Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I wrote there that I was a member of the SAP Security Branch because I got the form, according to my rank, they didn't say I must mention the capacity that I served in at the SAP Security Branch.

MR VISSER: Alright, well let's just leave that.  Is it true that you became a police informer around 1983 while you were still at school?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: It is so.

MR VISSER: Is it not true that you actually lived with Mr Venter long before 1986?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: It is not true.

MR VISSER: You didn't live with him?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I did not live with him.

MR VISSER: I see.  Were any of your possessions stored on the premises of Mr Venter at any time?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: When I returned from the police training college I was at Pretoria where I didn't wear my police uniform.  Some of my clothes that I didn't require I sent them to Mr Venter so that he can take them home.

MR VISSER: How did that come about, why did you send it to Mr Venter?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: He was my contact to take messages at my mother's place.

MR VISSER: He was your contact to take messages to your mother's place?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: Again, why did he do that for you?  Wasn't it because you were good friends?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes I said that Mr Venter was the person who gave me refuge.  You cannot seek refuge from a person who is not used to you.  I got used to him when he gave my asylum, that is to say he's a person I understood him.

MR VISSER: You see the picture which you have tried to paint is that the police actually took you to Mr Venter when you were attacked by your fellow students, isn't that correct or am I wrong?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: If you understand that I said I started to know Mr Venter when the police took me to his place.  When I came back from Pretoria I took my luggage and took it to his place and the clothes which I was not using.  In other words I went to training college after I have known Mr Venter.  That is why after training I went back to Mr Venter and left my luggage there.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo let's try to make this easy.  Did you know Mr Venter before the police took you to his home?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I did not know him, I knew him when I was taken there for asylum, that's where I got to know him.

MR VISSER: I see.  Is it not true that at the time when Mr Venter was murdered you were in fact not stationed at Bloemfontein at all but at Mamelodi in Pretoria, that's where you were stationed?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes it is so.

MR VISSER: And is it your evidence that Captain Loots ordered you to come to Bloemfontein?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: It is so.

MR VISSER: Was Captain Loots a member of the Security Police at the time?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes it is so.

MR VISSER: But you were not, you were not, I am putting it to you, you were not a member of the Security Police.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I was a member of the Security Police and I started to work with the Security Branch, you can even ask this - the citizens around Bloemfontein, they - ever since I was recruited I have been working with them.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo, just answer this question, when you were working as a policeman in Pretoria, stationed at Mamelodi Section 19, were you a member of the Security Police?  Why do you have difficulty answering such a simple question?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: In my application form I stated clearly that I was stationed at Rosslyn Unit 19, it's a reaction unit that works directly with the Security Branch. I was based in Mamelodi.

MR VISSER: Alright.  Let's step off this matter, are you maintaining that you were a member of the Security Police in Pretoria, while you were stationed in Pretoria?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes I was.

MR VISSER: You see to come back to Mr Venter, we have some extracts from a judgment by Judge Beckley, Mr Chairman I am not sure whether you have been provided with copies of that judgment, we only have some pages of it Mr Chairman, I want to put it to you ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Well I don't know (...indistinct)

MR VISSER: Yes it is a trial which ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Case no.175?

MR VISSER: Yes that we don't know Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: What page have you got?

MR VISSER: I am missing quite a few pages, I am missing pages 3 and 4 and ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: (...indistinct)(microphone not on...)

MR VISSER: And then my judgment runs to page 12 and then again I've got no further pages.

JUDGE WILSON: ...(microphone not on)

MR VISSER: "Later die dag as vervolg van verdere inligting..." is my page 5 Mr Chairman.  Well Mr Chairman perhaps I can sort this out with my learned friend Mr Mpshe, he may have a judgment.  We didn't receive anything from Mr Mpshe, this is what we have ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Wait a bit we have got another judgment, "Later die dag as ...."

MR VISSER: Yes, yes that is the one I am referring to, now Mr Chairman please do stop me if I put anything which is unfair to the witness because I do not have the full judgment before me, but my point that I want to put to you is this, is it not correct that at your criminal trial, together with your two brothers, each of you was represented by a separate advocate?  That's a question to you Mr Ngo.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I said I didn't want legal representation.  They were represented but I refused legal representation.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo were you not accused 1 at the trial before Judge Beckley who was the Judge who found you guilty and sentenced you, were you accused 1 in that trial?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes it is so.

MR VISSER: Were you not represented by Mr Williams, page 6, the middle paragraph?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The fact of the matter is that I conducted my own defence.  However, he just - the role that he played there
was that he asked for mitigation of sentence.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo according to this document I have in front of me it appears that Mr Williams was described as "accused 1's counsel" and that he cross-examined on your behalf.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser we've also got a full judgment, ja, I think he was at one stage represented by Advocate Dafood and then Williams and there was - I think there was trouble about who should represent him and he refused to be represented if my recollection is correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I thank you for that information, we don't have that information unfortunately, but what - for purposes of the question which I want to put now I think I am going to leave out who the counsel was.

JUDGE WILSON: If you do get a copy of the full judgment this is at page 29 of the full judgment, the Judge deals there with the fact that Mr Williams gave notice, that after discussion with accused 1 he couldn't continue as his counsel.  Accused 1 confirmed this and after Mr Williams was excused as pro deo counsel accused 1 indicated that he needed the services of another pro deo counsel.  It was then the case was adjourned so another pro deo counsel could be obtained.  On the adjourned date, the 12th of February, Mr Dafood appeared on behalf of accused 1.  He told the Court that as a result of instructions he received on that date accused 1 was not willing to consult with him on the basis that he did not need the services of pro deo counsel, but chose to put his own defence.  Accused 1 confirmed this, and after the position was explained to him, what the advantages of pro deo counsel was he persisted in his attitude that he wanted to conduct his own defence.  At that stage it was
arranged that Mr Dafood would remain, not as pro deo counsel on behalf of accused 1, but the Court asked him to remain as amicus curiae.