bases.

Mr Chairman, may I motivate it this way, although we started slowly this week, we did seem to make up some time and my colleagues assure me that if you allow them this weekend to play they will later be prepared to pay by making up time next week if necessary Mr Chairman. I would earnestly ask you whether you could give an indication whether your Committee would be prepared to adjourn at 1 o’clock tomorrow to allow us to go home for the weekend and take care of other pressing maters.

CHAIRPERSON: Any of you other gentlemen wish to say anything in that regard?

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, as far as we are concerned, we should work until late unless there’s a - you know, other people don’t want to work.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani it was a pity you didn’t have the same attitude on Monday.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think apart from the fact that Monday was wasted, we have managed to get through a certain amount of work this week and if the gentlemen will take advantage of the time to go through the papers and what have you and bring them up to date so that we can get cracking, we should be prepared to adjourn at some time, I’m not binding us to 1 o’clock - when we reach a suitable stage around there.

I’ve been asked to raise one other matter please that those of you who feel the necessity to smoke, should not merely go into the foyer but are requested to go outside the building on one or other side.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS