MR MEMANI: As the affidavit stands, you became - according to your affidavit, aware of Ngo’s homosexual relationship with Ngo before he killed Mr Venter or rather Mr Ngo’s homosexual relationship with Mr Venter before he killed Mr Venter.
MR ERASMUS: No, that inference I drew after the court case. Mr Venter is dead now, I don’t want to ascribe things to him which he cannot defend
MR MEMANI: You see Mr Erasmus, to someone who has heard the evidence, the chronology in the affidavit doesn’t allow a construction which you want to put now.
MR ERASMUS: I don’t agree with that.
MR MEMANI: I will deal with that in argument. Now, you deny any knowledge of the people who took Mr Ngo to Mr Venter’s house after he was attacked?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know who took him there. It could have possibly been members of the security branch, I do not deny that but I do not know who they were.
MR MEMANI: Mr Erasmus, you and all the other people who were in the security branch at that time have been aware of the evidence of Mr Ngo for almost a year now and yet up to now there does not appear to be anyone who ascertained who took Ngo to Mr Venter’s house after he was attacked by students?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman, this is not important for me.
MR MEMANI: How can it not be, because it is alleged that you arranged that?
MR ERASMUS: I did not make those arrangements because no arrangements were necessary, Mr Ngo lived there.
MR MEMANI: And that it was actually conveyed by members of the security branch?
MR ERASMUS: It could possibly have been so, these members could have taken him there after he was discharged from the hospital.
MR MEMANI: I’ve already said to you it is strange that no attempt has been made to ascertain who amongst the black members who were there, actually conveyed him.
MR ERASMUS: I have to repeat, it’s unimportant for me.
MR MEMANI: And you told us that you were away when the incident occurred.
MR ERASMUS: Correct Mr Chairman.
MR MEMANI: That was never put to Mr Ngo.
MR ERASMUS: I cannot comment on that. The day that the incident took place I was away, I was not in Bloemfontein.
MR MEMANI: And what’s even worse is that in your evidence in chief you do not sound sure, you said that you suspect you might have been at an officers course.
MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman, during Mr Mohape trial after this incident, I was busy with an officers course.
MR MEMANI: Let me see what my note says then.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani, he was referring to the time when the trial took place.
MR MEMANI: Yes Mr Chairman, I’ve seen that. I want to see what his explanation of his absence was during the time when Ngo was attacked.
Can you perhaps remind us what you said?
MR ERASMUS: I was on the farm with my parents when the incident occurred.
ADV DE JAGER: I think you are now referring to another incident. I think the question is: "When Mr Ngo was attacked, where were you then"?
MR ERASMUS: That’s correct Mr Chair, on the day when he was attacked at the school I was not in Bloemfontein. I was on the farm on the Saturday, I was notified on there and I returned to Bloemfontein on the Sunday.
MR MEMANI: And you see, from the evidence of Mr Mohape, the attack on Mr Ngo occurred on a school day.
MR ERASMUS: That’s correct Mr Chair.
MR MEMANI: And I thought you just said that the attack took place on Saturday while you were at the farm and you came back the Sunday?
MR ERASMUS: No, Mr Chair, I was on the farm where I was notified about the incident that had occurred. Some of my colleagues phoned me there and informed me that such an incident had occurred, I think that was the Friday that the incident occurred.
MR MEMANI: What surprises me is that this was not put to Mr Ngo.
MR ERASMUS: I don’t know whether my presence in Bloemfontein would have made any difference as to whether he would have been attacked or not.
MR MEMANI: When he were saying that you made arrangements for his transfer from home to Mr Venter’s place?
MR ERASMUS: I can’t comment on that.
MR MEMANI: Where is your parents place?
MR ERASMUS: Brandewyn’s Kuil, Vosburg.
MR MEMANI: Where’s this Vosburg? How many kilometres is it from Bloemfontein?
MR ERASMUS: It is 480 kilometres from Bloemfontein in the Karoo.
MR MEMANI: It is interesting that on two occasions when you are implicated by Ngo, you are at Vosburg, isn’t it?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, I visited my parents regularly, it is not strange, it is a fact and those are the facts.
MR MEMANI: Were you on leave at the time?
MR ERASMUS: I can’t remember whether I was on leave or whether I had rest days where I left earlier, I can’t tell you.
MR MEMANI: I put it to you that your denial that you knew Mr Venter and your version that you were not concerned about him and that is did not matter to you that Ngo suddenly started living with a stranger whilst he was your informer, is untrue.
MR ERASMUS: The statement is not correct Mr Chairman.
MR MEMANI: And that it is motivated by a desire by yourself to distance yourself from the murder of Mr Venter.
MR ERASMUS: I don’t wish to distance myself from the murder on Mr Venter, I was not involved with it.
MR MEMANI: If I may have a moment M’Lord.
Mr Erasmus, I heard you to be saying that the attack, rather the charge of attempted murder on Mr Mohape had nothing to do with security branch. Was I following the evidence correctly when I made that note?
MR ERASMUS: Indirectly it had an influence on the security branch because he was an informer but the criminal data was investigated by the detective branch, the security branch was not involved.
MR MEMANI: I see. I’m glad that you’ve realised your mistake. When Mr Ngo was stationed in unit 19 in Mamelodi, did you have any contact with him?
MR ERASMUS: Chair, I on two occasions came across him in Pretoria while I was busy with the court case while he was stationed at unit 19, yes.
MR VISSER: ...[inaudible]
INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone.
MR VISSER: ...[inaudible] because I thought there was a clear misunderstanding. My learned friend was talking about Mr Mohape and the witness was talking about Mr Ngo and that question and answer just before we went to Mamelodi Mr Chairman.
MR MEMANI: Did you see him at court?
MR ERASMUS: No, Mr Chair, the court case which I am referring to was a case which we investigated, the case was heard in Pretoria and I met him in the street there. It was not in the court case or in the court where I came across him.
MR MEMANI: You came across him twice, was it in the street on both occasions?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, that’s correct.
MR MEMANI: I’m sorry if I do not seem to be leading anywhere, I was just taking instructions. I don’t know why I was asked to ask the question. Let us proceed to the next question. Now, is it not true Mr Erasmus, that on occasions people were used by security branch even if they were not members of security branch?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, I’m not exactly sure what the reference is to but we were part of the police.
MR MEMANI: Is it not true that some policemen actually worked with security branch while they were not in fact registered at security branch?
MR ERASMUS: No, Mr Ngo was there on detached service. Earlier this morning I mentioned the investigating team which worked there but I don’t have knowledge of any other individuals.
MR MEMANI: I don’t understand why you have to start by denying that Ngo was not in detached service. The question that I put to you was: "Is it not true that some policemen do work for security branch even if they’re not members of the security branch"?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, I know of those two, Mr Ngo and the unrest investigating team, I don’t know of any others.
MR MEMANI: We were told about Nkanja who was from the municipality police who worked with you for over a year before he actually became a member, no I don’t think it was in evidence Mr Chairman, but I think I put it to a previous witness.
MR ERASMUS: Inspector Nkanja I know. He was attached to the municipal police and he was included into the police and he was transferred to the security branch, that is my knowledge of him.
MR MEMANI: Do you have difficulty just conceding that: "Yes, he worked with us for about a year before he actually became enlisted as a member of security branch"?
MR ERASMUS: No, my knowledge is that when Inspector - Inspector Nkanja was transferred to security branch and then worked there. I have no knowledge that he previously worked somewhere else or had some relationship or attachment to the security branch before he started working there. He was included into the staff.
MR MEMANI: You were not even aware that he was from the municipality police?
MR ERASMUS: I am aware that he was of the municipal police.
MR MEMANI: And Mkwena also, I was told he was from the municipality police and worked for security branch for over a year before he actually became a member.
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, my knowledge is that after the municipal police had been taken over by the South African Police and after they had been incorporated they immediately started working with us and this is my only knowledge about these two members.
MR MEMANI: Thank you.
Mr Chairman, if I may go through the notes?
You’ve already testified about Nichos and you’ve said that you know him, isn’t it?
MR ERASMUS: I met Mr Nichos, Constable Kabusa who rented a room from him knew him and that’s how I met him.
MR MEMANI: We hear evidence that Mr Nichos was harassed by security branch, from Mr Serame Molefe.
MR ERASMUS: Yes.
MR MEMANI: Do you have - you seem to be throwing your eyes at your legal representatives, do you want them to assist you?
MR ERASMUS: No.
MR MEMANI: Oh I see.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I cannot allow my learned friend, with great respect, to make remarks such as has just been made, on the record. It’s totally unfounded and unjustified, I object to it Mr Chairman.
MR MEMANI: Mr Erasmus, you said that - I put it to you that Mr Nichos was harassed by security branch and you said: "Yes" but I just want to make sure because it was not clear from the way I put it whether you intended to confirm that Nichos was in fact harassed by security branch.
