AMNESTY HEARINGS

DATE: 15 MAY 1997

HELD AT: BLOEMFONTEIN

NAME: NELSON NGO

DAY: 4

_____________________________________________________

JUDGE WILSON: We are now continuing with the NGO application, which we were hearing yesterday.

NELSON NGO: (Still under oath).

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the Committee for the indulgence granted me earlier on. We are now going to proceed with the evidence of Mr Ngo. Mr Ngo, we had come to the point where I indicated that we had completed the evidence on Mr Mohapi's abduction. Is there anything that you would like to add regarding Mr Mohapi, to the particulars?

MR NGO: The evidence I gave, that's sufficient.

MR MEMANI: Now is Mr Mohapi going to testify in this hearing?

MR NGO: I believe so, he will explain what happened.

MR MEMANI: Now is it correct that he is going to be testifying about an incident involving the telephone call that he received from you?

MR NGO: Yes, that is true, we did telephone him. Lieut Erasmus, he said I could phone him at home, that I should call him and tell him. I should make an appointment with him at the veld so that we are able to talk. So that I should make peace with him, because we had a conflict before, and that he should go and negotiate with the children we were fighting. If he agrees to come there we should kidnap him, and shoot him because he is creating problems for me. That was the reason. When Mohapi in his reply on the phone, told me that he doesn't want to talk to me because he doesn't trust me.

MR MEMANI: Did you then meet him eventually?

MR NGO: No, he did not come, he dropped the telephone.

MR MEMANI: Now I hope this concludes finally Mohapi. May we now proceed to deal with the incident involving the capturing of 25 pupils who were attempting to skip the border to join the ANC in Lesotho. Mr Chair, Ms (indistinct) indicates to me that in the papers you have before yourselves, the application, the incident does not appear.

JUDGE WILSON: So it is not in his application.

MR MEMANI: It is contained in what has been termed the second application.

JUDGE WILSON: Let's go back to the second application. You say copies were to be made. Who were to make copies?

MR MEMANI: My understanding of that, Mr Mpshe was to make these copies through the offices of the TRC available to yourselves.

JUDGE WILSON: We have not had copies of that second application. Have they been made?

MS THABETHA: I was not even aware of the application, but I read the transcript and in the transcript I can take it if the Chairperson can give me that opportunity. But in the transcript it sounded like they were proceeding to the second application, and then there was a statement prepared by Mr Ngo which Advocate Memani wanted to hand over and then there was arrangements were going to be made between Adv Mpshe and Adv Memani, about that statement. It is not clear in the transcript who was supposed to make copies.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, normal procedure that the TRC has more abundant facilities available at hearings, I think it would have been - where is it?

MR MEMANI: I have it here, Mr Chair. If we may adjourn for about 15 minutes we can then make copies for the Committee.

JUDGE WILSON: Where does this appear in the transcript?

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, may I be allowed to say something? We were not favoured with a copy of the transcript so we have nothing to check what I am going to say now again ...

JUDGE WILSON: Well, let's wait until we get a transcript before you say anything.

MR BLACK: Well, I wanted to say this, Mr Chairman, that at the last occasion there was this confusion as to which of two documents was supposed to be the application, the formal application, and as I recall, after you heard representations, there was a ruling made that the one that we have before ourselves now, was to be regarded as the application.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, let's see what the transcript says. We are now told it says it is uncertain. I can't recollect precisely what was said, if it is recorded, it will assist all of us.

MR BLACK: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Chair, will it not save time if we just make copies of these data?

JUDGE WILSON: (Indistinct - microphone not switched on). Let's see what ruling was made, if a ruling was made. We are told it is in the transcript, let's be told what page.

ADV DE JAGER: In the meantime if you could hand us a copy of the documents that should be Photostatted, copies made of, we could try and arrange in the meantime that somebody could go and try to make copies of it.

MR MEMANI: Look, I may do it that way but it might give rise to some problems as well, because we are going to lead evidence on something that you don't have papers of.

ADV DE JAGER: No, but I am trying to arrange so that we could have papers as soon as possible and there won't be any further delays.

MR MEMANI: But when she goes to make copies, I don't have papers to work off.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman ...

JUDGE WILSON: Page 338, is it? We start with - Mr De Jager started asking questions there about the statement attached to application. No, this is in a different connection.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, perhaps it may help, speaking from recollection, it was a part where the Chair put to counsel that this was probably after he had handed in its original form and he was asked for some elucidation, and you made some remarks about, and he was saying oh, my goodness, there is another form I have got to complete.

