ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel, are we going to hear the evidence of Mr Mngadi?
MR NEL: Madam Chair, I am going to be very brief, as he has dealt with the issue in an extensive supplementary affidavit. If you would like me to proceed now, I am ready Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What language is he using, Mr Mngadi?
MR NEL: Mr Mngadi will be speaking Zulu, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, could we just be afforded one second, my friend has just indicated that he wants to make certain adjustments to the microphones. Thank you Madam Chair.
MZUZU AUBREY MNGADI: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: You have been sworn in, you may take your seat now.
EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Mngadi, you are an applicant in these proceedings, and your application is found in the bundle, on page 148 up and until page 154, is that correct?
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
MR NEL: Except for the correction which I am going to make, which appears on page 150, do you confirm your application as being true and correct?
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
MR NEL: On page 150 you state in the first sentence or the second sentence under "Nature and Particulars"
"... I and other members of Vlakplaas C-Section, under the command of Capt van Dyk and Capt Pienaar went into Swaziland."
Is it not so that you were under the direct command of Capt van Dyk and not Capt Pienaar?
MR MNGADI: That is correct, that was a mistake.
MR NEL: And we have heard the evidence of the other applicants and it seems as if it must be a mistake on your part, that Capt Pienaar never went into Swaziland?
MR MNGADI: That was a mistake.
MR NEL: Mr Mngadi, you have also made a supplementary affidavit which was signed by yourself at Pietermaritzburg on the 20th of September 1999, am I correct?
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
MR NEL: The Committee has indicated to us that it is not necessary to go through such a supplementary affidavit, because that is the purpose of such an affidavit, and I am not going to deal extensively with this affidavit, except for a few corrections. Apart from those corrections which I will make, do you confirm the contents of your supplementary affidavit as being correct?
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
MR NEL: If I may refer you to paragraph 27 which is on page 16, according to your paragraph there, it seems as if you recall that the person who we now know is Mngomezulu was placed into Mr van Dyk's vehicle, but that is contrary to the evidence that was heard here today, in fact, or not today but during the hearing, and it seems as if Mngomezulu was placed in the kombi of which you were the driver. Is it possible that you could have been making a mistake when you said that he was placed in van Dyk's vehicle?
MR MNGADI: That is correct, that was a mistake as well, because it was in the evening, and it has been a very long time since this thing happened.
MR NEL: Also can I refer you to page 18, paragraph 34 where you stated that after the operation in Swaziland, Mngomezulu or this person, was taken to a house at Leeuspoort. It seems that once again you made a mistake or cannot remember that this person was taken to another place at Piet Retief, which we know now was the caravan place?
MR MNGADI: Looking at this testimony here, a mistake happened, I was not remembering everything as I ought to, but I then rectified that mistake later. Would you please accept the rectification of this mistake as it were.
MR NEL: Is it also so that during even our consultations, you indicated that you do even still today, do not remember the fact that Mngomezulu was taken to this place near Piet Retief?
MR MNGADI: That is correct indeed. I was not recalling this quite well or should I say, at all.
MR NEL: Mr Mngadi, on page 170 of the Bundle, Mr Nofomela, also an applicant in these proceedings, states that you received a reward of R300-00 for your participation in this operation, do you agree with that?
MR MNGADI: I dispute that. We did not receive any reward.
MR NEL: Did you in fact receive any reward for your participation in this operation?
MR MNGADI: I did not receive any reward.
MR NEL: There has been evidence, especially from Mr Koole that you took part in the assault on Mr Mngomezulu. Throughout our consultations and what I have put to the other applicants is, you say that you never took part in the assault. Is it not so that if you did take part in the assault on Mr Mngomezulu, you would have asked for amnesty for that?
MR MNGADI: I would do that indeed.
MR NEL: Were you driven by any spite or malice in taking part in this operation?
MR MNGADI: No, I was not spiteful, I had nothing against him.
MR NEL: Mr Mngadi, there is one other last aspect. At the time you were a new member at Vlakplaas, am I correct?
MR MNGADI: Yes, I was still new and I was not quite familiar with the procedures in that place.
MR NEL: And your Overall Commander was Col de Kock?
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
MR NEL: Was Col de Kock at Piet Retief or Josini or wherever during this operation?
MR MNGADI: He was not there, I did not see him.
MR NEL: Mr Mngadi, are you then asking for amnesty for any offence which might flow from your participation in this operation and also any delict which might stem from your participation in this operation?
MR MNGADI: That is correct, that is why I submitted my amnesty application, because I am involved in this matter, even though I did not lay my hand on Mr Mngomezulu.