MR ERASMUS: I agreed that there had been such testimony, I don’t have knowledge that he was harassed by the security branch.
MR MEMANI: My instructions - his evidence was that - no, I don’t remember if your name was specifically mentioned, but my instructions are that you used to harass him together with Mr Motsamai.
MR ERASMUS: That is not the truth Mr Chair.
MR MEMANI: Do you know that Mr Nichos had a night-club?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I have knowledge of that fact.
MR MEMANI: And part of the harassment involved Mr Motsamai being present regularly at the night-club despite the fact that he’s not a drinker.
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, the night-club was relaxation, a place of relaxation for many of the black members. I met some of the black members in that night-club. It was definitely not intended to be harassment.
MR MEMANI: Surely this does not involve any offence?
MR ERASMUS: Honourable Chair, it was stated to me as harassment and that is not the way I saw it.
MR MEMANI: Was it monitoring perhaps?
MR ERASMUS: No, Chair.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I fail to see how the attendance of Mr Motsamai at a night-club, his attendance there, I fail to see how that could be a harassment.
MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, it causes you discomfort if you are involved in something which the police have an interest in and if the police are there at your place regularly.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Maybe you should find words for it, it’s not harassment.
CHAIRPERSON: Not if they’re spending money there, I think it does not cause you any discomfort.
MR MEMANI: That is why Mr Chairman, I put it to him that perhaps the better word to use is monitor.
ADV DE JAGER: And if you’re doing nothing wrong it couldn’t be harassment either?
MR MEMANI: I don’t understand why you are asking me that question Mr Chairman, because what I put is that he was monitored, Nichos was monitored by Motsamai and I don’t understand what you want me to answer.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you now saying the security branch was monitoring the way that a night-club was run, well, a member of the security branch.
MR MEMANI: No, Mr Chairman, I say that part of the monitoring of Nichos involved Mr Motsamai being regularly present at the night-club although he did not drink. Obviously Mr Chairman, if the police are always present at your place of residence or business they’ll see the people who go in there and see who you meet there and see who associates with you there. And some of them might be people whom they have an interest in.
CHAIRPERSON: You haven’t suggested that at all, you’re asking about the night-club.
MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.
MR VISSER: What I would like to know Mr Chairman is, which incident this refers to for which an amnesty application is made? There’s no amnesty application for attack on a night-club, monitoring or harassment of Nichos at a night-club.
MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, you’ll recall that during cross-examination of Mr Motsamai it was suggested that Nichos had nothing to do with politics, he was just known as a businessman.
Now Mr Erasmus, you heard Mr Serame testify, isn’t it?
MR ERASMUS: ...[No English translation]
MR MEMANI: And you heard him say that security branch harassed, used to visit Mr Nichos.
MR ERASMUS: I heard that Honourable Chair.
MR MEMANI: And that you actually visited Nichos.
MR ERASMUS: I met Mr Nichos on a number of occasions. Constable Kabusa had a room which he rented from Mr Nichos at his house and he was a member of the security branch and this is the room in which he committed suicide. That is how I got to meet Mr Nichos. The incident to which Mr Serame Molefe refers to, I don’t have any knowledge of.
MR MEMANI: You heard Mr Molefe complain, say that Nichos complained that you were harassing him.
MR ERASMUS: I heard the evidence but I don’t agree with the statement Mr Chair.
MR MEMANI: Now for what reason would Mr Molefe lie about the presence of security branch at Mr Nichos’s business?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, presence of a member of the security branch on the premises and harassment of an individual are two different things and I do not agree with the harassment. If the members visited there, no problem with that.
MR MEMANI: And when Mr Motsamai testified and said that he petrol bombed the house of Nichos because he was a suspected courier, it was put to him that the house was burnt because he was suspected to be involved in a ritual murder.
MR ERASMUS: I have no knowledge of that Mr Chair.
MR MEMANI: Did you not give those instructions to your legal representatives?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, I was not implicated in deeds of Motsamai and consequently I didn’t make a statement in that regard. And I was not asked in that regard because I was not implicated in that.
Now, did you perhaps not ask your legal representatives who instructed them that Nichos’s house was burnt because of a suspected ritual murder?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, I don’t even have knowledge that Mr Nichos’s house had been burnt down.
MR MEMANI: I think it was a shop yes, we’re talking about.
