Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — UNKNOWN

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, and furthermore you asked the question then to Capt Bokaba pertaining to the question that they lived in the barracks together and that they knew each other from living together in the barracks.

CHAIRPERSON: Again, that would not indicate the security, he would have had to get that from somewhere else, that he was a member.  The question Mr Memani is asking, Mr Memani was asking, as I understood the question, was how did he know that you were the two members of the security branch working there.

ADV MEMANI: I am going to deal with the question about barracks.  But what I am putting to the witness, is that if he knows someone, and the person knows you, if he had an opportunity to see you at certain places, you will say no, we used to see each other at a certain place.  You will not say that he possibly saw me.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you understand that the question you were asked was relating to him being a member of the security police, and that's what he was answering, not did he just see you.  You were asking how could he know you were in the security police.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, isn't this really a matter for argument?  But if you consider it only, if you really feel it is necessary to proceed, proceed on that basis, but I think you have laid the basis for argument, that he shouldn't have given this answer, he should have given this answer, because that was the position.  But I don't want to interrupt you.

ADV MEMANI: Let's hear what his comment is, Mr Chairman.

CAPT BOKABA: I will answer in this fashion. If Ngo and the others were patrolling on foot, at Mamelodi, I would say maybe we would see each other. It is difficult now if a person is driving in a Casspir with tinted windows, how will you see such a person? Can you see a person in a Casspir, driving in a Casspir with tinted windows.

ADV MEMANI: But how would he know from just driving past you that you are not only a policeman, but you are also a member of the security branch and you are the only members of the security branch who are present there?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, in all fairness, I think it is common cause that they discussed it and that the witness took him for an interview to COMPOL.  So he must have known that least this one is a member of the security police.  There could be an argument about the other one.  But let's start off, it was common cause, your client stated it, he stated it, so we all know that they knew each other and that they knew - that the applicant knew that the witness was a member of the security force.

ADV MEMANI: But there is  ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: And I am not going to allow that question. It is grossly unfair.  The question you put, was how could he have known, explain, how he could have known, driving past in a Casspir that you were not only a policeman but a member of the security police force.  The witness did not say that he knew it from driving past in a Casspir.  So you cannot ask him how could he have known in those circumstances. He didn't say he did.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the answer that I got from the witness was that Ngo could have seen me whilst they were driving past, he would be seeing me through a tinted window and I would not  ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: As I understood it, the answer was the opposite. The answer was I wouldn't have seen him in the Casspir, because there is a tinted window.  He understood you were asking whether he had seen Ngo driving round in Casspirs.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, I understand, but what I am saying  ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: I am not going to let you put the question, suggesting that he has said, because he drove past in the Casspir he identified him as a security policeman. He has not said that, Mr Memani.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.  Mr Bokaba, how could Ngo have known that, how could - how do you explain that Ngo over a period of two years would not during that period when he saw you, have come to you and said hey, how are you, or after hours at barracks say to you hey, I saw you at the ...

CAPT BOKABA: Let me explain in this fashion, Sir, with respect. Ngo might have known me before he contacted me about his joining the security branch.  We knew each other as policemen, and as I have indicated, that I was the only security police officer who resided at that barracks.  There wouldn't be a difficulty for Ngo to know that I was a security police. It was a known fact that I was a security policeman and other policemen knew that.

ADV MEMANI: But what makes Ngo's fabrication not go beyond you and Selahla, who were the only persons, in fact, working at Mamelodi as security branch Black officers.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, can we take that as an admission, when he refers to Ngo's fabrication?

CHAIRPERSON: You put it to him as Ngo's fabrication.

ADV MEMANI: That happens in cross-examination, M'Lord, there is nothing wrong in what I have done, and I am not going to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that he was fabricating when he said that?  That Ngo was deliberately fabricating?

ADV MEMANI: The witness has, M'Lord, and them, and Loots are suggesting that he is fabricating, and what I am putting to him is  ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: No one has suggested that he is fabricating when he said these two people were working as security officers in Mamelodi.  Where they say he is fabricating is when he says he was doing so.

ADV MEMANI: What I am saying it would require fabrication to say that I was working with these people and these are the only people that I worked with.  And what I am saying there is that why doesn't he go beyond  ... (intervention).

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Memani, put your next question. Let's try and progress. Put your next question and let's see whether we could make progress, please.  We all want to finish this case some time or other this year.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. Now Mr Selahla, if Mr Ngo is fabricating - Mr Bokaba, if he is fabricating, why doesn't he mention other people as having been working with security branch.

CAPT BOKABA: What people would he refer to, because he didn't know them. He would talk of people and refer people that he knows.  Why would he tell a lie about people that he doesn't know. He wouldn't mention Zondi Magamo and Ruby, because he didn't know them.

ADV MEMANI: The person that was permanently responsible for your area was Hechter. Why would in his fabrication Ngo say that you reported to Loots?

CAPT BOKABA: Pardon me?  May you repeat the question?

ADV MEMANI: The person primarily responsible for your area was Hechter.  And Ngo doesn't say that you reported to Hechter. Instead, he says you reported to Loots, who was far removed from Mamelodi.  And that happens to be corroborated by yourself and Loots.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, that is a question for argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, isn't it pure argument, that what you are arguing, what you are putting to this witness is argument, that your client's version must be accepted, because it is corroborated, because what he has said is what in fact happened.  You don't have to talk about fabrication by your client. You say your client's version accords with what was said. It is not for this witness to speculate why your client should not have tried to tell things that he knew to be untrue, to bolster a story.

ADV MEMANI: But Mr Chairman, what I am saying is, let the witness explain how Ngo would have been able to fabricate the fact about Loots.

CHAIRPERSON: That is a different question. You can ask him how did he know that you reported to Loots. What you are saying is, why did he fabricate reporting to Loots rather than say he reported to Hechter?

ADV MEMANI: All right.