Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 2000-11-15

CHAIRPERSON: No address me first, my question first, it takes precedence over Mr Visser's question.  My question is, when you made this statement in paragraph 8 on page 36,  under what circumstances and what facts did you have to make that statement?

MS NGONO: The TRC investigator, when he came to us and told us about this case and about the investigations and he explained to us that these people told him that they arrested Mbulelo and they took him back to Lesotho, so they don't know what happened, that is why I wrote this statement like this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  You may proceed Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.  The last issue I want to raise with you is this, you told this Committee about a photograph that was brought by Mr Bobelo and shown to your mother, that's what you said today, isn't that correct?

MS NGONO: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you see the photograph?

MS NGONO: I've already said that he showed my mother this photo.

MR VISSER: So what you say in paragraph 14, this is your statement, is wrong, where it says
"Mr Bobelo even showed us a photo of Mbulelo",
that would be wrong?  You'll have to say something.  Either yes, or no, or I don't know, or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: If you look at the tenor of that evidence and the us, which is used about twice, in reading it, it means you were present as well and you have just told us that it was shown to your mother, but if you read the us, it tells that, if I say for instance, I listened to you, we listened to you, I'm including my two Panel members if I say we, rather than if I say I listened to you.  It makes a hell of a difference and that's what you are asked upon, that the us there has the connotation that you were present when the photograph was shown.

MS NGONO: We were there at home, but he spoke to my mother.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did not see the photograph?

MS NGONO: No, I did not.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.  Did your mother tell you about the photograph?

MS NGONO: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did she say anything about that photograph to you, apart from the fact that she was shown a photograph?

MS NGONO: She told me that Mbulelo had a scar on his face and the last time I saw him, he did not have a scar.

MR VISSER: I see.  Now that's what I want to ask you about because if I'm correct, and I stand to be corrected, but I recall that Ms Mbece, or someone, I'm sure it was Ms Mbece, also referred to the scar, may I just check this Chairperson?  Yes, at page 50, she says ...

MR MAPOMA: Sorry can I just correct?  It's not Ms Mbete, it's the girlfriend to Bulelo.  Ms Mabece, Mr Mbete is the investigator for the TRC, it's Lindelwa Mabece.

MR VISSER: I'm referring to a person with the name of Lindelwa Mabece.

MR LAX: Yes, you said Mbete.  Ja.

MR VISSER: That's part of my strategy, not to listen to myself, because I can't stand my own voice.  So I do say some things that I think I say something else.  I do apologise Chairperson for being at cross-purposes on such a silly issue.  Mabece.  She says at page 50, the second line
"The abduction was not enough.  They went to the family in Port Elizabeth, brought his photo"
Then she says this:
"I was shown this photo when I visited them on their request"
What do you say about that?  Did that happen?

MS NGONO: Lindelwa visited us at home.

MR VISSER: No, that's not the question, did you show her the photograph?

MS NGONO: No.

MR VISSER: So she's lying when she says that?

MS NGONO: It is my mother who was shown this photo, maybe this happened.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, the import of what has been read to you, it would appear the photo was left behind, hence Lindelwa says she saw the photo, do you get the drift?  What you are asked about is that in this statement Lindelwa says she came to your home, she was shown this photo with Mbulelo having a scar on his face.

MS NGONO: I am sure this is a mistake.  Maybe she was told about this photo.

CHAIRPERSON: No, what is here, it's unlike your statement, this is hand-written.  Yours has been written by longhand and thereafter typed, but this one, unless Mr Mapoma tells me otherwise, it would appear it's the same person who wrote it.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma has confirmed that this is the handwriting of Lindelwa Mabece.

MS NGONO: Maybe it's Lindelwa who can be able to answer to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the photograph left at home by Bobelo?

MS NGONO: I did not see it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  You may proceed, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.  But as far as you're concerned, she's clearly wrong when she says that?  As far as your knowledge goes, because you don't know anything about this photograph except that it was shown to your mother.

MS NGONO: Yes, it was shown to my mother.

MR VISSER: And it would be strange if the photograph was left there, that your mother didn't show you the photograph of your brother, wouldn't it be strange?

MS NGONO: Yes, that would be strange.

MR VISSER: Thank you.  Now I'll tell you what is even stranger.  She goes on to say
"I pointed out to the family that he had no scar on his forehead when I last saw him."
Now as far as we know, the last time she saw him, according to this statement, was on the day that the Lesotho police took him away when there were four people present and she never saw him again after that, whenever that was.

MR LAX: Sorry, what's strange about that?

MR VISSER: I'm coming to the strange part.  I'm just putting it to you that she says that when she saw him the last time, was when he was taken away by the Lesotho police.

MS NGONO: Yes.

MR VISSER: You see, the strange thing is this, if the applicants are lying, one would have the situation that on the alternative, if Mbulelo is taken away and given to these applicants by the Lesotho police, they inflicted an injury on Mbulelo's forehead and they took a photograph of it and they circulated it to another police station.  now I know this is very technical and it's really argument, but I'm putting it to you that if there was a photograph of Mr Mbulelo Ngono with a scar on his face which he sustained while in custody of the police, it refers to a different arrest than to the one to which these applicants are testifying.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you heard what was put to you?

MR VISSER: It might be unfair to expect this witness, Chairperson, it was really just a point made more for the sake of argument than anything else, I wouldn't expect her to make any comment about this, unless she wishes to.

CHAIRPERSON: I think I must still give her the opportunity to respond if she has any.  Do you have any response to what was put to you?

MS NGONO: I am not interested in all of this, but what I'm saying is that after Mbulelo was arrested in March, we never saw him again and he was taken by the police.  We never saw him again.  The fact that he had scars on his face or anything else, we only want to know what happened to him after he was taken by the police.

MR VISSER: And we've got no argument at all with you about any of that.  Now when you talk about a scar, would that refer to an old wound, or what do you mean when you refer to a scar?

MS NGONO: I have already said that I did not see the photograph.

MR VISSER: That may be so, but you referred to a scar.  Now how did you understand, what did you understand that to be?  Was it a mark of an old wound, or what did you understand that to mean?

MS NGONO: The last time I saw him, he did not have a wound or a scar.