Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 2011-01-21

MR VISSER: for one thing and that he was then assaulted and that he was then compelled to leave that high school, the Lereko High School.  How do you spell Lereko?  Is it ... (intervention).

WHITE MOHAPE: L E ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: N E?

WHITE MOHAPE: L E.

MR VISSER: L E?

WHITE MOHAPE: Ja.

MR VISSER: And he was then compelled to leave the Lereko High School and continue with his studies elsewhere, it does not matter where.  He then expressed a desire to join the South African Police and he was, what is called in police circles, attested.  It means he was appointed as a student Constable on the 11th of March 1986.  He was then placed at Batho and, Mr Mohape, if I am saying a lot of things and you are wondering how it is relevant to you ... (intervention).

WHITE MOHAPE: No.

MR VISSER: ... I am simply doing it for the sake of being of assistance to the Committee, if I can.

WHITE MOHAPE: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: He was placed at?

MR VISSER: He was placed at Batho, B A T H U, Police Station. I am told it is B A?

WHITE MOHAPE: B A T H O.

MR VISSER: T H O, not U, but he was ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, can you just tell us where this is in the vicinity of Bloemfontein or where in the world is Batho.

MR STANDER: I can possibly tell you.  It is a police station in the Black townships in Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: And by way of a service arrangement or whatever you call it, he was immediately placed with the security branch, because of the fact that he had been an informer and the intention was to use him to point people out who the security branch of the time had considered to be activists or people that they ought to be interested in.  That is background.  If you want to make any comment, you can make any comment, but the point here is that he was attested on the 11th of March 1986.
	Prior to that, you see, he could not have been formally issued with an official firearm.  Prior to that, also, it is highly unlikely, unless he, there is some sinister way of, the way he got hold of it, that he could ever have worn a uniform.  
	Incidentally, did you ever see him, if you can try to recall, before March 1986, Ngo?  Had you ever seen Ngo in an uniform, let me put it that way, or can you not remember?

WHITE MOHAPE: No, I want to answer your two questions and I see how they are coming.  I will deal with them.  The first one, yes, it is a, it was a sinister situation to see Ngo having a gun, according to you, when he was not officially inaugurated as a policeman.

MR VISSER: Yes.

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes and I will tell you how it was sinister, because when Ngo was already a police informer, you know, he did their work, and he immediately after we exposed him, he was working hand-in-hand with Erasmus.  In many instances when I was taking (...indistinct) to security branch offices, Ngo, he will come with Erasmus at home, they will pick me up, I will go into his office, Erasmus, where Ngo will sit there and he will, you know, question me, you know, and at that time it was after we have long exposed him as an informer ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Yes.

WHITE MOHAPE: ... and at that time he was already carrying his own gun.

MR VISSER: Would you allow me a moment, Mr Chairman?
	Yes, I have just taken instructions, Mr Mohape, from Colonel Erasmus.  He differs from you in two respects.  He says, first of all, Nelson Ngo, as far as he is concerned, could not properly have been issued with an official firearm before he became a policeman and, as far as Mr ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: I am sorry, Mr Visser, I understand that he  could not have been issued properly with a firearm before he became a policeman, but could he have had one illegally?

MR VISSER: Yes, he could have stolen one.

ADV DE JAGER: According to this, he went out to arrest people or to bring them in.  Were the instructions that Colonel Erasmus never knew that he had a firearm?

WHITE MOHAPE: That is correct.  If he had been in possession of a firearm, then it was without the knowledge of Colonel Erasmus and I was trying to make the second point.  The second point is that Colonel Erasmus says that he never participated in any arrests before he became a policeman and nor did he participate in any interrogations as the witness has just indicated.
	Did you catch the translations, Mr Mohape?

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes, I got the translation, yes.

MR VISSER: Okay.  So, in other words, there is a difference of opinion or rather of evidence between you and Colonel Erasmus on that point.  Fact of the matter is I just want to ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, could I, I am getting totally confused here.  As I understood your evidence, Ngo was at school with you still and you decided that you would have to expose him, it was shortly after January 1985 when this list became exposed.  Is that so?

WHITE MOHAPE: Ja, I am saying it is that so, because in terms of conferences that we held in Cosas ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You have given us the details, ... (intervention).

WHITE MOHAPE: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: ... we do not need them again, but you said it was about the beginning of 85 ... (intervention).

WHITE MOHAPE: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and you told him, you spoke to him outside the meetings, he did not come to the meetings and you told him that he was an informer and he denied it, said he would wear the uniform of the security branch and carry a gun.  That was on the Monday and ... (intervention).

WHITE MOHAPE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ... he then left.

WHITE MOHAPE: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was away, this is at school we are talking about now, is it?  He left school and he was away ... (intervention).

WHITE MOHAPE: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: ... from school ... (intervention).

WHITE MOHAPE: For the whole ...

CHAIRPERSON: .. for four days.  He returned to school on Friday and he had a gun on that Friday?

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that gun you took away from him?

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.  So, that is one gun?

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you spoke later, as I understood your evidence, you said he had a gun, you saw it on him, you saw it, as I understood, you said you saw it at Fountain or the police ...?

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes, at Fountain, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So, this is later and this is a second gun?

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So, we are now talking about the first gun that you took away and that at some stage later, and I do not think you have given us a date for the later event, that may have been after 1980, after March 1986, you saw a second gun.  Is that the position?

WHITE MOHAPE: You see, that is why I said earlier on, you know, in terms of specific dates I will do Mr Visser a favour to have to ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will ... (intervention).

WHITE MOHAPE: ... have, to, you know, to have them written down so that we are not confused in terms of the dates ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

WHITE MOHAPE: ... and there is no unnecessary contradiction into the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but I just do not want there to be any misunderstanding.  There are two separate guns ... (intervention).

WHITE MOHAPE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ... we are talking about.

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, that accords with my understanding of the evidence.  I am first, I got stuck with the first gun, I will be moving on to the second gun in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understand it, there is no suggestion, or so far from this witness, that the first gun necessarily came from any particular policeman or anything else, he just ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: That is quite correct.  That, in fairness to the witness, that is quite correct, Mr Chairman.
	Now, what happened to this first gun that you spoke about that you wrestled with Ngo ... (intervention).

WHITE MOHAPE: Yes.

MR VISSER: ... during that commotion at school?  What happened to that gun?