MR ERASMUS: Or that his shop had been burnt down.
MR MEMANI: Now, you heard Mr Serame testify that he was a former Robben Islander, he is a former Robben Islander.
MR ERASMUS: That may be so.
MR MEMANI: And you heard Motsamai testify that Mr Nichos was a courier and you’ve already commented on that. You also heard Mr Motsamai testify that Nichos used to help comrades in the township.
MR ERASMUS: I don’t know what they helped with or what he helped them with, I don’t have any knowledge of that.
MR MEMANI: And you also heard Serame testify - that is Mr Molefe, I keep believing Serame is his surname, you heard Mr Molefe testify that Nichos was involved in the transportation of Chris Hani when he came into the country for the first time to address a meeting, either here in Bloemfontein or in ...[indistinct] I’m no longer certain, didn’t you?
MR ERASMUS: I heard that testimony, yes Mr Chair.
MR MEMANI: Wouldn’t security branch then have interest in a person who was involved in all these things?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, after 2 February 1990, the ANC was a legal organisation and the security branch had no interest in further monitoring these people. And to return to the question, it is absurd that any action had to be taken against Mr Nichos because he had an association with Mr Hani.
MR MEMANI: I am sure that you do not want us to believe that Nichos, rather Serame came back from prison after 1990.
MR ERASMUS: I don’t know when he returned Mr Chair.
MR MEMANI: And also that Nichos’s house was bombed after 1990.
MR ERASMUS: I don’t have any knowledge when the house or the shop was attacked.
ADV DE JAGER: Can you perhaps give us the date of the attack on the shop of Mr Nichos?
MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, as far as I can recall we have never furnished any dates but I am sure in my mind that we are dealing with the era which was before 1990. If I may take instructions M’Lord? Mr Chairman, those are my questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?
MR BRINK: No questions, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Mr Chair, I failed raise two aspects with the witness, I will be as quickly as possible with your permission, like yesterday. As it please Mr Chairman.
Mr Erasmus, I understood that the leaders of the group of 19 on occasion were taken to the local Magistrates Court in order to go and make admissions there. Do you have any knowledge of that?
MR ERASMUS: No, I don’t have any knowledge of that.
MR STANDER: Because I wish to state to you that on the relevant day, the Magistrate refused to accept testimony of Mr Makubalo and Mr Oliphant because they had been seriously assaulted and this was visible, and for this reason the Magistrate refused to take their admissions.
MR ERASMUS: I can’t comment on this because I don’t have any knowledge of it.
MR STANDER: Another aspect which I failed to state to you was, that it was my instruction that you inter alias formed part of the group of security police officers who sometimes changed testimony and/or falsely concocted it in order to get a guilty or not guilty finding. What do you say to that?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, this is a serious allegation made against me and I would like to know who is making this allegation.
CHAIRPERSON: It’s an extremely allegation. Shouldn’t you give instances and say who said it and when?
MR STANDER: I will tell you where it originates from Mr Erasmus. This information inter alias - these incidents or these attempts to change evidence occurred on occasions when Mr Makubalo was kind of assaulted and you and all your group of security police officers wished to hide these facts because on occasion he was also accused of attempted murder.
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, I deny this but I would like to have more information regarding exactly what is being referred to.
MR STANDER: I can’t take this matter any further. Those were my instructions.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I don’t have re-examination but on a point of information an extremely serious other matter has now been raised which we haven’t addressed our attention to at all, none of us, and that is that some of these people were taken to a Magistrate apparently, according to the question, and the Magistrate refused to take down confessions from these people and he did so because he could see that they had been assaulted.
I didn’t catch the names other than that of Oupa Makubalo. Perhaps my learned friend could tell us who the other person was, I’m sorry I didn’t catch the name, so that we can try to make enquiries about this Mr Chairman because we’re totally unaware of this.
MR STANDER: The person whose name I mentioned was Mr Oliphant. I can also tell you that I will attempt to receive those documents from the Magistrates Court, although my logic tells me that it we won’t be able to do so because it took place in 1986 but I will try my best. Another fact also, Mr Makubalo, you will remember when he testified during the previous session indeed told this Commission of this fact.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STANDER
CHAIRPERSON: And re-examination?
MR VISSER: None, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Erasmus, at some point when you were told that some of the people in the group of 19 were assaulted on the 5th floor, you said something like you had not received any complaints from them.
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, I was not involved with this group. What I said was that I had never heard of any complaints from the side of these people and that also on occasion I visited them and that no complaints were mentioned to me or raised by them.