MR NEL: Thank you Madam Chair, that is the evidence.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Nel. Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Madam Chair, I have no questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions, Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey? Mr Williams?
MR WILLIAMS: I also have no questions, Madam Chair.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLIAMS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just here and there Chairperson, thank you. Mr Mngadi, the informer was in the vehicle, I refer to paragraph 23 of your supplementary statement, page 15. Can you recall clearly whether he remained the whole time, in the vehicle, or was he not the person that, as Mr Koole testified, who would actually show and indicate the subject, Mr Mngomezulu, point him out during the abduction?
MR MNGADI: Yes, there was this informer, he was left behind by Mr van Dyk and myself and the informer remained behind, looking after the vehicle.
MR LAMEY: What was the purpose of the informer going with?
MR MNGADI: The purpose thereof, as far as I understood it, is that Mr van Dyk and the informer had already pointed out the area and he then brought him back, so that he could be with us, and there was also one other person who knew Mr Mngomezulu's household.
MR LAMEY: So are you saying that the informer did go out with Mr van Dyk to point out the person?
MR MALAN: No Mr Lamey, that is not what he said.
CHAIRPERSON: That is not what he said.
MR MALAN: He said they had scouted the area, they came along because he knew the area and they could point out the area. He didn't say they ever left the kombi.
MR LAMEY: Well, did they get out of the vehicle to point out the place where he was staying?
MR MNGADI: They had already done that with the informer, because we only arrived at the time when we met him. The informer came out of his vehicle, to come into our vehicle, the kombi.
MR LAMEY: Oh, I see, so there was a stage that the informer was not in your vehicle?
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that Mr Mngadi?
MR MNGADI: I know that because Mr van Dyk at the time of our arrival and parking there, the informer left his vehicle and came to the vehicle in which I was sitting. I had received an instruction to the effect that I should look after the vehicles. That is the time at which the informer came to our kombi. I therefore have no knowledge as to when they had gone out to the area.
CHAIRPERSON: To reconnoitre the area? You have no knowledge as to whether the informer had pointed out the area earlier on?
MR MNGADI: As far as I am concerned, they had already carried out the reconnoitring. The house had already been pointed out. That is at the time which the, or should I say after which the informer was brought to me.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Now, how would the members, I understand that you remained behind in the vehicle with the informer after he pointed out the area, how did the other members know which man to take and from which place?
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that an unfair question, Mr Lamey? To start with, it is not his evidence that the informer was pointing the place to him, he was following Mr van Dyk who was leading the way. That is his evidence.
MR LAMEY: All right, let me just get to the point here. From Mr Koole's vantage point, he was involved in the abduction and his recollection is that the informer pointed the person out, who they should abduct. He says there was firstly an indication of a wrong place, and then they found the right house. Do you dispute that at all?
MR MNGADI: I was not there when they got lost.
CHAIRPERSON: He is referring to Koole's evidence that the informer came out of their vehicle so that he could point out Mngomezulu?
MR MNGADI: That was a mistake that Mr Koole made, because the informer remained in the vehicle with them.
MR LAMEY: If you say the informer remained with them, what do you mean by that?
MR MNGADI: He remained in the vehicle with me.
MR LAMEY: How would Mr Koole and the other black members that actually took this person, how would they know who to take?
MR MNGADI: There is one other person who knew Mr Mngomezulu, his name is Mr Nzimande, Moses Nzimande, he is deceased.
MR LAMEY: Are you then saying that Mr Koole has confused Mr Nzimande with the informer?
MR MNGADI: That is indeed so.
MR LAMEY: Prior to that, the informant did - did he just indicate the area or did he indicate the house where Mr Mngomezulu stayed?
MR MNGADI: I have no knowledge to that effect, because the informer was with Mr van Dyk.
MR LAMEY: Okay. Then I just want to ask you about what you stated in paragraph 35 where you stated
"... the arrested person was interrogated by van Dyk and others. I recall that Mr Mogoai was also busy with interrogation. (And then particularly this last sentence) I thought that he was the main interrogator."
What is your meaning regarding that last sentence "I thought that he was the main interrogator"?
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, was that not also the evidence of your own applicant, that he is quite happy to have been seen as the main interrogator, because he took the active role?
MR LAMEY: Yes, but there is in my impression in that evidence, a great measure of relevancy to that statement, relative...
MR MALAN: Then please proceed, I don't see it, but proceed then please.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it is fair for you Mr Lamey, to find out if Mr Mngomezulu can respond to why he thought Mr Mogoai, if Mr Mngadi can respond to why he thought Mr Mogoai was the main interrogator.
