Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-15

JUDGE WILSON: We are now continuing with the NGO application, which we were hearing yesterday.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: (Still under oath).

ADV MEMANI: As the Chair pleases.  Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the Committee for the indulgence granted me earlier on.  We are now going to proceed with the evidence of Mr Ngo.  Mr Ngo, we had come to the point where I indicated that we had completed the evidence on Mr Mohapi's abduction.  Is there anything that you would like to add regarding Mr Mohapi, to the particulars?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The evidence I gave, that's sufficient.

ADV MEMANI: Now is Mr Mohapi going to testify in this hearing?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I believe so, he will explain what happened.

ADV MEMANI: Now is it correct that he is going to be testifying about an incident involving the telephone call that he received from you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, that is true, we did telephone him.   Lieut Erasmus, he said I could phone him at home, that I should call him and tell him.  I should make an appointment with him at the veld so that we are able to talk.  So that I should make peace with him, because we had a conflict before, and that he should go and negotiate with the children we were fighting.  If he agrees to come there we should kidnap him, and shoot him because he is creating problems for me.  That was the reason.  When Mohapi in his reply on the phone, told me that he doesn't want to talk to me because he doesn't trust me.

ADV MEMANI: Did you then meet him eventually?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No, he did not come, he dropped the telephone.

ADV MEMANI: Now I hope this concludes finally Mohapi.   May we now proceed to deal with the incident involving the capturing of 25 pupils who were attempting to skip the border to join the ANC in Lesotho.  Mr Chair, Ms (indistinct) indicates to me that in the papers you have before yourselves, the application, the incident does not appear.

JUDGE WILSON: So it is not in his application.

ADV MEMANI: It is contained in what has been termed the second application.

JUDGE WILSON: Let's go back to the second application.  You say copies were to be made.  Who were to make copies?

ADV MEMANI: My understanding of that, Mr Mpshe was to make these copies through the offices of the TRC available to yourselves.

JUDGE WILSON: We have not had copies of that second application.  Have they been made?

MS THABETHA: I was not even aware of the application, but I read the transcript and in the transcript I can take it if the Chairperson can give me that opportunity.  But in the transcript it sounded like they were proceeding to the second application, and then there was a statement prepared by Mr Ngo which Advocate Memani wanted to hand over and then there was arrangements were going to be made between Adv Mpshe and Adv Memani, about that statement.  It is not clear in the transcript who was supposed to make copies.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, normal procedure that the TRC has more abundant facilities available at hearings, I think it would have been - where is it?

ADV MEMANI: I have it here, Mr Chair.  If we may adjourn for about 15 minutes we can then make copies for the Committee.

JUDGE WILSON: Where does this appear in the transcript?

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, may I be allowed to say something?  We were not favoured with a copy of the transcript so we have nothing to check what I am going to say now again ...

JUDGE WILSON: Well, let's wait until we get a transcript before you say anything.

MR BLACK: Well, I wanted to say this, Mr Chairman, that at the last occasion there was this confusion as to which of two documents was supposed to be the application, the formal application, and as I recall, after you heard representations, there was a ruling made that the one that we have before ourselves now, was to be regarded as the application.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, let's see what the transcript says. We are now told it says it is uncertain. I can't recollect precisely what was said, if it is recorded, it will assist all of us.

MR BLACK: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

ADV MEMANI: But Mr Chair, will it not save time if we just make copies of these data?

JUDGE WILSON: (Indistinct - microphone not switched on).  Let's see what ruling was made, if a ruling was made.  We are told it is in the transcript, let's be told what page.

ADV DE JAGER: In the meantime if you could hand us a copy of the documents that should be Photostatted, copies made of, we could try and arrange in the meantime that somebody could go and try to make copies of it.

ADV MEMANI: Look, I may do it that way but it might give rise to some problems as well, because we are going to lead evidence on something that you don't have papers of.

ADV DE JAGER: No, but I am trying to arrange so that we could have papers as soon as possible and there won't be any further delays.

ADV MEMANI: But when she goes to make copies, I don't have papers to work off.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman ...

JUDGE WILSON: Page 338, is it?  We start with - Mr De Jager started asking questions there about the statement attached to application.  No, this is in a different connection.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, perhaps it may help, speaking from recollection, it was a part where the Chair put to counsel that this was probably after he had handed in its original form and he was asked for some elucidation, and you made some remarks about, and he was saying oh, my goodness, there is another form I have got to complete.

JUDGE WILSON: We recollect something of that nature, and he was informed he had to complete another form and that he did so, and submitted it to the TRC, and that that - precisely what it was we can't remember.  And if it is in the record it would be - but is this form being duplicated at the moment?  Well, let us, as my Brother here suggested, let us adjourn, get somebody to go off and duplicate it and you can then look up where it is.

MR MTHEMBU: Before maybe we adjourn, because we just adjourn just too much, why can't we proceed with the incidents which are here, exhaust the incidents which are here before us first, and then that may even take us to tea time and then copies can be made even in tea time.

JUDGE WILSON: Is there any reason why this incident that is not before us at the moment on the application, should be dealt with before the others?

ADV MEMANI: It is simply a matter of how things are arranged between yourself and Mr Ngo.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, if we go on to another he is going to tell us about what, eight, 10 incidents.

ADV MEMANI: I will try and see whether we can do something else in the meantime.   Mr Ngo, do you have a copy of the typed statement before you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Which statement, which heading, sir?

ADV MEMANI: That you made and submitted to the Truth Commission.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The last time when I was here, I did explain to the Judge that the statement which I submitted was incomplete, so they wanted them to be complete.  After that I wrote them in such a way that they should be clear.  When I was here I did hand them over to the Judge, the copy of which the original was sent to Cape Town, because the Judge asked to make photostat of my statement, so I gave it to my Judge.

ADV MEMANI: Are you able to tell the Committee about the incident involving the death of a UDF activist who was in police custody?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, we can continue with that.

JUDGE WILSON: Now could you assist us, on his original application, the statement annexed thereto, where does this incident appear?  Bottom page 5.

ADV MEMANI: That is correct, M'Lord.

JUDGE WILSON: Is that the one?

ADV MEMANI: That is the one.

JUDGE WILSON: Are you talking about somebody called Papina?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That's true.

ADV MEMANI: May you tell this Committee what occurred in this incident?