JUDGE NGOEPE: You visited them in prison?
MR ERASMUS: I visited them at Glen Police Station on a Saturday evening when I was officer on duty while they were in detention.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you go there specifically for the purpose of asking them whether they had any complaints?
MR ERASMUS: That was one of our tasks, to go and take care of these people to hear whether there were any complaints or problems.
JUDGE NGOEPE: You would have told them that you are a member of the security branch?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, affirmative Sir.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I wouldn’t expect some of them or most of them to have been well disposed towards the security branch, they must have had some misgivings about the security branch?
MR ERASMUS: I agree to that Sir.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I’m sure you didn’t expect them to trust you when you said to them: "I’m a member of the security branch, if you’ve got any complaints of ill-treatment by security branch, tell me"?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, many problems were raised with us, not necessarily assaults and I’m not referring to this particular group but in general, about food clothing, clean clothing, toiletries that
had to be provided. There were indeed problems raised with us, not necessarily assaults.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Of course I was asking you questions about assaults?
MR ERASMUS: Yes.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I be allowed, perhaps just to take this aspect one step further.
In 1986 Mr Erasmus, were there regulations applicable to visits to or controls over detainees in terms of security legislation?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, there were a number of instructions given. There were detention files that were kept, visitors files and all the visits by staff, personnel as well as visiting officers of the uniform police, district surgeon, Magistrates etc., were recorded.
MR VISSER: So what you are saying is that all these people who visited those detainees, the records were kept?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, and also when the Section 29 detainees were visited.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Erasmus, on this floor plan - and I’m going to give my copy to you, could you perhaps indicate to us whether any of these wings of the building went out or had an entrance onto a street - or could you indicate which of these wings fronted on the streets please? ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I just wanted leave to put something along the lines of his visit which I forgot to put to the witness. Can we perhaps deal with that before he deals with the floor?
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]
ADV DE JAGER: I don’t know whether the plan, as normally is the case, indicates North.
MR ERASMUS: The top indicates North.
ADV DE JAGER: Okay, that is affirmative. Then the South is Fountain Street and on the Western side is Aliwal street.
MR VISSER: I don’t wish to reveal my lack of knowledge but I think the witness is swapping South and North around from what I know of Bloemfontein. I don’t know it that well but I just wish to indicate that there might be a mistake.
ADV DE JAGER: Okay, the fact is that two of the sides of the building front on the street?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is affirmative.
CHAIRPERSON: We can go during the adjournment and see whether it’s North or South. How long will you be Mr Memani?
MR MEMANI: It’s a minute Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.
MR MEMANI: Mr Erasmus, isn’t it so that when you made these visits you must sign in the local police station’s occurrence book perhaps or some other book and also in a book that you keep?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, there was a detention file specifically for this purpose. In very few cases, if any, one had to make an entry in an occurrence book. It was a little visits file in which all the visits to these detainees had to be recorded.
MR MEMANI: My understanding is that when cells are visited, the regular visits by the police station themselves and when other people like the red cross and lawyers come in, a note is made that a visit is taking place at a particular time, in the occurrence book.
MR ERASMUS: Yes, the normal station staff use the occurrence book to record routine visits but visits by other people besides the station staff will be entered into the visitors file.
MR MEMANI: Didn’t you see these, in the light of the fact that the victims were denying that you ever visited them?
MR ERASMUS: I can go and make enquiries ...[End of tape 3, side A - no follow-on sound]
MR ERASMUS: Yes, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you know about his duties in Brandfort?
MR ERASMUS: I was informed regarding his services Honourable Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you have anything at all to do with them?
MR ERASMUS: No, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Didn’t he borrow your car to go there and back?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, the vehicles were basically allocated to a person. They were all government vehicles, not private or personal vehicles.
CHAIRPERSON: But he used your government vehicle, did he?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, on a number of occasions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
[no sound on tape]
MR VISSER: One, there is some confusion in regard to the point of the compass of the streets adjoining the building at Fountain Street and secondly he did promise to obtain a photocopy for you of an SAP 172 form. The witness has obtained these copies, he’s got them with him Mr Chairman. Perhaps he could hand in the 172 form and then just tell you about the streets.
[No sound]
I hardly believe it’s necessary for that to be an exhibit, but we can mark Exhibit P67 if you wish Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]
MR VISSER: P67.
[No sound]
CHAIRPERSON: Right. Are you going to ask him questions about the building or should I?
