ADV MEMANI
Mr Chairman, you will recall that Mr Ngo was used extensively on Mr Mohape. He was the person at one stage who was asked to phone Mr Mohape and lure him out of the house so that he could be attacked. He was a person who probably reported a lot about Mr Mohape.
	Mr Chairman, these difficulties we cannot answer, we do not why they chose to use an informer who was not a full member of the Security Branch at the time, and we do not know why they took the risk of sending someone known to Mr Mohape.
But it doesn't seem that there was any suggestion that those policemen who were sent to Mr Mohape were absolutely unknown to Mr Mohape. They could have been known to Mr Mohape, and these people were wearing balaclavas. 
	We also know that the Security Branch were in some way above the law. They had a way of preventing prosecutions when they wanted to prevent them, so they could have taken the risk, knowing that if they failed they would cover it up.
	Mr Chairman, the other matter which I would like to deal with is Mr Papi's matter. Before I go to that, Mr De Jager had asked me about the personal ill feelings between Mr Mohape and Mr Ngo. I think the suggestion that there was personal malice between the two of them is not justified by evidence. Both of them testified that 'we did not have differences which were personal as such'. What created difficulties was that it emerged at some stage that the one was in one camp and the other was in another. Mr Chairman, you can't describe that as personal malice.
	The next matter is 2.7, the murder of the activist Papi. Mr Ngo describes this incident, and this Papi, or JJ, is not known to him by any other name. There is no-one who corroborates him on this incident and no suggestion can be made that he made this application in order to gain acceptance from his community, or that he conspired with anyone else. This person can simply not be traced.
	Mr Chairman, insofar as the incident itself is concerned there is no conflicting version and there is no inherent improbability. There is of course the difficulty that he initially implicated Mr Motsamai and later on said he thinks it was Mtyhala and not Motsamai.
	I have already said that it seems to me that if we are satisfied that Mr Ngo participated in an incident and he does not waiver as far as the incident is concerned, where we find difficulties about the names of the people that he implicates, the finding should be that he has disclosed that he committed an offence with certain other people. He implicates those people but it is not certain - it cannot be found perhaps that those person were in fact present, that all the persons he implicates were present while he committed that offence.