Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-14

JUDGE WILSON: You assisted in extending the tables for Counsel and 
providing further microphones for their use, thank you.
	We are now proceeding to hear the application of Mpezele Nelson Ngo, 
applicant No 2422/96.  The Committee consists of the same three persons 
Wilson, Ngoepe, De Jager.

MS THABETHA: Thank you Mr Chair.  Mr Chair I don't know, I think we 
should clarify, Mr Motsomai is sitting over there with the applicant.

JUDGE WILSON: Is he also, I thought you're not ready to hear that. Are you 
ready to hear that?

MS THABETHA: That's what I wanted to clarify, that maybe he should, he 
needn't sit here necessarily because ...(intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: I understood that its  going to be arranged that we're going 
to hear Ngo only and that he would join tomorrow and he's ...(indistinct) his 
application. Is that ...(indistinct)?

MS THABETHA: Yes very well, I'm indebted to the Committee members.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson I think I also need to be clarified.  What 
does it mean when the Committee says that it's going to hear matters 
simultaneously in practical terms?

JUDGE WILSON: It means as provided in the Act that it is going to hear 
evidence which relates to different applications together.  We are not going to 
duplicate these things, we are going to hear the applications.  They remain 
separate applications brought by each individual, there is no such thing as a 
joint application.  They are separate applications which are heard together. That 
is the evidence led is evidence in both or all of the applications, in so far as it is 
relevant to that application.

ADV MEMANI: Doesn't it mean then that the applicants must then be there 
together at all times, that when we're finished does it mean that when Mr Ngo 
finishes to testify he's going to testify or does it mean that when Mr Ngo 
finishes testifying then the police witnesses are going to testify?  I'm at a 
complete loss now.

JUDGE WILSON: We would have the police witnesses that relate only to 
Ngo.  Those that relate to both of them would give evidence after they have 
both given evidence.

ADV MEMANI: In that even then we are not hearing Mr Motsamai then, 
we're hearing Ngo alone?

JUDGE WILSON: Today yes.

ADV MEMANI: Then may Mr Motsomai be excused?

JUDGE WILSON: That's what I suggested that he remove himself from the 
table and go and sit elsewhere, down in the body of the hall.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.

JUDGE WILSON: Where he can hear the evidence of Mr Ngo because it 
may well be, and certainly is, that part of that will relate to him.  It may be more 
if he remained sitting here where he can hear it easily. If you wish we could 
start both applications now, it was you as I understood who said that there were 
various reasons why we couldn't.

ADV MEMANI: Yes but then I understood that pressure was put upon me to 
proceed with these applications no matter what, but the only reason why we 
could proceed was that the only relevance is that the only evidence that would 
be led this afternoon is that of Mr Ngo.

JUDGE WILSON: No I can't hear you, speak up.

ADV MEMANI: My understanding was that they are going to be heard 
simultaneously, that is together whilst they are sitting there but we will be 
hearing the evidence of Ngo only today.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes but that evidence may well relate to your other client. 
 Ngo isn't to be asked to give evidence again.  The whole purpose of hearing 
applications together is to avoid the repetition of evidence.

ADV MEMANI: I think Mr Chair should say that you are more comfortable 
with them sitting there together and they will just proceed as they are sitting 
there together.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well we'll hear both the applications, we will hear 
then the application I have already given you details of and the application of 
Mohanaetsi Stephen Motsamai applicant No 4031/96.  These applications are 
being heard together.

MS THABETHA: Mr Chair I would like to hand over to Mr Willem Brits.

MR BRITS: Thank you Mr Chairman, my involvement only relates in so far 
as the application of Ngo.  The implicated persons there who I represent is 
Colonel Flip Loots and Sergeant Hendrik Bukawa.  Now I've drafted affidavits 
in which they state their version of the facts where they were implicated, I've 
handed copies of these affidavits to my learned friends here and specifically to 
the legal representatives of the applicant, they've gone and worked through it, 
they said that we can hand it in by agreement, we can hand it in but they are not 
waiving the right to cross examination but at this stage it doesn't necessary that 
there are so many material facts pertained in these affidavits that they want my 
clients to be present at the moment.  I am available and I beg leave to hand 
original copies of these affidavits to the Committee, and these implicated 
persons do not oppose the application of Mr Ngo.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, they will be, Loots will be A and Mukaba B.  
Is it necessary for us to read these?

MR BRITS: Not at this stage Mr Chairman.  If needed later ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: One would certainly read them later, I ...(intervention)

MR BRITS: Ja but for cross examination, maybe for record purposes, then we 
can...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: ...(indistinct) difference will be made to the 
pattern...(indistinct)

MR BRITS: And as such I may at this stage be excused from proceedings.  
I've made arrangements with them where they can contact me if necessary but 
practically it doesn't look like they're going to need my clients within this 
...(indistinct).

JUDGE WILSON: Okay we will excuse them till further notice.

MR BRITS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson may I put it on record that Mr Mthembu and 
I do not accept responsibly for notifying him of any postponements or calling 
him and this is a matter which is within the ...(indistinct) of the functions of the 
Commission.

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.

MS THABETHA: Members of the Committee, before we proceed with Mr 
Ngo's evidence, I would like Advocate Memani to certify how he is going to go 
about addressing his evidence because as far as I know Mr Ngo has applied for 
eight acts which he is committed.  So I would like to have some clarification on 
Advocate Memani.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson, when we concluded these 
proceedings...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry this is, you say he's applied for eight.  And where is 
this list to be found?

ADV DE JAGER: That's the first that you have advised us that you prepared 
something that could assist the Committee.