Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-29

ADV MEMANI: The only suggestion that we have is that until November he might have been in Bloemfontein, but December and January we can't say that he was in Bloemfontein. In December and January, especially January and early February there is no suggestion that he was around; he probably had been in Pretoria at the time.
	Mr Chairman, the next aspect is the evidence of Mr Ngo regarding how the body was disposed of. This is a very difficult aspect of the application. It is clear that no submission can ever made that the explanation was satisfactory.	The next question is, how does that affect his application to make a full disclosure? I would venture to suggest that in these circumstances one must ask oneself whether Ngo deliberately attempted to conceal his involvement in the disposal of the body. In my submission there is substantial compliance with the requirement of full disclosure in this regard in that, despite the fact that he is not satisfactory - his evidence is not satisfactory on matters such as how there came to be a wire and on matters such as whether the brothers would not have been surprised by the wire around Mr Venter's neck, in my submission these are matters which are related to detail rather than matters that relate to an unwillingness to involve one's involvement in the commission of an offence. I want to suggest, Mr Chairman, that you should imagine the situation if, for instance, Mr Venter's whereabouts were not known at the time when the application was made. His evidence would have allowed you to reach and find Mr Venter's body and know where it was disposed of. All in all what I am saying is, Mr Ngo gave a full account of what occurred to Mr Venter from the moment when he shot him right up to the moment when Mr Venter was found.
	Mr Chairman, in weighing the evidence as a whole, one must have regard to the fact that there has been this general pattern of denial of all incidents or most of the incidents in all material respects by the police. It is improbable that Mr Motsamai incorrectly implicated any of the policemen. The denials of the police must be seen in the light of the fact that it is known that during the era in which these things are alleged to have occurred by Ngo and Motsamai, the police themselves have admitted that the situation had become such that legal means of suppressing resistance were not sufficient and the had to resort to unconventional means. One does not have any reason to understand why the police in Bloemfontein would have been immune from this pressure and the temptation to do something, something which might be illegal. Their denials anyway are not borne out by the evidence that has been led in these applications.
	Mr Chairman, lastly, in the assessment of the evidence of Mr Ngo generally one must recall that these things occurred today about 14 or 15 years ago, starting from the 1984 incident. Most of these incidents appear to have occurred within the space of about two to three months only, and it appears that in that short space of time Mr Ngo did an awful lot in both senses of the word, and some of the inconsistencies of his evidence should be understood in that context. Those are my submissions, Mr Chairman.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: May I just ask you something on how ...[indistinct]

ADV MEMANI: I beg your pardon?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I am going to ask you something - the difficulty which I have in this case. I asked your client, he said what he said. I want to know from you - my problem in Venter's case is that Mr Ngo went to court on trial with his brother or brothers and he testified against his brothers, and on the version that he is telling us he would have done that knowing that he was lying against his own brothers. Knowing at the time that his brother could have been sentenced to death, he didn't tell the court the truth to try and absolve his brothers, and disclose everything and said, 'Well, this is what happened'. He did not do that. Do you really, Mr Memani, think that that does not count against him, tell us against him in a very, very fundamental way? Was he prepared to sacrifice his brothers and himself in order to protect the police?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, at some stage I received instructions that his brother was going to testify before this Committee in his amnesty application and I was under the impression that this application would be determined together with the application of his brother as the Chair indicated at some stage. I there, according to the instructions I received then, expect him to say that what occurred prior to the appearance in court, is that the brother occasionally was taken by the police and taken out, and taken home to change clothes and be taken out by the police ...[indistinct] and it was clear the police were going to use him against Mr Ngo. That resulted in there being conflict between them, and I hope they will hear that evidence when he testifies before you and you will be able to assess that.

CHAIRPERSON: But his brother had already given evidence when Mr Ngo gave this evidence at the trial saying that his brother was responsible. He had heard his brother. His brother had not given evidence against him, had he?

ADV MEMANI: Yes, I remember that it was pointed out that he was Accused No.1, but what I am saying you should expect to hear in his brother's application is that prior to the trial the police somehow befriended his brother. They used to take him out; they would go out with him, he was allowed to go and change at home. If he wanted to go somewhere the police would go with him. That made it become clear that he was collaborating with the police and that he was going to testify against Ngo. Ngo then decided to testify against him.

MRADV DE JAGER: Well, he didn't testify against Ngo.

ADV MEMANI: He did not become a state witness, but he gave evidence, if I recall, which was adverse to Ngo.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Ngo was in court; he was the first one to testify.

ADV MEMANI: That is correct.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: He started to implicating in court his brother, even before his brother came to testify, isn't it?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct. What I am saying, Mr Chairman, is that already at the time when - what I am saying, Mr Chairman, is that already at the time they testified, Ngo had already seen that his brother was collaborating against the police and he anticipated that this brother would testify and give evidence that was adverse to him.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was prepared to commit deliberate perjury which might have resulted in a death penalty for his brother? As my brother said, is that not a fact that we must consider?

ADV MEMANI: As to risking his brother's life, his answer was that - if I may use the words that he used - his answer was that the loyalty that he had was the same as the one that would have made him shoot his brother if he had come to discover that he had become a terrorist.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

ADV MEMANI: Apparently there is something here, Mr Chairman, I don't know whether it is important.

CHAIRPERSON: You can submit further written argument as we explained, if you wish to. We expect Counsel to do so if they wish to raise any other points.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I can't hear.

CHAIRPERSON: You can submit further written submissions if you wish to. We have made it clear, if Counsel wish to raise any other points, they may do so.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?