MR LAMEY: Sorry Chairperson, I have just expressed myself wrongly when I talk about relevancy, I talk about relativeness. You know the relativeness with regard to this concept, and that is actually what I have tried just to establish.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LAMEY: I know that Mr Mogoai testified that he had a prominent role, relative to the others, but I just want to clarify this with him. What is your meaning with that, Mr Mngadi?
MR MNGADI: He was the older person and very active in asking questions. I therefore assumed that he was the one delegated to conduct the investigation of Mngomezulu.
MR LAMEY: Okay, so you say delegated to ask questions to Mr Mngomezulu. But delegated by his superiors to do that, is that correct?
MR MNGADI: Yes, yes, he was the one who was asking questions most of the time.
MR LAMEY: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Lamey? As far as you are concerned, when Mr Mogoai asked Mr Mngomezulu questions, among the whites, would you say there were those who were in the forefront, explaining to Mogoai what kind of questions to pose?
MR MNGADI: I only went in to that room once, that is the interrogation room, that is when I observed this.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you observe that there were whites telling Mogoai what kind of questions to ask?
MR MNGADI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, proceed Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Mr Mngadi, you were a junior member at that stage of Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR MNGADI: Yes, I had just arrived.
MR LAMEY: Were - at Moolman during the interrogation, well you have said that you cannot recall that, it is possible that it was so, let me then just talk about Josini, during the interrogation at Josini, were you the whole time present during the interrogation, were there times that you were out and around, doing some other tasks?
MR NEL: With respect Madam Chair, the evidence was that he only entered once, that is what Mr Mngadi indicated, he was not there all the time.
MR LAMEY: Yes, I just want to go further than that, where he was, if he was not there.
MR MALAN: Then ask him that question.
MR LAMEY: What would you do if you were not present during the interrogation?
MR MNGADI: I was in another house with the informer because my assignment was to stay with him in another room.
MR LAMEY: If you say that Mr de Kock was not at Josini, you say it because you personally did not see him there?
MR MNGADI: I did not see him.
MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Lamey, on this point, Mr Mngadi. If you look at paragraph 33 of your statement, on page 18 of your supplementary statement, you there say that after you had passed through the border, which is paragraph 32, and paragraph 33 you say
"... the members and the informer must have split up, because I did not see the informer again."
Do you see that?
MR MNGADI: Yes, I see that.
MR MALAN: Was it this informer that you had to take care of at Josini, in the house?
MR MNGADI: Your Honour, this has happened a long time ago. Here the meaning was that when we split, that is when they went to cross the border, I met them on the other side of the border gate, the Gulela border post. There was a mistake again here because you know, it has been a long time since this thing occurred, please bear with me.
CHAIRPERSON: You say
"... therefore I cannot say whether or not the informer went through the border control or not."
MR MNGADI: There was a group of them when they left, and I only met them on the other side of the border, and they were with other members. Other members went through the border post, and others they crossed through the border fence.
MR MALAN: Mr Mngadi, in paragraph 33 you say, and I just quote these words at the end of the first line
"... I did not see the informer again."
Do you see that?
MR MNGADI: Yes, I see that, that was a mistake.
MR MALAN: Did you see the informer again or did you not see the informer again?
MR MNGADI: Yes, I did see the informer again. I did see the informer. My assignment was to look after him.
MR MALAN: For how long did the informer stay with you?
MR MNGADI: When or should I say the time when it was instructed that we should go back to Piet Retief, I took the informer into a vehicle with other members and along the way, in Pongola, I dropped him off, so that he could go on his own.
MR MALAN: Where did you drop him off?
MR MNGADI: I dropped him off at Pongola, in town.
MR MALAN: Who gave you instructions to drop him off?
MR MNGADI: The instruction did not come directly, the one person who relayed an instruction, was Mr Koole to the effect that now we can go back to Piet Retief, taking along the informer whom we had to drop along the way, so that we dropped him at Pongola.
MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: So, at Josini, my impression is from your evidence, that most of the time you were assigned to look after the informer, is that correct?
MR MNGADI: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, I've got no further questions, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought maybe you would actually have better instructions, Mr Lamey, about the question of the informer, from Mr Mogoai, his presence at Josini?
MR LAMEY: At Josini? Yes, may I just take instructions there, thank you. Chairperson, Mr Mogoai says he hasn't got any knowledge of an informer.
CHAIRPERSON: He does not have knowledge of an informer having been present at Josini?
MR LAMEY: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Don't you want to put that to Mr Mngadi?
