Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-04

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, this is not fair, he hasn't previously said that he ran into a bottle store, he's explained that the use the word through massive imperfect English.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, all right.  Now, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think what counsel was putting to him was what he in fact said in his previous application which was, he ran into the bottle store and he ran through the bottle store.  He says in his application, he ran into the bottle store. Have you not read that?

ADV MEMANI: Yes, but he says - he does explain that he never actually got into the bottle store.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what counsel is really asking him about that explanation.  What he originally wrote in his written application was, he ran into the bottle store and then he says, he ran through the bottle store and that's what counsel's asking him about.  Carry on Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Can you explain to us Mr Ngo why you referred in your - in the written application, bundle C, that you ran into store and through the bottle store and why didn't you say that in your later application?

CHAIRPERSON: Well hasn't explained that he says his knowledge of English is such that he may have written the wrong thing down?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I just want to make sure what the explanation is Mr Chairman.
	Or let me put it to you there's a difference, can you explain it to us?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: He was running towards the bottle store and he fell among the people but stood up and ran away again.  That is where Bokaba told me not to pursue him any longer, we thought we have shot him.  Even today, I didn't know whether we have managed to shoot him or not because we didn't examine him afterwards, what has happened.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see Mr Ngo, I find that strange because you say in your - in both versions you say
"Upon our follow-up we found out that the man was admitted to hospital in Mamelodi and no trace of this case was made against me"
	So you found out that he was admitted to hospital?  And you said in bundle C, you said:
"We found out that he was has been admitted to Mamelodi hospital with hand and leg injuries"
That's contradictory to what you testified now.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I say we saw him, he was admitted because we went there but we didn't enter into the hospital to see where he was shot so that we should confirm or know exactly where we have shoot him but definitely he was admitted at the hospital.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Mr du Plessis, is the purpose of your cross-examination to show that your client was not involved in the shooting, or is the purpose of your cross-examination in fact to go further to show that the incident never happened?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the purpose of the cross-examination goes further to the extent that my client denies that such an incident ever took place where he was involved in.  I'm not saying that the incident never took place, all I'm trying to do is I'm trying to place a question mark upon the evidence of the witness so as to be able to argue at the end of the day that where he says that my client was involved in this incident, cannot be true.
	If certain other aspects of his evidence in doubtful then it also becomes doubtful if my client was ever involved in this matter.  And I'm simply pointing out contradictions to be able to argue to you at the end of the day that the probability that Bokaba was involved, is next to nothing Mr Chairman.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, but then I think you should know what the purpose is and limit yourself to that because I - whether the person ran through the bottle store or out of the bottle store, I don't thing that - if you client was not involved in the incident at all, whether for example the chap ran through the bottle store or not, I don't see that having any bearing on it.
	But I just think that we're not sure now whether you want to argue that this incident did not take place at all, in which case we should know why you say that, or you are just asking questions generally.

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, I'm trying to point out that there are certain discrepancies in his evidence.  To be able to say that at the end of the day when he testifies that Bokaba was present at that incident, he cannot be believed in respect of that point.  Now, if there are contradictions in his evidence pertaining to this whole issue, it points simply to the credibility - his credibility also on the question, was Bokaba present?
	But I will leave it, I've made the point Mr Chairman, I won't go further than that.  I do not - I have no factual basis on which I can dispute that this incident took place, the only dispute I have with this witness is the fact that he says that Bokaba and Selahla were present, which is denied.
	And I want to put to you Mr Ngo, that both Mr - both Bokaba and Selahla in their affidavits and I don't think that I have to go back to the affidavits, deny that they were ever present with this incident.  I put that to you, what is your answer to that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: They were present.  I can't even think who were there unless if I can tell you the two gentlemen who were there - Bokaba was there, we performed that incident together.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, and what I also want to put to you Mr Ngo and that is simply something that I will argue, is that I find it improbable that what you say on page 13, bundle C that
"All the petrol bombings you were involved in with Bokaba and Selahla happened within a period of three weeks"
Where you worked with them together for more that two years.  I find that improbable.

ADV MEMANI: That's a matter for argument Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, now what I want to put to you is the evidence of Bokaba will be that he became a Constable in the South African police in 1982, that he became a Sergeant in 1990 and that he became a Captain in July 1997.  I put that to you, do you dispute that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I really don't know when he was promoted that Bokaba, but the first time when he was introduced to me they told me it's Constable Bokaba and I accepted the matter as it was, I didn't take his identity card to know exactly in which rank he was but we were working at the same rank, that is how I used to knew him.  I didn't know when he was promoted, that is something new in my understanding.

CHAIRPERSON: From that, do I understand that he was a Constable until 1990 - all the time he could have worked with this applicant, he could only have been a Constable.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that he - who told you that he had become a Sergeant?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Personally, I knew him as Constable Bokaba.  After a while when I phoned Adjudant at barracks - it was my ID book where I was supposed to have my money, he told me that is Sergeant Bokaba.  In other words, I knew after I'd been sentenced because I was supposed to get my ID, that is when I knew that he was Sergeant Bokaba and I was phoning from prison during that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Ngo, I'm going to put to you simply that - for purposes of clarity, that Bokaba and Selahla deny that they were ever part of any petrol-bombings with you and that Loots denied that he ever gave any instructions for you to be involved in any petrol-bombings at all.  I put that to you, what is your reaction?