Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-20

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Will you then accept that I will start tomorrow if all things being equal, first then with my evidence, thank you Mr Chairman.
	My Lord, I see that in respect of that question, I thought that I had dealt sufficiently with that last time, but I see that I hadn't done so.  I want to say My Lord, it was I who dealt with it, not Mr Britz.
	But the question that you referred to now My Lord, obviously and I don't want to argue it now, but can be interpreted as a perhaps a loose question.
	I don't think the question was clear to the effect that the question was that he saw Mr Ngo every day until his arrest, that issue wasn't dealt with in all fairness to the witness, perhaps not dealt with properly by myself in the evidence in chief, but I will have to argue that My Lord.
	What I want to ask the witness relates to something that appears in the judgement of the criminal trial My Lord, and I am trying to get to that.  Capt Khoja, you testified in your evidence in chief, you testified that you remember that Mr Ngo was in a motor vehicle accident, can you remember that?

UNKNOWN: I remember that.

MR VISSER: Now, I want to put to you what was stated in the judgement of Judge Betley in the criminal trial.  My Lord, you will find that in Exhibit C, Bundle C, page 47.
	What he says there is based on evidence of a Dr Van Niekerk.  I am going to read that to you Capt Khoja, I want you to listen to it carefully.
	The witnesses who gave evidence are part of the (indistinct).  It was in the first place Dr Van Niekerk, accused 1 at Pelanomi Hospital treated there, during July 1988.  Evidently after accused 1, that is now Mr Ngo, was in the motor car accident of which he testified himself, and in which he sustained certain injuries.
	According to Dr Van Niekerk, the accused sustained back fractures as well as a neck injury.  Due to the neck injury he was kept for a week at the trauma unit of Pelanomi Hospital. 
	After he had spent the week at the Hospital, he was released and was prescribed four weeks bed rest.  During a later follow up consultation visit, it was determined that the fracture of the back for which the accused was operated initially, collapsed.
	On the 21st of October 1988, an operation was done known as a Harrington Procedure, during which two steel plates, pegs, were placed into the accused's neck to pull his head straight.
	Regarding Dr Van Niekerk, accused 1, that is Mr Ngo, was transported from Pelanomi Hospital or rather was released from Pelanomi Hospital during approximately November 1988.
	Capt Khoja, if we take account of this, it seems that Mr Ngo was for most of the time from July 1988 to November 1988 in hospital?  Did you know anything about that?

UNKNOWN: I only heard that he was injured and he was in the hospital.

MR VISSER: And is it possible that it could have been during this period when he wasn't there, on duty as we have seen here during the period July 1988 to November 1988?  Would you concede that?

UNKNOWN: There is such a possibility.

MR VISSER: And then I want to put to you Capt Khoja,  I want to put to you Capt Khoja, what Mr Ngo himself testified which you will find on page 282, page 282 of the record, Mr Ngo himself testified and that was his evidence when I cross-examined him he said I was never suspended, I was sick.
	I encountered a motor accident, I was on sick leave from - then the case appeared and then it was not disputed by Mr Ngo that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in August 1988.
	It was put during cross-examination in August, but it seems to be in July.  I put that to you, do you have any reason to dispute that?

UNKNOWN: I don't have any reason to dispute that.

MR VISSER: Right, and lastly, Capt Khoja, were you ever officially told by anybody that Mr Ngo was transferred or to be transferred during that time he wasn't present up and until his arrest?

UNKNOWN: Nobody sir.

MR VISSER: Thank you, My Lord, I've got no further questions Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: .

CHAIRPERSON: One final question to give Mr Khoja the chance if he can, page 1137, you were asked when you last gave evidence Mr Khoja, about entries in the occurrence book and you agreed that the last entry relating to Mr Ngo, was the 20th of July 1988.
	You were then asked now Captain, yes, do you know what happened to Mr Ngo, then your reply was, yes, I know exactly because I was working together with him.  I was his Commander, he was arrested.
	Again, Captain, there is not mention of the fact that he had disappeared from working with you, that you hadn't seen him for months.  You said yes, I know exactly what happened to him, because I was working together with him.  Can you explain how it is you came to say that and didn't there say I don't know, he disappeared?

UNKNOWN: I understand that question, but you see if you have a person who is troublesome at work, such things appear because you would never get the right root of the problem.
	Ngo was under my supervision as I indicated before until he was arrested, even during his disappearance until he was arrested, he was under my supervision.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your explanation, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: I would like to ask you one question, I know this happened about nine years ago, almost ten years ago.  When Mr Venter turned up at the barracks and asked about his motor car, was he in a friendly spirit or was he annoyed because his car wasn't returned?

UNKNOWN: He was annoyed because he first called, he never got the car until he came in person.  He was really troubled.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you know at that time whether he travelled from Bloemfontein to Pretoria in order to enquire about the car or what was the position?

UNKNOWN: I saw him at the barracks, asking about his car.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, and the later that day, you saw Mr Ngo after Mr Venter had been there, you saw him?

UNKNOWN: No.

ADV DE JAGER: If it wasn't on the same day, it may be a day or two later when you conveyed to him that Mr Venter was there?

UNKNOWN: I saw him days thereafter, when he was at the barracks.

ADV DE JAGER: What was his explanation for not returning Mr Venter's car?

UNKNOWN: He did not give me a reason, he said he would immediately return the car.

ADV DE JAGER: And do you know whether he in fact returned the car immediately thereafter?

UNKNOWN: He did not leave immediately to return the car, but I think the weekend thereafter he went home.

ADV DE JAGER: And do you know whether he was in a motor accident while driving Mr Venter's car?

UNKNOWN: I do not know in which car was he in when he was involved in an accident.

ADV DE JAGER: I would like, if you could assist me perhaps, was Mr Venter's car damaged in the motor accident?

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, that was in fact the evidence placed before you, during the incident of Venter.  The recollection is that the car actually overturned while Mr Ngo was driving it and it was some way away from Bloemfontein, I can't remember exactly where, but I can get that for you if need be, and he was then hospitalised immediately.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, that is my ...

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

MR VISSER: Yes, My Lord, I don't think there is anything else, there is just one point I want to make please, and that is that Mr Memani placed, or put certain facts as his client's version which wasn't tested in cross-examination and which wasn't testified about by his client and in no way I am saying that he should have led that evidence, because he couldn't perhaps have foreseen that it was relevant.
	However, My Lord, if that is in any way to be taken into account as Mr Ngo's version, obviously I would want to cross-examine Mr Ngo about one or two of those statements that were made.
	I am just making that point My Lord.