Amnesty Hearings — Bloemfontein — 1998-01-20

ADV MEMANI: No, those were not his exact words.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

ADV MEMANI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you put it to him that that is what he said in chief.  I was rectifying that when my learned friend interrupted me and I was saying that in fact his evidence was that he joined that barracks in February 1987.

UNKNOWN: He arrived at the barracks in February 1987, on the 5th.

ADV MEMANI: And is it correct that your evidence is that he started working with you as from that time?

UNKNOWN: That is not correct.  When he arrived on the 5th of February, he was coming only for accommodation when I allocated accommodation for him.

ADV MEMANI: And at that time he worked with Unit 19?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV MEMANI: Now, after that, he started working with you?

UNKNOWN: After the 5th of February, he started working with me.  His arrival was recorded on the books.

ADV MEMANI: Are you saying that Mr Ngo started working with you as from the 5th of February 1987 onwards?

UNKNOWN: No.  On the 5th of February is when he arrived to look for accommodation at the barracks.

ADV MEMANI: You see it was put to Mr Ngo by your counsel that during his stay at the barracks, he was no more than an assistant, a caretaker who saw to it that the barracks were cleaned and he collected mail.

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV MEMANI: But surely that doesn't accord with him working at Unit 19, does it?

UNKNOWN: May you please repeat your question sir?

ADV MEMANI: Your answer doesn't accord with him working at Unit 19.

UNKNOWN: Let me try to explain it well.  This person was a member of the Unit 19.  He was brought to me to work with me, and he was under my supervision.
	That is the situation.  When he was under my supervision, he couldn't have been controlled by seniors in Unit 19.  If I wanted to send him there to prepare some documents, I would write in the records that he should go there and prepare those documents.

ADV MEMANI: Now, I want us to limit the scope of the disputes and perhaps to limit the extent of cross-examination and I want you to tell me clearly whether you are certain that as from the 5th of February 1987, Mr Ngo was registered with Unit 19 but he in fact worked with you at the barracks?

UNKNOWN: On the 5th of February 1987, he was working under Unit 19 and he was staying with me at the barracks, he was not working with me at the barracks.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you kindly explain, on the 6th of February, was he working under your supervision or since when did he start under your supervision?

UNKNOWN: It won't be on the 6th, I would say it was at the beginning of August or it might be July or the beginning of August of the same year, 1987.

ADV MEMANI: May I have a moment My Lord.  Mr Khoja, during the time when Mr Ngo worked with you, how was Ngo's typical day spent at work?

UNKNOWN: We were doing office hours, we start at quarter past seven up to 16h00, that is four o'clock.  After hours Ngo would remain behind so that he would help people from Unit 19 with the arrangement at the barracks.

ADV MEMANI: Now, what arrangements?

UNKNOWN: He was taking care that the policemen who were staying there had blankets and mattresses.  They had bedding, their kitchen is clean, the toilets are clean, the showers are clean and the showers are clean.

ADV MEMANI: But according to the occurrence book, that is what he would do during the day, isn't it?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV MEMANI: And in the evenings?

UNKNOWN: At night, we are not doing anything, we do those things during the day.

ADV MEMANI: And I want to refer you to entry number 80, dated 14 September 1987 in occurrence book, pages 1 - 117.

CHAIRPERSON: What page are you referring to?

ADV MEMANI: Page 18, My Lord, entry number 80.

UNKNOWN: Is it 18 or 80?

ADV MEMANI: 80.  Now you see, the entry says that "departure Warrant Officer Khoja to Mamelodi for court attendance."

UNKNOWN: Yes, I see that.

ADV MEMANI: Do you recall what case it was that you had to attend?

UNKNOWN: The case number appears there, it says CR515438/87.  I don't remember what case was that, but those cases would be the crime that was committed at the barracks.  Those are the cases I used to attend at court.

ADV MEMANI: Now, I also want to refer you to page 25.  That entry records that at 07h15 you reported for duty and there is no mention of Ngo having reported for duty.

UNKNOWN: Yes, I see that.

ADV MEMANI: Do you recall why Ngo was absent?

UNKNOWN: The way it was written, it was not cross-indexed because something which is called absent register which we didn't find, it would be the one that will tell us where he went on that day.

ADV MEMANI: In fact upon my reading of the entries, Mr Ngo was absent from the 29th of September 1987 to the 20th of January 1988.  This is now at page 70 when he reported for duty at entry number 96.

UNKNOWN: Yes, I see that.

ADV MEMANI: And I have said that he was absent from duty, but that is a misnomer, he did not work with you for that period, because if he had been absent from duty, you would have recorded that he was absent from duty and you would have referred the matter to his Commanding Officer?

UNKNOWN: I already stated that information of that kind, which all documents in the AR register, would be the one which will be able to tell us what happened.  If I am on leave, it would record that on the AR, which is the Absent Register.  Then they wouldn't write on the occurrence register saying absent for duty, absent for duty.  It is recorded on the AR which is absent register.

ADV MEMANI: Now, if Mr Ngo were absent from duty without leave, you recorded that in the occurrence book and secondly you recorded that you are going to report the matter with his Commanding Officer, isn't it?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV MEMANI: And we have to accept therefore that there was a lawful reason for him not working with you in that period because you did not make an entry amounting to a complaint of absence from duty without leave?

UNKNOWN: It won't be a reason because he was working with me.  If he is on leave, they would  put his name on the absent register.  I would not write anything on the occurrence register, I would leave it open, because AR register is the one which controls the absence of the particular member.

ADV MEMANI: Mr Ngo would not have been on leave from the 28th of September 1987 to the 20th of January 1988?

UNKNOWN: I don't agree with that, because I would have discovered that mistake.  I am able even to discover two days, then  therefore I would report the matter.
	He wouldn't do any other work other than that he was on leave.

ADV DE JAGER: Captain, could it be that during that period, he was called up by Unit 19 for instance and sent to say Kroonstad on duty?

UNKNOWN: I would not tell you something I do not know, as whether it was possible or not possible.  If he is absent, I would just write there that he is absent.  If he went out with an official leave or official duty, then I would leave it open.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's not waste time, let's look at the pocket book number 2, which you have copies of I take.

UNKNOWN: Yes, I have it.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 37, Friday the 25th of September 1987.  I am afraid I have difficulty reading the first word "(indistinct) on duty at Mamelodi police station at four o'clock that afternoon.  He says reports on duty at Unit 19, then I can't read the next word - basis, inspected by somebody.

ADV MEMANI: Let me take him through the ...

CHAIRPERSON: And later he was taken, reported to Church Street.  It is quite clear, he was on other duty, isn't it?  He was not on leave?

ADV MEMANI: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: I am requesting the page you were referring to sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Pocket book number 2, you've got the original pocket books with you too, if you want to refer to them.  Captain, they are laying next to you.

UNKNOWN: I see that.