MR LAMEY: Mr Mngadi, I understand your evidence that you had to keep this informer in another house, is that correct?
MR MNGADI: No, I mean in another room, the house had several rooms.
MR LAMEY: Yes. Now, Mr Mogoai, may I just get further instructions here from Mr Mogoai Chairperson, I just want to ...
CHAIRPERSON: You are acting for both Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole, isn't it?
MR LAMEY: Yes, yes. Mr Koole is unfortunately not present here, he had a doctor's appointment as far as I understand.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. How long do you think it would take you to take instructions?
MR LAMEY: Just a minute Chairperson, thank you. Mr Mngadi, I just want to put it to you, Mr Mogoai says he has no knowledge of an informer being at Josini and he hasn't seen any person who he thought could have been an informer.
MR MNGADI: He was present.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey? Mr Prinsloo?
MR PRINSLOO: I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Just one question, thank you. Mr Mngadi, it is your testimony that at the time when the deceased was abducted, the informer was in your vehicle, is that so?
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
MR RAMAWELE: I just want to put it to you that Mr Nofomela will testify that the informer pointed out the place and the deceased and the deceased was subsequently abducted, the informer was not in your vehicle at that time.
MR MNGADI: I was with the informer all of the time in the vehicle. One other person in our company, or one other person who could have helped them out was Mr Nzimande.
MR RAMAWELE: In other words you are saying that, you are saying that the informer was inactive at the time of the abduction of the deceased?
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
MR RAMAWELE: I've got no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAMAWELE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Thank you Madam. Mr Mngadi, it appears to me that you have spent quite a considerable time with this informer, is that so?
MR MNGADI: Would you please explain from what time, first of all I was with him in the vehicle, that is at the time when they came, when they went to arrest Mr Mngomezulu, and there is this second time that is the time when I was with him in the house, on the farm, Leeuspoort.
MR KGASI: Okay, thank you. You keep referring to this person as an informer, do you perhaps know his name?
MR MNGADI: I don't know his name, I did not ask him.
MR KGASI: Is there anyone - I am sorry, you don't know, is it your answer that you don't know the name of this informer?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is his answer.
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
MR KGASI: All right. And was it further your testimony that you believed that Mr Nzimande is the one who pointed Mr Mngomezulu out?
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
MR KGASI: Now, Mr Mngadi, in your opinion, this informer, what was his role after all?
MR MNGADI: His role was to accompany Mr van Dyk, show him the place where Mr Mngomezulu resided.
MR KGASI: Only that?
MR MNGADI: I know not of any other role.
MR KGASI: Now, I would also like to go to your answer where you said, where you denied receiving any financial benefit out of this operation. My question would only relate to why would Mr Nofomela implicate you if that is not so?
MR MNGADI: He must be mistaken, because I did not receive any money. As a police, we were not expected or required to accept such kind of reward.
MR KGASI: Is it further your testimony that you did not take part in the assault and interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu?
MR MNGADI: That is correct.
MR KGASI: Now tell me, at the time when you and other black members of this interrogating team left, did you see Mr Mngomezulu, tell us his state by then?
CHAIRPERSON: As him the first question first. Did he see Mr Mngomezulu the time shortly before their departure?
MR KGASI: That is correct, you may answer, Mr Mngadi.
MR MNGADI: I did not get into the house. The only one time that I went into the house was when I was requested by Mr Koole who wanted me to explain to him the names of places.
MR KGASI: At the time, that only time when you entered the house, did you see Mr Mngomezulu?
MR MNGADI: That was the time at which I saw him. I cannot explain in full, because it was obvious that it was Mr Mngomezulu who was wanted.
MR KGASI: I am getting a little confused here. Can you repeat your answer?
MR MNGADI: When I went in there, there is only one person who was there, and that is the only person who was being questioned. It transpired to me that it could be Mngomezulu.
MR KGASI: The question Mr Mngadi was, did you see Mr Mngomezulu when you entered the house?
MR MNGADI: Yes, I saw him.
MR KGASI: And what was his state then?
MR MNGADI: There were some indications on his face, that he had been beaten up.
MR KGASI: And what indications are those?
MR MNGADI: He was pale and he had pale lips, an indication that he had been slapped.
MR KGASI: Any visible injuries except a pale skin?
MR MNGADI: I did not really concentrate on that, I had been there only for a short while, and I went out. I had been asked in by Mr Koole.
MR KGASI: But surely Mr Mngadi, if you can notice a pale skin, you can as well might have noticed other injuries.
ADV MOTATA: Grey skin.
CHAIRPERSON: Grey?