MR VISSER: I can do it Mr Chairman.
Mr Erasmus, when you mentioned the street names on the side of the buildings on Fountain Street where the security police was, Commissioner de Jager asked whether the Northern side was above and this gave rise to the confusion that Fountain Street was described as being on the Southern side of the building. Can you tell us what the correct situation is?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman, Fountain Street is on the Northern Side of the building, Aliwal Street is on the Western side of the building. The floor plan should just be turned around. It was correctly entered on the plan although the directions were not clearly indicated.
CHAIRPERSON: And is it correct that on the Southern end of the building in Aliwal Street is the entrance to the parking area?
MR ERASMUS: Of the building itself, the Southern side of the building?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ERASMUS: There are five parking lots there, parking spaces at the back side of the building.
CHAIRPERSON: And there is an enclosed parking area walled in at the back of the building, about where the letter of the big number 4 is on the plan.
MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: And there is an entrance into the building in the parking area?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And that is on the Southern wall of the portion of the building running along Fountain Street?
MR ERASMUS: That is also correct Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: And I understand that from the entrance you can get access to the lifts which are shown on the plan as being on the corner of Aliwal Street and Fountain Street of the building?
MR ERASMUS: It’s at the main entrance Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Right.
MR VISSER: Perhaps referring to the last point made by the Chairman, previously in your evidence you’ve said that in the passages there was limited access. The public did not unlimited access to the passages.
MR ERASMUS: That is correct. On the 4th and the 5th floors, there were trellises which limited access.
MR VISSER: But a member of the public, would something prevent him to take the lift to the landing of the 4th and the 5th floors?
MR ERASMUS: When the Divisional Commissioner was there, there was a guard in front of the doors but there was no limited access. At the moment there is a trellis door at that entrance.
MR VISSER: You’re not answering my question, I’m referring to 1986. Could a member of the public, could he easily get to the landings of the 4th and 5th floors with the lift?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, many people had that access.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I don’t know whether, by way of elucidation, I can put a question or two in regard to Exhibit P67 to the witness.
Is this the form to which reference is made in that document you’ve referred to this morning Mr Erasmus?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Form SAP 172. And the way in which you have to read it, if you look at the little block on the left-hand side of both pages - do you have a copy in front of you?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman, please excuse me, I’ve taken one at the office and I’ve deleted some particulars. I will give you a clean form.
MR VISSER: What can you tell us about the form, what is this all about?
MR ERASMUS: This is the daily notice of changes which is geared to staff administration. Any change in personnel matters, change in salaries, ...[indistinct], additional finances, housing, it’s all matters referring to personnel administration.
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Reverting to the building, for the interest of those who have not seen it. In Aliwal Street, on the other side of the road from this building, is the Supreme Court, isn’t it?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman, and on the other side is the offices of the Attorney General.
MR VISSER: I have no further question for this witness Mr Chairman. If he’s going to be excused it will be subject to whatever ruling is going to made in regard to the docket I suppose Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we should deal with that now. As I understand it - and correct me please, we realised when we adjourned yesterday that we had different views as to what you said, you have found a docket which contains statements from various people including policemen, relating to what was said by White Mohape. It is not a statement made by White Mohapi.
MR VISSER: The docket also includes three statements made by White Mohape Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it just one of those three that you wish to put in?
MR VISSER: Basically one of the three, yes Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: So it would be a questions of recalling White Mohapi and saying to him: "Did you make this statement"?
MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman. Apart from that there are two other - there are in total four documents which we believe, with respect, we should pay attention to.
CHAIRPERSON: Well we - speaking for myself and I think for my brethren, feel that this is a very minor issue, it involves White Mohapi on this. It certainly may effect Mr Ngo and if it is felt that it is in the interests of Mr Ngo that we should hear it, then we may do so but if it’s merely the dispute about what White Mohapi and the police say, it seems to us that that is not a matter that we should reopen, to call another four or five witnesses about.
MR VISSER: No, Mr Chairman, it is our submission that it effects Mr Ngo and that is really the basis why we wish to place this before you.
CHAIRPERSON: It will just to be to put it to - to recall White Mohapi and put to him the statement?
MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, I’m not even implying that but I concede immediately that it would be most unfair ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think you can just put it in without giving him a chance.
MR VISSER: Yes, yes, obviously.
CHAIRPERSON: What do you say?
MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I’ve got an objection to the recalling of any witness on this matter. You will recall M’Lord, that this matter started long ago, these allegations were made by Ngo last year. This docket was available and at some stage - let’s accept that it was available, if it was available all along then they are not entitled to produce it now. If you want to recall a witness you must establish that evidence was not available at a time when evidence - when you were testifying ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: You object to it being ...[intervention]
MR MEMANI: That is correct.
MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I’m also going to object to this procedure followed by the Commission. If it entails only that Mr White Mohapi will come to the dock to come and say: "I have made two statements", it will bring this Commission no further.
You will remember that during his evidence he told us that a document was presented to him at a certain stage, written in Afrikaans and he couldn’t understand that document. I can give you the assurance, two of the three statements are written in Afrikaans and he does not know what it is all about. He did make a statement in English.
What I’m tying to say is the following: the only aspect which can have an impact on Mr Ngo’s application is the question about which date or when these events occurred and that I’ve already conceded to yesterday. It happened in 1984 and not like Mr Mohapi said, in 1986.
This is the only aspect which can have an impact on the credibility or not of Mr Ngo’s application. I mean that we’re going to lose time when we have to discuss this matter any further.
ADV DE JAGER: Can you tell us, was it before or after the assault on Mr Ngo?
MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, all I can tell you is, I don’t think Mr Ngo provided a date, I’m talking under correction, I stand to be corrected. I can’t take it any further now but I think it was in April, the 27th of April, he was released from the police station. I’m sorry, I’m very sorry, it was in 1984.
CHAIRPERSON: We can let the matter stand down now and let this witness stand down and be released subject - he’s the one witness I think you can always find, isn’t he? He doesn’t actually have to sit here.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR VISSER: I just want to say very briefly Mr Chairman, we stand in respectful disagreement with my learned friend, that that’s the only issue obviously. The issue here is the implication of my clients, that’s the issue. Mr Chairman, Brigadier Coetzee is ready and available to give evidence, he’s our last witness. I may mention to you right now that there are three other witnesses for whom we appear, those are the three we mentioned earlier today, Kopi - sorry, Tax, Sefatsa and - Tax, Jantjie, I’m sorry. May I start all over again Mr Chairman, I’m getting a bit confused here. Jantjie, Thulu and Sefatsa. Now we’re not going to call Jantjie and Sefatsa Mr Chairman, because they’re not really implicated. Thulu has been here and he’s been excused. You will recall what transpired there so this will be our last witness.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand that Mr Brink may have a witness, the person who arrived here and is unrepresented but we can deal with that later.
MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman, before you proceed with the next witness, I’ve been instructed that NIA is not situation at Fountain, that NIA is situated in Fountain Street on the 7th floor of some building and that the offices are currently used by the police’s criminal investigation services.
CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t hear you, you said who is not? National Intelligence?
MR MEMANI: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: I was told the same thing when I went down for the building, it’s now Central Intelligence Agency.
MR MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chairman, I’ve been instructed that it’s now the police’s CI’s ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: CIA, Criminal Intelligence Agency, sorry.
MR MEMANI: Yes, Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: Yes, I must apologise. Where I mention - it’s my fault, I mentioned National Intelligence and I was misinformed Mr Chairman, we’ve got the correct facts now.
ADV DE JAGER: ...[No English translation]
MR COETZEE: ...[inaudible]
MR VISSER: Mr Coetzee, are you a retired Brigadier from the South African Police Services?
MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: Do you know that certain allegations have been made against you in these applications, of offences and unlawful deeds that you have committed?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: What is your reactions to these allegations?
MR COETZEE: I reject it completely.
MR VISSER: Have you initially, when you in March last year became aware of these allegations, did you visit Mr Wagner in his offices in Pretoria?
MR COETZEE: Yes.
MR VISSER: And did you make an affidavit contained in bundle B, page 15 to 17?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Do you have that affidavit in front of you.
MR COETZEE: That’s correct.
MR VISSER: Do you confirm the truth and the correctness of the contents?
MR COETZEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: Did you later - did it later come under your attention that Mr Motsamai implicated you in certain offences or unlawful deeds?
MR COETZEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: And then, did you make another affidavit?
MR COETZEE: That’s correct.
MR VISSER: And is that the affidavit contained in bundle B, pages 90 to 91?
MR COETZEE: That’s correct.
MR VISSER: Do you confirm that the contents are correct?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Is it correct that on the 30th of January 1962 you joined the South African Police?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And is it also correct that on the 31st of August 1980 you joined the security branch in Bloemfontein?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: I understand that you worked in various departments?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: The first was the investigative unit when you arrived here?
