Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-02

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Mr Memani, Mr Visser is entitled to present his case, to represent his clients' interest, the way that he thinks it is proper and the way that he wants to.  I don't think it will be proper for us to try, if he wants to withdraw a question or abandon it, whether he does it habitually, I don't think we are entitled to prescribe to him what he should or shouldn't do.

ADV MEMANI: What I am saying Mr Chairman, what I am objecting against, is the fact that he has made a wrong, he has put a wrong statement to the witness, but when it is pointed out that that statement is wrong, he doesn't abandon the statement, he just says I am not going to waste time on that.

CHAIRPERSON: You say it is wrong, he says he is not wrong.  He says that that is the proper inference to be drawn from what the witness said.  You say it isn't.
	He said he is not going to waste time arguing that now, when we get the record, one or other of you will be shown to be right.

ADV MEMANI: As the Chairman pleases.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Can you just explain this so that we can understand it, are you saying - let me ask you this way - what document did you give to the typist to type?  Was it the document which later came to hand and which is now part of the bundle and part of the documents before you, in bundle A from page 10 onwards, Mr Chairman?
	Is this what you gave the typists to type or was it some other hand written document?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: All the documents I wrote them by hand, then from there I would hand them over to the typist who would type them.
	Then I would write them by hand then I would give them to the typist.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: There is something wrong with the interpretation, those who can follow both languages.  I have difficulties in understanding some of the questions which this witness is giving.
	For my part, Mr Mthembu, this witness is not answering questions.  Is there something wrong with the interpretation?

UNKNOWN: I must say occasionally there is something wrong, but generally there is nothing wrong Mr Chairman, with the interpretation.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Well, Mr Visser, repeat that question, let's hear what the answer is.

MR VISSER: I am trying to find out Mr Ngo, whether the document from which you led your evidence today, which is before you, the hand written document, whether that is the document which you gave to the typist to type and that is now before us as the typed written portion in bundle C?  Or was it some other hand written document that you have her and which she typed as this document, this typed pages in bundle C?
	I am not sure that I can put it clearer than that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: There were other documents except this one.

MR VISSER: Well, I still have the problem Mr Ngo, that you are not answering the question.  Did you, is the typed written pages a transcript of the document, the hand written document, which you gave your evidence from today?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Maybe I would explain it this way.  I wrote a statement, the first one.   I wrote it by hand, then I gave it to the typist.  On that handwritten statement, they made the typed statement.  Then later I wrote again the issues which were left behind, by hand again to make them included in the first statement.

MR VISSER: And were those ones that you later wrote, were they also typed?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No, they were not typed.

MR VISSER: All right.  Mr Ngo, can one assume that when you made application for amnesty, that you would have thought very carefully about the facts relating to every incident that you applied for, can we accept that or assume that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I don't know how to answer your question.

MR VISSER: Well, did you think carefully about what you put down in writing or did you just write down without thinking almost?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: When you write things, you know you try to write what you know.  You are not being able to remember each and everything.
	And the Truth Commission, if you have written an application form or filled an application form and sent it and remember later that there are things which you forgot, which you want them to be included, you have the right or you had the right to do so.  To include the things which you've left behind.

MR VISSER: Did you think very carefully and make sure that you were right when you implicated other persons in the incidents which you applied for amnesty for?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: And you realised that by implicating persons in your application, you were telling the world as it were, that they are criminals and that they participated in criminal acts, you realised that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I was not telling the world that they were criminals  or they participated in criminal activities.  I was telling them what I know.

MR VISSER: Would it be fair to say Mr Ngo, that on your evidence in regard to all these incidents that you testified about before this Committee, your evidence was not that you personally had a political objective which you wished to accomplish but that the reason why you perpetrated these acts were because you were instructed to do so.  Would that be correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I was instructed to do so, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes.  You didn't have any personal reason why you wanted to do any of these things?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, I didn't have.

MR VISSER: Now, would I be correct in saying that although you cannot remember dates clearly, that all the incidents which you applied for for amnesty, were perpetrated before 1989?   You see because you were arrested on the 9th of February 1989, so all of them had to take place, had to have taken place before that time, isn't that correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That may be so.   Many things have happened before 1989, I was arrested in 1989 after they have happened.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Is it correct that you filed an application for indemnity with the Indemnity Council, Mr Ngo?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is so.

MR VISSER: And that application we know from papers before this Committee, appears to have been heard on the 8th of February 1994.  Would you contest that or would you agree that that is probably correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, I requested amnesty in a different Committee.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Then I received reply in that regard.

MR VISSER: Before you made the application for amnesty, did the Prison authorities explain to you that you could now apply for indemnity and how you should go about it?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No, we did it on our own.

MR VISSER: How did you hear, how did you come to hear about the fact that you could apply for indemnity, Mr Ngo?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: There were forms which were given to people.

MR VISSER: Who gave the forms, Mr Ngo?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Certain people who came from the Amnesty Committee.

MR VISSER: Yes.  You must please understand I am not talking about the present Amnesty Committee Mr Ngo, I am talking about the Indemnity Council when to whom you made application for indemnity before the 8th of February 1994, do you understand?  I am not talking about the present Amnesty Committee, okay.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: They were people who brought the forms to us.

MR VISSER: Were they people from the Prison authorities or were they people from outside?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I believe they came from outside.  We were given by Prison officials that he was given by somebody else.

MR VISSER: And did whoever gave you the forms, explain to you what it was about and how you can go about applying for indemnity, did they tell you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: They gave us those forms and then we read to ourselves the contents of those forms.