Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, I am not suggesting that it was not unlawfully removed from Mr Venter's house. I concede that. It is part of the evidence of the applicant.  But the theory that I am pursuing is that it seems, if you look at the evidence at the trial, and the theory that my learned friend seem to pursue before this Commission, is that the applicant acted for personal gain, and Mr Chairman, I am saying that how could a person remove, be involved in the removal of so many items alone, and only one or two items be found in his possession.  I concede that the furniture could not have been brought to the court, that the car could not have been brought to the court, but there was no suggestion at the trial that he might have sold the TV or whatever, Mr Chairman.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, with respect, my learned friend has not taken this matter any distance whatsoever.  The applicant himself testified that assistance was given by the askaris and the people were given clothing and R50,00 thereafter.  Unless he is saying he is disputing what his own client has said to this Committee, I fail to see the relevance of all these questions, Mr Chairman (...indistinct)

JUDGE WILSON: What is ... (intervention).  Yes?

MR VISSER: May I - sorry, Mr Chairman, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but may I add something.  We have a document, Mr Chairman, it is at the office of the Attorney-General and it refers to certain attachments.  It is a blue page which says (opsomming van wesenlike feite) - summary of the facts. In that document paragraph 8 says
"The accused returned to the house of the deceased, where they removed the items mentioned in Annexure A."
And Annexure A attached, and which is exactly what you have pointed out, Mr Chairman, it contains a list of the stuff that was stolen.  And that's how they showed the list at the trial, as it is normally done.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman,  I think I am being misunderstood here. I am not denying that the list is correct.  What I am saying is, that list is correct, and I am saying that it tends to corroborate the applicant when he says that some of the goods were taken by other policemen.  Those policemen are not part of the trial and they were not investigated, and that would explain therefore, why those goods were not before the Court.  Those goods that were found in his possession were brought to the court, that is the watch.

JUDGE WILSON: He does not say they were taken by other policemen.  He says the TV set was taken by the two people who worked at the hospital.

MR NEMANE: M'Lord, he says that they were given ...

JUDGE WILSON: ...to those two.

MR NEMANE: Yes, by a senior, I think a warrant officer.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, on the State case his two brothers were concerned in the thefts.  All it shows is that the applicant did not have the TV set.

ADV DE JAGER: And the radio cassette player was found in accused number 3's possession, i.e. John Ngo, the brother of the applicant. According to the judgment. I don't know whether he would agree with that.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, I think we would have to put that to him.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, put it to him.

MR NEMANE: As the Commissioner pleases.  Mr Ngo, there was evidence led at the trial that the radio tape, a radio tape belonging to Mr Venter was found in the possession of accused number 3, do you have any knowledge - do you have any knowledge of that theft?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR NEMANE: And what is it that you know about the theft?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I have already mentioned that after they have held us, I personally gave them the radio and Sgt Mamume gave Ari some of the things that were taken out of the wardrobe and he gave them R50,00 each as their payment.

MR NEMANE: Now what are some of the things that he gave to Ari, to your brothers?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: He gave them some clothing and R50,00.

MR NEMANE: So is it correct that your brothers were given clothing and R50,00 each and a radio tape only?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR NEMANE: Now during cross-examination you were asked why
when Pietersen arrested you, you did not say hey look, I did this thing, I am a policeman and I did this thing as part of a police operation.  Your answer was that he did not work with us, is that correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Are you referring to court or when?

MR NEMANE: You see, I am trying to get you back to the stage when your evidence so that when Pietersen arrested you, you did not tell him that he must not arrest you, you are a policeman and you were sent by policemen to go and rob Mr Venter.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I was not supposed to tell him and he was not supposed to be aware of the operation.  He is just working for Murder and Robbery squad unit.  He is doing criminal cases and not security work.

MR NEMANE: Now during the course of your employment as a member of the security branch, what was the practice regarding the appearance of policemen when you were busy committing an act that would amount to a criminal offence?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: This question is not so very clear. I cannot respond, because it is not very clear.  Please repeat it.

MR NEMANE: Yes, I will give you an example.   If you are sent as a Security Branch member to go and bomb a house, and whilst you are busy bombing a house, a member of the uniform branch appeared on the scene and approached you, what would you do?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The command is very clear.  If you are on an operation, any attempt, even if it is a policeman or a member of the society, on completion of that operation you must eliminate that person in order to clear your way.  There is no way that you can give yourself in.   Those are the clear instructions that we understood.  If anybody was
interrupting the operation, they had to be eliminated.

MR NEMANE: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, I am just going through my notes.  When you were arrested, did you have the key to the house in S Section in your possession?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No, Sir.

MR NEMANE: Did you go back to the house in S Section after the furniture was delivered at that house?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I never went back there.  I left it there and left the firearm of the askari with the askari.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, you said you left it there and the firearm with the askari, what was that "it", was that the key?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: After having left the furniture, I went back there, after I had received my payment, to leave the firearm with them, with the askaris.

ADV DE JAGER: No, but in answering now just a minute ago, you said you left "it and the firearm there", when you were asked about the key, whether or not you had the key on you.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I didn't talk about anything else.  There is nothing else that I left there other than the firearm.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, the answer that was given now, you clearly said "I left ..." - when you were being asked about the key, you said "I left it there with the firearm of the askaris", didn't he?

MR NEMANE: I wasn't really listening, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: You weren't listening to your client's evidence?

MR NEMANE: I was going through the notes, Mr Chairman.  Now Mr Ngo, it seems that you have answered a question which I put to you by saying that you left "it" and the firearm, with the firearm there.  Is it correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No Sir, I just left the firearm with them.

MR NEMANE: And Mr Ngo, the - yesterday a question was put to you, I do not recall what the question was, but it prompted me to want to answer this question, was being an informer a full-time occupation.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, I was a political activist.  Everything that was supposed to happen I was supposed to keep them informed.