MR KGASI: Yes, Mr Mngadi, if you could have noticed a grey skin, surely you could have noticed whether he had injuries or not?
MR MNGADI: I did not spend a long time in there, I went in and explained to Koole and then I left.
MR KGASI: And further, for that brief period that you saw him, was he blindfolded?
MR MNGADI: When I entered, I did not see any cloth around his eyes. Whether they had removed it or not, I have no idea. You see, I was not in the room where the interrogation was taking place, I was in another room.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you try to answer the question without elaborating. When you entered, was his eyes blindfolded or not?
MR MNGADI: No, he was not blindfolded. I did not see this cloth at the time when I entered the room.
MR KGASI: I take it that the answer is he was not blindfolded?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is his answer.
MR KGASI: Thank you Madam, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KGASI
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mngadi, you are talking about Koole here, is he the one who said you should come in and assist with interpreting?
MR MNGADI: Koole requested me to give him names of places, I don't know in connection with what, and I told him such and such a place is to be found where, wherever.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it himself who was interrogating Mr Mngomezulu at the time?
MR MNGADI: There were many of them. Koole asked me that and I explained to him as a person who spends most of the time in Josini and I went out. I had been assigned to look after this person.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you have any in depth knowledge about Josini, apart from the rest of the people?
MR MNGADI: I was working at Josini.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Malan, do you have any questions to put to Mr Mngadi?
MR MALAN: I just want to refer you Mr Mngadi, to your paragraph 36, on page 19 where you say, when you were called in to assist with this interpretational problems, you "noticed that the arrested person was indeed Mngomezulu." Did you know him from before?
MR MNGADI: At the time when I was at Josini, there are these small photographs, the ones that you would find affixed against the wall, and when I saw him at the time, back in my room, on recollecting, it occurred that that was the person whose photograph I saw in the office in Josini.
CHAIRPERSON: As you explained in paragraph 40?
MR MNGADI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And paragraph 41?
MR MALAN: I have read paragraphs 40 and 41, I want to make sure, did you recognise him only from the photo or had you ever before seen him in person?
MR MNGADI: I had not met him in person, I only saw the photograph of him, until I saw him in person on the day of his arrest.
MR MALAN: When you went out on this mission, you knew that you were looking for this same Mngomezulu?
MR MNGADI: I did not know, I only learnt when I was informed by Mr van Dyk, upon arrival. He told me that we were going to Swaziland for an operation, and upon arrival, I also got this from an informer when I enquired, I would not have enquired more than I did, because that would be an offence. That is when I learnt that that was Mr Mngomezulu's household. It occurred to me that that was the person that was being sought.
MR MALAN: Just for my clear understanding, when you were informed by van Dyk that you were going out to abduct or arrest as you stated, Mr Mngomezulu, you already had a picture in mind as to exactly what he looks like, because of the photograph then, or did you not know then what Mr Mngomezulu would look like?
MR MNGADI: I had no idea how he looked like.
MR MALAN: Only when you saw him in person, did you realise that he was the person on the photograph, is that your evidence?
MR MNGADI: Yes, that is correct. Even though the photograph showed him in his younger age, but yes, it was him.
MR MALAN: Thank you. This is really the reason why I am asking you this question, because then he would obviously not have been blindfolded as you have been giving evidence, otherwise you would not have remembered the photograph? You are sure he wasn't blindfolded?
MR MNGADI: Yes, he was not blindfolded when I entered the room.
MR MALAN: Thank you. Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?
ADV MOTATA: I've got none, Madam Chair. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Just one issue, thank you Madam Chair. Mr Mngadi, page 18, I think it has been cleared
up, but just if we can make sure, page 18, paragraph 33, when you dealt with not seeing the informer again, do you specifically as you did during consultation, refer to at the border?
MR MNGADI: One other thing that I would like to point out in front of this Committee, to date I had not seen him ever again.
CHAIRPERSON: That is not the question. The question pertains to that which you had already said in paragraph 33 that after you had split, you never saw the informer again.
MR MNGADI: That was a mistake Ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON: I am still continuing. Your legal representative wants to know that are you saying here you never saw the informer at the border?
MR MNGADI: No. My intention here was that after we had dropped him off at Pongola, I never saw him again, that is what I wanted to say.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?
MR NEL: Just lastly, if I may just try to clarify this maybe just for myself, in paragraph 33, is it your intention to say that you did not see him cross the border, but you did meet him again on the other side of the border, with the other members?
MR MNGADI: Yes.
MR NEL: Thank you, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mngadi, you are excused as a witness.
MR MNGADI: Thank you Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
