Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-28

MR BRINK: Mr Chair as a matter of housekeeping, my colleague Mr Stander told me that a Mr Ntamo who is on of the Group of 19, who attended the hearings in Bloemfontein when this matter was heard last year had arrived today, he hasn't got legal aid and he's unable to pay Mr Stander's fee, and I indicated subject to what the Committee says, I would be prepared to lead him.  My problem is that he's only come today, the reason being apparently, he had to apply for leave from his employers in Zastron and that is why he's here. I don't know whether the Committee will permit him to give evidence....(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Well have you had a chance to consult with him?

MR BRINK: I have not had a chance to consult with him.

JUDGE WILSON: Perhaps you should Mr Brink and then consider whether anything he's going to say will take the matter any further.

MR BRINK: I will do that.

JUDGE WILSON: If he's going to repeat what the other witnesses who were present have already said, that I think can be done very briefly, he can merely confirm, I don't think anybody would insist, we can have the same story and the same cross-examination.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman The same thing applies to a Mr Baba Kuzella, you'll remember in Bundle 2 that I've handed in to you, he was mentioned on page 21 and 22 of the bundle in his affidavit. I haven't seen him though but I believe from my clients that he's also here.  I haven't talked to him, I don't know the reason why he didn't attend this hearing for the last two weeks, I think the same applies as far as he is concerned.  Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Visser you would have no objection to that would you?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I would be happy to leave it in your hands and in your discretion.

JUDGE WILSON: It seems to me that we have had the version of the victims, it's been put before us and a repetition, if we had something new or different to contribute, it's a different matter, if they're merely going to say the same they can merely say I confirm what the others have said.

MR VISSER: The only contribution which I would to make Mr Chairman is as you know, a number of these victims have given evidence here to matters entirely unrelated to the incidents for which amnesty is made and perhaps if my learned friend Mr Brink can ascertain whether they can contribute towards the incidents for which application for amnesty is made, that would be very helpful because otherwise we might waste time.

JUDGE WILSON: I think it's just the one incident, is that the 19?

MR BRINK: I understand so Mr Chairman, ja.

UNKNOWN: This shouldn't be seen as a precedent for another forty victims to turn up now at this late stage and say they want to give evidence now, because I think they had the opportunity, we were busy almost two months with this case, and we should finish it some time or other.

MR STANDER: We've noted your direction thank you Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: While we're at it Mr Chairman, while we've got a break in the proceedings, may I be allowed to mention one other man whose name is Thulo and he is mentioned at page 35 of Bundle B by Mr Ngo. It's the third name from the bottom in the handwritten page 35 - I'm sorry Bundle A. During the adjournment we asked my learned friend Mr Memani and his attorney whether in order to cut short the proceedings, Mr Ngo could be asked whether this is the gentleman who is present here today to whom he refers ag page 35.  The answer to that is no he isn't and I'm merely placing this on record Mr Chairman to tell you this is the only Thulo we know about, the gentleman is here and we would like on that basis for him to be excused.

JUDGE WILSON: Perhaps we should get a little bit more about him.  Where was he from?  You say Constable Thulo.

MR VISSER: Yes he was stationed in 1986 in Ladybrand together with Safatsa, that is the gentleman who is mentioned at page 27, it's in the second paragraph in the middle of the page precisely in the middle of the page 27 together with a Constable Jantjie, the three of them were stationed at Ladybrand.  Now it is in that sense that they have been implicated by Mr Ngo.

JUDGE WILSON: Well this man Thulo is only implicated at page 35.  That is correct and he was stationed at that time at Ladybrand.

MR VISSER: That is correct.  It is indeed.  He informs me that he never worked at Botsabelo and it couldn't be...(intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: Well I don't think we want too many admissions, if this is to be by consent we can ask Mr Memani to admit that this Constable Thulo was in 1986 stationed in Ladybrand.

MR VISSER: And that he is not the person...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: And that he is not the person referred to in the application at page 35.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman my instructions are that this is a person unknown to our client.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

ADV MEMANI: Our client knows a Constable Thulo other than this person.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.  But you concede that this person was what he says he was, a constable stationed at Ladybrand in 1986?

ADV MEMANI: I have no difficulty with that.

JUDGE WILSON: No no we're limited to that.

ADV MEMANI: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And that he was not - you client says this in not the Constable Thulo whom he knows, whom he says was there.

ADV MEMANI: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Right.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: That will be recorded.   Perhaps I should repeat that it is admitted by both Mr Visser and Mr Memani that the person who has presented himself here today as Constable Thulo was in 1986 stationed at Ladybrand and furthermore that Mr Ngo says that this is not the Constable Thulo whom he had identified as having been present at Botsabelo on the occasion of the assaults there which are refereed to at page 35 of his application for amnesty.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: (cont)

ADV MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus, is there a law which prohibits the employment of people in the South African Police who have previous records?

JACOBUS PETRUS PAULUS ERASMUS: Mr Chairman there is no legislation to this effect but there are prescripts in this regard or instructions with regard to employment, certain requirements that have to be met.

ADV MEMANI: And the cases like Ngo's case are very rare indeed isn't it?

JACOBUS PETRUS PAULUS ERASMUS: I don't exactly understand the question of what is intended.

ADV MEMANI: Cases with people with previous convictions are employed are very rare indeed.

JACOBUS PETRUS PAULUS ERASMUS: As a rule yes that is true Mr Chair.

ADV MEMANI: And was knowing that Mr Ngo had previously conducted himself unlawfully you nevertheless employed him and condoned the unlawful conduct that he had been convicted of.

JUDGE WILSON: Who do you say you nevertheless, the police nevertheless employed him and condoned?

ADV MEMANI: Well Mr Erasmus My Lord, he was the person who makes the recommendation that he must be employed.

JUDGE WILSON: I thought it was Mr Shaw who in the letter you read to us.

ADV MEMANI: That is correct My Lord but Mr Erasmus is the person with an intimate relationship with Mr Ngo, he is the person who I believe would most probably have conveyed most of the information about Ngo to all other policemen.

JACOBUS PETRUS PAULUS ERASMUS: Mr Chairman that I had been part of such a recommendation I would not deny.  It is a recommendation which was made, the divisional commissioner and the head office make the final decision regarding employment.

ADV MEMANI: And isn't it correct that Ngo was transferred to Ladybrand, it was because he was involved in a shooting incident.

JACOBUS PETRUS PAULUS ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman, not to my knowledge.  At that stage there was a threat to his life.

ADV MEMANI: From whom was there a threat?