Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1997-05-14

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I didn't understand the question asked by Mr Memani, that is why 
I said the question should be repeated, because I didn't understand that question 
in which way it was going or what kind of answer it needed.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Well why did you answer it if you didn't understand it?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I answered then he answered again, then I said I didn't understand. 
 That is why you came in and you said, 'do you remember the evidence you 
gave in regard to the question', that is then that I didn't understand as to whether 
do you mean what kind of evidence you are asking.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I advise you now that if your counsel goes back to asking 
you questions which were asked and which you answered last time, you must 
please try to remember the answers you gave last time because two questions 
have been repeated here, both in respect of which you gave two answers which 
you didn't give last time and it seems to me if you go on like this, if you don't 
try very hard to remember the answers you gave last time we will keep on 
getting different answers, answers that were different, which are different to the 
answers you gave to exactly the same questions last time.  You may be advised 
to try and think very hard if your counsel goes back to the same questions you 
were asked last time, my advice to you is that please try to think very hard 
about the answers you gave last time.

JUDGE WILSON: That is if those answers were true.

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I understand Sir.

ADV MEMANI: Now you've told us that you hoped that the police would 
help you and they did help you by arranging an escape for you for instance and 
they came and gave you money.  Now you have also confirmed that on the 
previous occasion you said that you testified against your brother because he 
was being used as a state witness against you.  Now when you say that he was 
used as a state witness against you, let me say why do you say that he was used 
as a state witness against you?

ADV DE JAGER: Because he testified for the State. What other reason could 
there be?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson may the witness answer the question?

ADV DE JAGER: If you want to repeat all the questions you've put last time, 
repeat all those questions, you could do so Mr Memani but you'll have to face 
the consequences then.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson I'm not going to repeat all the questions, but 
these are matters which I feel should be clarified because there is some 
difficulty around them.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Memani I think that I did not want to put it as strongly 
as one of my colleagues, perhaps properly put, but you see you are going back 
to the same thing and we traversed this area and he came at some stages up 
with a version that he incriminated his brother because his brother had sought 
to incriminate him. It was pointed out to him that he was Accused No 1, he was 
the first one to testify, even before any of his brothers could testify and he was 
the first person to start incriminating his brothers.

ADV MEMANI: That is correct My Lord but there is something that I am 
trying to lead him on on this aspect

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I don't know, I'm speaking for myself, I really wouldn't 
have allowed you to go back to this because questions were put to him, he 
answered  and then you reexamined him and you go back to the same 
questions, now we, I'm not sure that we're getting a new version altogether 
which will require  of the other people now to come and reexamine him.  I have 
reservations about this.  You are lucky that the Chairperson allowed you to do 
that but perhaps don't push your luck too far Mr Memani.

JUDGE WILSON: Was his brother a state witness at the trial?

ADV MEMANI: Mr Chairperson he was not a state witness as lawyers 
would understand it and that is why I'm asking him to clarify that matter, why 
does he say that he was used as a state witness when he was in fact testifying 
as a coaccused?

JUDGE WILSON: Carry on.  Did your brother give evidence after you?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes he gave evidence after me.

JUDGE WILSON: So when you gave evidence he had not said anything to 
the court?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: Yes that's true.

ADV MEMANI: Now Mr Ngo, why do you say that he was a state witness? 
at the court?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: I took it that he was a state witness because he was telling how the 
police took him to the Bri...(indistinct) and then bribed him and he was taken 
out of us and taken somewhere, then they were protected by the police, 
therefore in that regard I took him as the state witness.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo you are a policeman. You know what a state 
witness is, surely. You were aware that this person was charged with you as 
accused No 2.  You know what a state witness is, you are a policeman but how 
can you come and say to us that your brother was a state witness?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: If people are coaccused and arrested together, the reason for them 
to separate them into various cells and then at night you take him to other 
places, you make him change his clouds and you know that he is dressing now 
with new clothes from home and is now accompanying the police. So I came to 
a conviction that he is now working in cahoots with the police, so that they are 
creating an opportunity that he should tell the court what they want him to do. 
That is why I understood that he was made a state witness.

JUDGE WILSON: But you know state witnesses are not charged, they are 
given indemnity from prosecution, aren't they.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: It is possible that you can make a person a state witness 
so that you, even if you're not a state witness but though you are an accused, 
you can testify differently that even if he's your coaccused he will get 20 years 
and then he will get 18 months because you have made him a state witness so 
that you will be able to lighten his sentence to protect that it should be clear that 
he is a state witness.

JUDGE WILSON: Anything else that you want to ask him about this?

ADV MEMANI: No more My Lord. Now I'm indebted to his Lordship for 
this opportunity I am now going to proceed to the other acts My Lord. 
	Now Mr Ngo I want to refer you to your application, the one which is in 
the manuscript.  Mr Chairperson I recall that at the last hearing you asked Mr 
Mpshe to make copies of what was referred to as the second application.  I 
don't know if those copies were made and are if front of you at this stage.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman with respect, your ruling on that 
matter was that that one was going to be ignored for purposes of this 
application, that was the ruling as far if I remember correctly.  We don't have a 
copy of it and I'm not certain whether it's relevant to bring it up now.

JUDGE WILSON: I don't have a copy before me at the present time, nor have 
any of the other Committee members.

ADV MEMANI: But I do recall Mr Chairman that although that initially you 
had adopted the stance that it was that it was not relevant, at some stage it was 
brought before the committee and some arrangement was made that copies 
should be made in due course.

JUDGE WILSON: Well that does not seem to have been done.

ADV MEMANI: Now Mr Chairman, that being the case then, I will proceed 
without referring to pages because we don't have the same papers in front of us. 
In your application you confess to an act of kidnapping a COSAS secretary and 
you seek amnesty in respect of that conduct, is that correct?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is true.

ADV MEMANI: Now can you tell this Committee about this incident? When 
did the incident take place.  Let me start here, what was the name of the person 
that was involved?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That is White Mohape.

ADV MEMANI: When did the abduction or kidnapping of Mr Mohape 
occur?

MPHITHIZELI NELSON NGO: That's 1986 Sir.