Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — UNKNOWN

ADV MEMANI: Now you do not deny that he was not a trusted member of the security branch, Northern Transvaal?

COL LOOTS: Mr Chair, he was never a member of the security branch of the Northern Transvaal.

ADV MEMANI: And if he was not a trusted member of the Northern Transvaal branch, he would have been used with caution?

COL LOOTS: If he had not been a member, then we would not have used him.

ADV MEMANI: No, no, no, you told us a few minutes ago, that if you wanted to use Ngo, you could and would have used him.

COL LOOTS: I don't understand the question.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I don't think that was hundred per cent correct. In Afrikaans, as far as I can recall, he said "ek kon hom gebruik het" (I could have used him).

ADV MEMANI: Yes, but whether I put it in English or Afrikaans, you said that if you wanted to use Ngo you could have used him.

COL LOOTS: Of course, that's what I said.

ADV MEMANI: And that being so, if you were not a member of the security branch, you would have used him with caution.

COL LOOTS: The question does not mean the same. If I had wanted to use him, I could have used him.

ADV MEMANI: What I am trying ... (intervention).

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, let's put the question this way.  We know that, I mean, you have said it that if you wanted to use him you would have used him.  But you say you didn't.

COL LOOTS: That's correct.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Let us assume that you had - let us assume that you decided to use him.  Seeing that he was not a member of the security branch, would you have used him with caution?  If you had decided to use him.

COL LOOTS: I believe that if I did decide that, I would have handled him with the necessary caution.

ADV MEMANI: And the details of informers would not have been made available to him?

COL LOOTS: No, not necessarily the whole network.  But if he would have been used, then he would have had access to one or two informers, that would not have been the case with regards to a whole informant network.

ADV MEMANI: And the identity of his colleagues in the security branch would have been protected against him because of the risk involved in exposing them to a somewhat undistrusted member of the branch?

COL LOOTS: Mr Chair, the security branch set-up did not consist of super spies.  We moved freely in the various residential areas, and there were many people who knew me by name in Atteridgeville, Mamelodi and Soshanguve.  That was no secret between us, who were members of the security branch and who were not.

ADV MEMANI: But we know that the security branch used strategies such as using code names.

COL LOOTS: For the purposes of handling them, it might have been that in exceptional cases, operational identities could have been used but that was the exception rather than the rule. I cannot now quickly think of one single member under my command, who served under my command, who used an operational identity. It might be so, but I am not aware of it.

ADV MEMANI: You see the point of my proposition is that where necessary, the identity of members of the security branch was concealed.

COL LOOTS: No, that is not true.

ADV MEMANI: Why would he use a code name if he did not want to conceal identity?

CHAIRPERSON: He has explained that that would be done in a single operation for the purposes of that operation. He said there would be an operational identity.  As I understand it, that means it would be done for the purpose of that operation only, but otherwise it would not be used.

COL LOOTS: You are one hundred per cent correct, Mr Chair. Thank you very much.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.  Now the application which you have submitted for amnesty, is related to the incidents for which Jacques Hechter and others have applied for amnesty. Is that correct?

COL LOOTS: That is correct, Mr Chair.

ADV MEMANI: And the application involves incidents which were high profile.

COL LOOTS: That is correct.

ADV MEMANI: The bombing of the houses of Louisa Mbongo and Nonogele were not high profile incidents?

COL LOOTS: I would not say that.  I would say that it is a profile incident, but not a high profile necessarily. A high profile incident in my eyes would be murder, attempted murder, an incident where explosives were used.

ADV MEMANI: You see explosives were used at the houses of Nonogele and Louisa Mbongo.

COL LOOTS: I make a distinction between commercial explosives and petrol bombs. I know that petrol bombs for the purposes of a definition, are defined under the Act on Explosives.

ADV MEMANI: And you forgot to apply for Nonogele's house and her neighbour's house, because those were not high profile.

COL LOOTS: No, I did not forget. I was simply not involved in that.

ADV MEMANI: And if you were to admit today that you bombed the house of Nonogele or it was bombed under your instructions and the house of Louisa Mbongo, you would be in trouble with the law.

COL LOOTS: If I had been involved in that, I would definitely be in trouble, but I do not have any reason to apply for a whole number of acts and then to omit others.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to place on record that the formulation of the question was wrong, because as far as I am aware, applications for amnesty can still be lodged with the Truth Commission at this stage.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: But was that the position when he signed his affidavit in which he denied involvement with these incidents?  No.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't think so.  At that stage the time was past, Mr Chairman, yes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, point taken.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: So the point is valid, it still stands.

MR DU PLESSIS: Point taken.

ADV MEMANI: And if you had to apply for amnesty, rather if you had to admit your involvement in these offences today, you would be in trouble with the law?

COL LOOTS: Definitely, if I had been involved in that.

ADV MEMANI: To admit you have to say yes, I was involved? What I am saying to you, is let us put it in simpler English. What I am saying to you is that if you had to stand up and say yes, I gave instructions to Ngo, Silahla and Bokaba to go and bomb the house, you would be confessing to an act of arson and possibly attempted murder.

ADV DE JAGER: But that's what he said. "Verseker sal ek dan in die moeilikheid wees".  He would definitely be in trouble then.  So he has answered your question.

CHAIRPERSON: So why are you putting it again?

ADV MEMANI: If that is how you understand his answer, I am indebted to you.
	Now - and if you are convicted of the offences to which Ngo has admitted, you would be sentenced to medium to long-term imprisonment?

COL LOOTS: That is correct.

ADV MEMANI: And that is why you deny that you were involved in the commission of these acts of arson and possibly attempted murder and murder.

COL LOOTS: No, definitely not.  I am satisfied that I have applied for those acts in which I have been involved and which are pending.

ADV MEMANI: May the Chair pleases, those are my questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEMANI

CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions?

MR BRINK: No, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Before you do that, can I just put a few questions so that you can cover that.  When Bokaba came to you and told you about the applicant, did he motivate as to why Mr Ngo should be considered to be taken into your unit?