Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-04

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

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman, I want to inform you that I've got two other victims also this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Can't these people get away from you?

MR STANDER: It is Abel Choane, C-h-o-a-n-e, and his brother Norman Choane.  I'm sorry, I cannot tell you in which incident they were involved because I've been consulted - trying to consult them whilst you were walking inside.   I believe from my colleague that they were tortured in Bloemfontein.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you let us have a list - an up-to-date list of all the people you represent, at some stage that's convenient to you?  I'm not sure - if you can let us have a list of the names of all you clients at some stage.

MR STANDER: As the Chair pleases, I'll do so.

CHAIRPERSON: We're now proceeding with the Ngo application.  It is Thursday, the 4th of September and Mr Ngo is being cross-examined still by Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: (cont)
	Thank you Mr Chairman.	Mr Ngo, before we go ahead I just want to place one thing for purposes of the record on record, and that is that Colonel Flip Loots and he's now Captain Hendrik Bokaba, do not oppose your application for amnesty.  I just want to make that very, very clear.  We do not oppose your application for amnesty.  
	The only reason why I'm putting questions to you pertains to the involvement of Colonel Loots and Captain Bokaba according to you, in the incidents you apply for amnesty for.  And the reason why I'm putting these questions is simply to test your evidence about their involvement and to put to you, the denial by them of their involvement in these incidents and also to test the credibility of your evidence in that regard.  
	That is as far as our involvement goes, we do not oppose your amnesty application simply because Colonel Loots and Captain Bokaba are also persons who applied for amnesty, they are in the same position as you are and they feel that they don't have to oppose your application and they don't want to oppose your application.  Do you understand?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, I do.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I don't now how the Committee deals with this type of position but my difficulty then is that you get a situation where people who are not prepared to come and contradict a person, are given the opportunity to suggest that the person is or may be lying.
	And it would appear to me that if it is their attitude, it would be sufficient for them simply to put it to him that they deny that they were involved and not to continue and suggest for instance that he was not a member of the security branch, that he was not stationed at Mamelodi and so on.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely you see that his credibility is very much in issue.  If they can show he is not a witness who can be relied on, for example one you gives wrong names, it is relevant to their denial.  That is how I understand of Mr du Plessis's cross-examination.

ADV MEMANI: But what worries me, is my sense of what you do on the right, you must do on the left.  If you are going to say a witness must be cross-examined by people who deny their involvement, you must say that the people who deny their involvement must come and testify, if they want to discredit him and let us see if there's any basis for the way in which they have discredited him.
	For instance, it has been suggested that he was not at whatever place, Mamelodi and one of them needs to show through cross-examining them that their instructions on which he is discredited are wrong or false or improbable,   now you loose that opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood they will be available.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: But I think Mr Memani, you assume that they are not going to testify.  The fact that they don't oppose the application, does not necessarily mean that they are not going to testify to dispute certain things, certain allegations about themselves.  You assume that they are not going to testify but that is not necessarily so, whether in the end they will in fact testify of course depends on them.
	You can hardly be here to complain that people did not come and testify against you client.  If they do not testify - if they choose not to testify in the end, it will be for us to decide the matter in the light of the evidence before us including of course the evidence from the applicant which was elicited by a cross-examination on behalf of these people.  As I say, I think you assume that simply because they say they do not oppose the application, automatically they are not going to testify, we don't know.

ADV MEMANI: Yes Mr Chair, my concern is then that if they are allowed to cross-examine and they do not testify, do you completely disregard the statements that we put and the answers that emanated as a result of that cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: No, you evaluate the evidence of the applicant, as you do in any other legal proceedings.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I add here ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, we'll take into consideration the fact that they didn't testify and that  you hadn't had the opportunity to in fact test their - what was put to your witness, that would be a fact being taken into consideration.  And it may be that we'll decide to call them and to enable you to cross-examine them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman with respect, there's no doubt in my mind, I will call Colonel Loots and I will call Captain Bokaba as witnesses in any event, so there won't be a problem.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood from Mr Visser where he put things, that his witnesses have put up affidavits - they might not be called to repeat all the evidence but they would be available for cross-examination if required.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that is in fact so.  We have already made arrangement for every single person for whom we appear, to be available.  He'll go into the witness box, take the oath and confirm and then it will be for either the members of the Committee or any other of my learned brethren on my left, to either cross-examine him or say: "I've no questions to him".

CHAIRPERSON: What is your difficulty, Mr Memani?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Has it been solved?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I proceed?
	Mr Ngo, we heard your evidence yesterday.  There are a few aspects that I'd like to deal with and a few facts that I would like to put to you which will be also testified to by either Colonel Loots or Captain Bokaba.   The first point that I would like to put to you relates to your evidence pertaining to the two motor vehicles you used when you were allegedly part of the security branch in Mamelodi.
	I want to put to you that Captain Bokaba will come and testify that he always used during that time, from 1986 onwards, a yellow Colt Gallant motor vehicle with private registration numbers which belonged to the South African police but which could not be identified as a police vehicle.  What do you have to say to that?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: He was using the two cars which I've mentioned - which we used them regularly in Mamelodi.  I don't deny that he used to use the yellow car which he's mentioned, that is true but the two cars which I've know and I've mentioned, that's the cars I knew.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well I put it to you that he will deny that.
	Mr Ngo, do you want to say something about that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No, Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ngo, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, why didn't you tell us about this yellow car yesterday when we asked you about what cars the three of you used?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The car I knew that he used, are the two cars which I've mentioned but I used to see him - I saw him once or maybe twice with that yellow car but it was not used regularly in Mamelodi, maybe he was borrowing it somewhere.