Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-02

CHAIRPERSON: Adjourned till two o'clock.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: (cont)
	Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Ngo, may I just refresh your memory where we were at the adjournment.
	You indicated to the Committee this morning that there were two reasons as you understood them, why Mohapi had to be kidnapped.  The one was to gather evidence so as to be able to put him away, is that correct?  And the other was that the police were angry because he was acquitted every time that they tried to bring  him to court.  Can you remember that Mr Ngo?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR VISSER: Just switch on your microphone Mr Ngo.  Can you remember that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is right.

MR VISSER: Now you told the Committee at page 24, Mr Chairman, at the top of the page, your page 2, that as a result of this information which the police wanted on White Mohapi, you were given the task of monitoring all the illegal acts committed by White Mohapi.  Do you remember that?  And you had to report that to Erasmus and Shaw?  Do you remember that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, that is true.

MR VISSER: All right.  Now, you see the question which I asked you and which is not being answered is precisely what were your instructions.	We know now what the reasons were, precisely what were your instructions about the kidnapping of Mr Mohapi?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I have already answered that question.

MR VISSER: All right, you are not prepared to answer it again?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I answered the question, then I explained the instructions are as I did explain before, it is not that I don't want to answer your question, I am just telling you that I did answer your question.

MR VISSER: All right, because you see I am going to suggest to you that nowhere in your evidence did you suggest that what you were told to do, was to kidnap Mr Mohapi and assault him.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I said I was instructed that we should kidnap him.

MR VISSER: But Mr Ngo, you took him out into the veld.  You and Motsamai and others and you assaulted him with crowbars and hammers, did you not?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the evidence was that he was released and he was going to be (indistinct) outside somewhere in the veld, it was not that they took him out from the police station and took him to assault him at the veld.

MR VISSER: May I ask what was wrong with the question that I put Mr Chairman?

ADV MEMANI: What you said to the witness, what you put was that the witness together with others, removed the victim from the police station to go and assault him somewhere at a veld, and I am saying that the evidence is that he was released and he was (indistinct) and he was kidnapped there and assaulted at a certain point.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood the question, it was that you say you were instructed to kidnap him.  You do not say that you were ever instructed to assault him, but you in fact took him out into the veld and assaulted him with crowbars and other things.  Is that not the question Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: That was precisely the question Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the objection to that question?

ADV MEMANI: The objection is that the evidence in chief is that Mr Mohapi would have been released and were (indistinct) and were kidnapped.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the evidence not that this witness assaulted, the applicant assaulted, was one of the party who assaulted Mohapi.

ADV MEMANI: The objection is not that he assaulted, the objection relates to the suggestion that he would have removed him from the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: He never said the words removed from the police station, he said Mr Visser said, your instructions were to kidnap him and you were never instructed to assault him, but you assaulted him.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases, that is exactly my objection.  Mr Visser is putting it that the witness would have removed him from the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: He is not Mr Memani.  He is saying that he assaulted and he was never told to assault him, why did he do that.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases.

MR VISSER: I take it that the objection is then withdrawn Mr Chairman.  Let me repeat to you what I have just put to you. I understood you to say that you had to kidnap Mr Mohapi in order to extract information from him.  I think it is what you are saying, so that he could be put away, he could be successfully prosecuted, isn't that correct?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, again that is incorrect.  That was not the evidence of the witness.  The evidence of the witness in chief ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That was what was put to him three minutes ago and he agreed to it.  The first question put to him after the adjournment was that, and he said yes.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I don't think we understand each other.  Mr Visser is suggesting that Mr Mohapi was kidnapped so that he could be successfully prosecuted and that was not the evidence of the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what the witness agreed to a few minutes ago.  If you didn't listen to the first question put, I can understand you not understand it, but that was as I understand it, the very first question Mr Visser put.
	He put it in two parts and the witness agreed to it, is that no so Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that is what I attempted to do but if I misunderstood, in fairness to the witness, may I go a step back.
	Mr Ngo, I want to give you one more opportunity.  Why, what were your instructions?  Why did you have to kidnap Mr Mohapi, what was the reason?  What did you have to do with him once you have kidnapped him?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: We've had instructions that we should kidnap him and hit him.  We chose clearly on paragraph 2, that Mohapi should be kidnapped and be hit.

MR VISSER: At the top of that page, isn't it correct that you told the Commission that as a result, now that result is that evidence had to be gathered because he was released every time he was brought to jail, now you say as a result you were given the task of monitoring all the illegal acts committed by Mr White Mohapi.  That is correct so far, isn't it?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, the evidence appears that way.

MR VISSER: Yes.  And the point was that you could gather evidence so that it could be used against Mr Mohapi, isn't that correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: Now, why would you have to kidnap him in order to achieve that purpose?

ADV MEMANI: Mr  Chairman, the witness hasn't said that he had to kidnap him in order to achieve the purpose stated in that paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: That is so Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Then the next question Mr Chairman, if that is correct, is that is it then not true that the kidnapping was solely for the purpose of assaulting him and for no other reason at all, because what else would you then have to kidnap him for?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I will not say anything other than what I said, that those the reasons that I have given, they were like that.  I will not give any other reason, except those reasons I have given.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am afraid, I can't recollect.  Will you tell me again please, what was the purpose of kidnapping him?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I will explain to the Chairperson this way.  Mohapi was a leader or was active in politics.  And he was troublesome in that township.  He was organising political activities.	And every time when he was detained and taken to court, his lawyer would succeed that he should be acquitted and then when he was detained under the emergency regulations, the lawyer would speak on his behalf successfully.
	I explained that thereafter my seniors who arranged that he should be detained, so that he should not continue with his political activities, gave instructions that we should kidnap him. I believe that is the cause of his political activities, that he was kidnapped.