JUDGE WILSON: We recollect something of that nature, and he was informed he had to complete another form and that he did so, and submitted it to the TRC, and that that - precisely what it was we can't remember. And if it is in the record it would be - but is this form being duplicated at the moment? Well, let us, as my Brother here suggested, let us adjourn, get somebody to go off and duplicate it and you can then look up where it is.

MR MTHEMBU: Before maybe we adjourn, because we just adjourn just too much, why can't we proceed with the incidents which are here, exhaust the incidents which are here before us first, and then that may even take us to tea time and then copies can be made even in tea time.

JUDGE WILSON: Is there any reason why this incident that is not before us at the moment on the application, should be dealt with before the others?

MR MEMANI: It is simply a matter of how things are arranged between yourself and Mr Ngo.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, if we go on to another he is going to tell us about what, eight, 10 incidents.

MR MEMANI: I will try and see whether we can do something else in the meantime. Mr Ngo, do you have a copy of the typed statement before you?

MR NGO: Which statement, which heading, sir?

MR MEMANI: That you made and submitted to the Truth Commission.

MR NGO: The last time when I was here, I did explain to the Judge that the statement which I submitted was incomplete, so they wanted them to be complete. After that I wrote them in such a way that they should be clear. When I was here I did hand them over to the Judge, the copy of which the original was sent to Cape Town, because the Judge asked to make photostat of my statement, so I gave it to my Judge.

MR MEMANI: Are you able to tell the Committee about the incident involving the death of a UDF activist who was in police custody?

MR NGO: Yes, we can continue with that.

JUDGE WILSON: Now could you assist us, on his original application, the statement annexed thereto, where does this incident appear? Bottom page 5.

MR MEMANI: That is correct, M'Lord.

JUDGE WILSON: Is that the one?

MR MEMANI: That is the one.

JUDGE WILSON: Are you talking about somebody called Papina?

MR NGO: That's true.

MR MEMANI: May you tell this Committee what occurred in this incident?

MR NGO: In 1986 it happened that we arrested people at random. There was a state of emergency at that time. Among those people we arrested Pappi, I knew him as JJ. We took him to Fountain Police Station. We took him to one of the rooms. It was myself, Adjutant Killian, Sgt Mamone and Const Motala. Warrant Officer questioned JJ or Pappi, why didn't he contact him again to bring information. Pappi responded by saying he doesn't want to be an informer any more, because that put his life at risk.

After that Warrant Officer Killian, he said Pappi should refund his money which he used to pay him as an informer. When Pappi denied, he said we should assault him. We assaulted him with picks and kicked him, and hit him against the wall. Whilst we were continuing with that assault, we took a tube, we suffocated him with that. We used to take it out and put it again and continue assaulting. Every minute we put in the tube, it happened that at that time he fainted. After he fainted, we tried to resuscitate him. He didn't regain conscious. They said we should bring him back with water. We poured him with water. When we poured him with that water, we thought he would regain conscious. He was not able to regain conscious. We asked Warrant Officer Killian what to do. He said we should take him out and put him in a car.

We took him with to Batto location. When we arrived at Batto township, we took him between Batto location and Botshabelo location. There is an open veld. He said Warrant Officer Mamone and Warrant Officer Motala, should take him to the veld. They took him to that veld. They just dropped him there. I heard a gun shot. Then they returned. They informed Warrant Officer Killian that that person in the cupboard, so they finished him off. Then we went.

In the morning when we reported at work, the policeman from Batt location phoned us. They phoned Warrant Officer Tzwamitze. He said myself and Motalo should accompany them to the location. When we arrived there, a certain sergeant or warrant-officer, I don't remember his rank, is Tobihi - his name is Modisa, I don't know if Modise is the surname or a name, whether his surname Tobihi or Modise, I don't remember well. He said there is a person who was wearing a UDF T-shirt who was found in the veld, we should try to explain to him who is that person. Warrant Officer Tzwamitze said he doesn't know that person. Myself and Mamone were able to recognise that that was the person we assaulted yesterday. Then we left Batto township. We returned to our office.

The explanation we want to give: during the period of torture Motsamai was in the office, but he didn't take part in the assault, because he was busy with other detainees in the office.

MR MEMANI: When you participated in the torture on Mr - on Pappi, did you have any personal grievance with him?

MR NGO: I don't understand, I don't hear the question, sir.

MR MEMANI: Let the people fix the machines. Now I will repeat the question. When you participated in the torture of Pappi, did you have any personal grievance against him?

MR NGO: He was detained during the state of emergency. He was going to be interrogated, so I took him as one of the suspects who were supposed to be questioned. He was not the only one who was interrogated, but we were allocated to him to question him, so I didn't have any personal grudge with him.

