Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

MR NEMANE: Yes I now remember, it was specifically regarding Mr Venter.  You were saying that Mr Venter was a police informer and it appeared to me it was being suggested to you that Mr Venter was in fact employed by the Railways, and what this - has prompted me to ask further is the fact that Mr Venter was employed with the South African Railways, incompatible with him having been an informer of the police at the same time.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, that was never placed in dispute by me.  With all due respect.

MR NEMANE: Yes. Am I to understand that the State is now admitting that Mr Venter was an informer and at the same time was employed by the Railways?

JUDGE WILSON: That was not the State,  that was Mr Visser who appears for certain policemen.

MR VISSER: And that was not the concession, Mr Chairman.  I simply said that we didn't bring about that dispute which is now placed - put to the witness.  But what our evidence will be and has been put, was quite clearly that Venter had no political profile, he was never an informer of the police, that these witnesses of mine know about.  That was the point.

MR NEMANE: Now the next question, Mr Ngo.  Is it correct that an informer who ceases to be an informer without the approval of the police, is regarded as being a threat to the security establishment?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, it is so.

MR NEMANE: Is it correct that there is a kind of culture in the security establishment, that ... (intervention).

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I really must object, with all due respect.  We had my learned friend lead his own witness.  Mr Mpshe didn't lead him, he led him.  He was supposed to make a full disclosure of all the facts to you.  The points now raised do not arise from cross-examination.  That is new evidence afresh, Mr Chairman.  And with respect, the reason why we are objecting right now is there is now evidence of cultures which are apparently or presumably or ostensibly - pertain within the Security Branch. We have heard that when you are out to throw a bomb on an operation and a policeman comes around, he has got to be killed.  We don't know where this evidence comes from, Mr Chairman, and it is creating a great embarrassment,  and it is not founded on any positive evidence which had been given in-chief.  We do object to this, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: It is difficult to say directly what it is founded on.  There is a general denial of instructions having been given, whereas this applicant says the instructions were given for that very reason. I think he has already made the point.  I don't see that it is necessary - didn't he say that in-chief?  That that's why he was told to do the job?

MR NEMANE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.  Now Mr Chairman, it arose again under cross-examination, in that it seems ...

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.  It was a very long and searching cross-examination and I find it extremely difficult at this stage to say that this may not have arisen from it. So let's just carry on and get finished with it.

MR NEMANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Now was there a culture or a tradition of regarding ... (intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: I don't know you can go that far.  This was a very junior policeman.  To ask him about cultures or traditions of the police force.  You can ask him what he believed but not to give expert evidence about cultures in the police force, can you?

MR NEMANE: As Mr Chairman pleases.   At the time when you were arrested, had you come to learn about the fact that there is a notion that when one is an informer, one is always, must always remain so?  Or remain aligned to the security establishment?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, it is so.

MR NEMANE: When you were given instructions to go and kill Mr Venter, did you get the impression that he had become regarded as a threat to the security establishment?  Or at least an undesirable element within the establishment?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: According to the information I got, he was not cooperating anymore and he ran away with the payment that he got as an informer.  And he had a role in the railway strike that was on.  And they had tried to persuade him to co-operate, but he refused.  Therefore I must go and kill him.  The word used was "eliminate", I must eliminate him.

MR NEMANE: Is it possible that there was another reason for the killing of Mr Venter that you would not have been told about?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Not unless my official didn't make me aware of, but the only reasons I was given was his lack of co-operation and they gave me these instructions, because they knew I had an experience in that field.

MR NEMANE: Can you exclude the possibility that you had
told an incomplete story about Mr Venter?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I did not have personal reasons to kill him, but I was just told to kill him under the given reasons.  I don't have any other reasons why I would kill him, myself.

MR NEMANE: Now yesterday you testified that after you being beaten up by students, after they had discovered that you were an informer, you went to live with Mr Venter.  You said that Mr Venter had given you protection and one of the Commissioners took you to task about the fact, saying that you were a policeman, or worked for the police, how could you need protection.  Can you tell this Commission, this Committee what you meant by saying that you needed protection, and protection from who?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: They took me there because I was a student at that time and I was their informer and I was exposed as an informer and I could not stay in the areas where my fellow comrades would be aware of.  The alternative was for them to hide me there at Mr Venter's house and I could understand their reason because I was defenceless at that time, I was not a policeman.

MR NEMANE: From whom did you need protection?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I have been attacked by people.  And the policemen, because they were aware of my situation, they advised that I needed protection under Mr Venter, until they said I should go and further my studies elsewhere.

MR NEMANE: After killing Mr Venter, Erasmus gave you R500,00.  Did Erasmus promise to give you R500,00 before you killed Mr Venter?

JUDGE WILSON: That was not interpreted. I take it it means no?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, no, Mr Chairman.

MR NEMANE: Yes, M'Lord, I have been corrected.  It is Coetzee who gave the R500,00.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: It is a "no".

MR NEMANE: Now how old were your brothers at the time when they assisted you to bury the body of Mr Venter?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: If I can remember clearly, John was 18 years old.  I am not up to date with Ari's age, but I know he was older than me.

JUDGE WILSON: (Microphone not switched on).

MR NEMANE: As the Court pleases, I am indebted to his Lordship.  And is it correct that you are 25 years of age then?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes Sir.

MR NEMANE: And when you joined the police force you already had a previous conviction.  Is that correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, I had.

MR NEMANE: And in respect of what was the previous conviction?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: It was 1983, assault charges.

MR NEMANE: Resisting local arrest?

ADV DE JAGER: Surely this doesn't flow from any cross-examination?

MR NEMANE: Mr Commissioner, it might be, it might be that
I am stretching the point, but the ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Okay.  Go on and stretch it but just finish at some time or other.

MR NEMANE: We have come to the end.  Now Mr Ngo, what was the policy of the police force about employing people with previous convictions at the time when you were employed?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The people with the criminal record in the police force are not allowed, they cannot be employed.

MR NEMANE: And who was instrumental in your employment as a member of the police force despite the fact that you had a previous conviction?