Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-29

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, you will recall that Mr Ngo was used extensively on Mr Mohape. He was the person at one stage who was asked to phone Mr Mohape and lure him out of the house so that he could be attacked. He was a person who probably reported a lot about Mr Mohape.
	Mr Chairman, these difficulties we cannot answer, we do not why they chose to use an informer who was not a full member of the Security Branch at the time, and we do not know why they took the risk of sending someone known to Mr Mohape.
But it doesn't seem that there was any suggestion that those policemen who were sent to Mr Mohape were absolutely unknown to Mr Mohape. They could have been known to Mr Mohape, and these people were wearing balaclavas. 
	We also know that the Security Branch were in some way above the law. They had a way of preventing prosecutions when they wanted to prevent them, so they could have taken the risk, knowing that if they failed they would cover it up.
	Mr Chairman, the other matter which I would like to deal with is Mr Papi's matter. Before I go to that, Mr De Jager had asked me about the personal ill feelings between Mr Mohape and Mr Ngo. I think the suggestion that there was personal malice between the two of them is not justified by evidence. Both of them testified that 'we did not have differences which were personal as such'. What created difficulties was that it emerged at some stage that the one was in one camp and the other was in another. Mr Chairman, you can't describe that as personal malice.
	The next matter is 2.7, the murder of the activist Papi. Mr Ngo describes this incident, and this Papi, or JJ, is not known to him by any other name. There is no-one who corroborates him on this incident and no suggestion can be made that he made this application in order to gain acceptance from his community, or that he conspired with anyone else. This person can simply not be traced.
	Mr Chairman, insofar as the incident itself is concerned there is no conflicting version and there is no inherent improbability. There is of course the difficulty that he initially implicated Mr Motsamai and later on said he thinks it was Mtyhala and not Motsamai.
	I have already said that it seems to me that if we are satisfied that Mr Ngo participated in an incident and he does not waiver as far as the incident is concerned, where we find difficulties about the names of the people that he implicates, the finding should be that he has disclosed that he committed an offence with certain other people. He implicates those people but it is not certain - it cannot be found perhaps that those person were in fact present, that all the persons he implicates were present while he committed that offence.

MRADV DE JAGER: Shouldn't we bear in mind that he is not prepared to concede whenever he names another policeman that that policeman couldn't have been there? The only cases in which he conceded that he may wrong is where Mr Motsamai was involved.

ADV MEMANI: Well, Mr Chairman, there must be an explanation for that, and the explanation is, one, Motsamai is also applying for amnesty. The other people are not applying for amnesty. He has had perhaps an opportunity discuss the matter with him and he has become satisfied that he erred in that respect, whereas the others have not approached him and said, 'let me remind you, you are erring here, this is what could have happened'.
	Mr Chairman, you will see that, as it was pointed out in fact by Mr Justice Ngoepe during his testimony that he was a person who was not prepared to say that he does not remember, but it is obvious that he discussed his application at some stage with Mr Motsamai. That would explain his application where he says that he was told that he went to bomb the house of Makubalo. Later it was pointed out to him that he was wrong, at the time he was still a student, the house that was burnt was not the house of Mr Makubalo, but it was the house of Citi Mzuzwana.
	Again, Mr Motsamai has made an application in respect of the house of the parental home of Citi Mzuzwana where in he says he was with Ngo. That tends to explain that on one occasion Mr Ngo did something relating to the Mzuzwana's and he was in the company of Mr Mzuzwana. Whether you would believe him on the rest of the people that he implicates, is a different question. It seems to me that it is one of those things which explains that this is a person who is telling the truth, but has got a difficulty with conceding that he might be erring on some aspects.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: The explanation you have given is good for him to the extent that it can show that when he, for example, implicated Motsamai wrongly, he didn't do it maliciously or whatever. When Motsamai discussed the matter with him he said, 'Okay, okay, okay, that's fine'. But the other side of the coin would also mean that war unto them, those who have not for whatever reason had the occasion to discuss the matters with him. Had they had that opportunity, he might possibly have said, 'Oh, okay, okay, I am wrong'.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, what one has to bring himself to is, firstly, whether war - Let me say the first question one must ask oneself is whether the incident that he tells us about could have taken place or did take place. Once you are satisfied about that then you go to the second question and ask yourself, is he telling us the truth about what was done?
	If you have no reason to disbelieve him on that, then you are satisfied in your mind that Mr Ngo was involved in this commission of this offence. Then ask yourself then whether or not he is telling the truth about who he was. You will then, in the case of Ngo, probably find that you cannot be certain about whether he was with all the persons that he mentions. However, from the nature of the incident, it is probable that he was with some of the persons, or some persons who are not specifically mentioned in that particular application.
	Mr Chairman, I would then say that on the totality of the facts alleged in this application relating to Papi, it appears as though Ngo was present at one stage when something was done to this Papi, and that we are uncertain about who he was with at that stage. However, there is no reason to believe that Ngo was deliberately misleading the Committee in implicating persons who might not have been involved in these applications.
	I now refer to the incident involving the Bloemfontein 19, this is matter no.2.13. Mr Chairman, the evidence of Ngo on this issue has been corroborated by the victims and Mr Motsamai, and there is no reason to believe that he is lying. I do not think that I need to say more than that.
	Mr Chairman, the next one is the ...[intervention]

MRADV DE JAGER: I might say I have taken cognisance of your remark that 6 September was a public holiday - 6 April, sorry, l986, but I also want to remind you that I don't know what the 7th and the 8th was.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, you seem to be holding something up your sleeve.

MRADV DE JAGER: Assaulted for three days, and you said I should bear in mind that 6 April was a public holiday. I am taking cognisance of that fact and I could imagine there would be people nearby on 6 April because it is a public holiday.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, if you want me to address you on that one, the 6th April, as I already said, was a public holiday. The 7th and the 8th you say were working days, but you will recall that most of ...[intervention]

MRADV DE JAGER: It could even be a Saturday and Sunday, I don't know.