MR MEMANI: Did you torture him for personal gain?

MR NGO: I was torturing him because Warrant-Officer Killian who was questioning him, instructed us to torture him. The warrant-officer started with the torture, so we assisted him with the torture. So I participated in the torture there, it is because all of us we were interrogating him and supporting Warrant-Officer Killian.

MR MEMANI: Were you under persons who tortured Pappi, policemen at that stage, in the employ of the State?

MR NGO: They were policemen. Mamone was a policeman, I was a policeman, Warrant-Officer Killian was a policeman, Motale was a policeman.

JUDGE WILSON: Could I interrupt for a moment and ask assistance from somebody. Is it Gillian or Killian?

MR MEMANI: It is supposed to be Killian.

JUDGE WILSON: Killian, it is?

MR MEMANI: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

MR MEMANI: And when you tortured Mr Pappi, were you acting in the course and the scope of your employment as a policeman?

MR NGO: Yes, that is true, it was part of our work during the state of emergency. That is a method we used during the state of emergency.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Chair, there seems to be an appropriate stage to deal with the papers. You see, Mr Chair, I have got a difficulty. I was trying to do something so that we don't wait, but the difficulty is that I am not prepared for the papers that are before me now. I am kind of battling. Would it help if we simply adjourned and then we sort these papers out and then we proceed?

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, if you feel you can't go on. It would only be for a few minutes, I take it.

MR MEMANI: I suppose so, M'Lord.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, get the other papers.

ON RESUMPTION:

JUDGE WILSON: What are we going to proceed with now?

MS THABETHA: Mr Chair, I would like to comment on the paper that we were dealing with, the matter of Ngo. We have met the counsel and lawyers and we have discovered in the second application, there are more offences that have been raised therein, which implicate more people, which there are more victims as well included in that second statement. I think we would need some time to make further investigations and also time to inform the victims and the implicated persons who have been implicated in that second statement, and we have agreed that it would be better to postpone the matter and that set it for a week, because ...

JUDGE WILSON: For a what?

MS THABETHA: For a week, for the whole week, on a date that would be decided later on.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, I don't understand you. You say adjourn the matter to a week or for a week?

MS THABETHA: No.

JUDGE WILSON: We will have a hearing for a week, yes. Does everyone agree with that? I think it should be made clear that it has emerged that the document referred to by Mr Ngo's counsel, was completed by him and notification of its existence was sent to the Amnesty Committee in Cape Town and from the letter available, it was for the Prisons Department then to forward it, that any delay was not as a result of delay by the applicant. He had completed this second document which has now been handed in to us, and which we have numbered. There two annexures to it, A1 to 13 and the second one was already numbered B1 to 22 or 27, I think. Those are now available and they were made available by the applicant timeously. So we think it only right that he should be given every opportunity to investigate the matter that is set out there. But we agree entirely with what has been said by Ms Thabetha, the matter should now in our view, that the new documents should be referred to the investigative unit, for them to make contact or verify the facts, to make contact with the victims and with interested parties, parties named, and it is our view that that should be done immediately. It should not be waited till a day a hearing has been fixed and go along and tell them it is going to happen in three weeks time. Contact should be made now so a complete investigation can be made. The applicant in certain of these applications have even given a telephone number of possible victims. I feel quite sure that the applicant will co-operate with the investigative unit, if he is able to assist in giving further details of where these people can be found. That is so, is it not?

MR MEMANI: I believe so, M'Lord.

JUDGE WILSON: And that should be done immediately, and then once that has been done, it seems to me, subject to what counsel may have to say, that it might be desirable in the circumstances of this case, to have something in the nature of a pre-trial conference presided over by one of the members of the Committee, where agreement could be reached as to the admissibility and otherwise of documents, as to the necessity for calling certain evidence, as to whether admissions can be made. So that when the hearing commences again, it can continue uninterruptedly. I do not want to make it sound as if I am blaming counsel for what has happened this time, there was obviously an unfortunate misunderstanding. The document that was referred to at the last hearing, went amiss and copies were not made available as they should have. As a result of which notice has not been given as required. So we agree with the proposition that the matter should be adjourned to a date to be arranged and recommend that on that occasion it should be set down for the beginning of a week and no other matters should be set down for that week. But before the date is arranged, I would request that contact be made with all the interested parties to ascertain the date is convenient to all of them. And it should be done well in advance, because by that time the Committee may have increased in size, we may be spread all over the place, it may be more difficult to reconvene the same three members. So we need a little time to organise that. So subject to that, I agree that the matter now be adjourned to a date to be arranged.

MS THABETHA: As the Chair pleases.