Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-29

PERSON 3: Yes. And what about the fact that the applicant is not prepared to make concessions and say, 'Well, I made a mistake here, maybe so-and-so was not there'. That applicant at all time, on all these incidents was adamant that so-and-so was there, so-and-so was there. How far does that imperil his credibility, or shouldn't it?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I think the approach would be there to acknowledge that he is not completely reliable, despite the fact that he is adamant, and one would then have to look at other things that may tend to corroborate him where those things are available.

PERSON 3: When I interrupted you, you were at the point where you said he was being corroborated by Mr Mohape. You were talking about the assault on Mr Mohape and you were saying that he was being corroborated in certain respects by Mr Mohape.

ADV MEMANI: I am indebted to the Chair. Mr Chairman, there is a probability that Mr Ngo would have participated in an attack on Mr Mohape at the time. You will recall that at the time he was an informer for the Police and there were some indications at some stage that they were suspecting Mr Ngo. A further reason for accepting his evidence as not being fabricated is that there was a concession that Mr Mohape was arrested, and there was a concession that on occasions detainees were taken home by the police. So an incident as is described by Mr Mohape and Mr Ngo could have taken place.

CHAIRPERSON: This took place, did it, in 1984?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: At a time when Ngo had not been exposed as an informer?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, we are not sure as to whether he had been eventually exposed but there was this gradual progress towards his being suspected. I think on two occasions he was - before he left school he was suspected. In December 1984 he was excluded from a conference and I think he was also excluded from a conference in December. The suspicions started in December 1983 in Durban and then in December 1984 the suspicion was strongly confirmed by his being there without him being invited. So at the time when this incident took place there must have been some indicators.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he hadn't been exposed as yet.

ADV MEMANI: He had not been exposed as yet, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely there would have been every attempt made to keep him away from Mohape.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the attack took place at night. The attack took place by people who were wearing balaclavas. It was dark where it took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Memani, somebody who you know well, somebody who was at school with you, who was on the same Committees as you, you recognise him by his voice, by the way he moves, by all sorts of things. I am putting it to you that, as Mohape has said, he was suspicious but he had not - there were suspicions about him but he had not been exposed;there would have been every attempt made to keep him away from Mohape, one of the people who were seeking to expose him.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, one, you must recall that Mr Mohape himself spoke, testified that he did not suspect that Mr Ngo was present at all. Two, we can't speak for the police. You are right, there should have been attempts made to avoid him becoming known, but we do not know why they sent him there to join the others.

CHAIRPERSON: I put it to you, it is most unlikely because we do know that the police, Security Police in particular, were careful of their informers.

ADV MEMANI: The difficulty that we have, Mr Chairman, is that even if we see this as being somewhat unlikely, there is no evidence that says that he was not there. The only evidence that is before us is that he was there. We can't get away from that.

PERSON 3: Without belabouring the point, but that is the point. I think what Judge Wilson is saying to you is that, fine, we have his evidence in which he says he was there. But this improbability that Judge Wilson is pointing out to you is contained in that very same evidence that you are referring to. Therefore, if there are improbabilities inherent in fact within that very same evidence of his, they tend to weaken that very evidence. In some instances improbabilities can go so far as to weaken what would have otherwise been the only evidence, to an extent that we can safely say technically there is no evidence.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, let me address the point further then. One, it seems to me that those who gave the order to Kozi not to involve Mr Ngo at the time when he was being caught in town where there is some street lighting; he was allowed to join only at a time when it was dark.

CHAIRPERSON: But they didn't need him for any purpose whatsoever, did they?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, we don't know what went on in their minds, but you will recall that the scheme of things was such that Mr Ngo could not easily be identified. It might have been a risk that they took, rightly or wrongly, and if they took that risk they won because Mr Mohape could not identify them.
	Mr Chairman, I don't know how often you go into rural areas, but it is very dark. You will even miss your brother ...[intervention]

MR STANDER: With so many other Security policemen available to do this job, why would they send one that could be identified? There is another thing that I think we should deal with and that is the personal bad blood between the two.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, let me answer the question about why - about other people being available. He was part of the pool and they would use him if they wanted to use him.

CHAIRPERSON: He was a schoolboy informer at that time, wasn't he?

ADV MEMANI: Yes, he was.

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't a Security policeman.

ADV MEMANI: Yes, he was,

CHAIRPERSON: 1984?

ADV MEMANI: He wasn't, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No, he was a schoolboy informer. He was not part of the pool of policemen.

ADV MEMANI: He was part of the pool that they were using to do their job, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood he was used to supply information,