MR COETZEE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] was?
MR VISSER: The investigation section Mr Chairman.
And at that stage you were mainly working with terror and sabotage investigations?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: This lasted till 1985, is that correct?
MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: When you were transferred to the black section?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: There you were the commanding officer?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: I believe I might be going a little too quickly Mr Chairman, I’ll slow down somewhat.
Is it also correct that from the 1st of January 1989 you were appointed second in charge of the regional Orange Free State branch of the security police?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And then lastly, in December 1989 you say that you were transferred to Soweto?
MR COETZEE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: What were you there and which position? What was you status there?
MR COETZEE: I was appointed in the inspectorate, the watchdog of the officer commanding.
MR VISSER: And in March 1994 you became the regional head of the Witwatersrand?
MR COETZEE: That’s correct.
MR VISSER: Was it the police or the security branch?
MR COETZEE: No, the security branch.
MR VISSER: We’ve heard that - if I can take you back to 1985 when you were involved in the black section, that in 1985/1986 there were in the region of 20 members in that black section?
MR COETZEE: More or less Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: Can you give us an indication of how many members there were in the security branch in Bloemfontein during those two years, in total?
MR COETZEE: It’s difficult to say, I think about between 70 and 80.
MR VISSER: During the time you were involved in the black section, did you hear about Mr Ngo?
MR COETZEE: That is correct, yes.
MR VISSER: As we’ve listened to his evidence, he continuously visited you in your office, he heard everything that was going on there.
MR COETZEE: That is not true.
MR VISSER: Did you like Mr Ngo, Mr Coetzee, tell us?
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, I was against his transfer to the security police. As a student I did not like him very much but the commanding officer wanted him there and I just accepted him, I tolerated him there.
MR VISSER: Was that a person whom you would take into your confidence?
MR COETZEE: No, Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: His handlers were Mr Erasmus and in his absence, Mr Shaw.
MR COETZEE: That’s correct.
MR VISSER: What about Mr Motsamai?
MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, he worked mainly with Motsamai and Mr Mamome.
MR VISSER: That was Mr Ngo?
MR COETZEE: That’s correct.
MR VISSER: If we can pay attention to the various and I want to go through those quickly. You know precisely, if I give you a short reference to which incidents I’m referring. We’ve already consulted regarding that, I don’t want to waste any time.
Mr Ngo involved you or implicated you in the murder and robbery on Mr Venter. He said in his application on page 8 of bundle C and following on that that you instructed him to murder Mr Venter and that you had to see to it, on page 8, that this murder would appear to have been a robbery and a break-in.
MR COETZEE: [No English translation]
MR VISSER: He also said that after he had committed this task in co-operation with Mamome and Ramouseau, he reported back and you were not satisfied that they did not remove enough articles from that house and that you thought he had to remove more articles from that house to simulate a break-in.
MR COETZEE: I deny it wholeheartedly.
MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, on page 12 of bundle C referred to an incident where Mr White Mohapi would have been abducted and assaulted with hammers and irons. He does not mention your name specifically but I’m just asking you, do you have any knowledge of this incident? Did you have anything to do with it?
MR COETZEE: Nothing at all Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: And then with B on page 12 of bundle C, Mr Ngo says that under your instructions he and Tswametsi, Mamome and Motsamai and Mtyhala set alight the house with petrol bombs. I know that in the evidence he’s now changed this to the house of the parents of Citi Mzuzwana. Do you have any knowledge of this incident?
MR COETZEE: I know nothing about that.
MR COETZEE: And did you give any such instructions?
MR COETZEE: No such instructions Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: He also says, on your instructions Ramaseou, Mamome, Motsamai and Mtyhala and he himself Mr Ngo, went to the clinic of Mrs Mandela and that they found an object which could set something alight, a kind of a phosphorus grenade. They threw that into the clinic and this resulted in the clinic being set alight. Did you give such instructions?
MR COETZEE: No, Mr Chairman.
MR VISSER: There’s also an allegation in this regard that Mr Ngo was present in your office when you contacted a certain Mr Liebenberg at the South African Defence Force and that you made the necessary arrangements for explosives to be used in an attack on the clinic or the house of Mrs Winnie Mandela, I can’t remember which one. Did something like that happen?
MR VISSER: Do you know ...[no sound]
CHAIRPERSON: I have a request for a short adjournment which I will grant.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
