Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-03-27

MR NEMANE: Were exhibits that were found in your possession brought to court?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No, nothing was found on me, but I was just shown a list of things.

MR NEMANE: Let me put it like this.  The furniture was
probably not taken to - well, the furniture was probably not taken into the court room, but were the watches and the rings brought to the court room, as exhibits?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No Sir.  I only saw the watch that they put on top of the table, I don't know what they did with the ring.

JUDGE WILSON: You said nothing was found on you, but is that correct?  Wasn't evidence led at your trial, and apparently accepted, by Warrant Officer Pietersen, that at the time of the investigation you were wearing a gold watch on your arm, page 5, line 20?   Did he find you wearing a watch?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No, he didn't find me having the watch on me, wearing it.

JUDGE WILSON: He gave that evidence, didn't he?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: He might have been given such evidence but I don't know whether was he just trying to commit me or lie.

JUDGE WILSON: That he found you wearing the watch on the 9th of February, that's correct, isn't it?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The ring.

JUDGE WILSON: The watch.  He said he found you wearing a gold wrist watch.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I would not wear that watch when I knew how I got hold of it.

JUDGE WILSON: But you were driving the car, weren't you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No, that car was in the police station.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Where was the watch found?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: In my pocket.

JUDGE MGOEPE: So something was in fact found on you.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, I had a watch in my pocket. I have already said that since I took it, during my operation, and I was not told what to do with the things that I got, but I was
just instructed that I must make this look like housebreaking or robbery.  I do not deny that he got the watch in my possession, but I did not have it on and the one other thing I took, again in those things, was a ring, when the rest of the people took jewellery and television sets.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, if the watch was found on you, then you shouldn't have said that nothing was found on you.  You shouldn't have said that to us, you see.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The Judge asked me did Mr Pietersen find the watch on my wrist and I said no.

JUDGE WILSON: Because you had just said "nothing was found on me".  You said that.  I then asked you whether Pietersen found it on your wrist, as he said in evidence.  You have now told us he didn't find it on your wrist, on your wrist, he found it in your pocket.  So when you said nothing was found on you, as you did about two minutes ago, that was incorrect.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I was referring to the goods.

MR NEMANE: So you are admitting, as you have already admitted, that the watch was found in your possession, but none of the other items, like the TVs and the furniture were found in your possession.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR NEMANE: Now you said that you saw the watch put on a table.  Which table were you referring to?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: The Judge's table.

MR NEMANE: At the trial?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes, Sir.

MR NEMANE: Was the jewellery brought to court?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: No, they didn't know where the jewellery was, who
had it.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: With due respect, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, I am really wondering about the relevance of this line of questioning, Mr Chairman.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman, the theory that I am pursuing is that many items were removed from Mr Venter's house, and the applicant was found soon after the robbery.  What exhibits were found on him, found in his possession, should have been brought to court, and he has said that only one exhibit was brought to court and that is the watch.  I seek to submit later that it tends to corroborate his version that he was not involved in the operation alone and that he was working in conjunction with other people, who were policemen and those people were not arrested and no investigation was directed towards them and hence we do not find these exhibits in court.

JUDGE WILSON: You overlook the fact that the bulk of the exhibits were furniture, which were found on the State case in a building that he had hired.  It is not my experience that furniture was brought into court. A list is produced and evidence is given as to the ownership.

MR NEMANE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Isn't that what the bulk of the stolen property was in this case?

MR NEMANE: I concede that much, Mr Chairman.  However,  I have also said to him were any items that could be brought to court brought to court, and his answer was that it is the watch that was brought to court.  There were obviously other matters that could have been brought to court and those objects were not brought to court. I will be submitting, therefore, that it tends to corroborate him in that regard. If the investigation was conducted so soon then he should have been found in possession of those items, and no account is given of the rest of the items.

JUDGE WILSON: The State case involved three accused, didn't it?

MR NEMANE: That is so, M'Lord, but it is - the applicant has said that the only exhibit that he saw in court was the watch.  If there had been other exhibits, he would have seen them, he would have said that I saw the watch, I saw the TV and so on, but he says I saw only the watch at court.  Therefore we go by that evidence that only the watch was brought to court.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, with due respect, Mr Chairman, I don't see the relevance of whether exhibits were there or not.  This is not a criminal trial where we are saying this man cannot be convicted because exhibits could not be produced, Mr Chairman. I think, I don't see how, really, the presence of the exhibits would convince this Committee that other policemen assisted the applicant in his operation.  In his own evidence, Mr Chairman, he testified that after killing Mr Venter, he was assisted by members of the police who drove the bakkie into the house and got their askaris to help him load the things out of the house. I don't see how can a TV establish that another policeman was involved. I don't find this relevant at all, with respect.

MR NEMANE: May I answer, Mr Chairman?  Mr Chairman, the point is not to establish that he cannot be found guilty or should not have been found guilty.  The point is that he says that of all the things that were removed from Mr Venter's house, he only took the watch and the ring.  The expectation therefore would be that the exhibits that were found at the house of Mr Venter or that were removed from Mr Venter's house, should also have been brought to court.  Now ... (intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: I have already dealt with that.  They do not bring large pieces of furniture into court.  They ... (intervention).

MR NEMANE: But they do bring television sets.

JUDGE WILSON: ... gave evidence about it.  They gave evidence about the motor car they said he was driving.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman ...

JUDGE WILSON: So I don't see where your argument goes.  The television set was stolen by somebody.  Somebody may have sold it six days later.  The fact that it is not brought to court does not, in my view, show that it wasn't stolen.

MR NEMANE: Mr Chairman ...

JUDGE WILSON: Are you suggesting it wasn't stolen?