Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

JUDGE MGOEPE: And the many years to which your brother, especially your brother Ari was sentenced, that didn't
bother you, didn't that push you into thinking that well, you should expose?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: We are no longer on speaking terms because of that.

JUDGE MGOEPE: In fact you testified against him and implicated him during the trial, isn't it?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is so, Sir.

JUDGE MGOEPE: And firmly put him on the possibility of a death sentence?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is so, Sir.

JUDGE MGOEPE: What kind of loyalty is that, Mr Ngo?  What kind of loyalty did you have to the police, to the extent where you would be prepared to give false evidence, which could result in your brother being executed?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: It is the sort of loyalty whereby if my brother had to train as a terrorist, I would have to kill him, because he would have been an opponent at that time.

JUDGE MGOEPE: But he hasn't done, this time he hasn't done anything, according to your version, he had not done anything to deserve to hang.  Were you prepared to have your brother hang for something he had not done?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I knew, as I have already said, that I was going to expose before I become sentenced to death.

JUDGE WILSON: But you didn't expose before sentence was passed, and you might then - that sentence may have been a death sentence, you didn't expose, did you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I did not expose until we were sentenced.  Because they were promising me appeals and that I will succeed, but they never kept their promises.

JUDGE WILSON: Who were promising?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: It is Major Coetzee and Lieutenant Erasmus and Shaw.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Ngo, you knew that the State was prosecuting you on a false charge and that your brother was going to give false evidence against you on behalf of the State, you have told us all this, how could you think they were going to help you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I did not understand that question that you have just asked, Judge, please repeat it.

JUDGE WILSON: You have told us earlier that you thought your brother was going to give evidence for the State.  He was going to be a State witness.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: You knew that your brother was not there and any evidence he gave would be false evidence, didn't you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, I knew.

JUDGE WILSON: That is what the State was doing to you, leading false evidence against you.  Policemen were lying, were going to lie at your trial, your brother was going to lie.  That was the position you were facing, wasn't it?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, Sir.

JUDGE WILSON: So how could you expect the policemen you said were going to help you, to help you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: They assisted me with several things and their promises that they gave, I trusted that they would assist me with the appeal as well.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Chairman, before we are leaving, we have eight affidavits here that have been handed in, and on behalf of the applicant Mr Nemane would be entitled to cross-examine each and every one of these witnesses.  I think perhaps the legal representatives should work out something and see how far we could get, because if we
continue with eight further witnesses in this case, and even the re-examination, I think perhaps other applicants are waiting in vain, we won't ever get to their applications, and I think to save costs then suitable arrangements must be made beforehand.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, the point is well taken, but my recollection, Mr Visser will correct me on this, was that the intention of Mr Visser's clients, was to put the more senior of the officers to testify and not all of them.

JUDGE WILSON: The point is that the applicant's counsel is entitled to cross-examine all of them, and that is what must be clarified.  Does he wish to cross-examine all of them?  That is what Mr De Jager is inviting counsel to discuss during the adjournment.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, before we adjourn may I mention that regarding the application, the second application, it was brought to me during consultation with the applicant, that the application contains matters of substance, slightly different from those contained in the affidavit that was in the statement that is before the Commission.  That then makes it all the more important now that copies of those statements, of that statements should be made, and they be made available to the Commissioners, and perhaps to my learned friends here, M'Lord.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: If they wish, that is their right, M'Lord.
Mr Chairman, may I suggest to Adv De Jager that we shall look into this during lunch time to save time.

JUDGE WILSON: We will adjourn for lunch.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The pending matter, may I ask the Committee's indulgence and refer back to the matter on Monday, 24th, No 3, that is a matter that is presently standing down, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee.  Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, we received a faxed letter this morning, pertaining to this matter, it is a letter written by the attorneys to the next of kin to the victim.  Mr Chairman, the contents of the letter are well known to us and I have discussed the same with my colleague, Ms Thabile Thabethe and she confirms that what is reflected thereon is correct.
	Mr Chairman, without wasting the Committee's time,
we just simply want to State that the sister to the deceased, Mr Fourie, was indeed not properly treated and we - and that she was not informed accordingly and timeously and we ask for an apology in that regard.
	Mr Chairman, still pertaining to this matter, my learned friend has informed me and also the Committee in chambers, that he is still going to need to recall all the applicants.  Now we decided that on the strength of the letter, the contents of the letter and on the strength of a recalling of these applicants, that rather the matter be postponed, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe, it appears that an undertaking has already been taken that this application will immediately, be immediately adjourned.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, I noted that, I noted that in the letter.

JUDGE WILSON: Now I don't know who gave that undertaking.  There are various problems that I think might arise, that I
think you should perhaps consider.  Firstly, is the sister a victim as defined?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Could the Chair repeat that?

JUDGE WILSON: The sister, is she entitled to notice?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman.  She is entitled to a notice, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Why?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, as the interested person, as the only next of kin to the deceased.

JUDGE WILSON: Where does one stop?  She may not have seen her brother for 50 years. I can understand going up and down the line, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, but does one say that one must always notify brothers and sisters?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that may be so, but Mr Chairman, we are enjoined by the Act that interested parties in terms of section 19(4) are to be informed, Mr Chairman.  The position whether they were in contact or not during his lifetime, Mr Chairman, this will not be known by us, we simply have to comply with the Act, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: But Mr Mpshe, the trouble is, I think what our Chairman is putting to you, you will never find the address of all the brothers and sisters of victims.  They are not involved.  You may find the addresses of the children.  In this case we have also the children complaining so that is another matter.  But how far could you define interested persons because if there is 12, 13 sisters, in a family, not children, for instance, should you try and find all their addresses?  There is somewhere there should be a limit to, in a sort of what is interested persons and what is being meant by interested persons.