ADV MEMANI
I concede that, for instance, you could not say that you accept that a policeman acted unlawfully once the he then acted unlawfully every time. So would I say that the fact that you have evidence that Ngo at some stage bombed his girlfriend's house, you can't then infer that he must have bombed the other houses as well for personal reasons. As the Chair pleases.
	Mr Chairman, what counts in favour of Ngo in this matter is that initially he had included the attack on the house of Sandra Matabata, but when he got the opportunity to explain that he did not burn that house for political - as a result of his being employed as a policeman, he pointed that out. The correction was made even before he gave evidence in his second application, and there is no suggestion that anyone pressured him, or pressurised him to withdraw that application. So what it means is that Ngo removed the incident that was not corrected before yourselves and we remained with those matters that are corrected before yourselves. As I have said, there is no competing version on how the incidents occurred.
	Ngo's evidence and suggestion that he did these things within the course and scope of his employment as a policeman attached to the Security Branch finds some corroboration from the fact that Captain Loots who came to testify here, denied ever having seen Ngo except for a few minutes, and that he saw him once. It was pointed out to Loots that, 'You had been told that you had gained a good impression, as you said, during the interview; you had gained a good impression of this young man and you wanted him, but from that day you never took any steps to recruit him. This was not compatible with the fact that you needed him'. Secondly, he tried to explain that he had nothing to do with Ngo because there was a shortage of staff. However, it was attempted to make the Committee believe that Ngo did not work with the Security Branch but instead worked with Koja and Koja only. As it turned out from an inspection of the pocketbooks, Mr Ngo had been to the Security Branch on many occasions. He had gone to see Captain Loots; he had gone to see a certain Nieuwoudt and on another occasion he had gone with Bokaba for what was called a place location. We were told that this place location was a form of orientation of a recruit when introducing him to the area where he is going to operate. Capt. Bokaba did not say that there is no such thing. He said that he is not aware of such a name, and one would have expected a policeman of his seniority to have said, well, I recall that type of procedure X. He did not offer an alternative name, and when Ngo made those entries in his book he did not know that he would come before yourselves and ask for amnesty. It was a record which was kept in the course of ordinary business.
	Mr Chairman, Mr Ngo also showed an intimate knowledge of what was called Horse. In an attempt to oppose Mr Ngo's application, Loots and Bokaba denied that Security Branch had anything to do with an office such as Horse. Now one would wonder why Security Branch would not have had an interest in an office such as that one, that no-one would have got reports from that office and that no member of the Security Branch would have gone into that office. That makes me believe that the attempt to say Security Branch was not involved with Horse was motivated by a desire to deny that Ngo was associated with the Security Branch because Loots and Bokaba knew that Ngo whilst involved with Security Branch had committed these offences.
	Again, Mr Chairman, some suggestion was made that Ngo could not have been with the Security Branch because he was stationed at Mamelodi police station and working there has a housekeeper. However, his pocketbook showed that for a considerable time Ngo was working at Tembisa, despite the fact that it appeared that he was working at Mamelodi.
	Mr Chairman, I do not know how committed you are to taking the lunch adjournment.