Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-02

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, is it not correct that you applied for indemnity for only one incident, that of the murder of Mr Venter, murder, robbery and the illegal possession of a firearm relating to Mr Venter.  Would that be correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: Why did you not apply for all these incidents for which you now apply for amnesty?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The Act for the indemnity was not the same as the Act for the Truth Commission.

MR VISSER: Well, you see, that is exactly where you are wrong, with due respect Mr Ngo, because the 1992 Act brought in the definition of crimes committed with a political objective and that has remained exactly the same in the present National Unity and Reconciliation Act, so to cut a long legal argument short, I will put to you that the basis upon which you could ask for indemnity, was only on the basis of politically motivated criminal acts, and by and large, that is the same still today in terms of the new Act, so that answer is not correct.
	Now I am asking you why did you not apply for all these incidents which you now apply for, when you had the opportunity of doing so in 1994?
	In the definition, if you have the Act before you Mr Chairman, Section 1 and then Section 2 as well.  I am sorry, Section 3 is the Section that deals with indemnity.
	Do you wish me to address you on that issue right now Mr Chairman?  I have the Act here.

CHAIRPERSON: I see no reason.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  The answer which I think we are waiting for Mr Ngo, is simply this, is there any other reason which you can advance, apart from the one you have just given as to why you did not apply for the incidents apart from that of the killing of Mr Venter,  for which you apply here today before this Committee?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I would say I did include them, if there is a document or a copy, you would find that I have included them.

MR VISSER: Well, then Mr Ngo, I put it to you Mr Ngo, that what the Council dealt with was merely the murder of Mr Venter and that according to the papers certainly, which have been provided to this Committee, that is the only issue that was relevant at the time of the consideration of your indemnity application.  You did not, in other words, apply for all these other incidents.
	Mr Chairman, the reference is again to bundle C, and this time it is the last section, Section F and what we have there is a report of a hearing.  We haven't seen a judgement, but this is the report of the hearing before three judges, Judges Terry Steyn, Judge Mohl and Judge Solomon.

CHAIRPERSON: The 1992 Act related only to people who have been already convicted, sentenced, did it?

MR VISSER: With respect, not Mr Chairman.  There are various sections.  In fact there are three sections.

CHAIRPERSON: The Act, the heading of the Act says
"To make other provisions for the release of certain prisoners serving life or other imprisonment and to make provisions for the granting of indemnity".

MR VISSER: Now, if you continue, you will observe Mr Chairman, if my memory serves me correctly, that Section 2 deals with the first category and Section 3 will deal with the granting of indemnity Mr Chairman.  And then there is a Section 4, which will deal with articles or objects which are also dealt with by the Act.  The point about the Act was that there were three categories for which a person could apply whether he was a prisoner or not.
	Certainly if you were a prisoner, you would not have been prohibited or precluded from applying in terms  of Section 2, but in terms of Section 3 Mr Chairman, you didn't even, that dealt with the situation where you committed an act with a political objective and you could obtain indemnity.
	And there was also another category Mr Chairman, that was temporary immunity and the background was of course that there were a lot of people who were abroad and who were considered to be necessary to be brought back into the country to take part in the negotiation process prior to the first democratic elections Mr Chairman.
	And that was really the purpose of Act 151 of 1992, is to deal with those issues temporarily.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: But will this point avail you if in terms of the then Act, for some reason or another and not on the strength of a superficial view of the Act, if in terms of that particular Act, he would not have qualified for indemnity in respect of all these things?
	Of what use would that have been for him to have included them?  If for some reason because of his own advice or someone else's advice he would not have received indemnity, what would be the purpose for him to have applied?

MR VISSER: I hear your question Mr Chairman, and if you remember I made a specific point of asking Mr Ngo, whether he received any help, any advice or whatever, so he said he didn't.	He saw a form, he applied.  The question then Mr Chairman, is a question of credibility.  We now ...

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Except that he said to you that these Acts are not the same.

MR VISSER: I take the point Mr Chairman, I take the point, but I believe the rest would be for argument.  But the point is this, here is a man sitting in jail, he his now given an opportunity to apply for indemnity, he applies only for one incident.
	The question is simply this, why didn't he apply for all of them?  He has given us an answer, he said it is because it is a different Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it also commonsense Mr Visser, he has been charged with only one offence, he has been arrested for only one offence.  That is the one he is worried about.  There, as far as I know, were no other prosecutions pending against him.  There were no suggestion that there were going to be.   Isn't it the normal reaction for somebody in his position - I just want to get this 25 years from around my neck?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, what I am doing at the moment is I am placing whatever evidence we know about before you for your consideration.  If that is of course at the end of the day what you decide, then so be it Mr Chairman, but it still remains our duty to place it before you and to ask the witness, give him the opportunity of giving an explanation if he feels like doing so.
	I will certainly argue at the end of the day Mr Chairman, when we deal with this matter fully if that moment ever arrives, that - I wasn't trying to be flippant, Mr Chairman, but I will certainly argue that that was the time when if anything he says today can be taken as being the truth, he would have applied for those incidents.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, my instructions from Mr Mthembu that at the time the Act provided for application for indemnity only if a prosecution was actually pending.

MR VISSER: Really Mr Chairman, it is a matter for argument.
	Now, Mr Ngo, we spoke about the kidnapping of Mr White Mohapi where you implicated Mr Motsamai.  In fairness to you, you also implicated Mr Motsamai in the attack on the house of Max Makhubelo, but you explained that this morning by saying it was really the house of City Mzuzwana.  Are you with me so far?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, I am with you.

MR VISSER: Now, I am asking you this.  Were there any other instances where you implicated Mr Motsamai where he did not place himself on the scene or where he himself did not apply for amnesty?  	I will tell you why I am asking you this.  It is because I am going to suggest to you as I did before, that you were swopping notes.  He saw your application.  So, are these the only two that you implicate Mr Motsamai in, as far as you can remember?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: We did many things with Motsamai.  We were working in one Unit, we bombed houses with him, cars with him and clinics.

MR VISSER: Alright.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Those are the things which I can mention to you.