Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-02

MR VISSER: On the insistence of your counsel, was it because the court failed to believe you, was that the reason why they were discharged?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Because I was sent by members of the Security Branch to them at school.

MR VISSER: Are you satisfied?  Mr Ngo, I put it to you that on the fact that you have just given us, you had a powerful personal reason to do something to Mr White Mohapi, didn't you?  To take revenge on him for having stabbed you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I didn't have that reason of revenge because I understood the reason why they stabbed me.

MR VISSER: And you had no revenge in your heart, is that correct, against White Mohapi?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I understood that I was mistaken, so that was the reason.

MR VISSER: Why don't you just answer the question.  The question is and you had no revenge in your heart against Mr White Mohapi, that is the question.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the question was answered.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I hope that we are not going to go through the same procedure as we did last time.  There was nothing unfair in the question which I put, I resent my learned friend interrupting cross-examination as he did last time.  With all due respect, if he has a valid objection Mr Chairman, then fine.  The question was not answered, that is why I repeated it.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Sorry, before you carry on.  Who were the other three people, who stood trial with Mohapi?  Who were acquitted?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is Billy and then Maile.  I don't remember the others, I have forgotten the names.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Now just please, answer this question.  After you were stabbed by inter alia White Mohapi, and after he was acquitted, did you have any resentment in your heart against White Mohapi?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I know the person who stabbed me, White Mohapi didn't stab me, but instead Billy stabbed me.  He was just holding me.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I think the question is do you have any resentment against Mohapi?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I didn't have any resentment against White Mohapi.

MR VISSER: But it is true that you alleged that White Mohapi took part in the attack on you, isn't that correct, because that is why he was an accused in the case?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is true.

MR VISSER: Right.  Now,  turning to page 23, Mr Chairman, your page 1, Mr Ngo, will you just explain to the Committee why White Mohapi was in fact treated the way you treated him?
	Just tell us what was the point about White Mohapi.  Perhaps you just want to tell us from your own memory, you said Lieutenant Shaw and Lieutenant Erasmus gave you certain instructions.  Just forget about the document in front of you.  What were those instructions precisely?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I don't understand your question, or the direction of your question.

MR VISSER: Yes, I know you don't understand the direction of my question, but my question is a simple one.  What were you told by Erasmus and Shaw about what you had to do with White Mohapi? It is a very simple question.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: We were instructed that White Mohapi should be kidnapped.  The instruction was given to Mamome and Tsoametsi, then they kidnapped White Mohapi.  We took him to that particular place. That is where we assaulted him.

MR VISSER: What was the purpose that Erasmus or Shaw had why Mohapi had to be kidnapped?  What was the reason for that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The reason given was that White Mohapi was a person who was problematic, I mean politically, that is the reason.  They used to detain him many times for political acts, but every time after the detention, the lawyer was able to succeed to discharge him.
And they were angry.

MR VISSER: So it was really a question of revenge in a way, is that what you say because he got of scott free every time he was taken to court, even the time when you were the complainant?  It is a question of revenge?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairman, the applicant hasn't said that the lawyer was successful every time, including the time when he was attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what the evidence is, isn't it?   He has told us that when he was attacked the accused were found not guilty, were discharged.

ADV MEMANI: There is not even evidence before you that the accused were represented by legal representatives, Mr Chairman.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I think the real problem though Mr Visser is that, I am not so sure whether your statement is justified.  I don't think if a person is being detained and released many times and no evidence could be found against him necessarily, the people who gave instructions, if they did give such instructions for his being kidnapped, necessarily were acting on the basis of revenge.  It could be that they just wanted to clip his wings.

MR VISSER: That is why I didn't put it to him, that is why I asked him whether that was the situation, Mr Chairman.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: What was the basis of that question?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, you will recall that this witness has given you no political objective for any of the matters for which he applies for amnesty.  That will be our submission at the end of the day.
	I am now Mr Chairman, asking him questions so that if he did in fact perform any of these acts which he says he did, for political motives, that he can tell us.  Part of that Mr Chairman, is Section 22 (f) which says that if he acted from personal malice or for personal gain, as you will know Mr Chairman, then that is not a consideration which will make it a deed, an act - just allow me to finish  Mr Chairman - committed with a political motive.
	Here is a man who has been stabbed, he is the complainant in a criminal case.  He goes to court, gives evidence, four people are discharged, found not guilty and discharged.
	I now ask him what the exact instructions were from Shaw and Erasmus.  He tells him two things. He says one, he is a political activists and two, every time he goes to court, he is acquitted.
	On that score Mr Chairman, I submit that I am perfectly entitled to ask him was that part of the reason why you received the instructions, based on the fact that the people felt that they had a grudge against him because he was released every time, because it is not a political objective, clearly.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Mr Visser, I have no problems with you asking him.  Your questions was, you said you formed your question as follows, you said so the reason why this man was kidnapped, I have a problem with that. It is quite different from saying why was he kidnapped.

MR VISSER: If I did that, I do apologise and I do withdraw Mr Chairman.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is in fact what he meant.

MR VISSER: I wasn't aware that that was the way I framed the question.   Was this part of your instruction that related to the fact that Mr Mohapi was discharged whenever he was tried for his political activity.	Was that do you think, based on personal malice towards him by Shaw and Erasmus?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I don't know as whether they had personal malice, because I was not in their heart.  I would not even measure that kind of hatred or malice because they just said every time he was taken to court, because of his political activities in the townships, he was acquitted, as whether they had hated or not, I would not tell, because maybe they would tell you as whether they did.

CHAIRPERSON: What you did say though Mr Ngo, was that they got angry about his release.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, they showed anger when they were giving us these instructions, they would show signs of anger, but I would not tell as whether they had hatred, but anger is something and hatred is something, or malice is something.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient stage?

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.