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:

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:

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:

and there’s a whole list:

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:

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?

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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"

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:

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:

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:

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.

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 said:

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:

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:

And then you say:

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:

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:

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:

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

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:

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.

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.

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:

And the first name is:

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