Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-09-04

MR DU PLESSIS: Now you see, if I can just put to you what Bokaba says about this.  If I can take you to bundle B, page 45, all right, he says on page 45 that he denies that himself and Danny Selahla was involved in a petrol bombing in the Mamelodi district where you were present, he says that you were not a member of the security branch and never a trusted member of the operations of the security police, Northern Transvaal branch at the time.
	He says, 3.4, that any of the houses where he was named by you, that you were supposedly involved in, he denies that he was ever involved in such a bombing.  And he goes further and says, as far as his knowledge goes by the members of the security branch, Northern Transvaal.  What do you say to that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: We were together when we attacked those houses and we have done all these events together.  I can't say anything more than what I've already said.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, and then what I want to put to you is what Colonel Loots says on page 51 of bundle B, paragraph 3.4, he confirms the correctness of what Bokaba says and then he says further he denies that he ever gave an  instruction to Bokaba, Selahla or yourself to bomb any house referred to in your application.  What do you say to that?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: He gave us instructions.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right.  Now Mr Ngo, you don't say on page 43 in respect of this application that you received an order from anybody, you only say in respect of the next application at the bottom of page 43, the third last line, you say Captain Loots then said we should petrol bomb his house too.  That is the neighbour of Louisa Mbongo's house.  Now, can ...[intervention]

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Page 43, bundle what?

MR DU PLESSIS: Bundle A, bundle A.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: What was your question Sir?

MR DU PLESSIS: My question is, you say - you don't say anything on page 43 about the attack on Louisa Mbongo's house, about who gave you the order.  The only thing you say is in respect of the neighbour of Louisa Mbongo who you attacked - you say that Captain Loots said - the second last line
"Captain Loots said we should petrol bomb his house too 3 weeks after the attack of the house of Louisa"
Now, can we accept that you never received an instruction from Captain Loots to bomb Louisa Mbongo's house?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: We were given instructions as I've already explained.  According to the information given to him, he instructed us that we are supposed to bomb Louisa's house.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see because your application doesn't say that Mr Ngo.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] last sentence Mr du Plessis, what does that mean?
"Captain Loots then said we should petrol bomb his house too 3 weeks after the attack at the house of Louisa".

MR DU PLESSIS: That's what I'm trying to clear up Mr Chairman.  I'm trying to clear up if that refers to an order of Loots in respect of the first incident or not and what I'm putting to the witness is, it doesn't say specifically - you have to deduct it from that but it doesn't say specifically that: "We received an order from Captain Loots to bomb Louisa Mbongo's house".

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, Louisa's house.

MR DU PLESSIS: Louisa's house, that's what the question relates to .

ADV DE JAGER: Am I correct in saying, he's saying that Loots instructed him to bomb the neighbour's house?

MR DU PLESSIS: I understood him to say that Loots also said that he gave instructions to bomb Louisa's house.
	Did Loots give you instructions to bomb Louisa Mbongo's house?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: We were supposed to bomb Louisa's house.  Louisa and Mbongo is one person, Mbongo is her surname.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I know but my question is, did Loots give you an instruction to bomb Louisa Mbongo's house - yes or no?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes.  After bombing the house, he didn't instruct us to bomb the second house but we were just supposed to bomb the first house.  After bombing that one, the neighbours went away complaining.  When we reported to him he told us to go back and bomb the second house.

CHAIRPERSON: In fairness to the applicant Mr du Plessis, don't you think you should refer to his earlier application and at Exhibit C, bundle A, page 13 where he says
"The house of a MYO member known as Nono Gint, A1 section, Mamelodi West, the house Louisa Mbongo, section Mamelodi West, the house of Rebecca Mothokoane, the house of Sandra Mathabathe - we petrol-bombed all these houses on the instructions of Captain Loots of the security branch of Pretoria"

MR DU PLESSIS: But that's the point Mr Chairman, I was coming to that.  He says that in that application but in the later application, he doesn't specifically say that there was an instruction from Captain Loots and that was the question I was coming to, why does he - why is there a difference between the two and is there a difference?

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it a dramatical difference, as my brother has pointed out to you when he says: "He told us to do this too", doesn't that mean "as well"?

MR DU PLESSIS: Right Mr Chairman, I will accept that and leave it at that.
	Mr Ngo, in respect of the application on page 45, can you - do you know the reason why this application was withdrawn?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: May you repeat your question Sir?

MR DU PLESSIS: What is the reason why this ...[intervention]

ADV MEMANI: But Mr Chair, what is the relevance of the reason of why an application has been withdrawn if it has been withdrawn?

CHAIRPERSON: I consider it may well be relevant, he may well suggest that he has made applications for matters for matters that he knew might not be covered.

ADV MEMANI: But ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It affects his credibility and whether he has made a full disclosure.   Carry on.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.   Why was this application withdrawn Mr Ngo?  It's the application of Sandra Mathabathe.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Can you please refer that question to my counsel, he is the one I think who's supposed to answer that question.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, because you see on page 45, the 4th line you say - 3rd and 4th line - well let's read that,  you say
"During 1988 a personal clash between me, Nelson Ngo with a MYO member named Sandra who accused my girlfriend at the time Efolia Dekgali, of having an affair with a policeman, caused me to bear a grudge against her which resulted me throwing his home with four petrol bombs because I personally requested two members of the riot unit"
And then it goes on.  Now, it says that you did this out of a personal grudge, do you see that?  Is that correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: You have mentioned about gangsters, what is happening with them?  What was the main issue with the gangsters?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Mr Ngo, you applied for this incident, you say that you bore a grudge against this Sandra and then that you bombed the house as a result of the grudge.  Now, is that correct or is that not correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is true that there's nothing I - which I would add.  That's how I explained to the Committee, that's what has happened.  Why should I say I received instructions if I did it myself because of the mistakes he did - she did against me and even the threats she did to my girlfriend.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Ngo, what I want to put to you is, I don't know why this was withdrawn but the probability is that it was withdrawn because it was an incident as a result of a personal grudge and not resulting out of the political motivation.  Do you agree with that?