Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You have indicated that amongst yourselves, you have had a batting order, who is the second applicant to be heard?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Prinsloo.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you may be seated.

MS VAN DER WALT: May we just have an opportunity to change over the microphones.

MR MALAN: Yes, you may

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may do so Ms van der Walt.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Madam Chairperson. Mr Prinsloo, you are H.J. Prinsloo, number 12, as listed in Bundle 1, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your application, the formal application form, is embodied in Bundle 1, from page 324 to 326 and the incident is from page 327 to 333, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your motivation for your political background is Annexure B, from page 348 to 354?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Honourable Chairperson, there was during the pre-trial conference, there was an exhibit handed up to the Leader of the Applications, a general background to amnesty applications which was handed up as Exhibit A, I don't know whether the Honourable Chairperson, has received it?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I have not. Mr Steenkamp, maybe you have an explanation for that?

ADV STEENKAMP: Chairperson, that document was specifically handed to the person who is dealing with the minutes, which was Mr Lamey, those documents will be made available to you as soon as possible. Those documents are already before the Amnesty Committee if I am not mistaken, the general background document and I will gladly make copies, the moment we have time for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Ms Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: I asked the question because Mr Prinsloo has studied the document and I would like to refer to it as Exhibit A if I may do so.

CHAIRPERSON: You may do so.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, you have already appeared before an Amnesty Committee and you have referred to Exhibit A, the General Background, and you have studied the evidence which have already been given by Gen van der Merwe and so forth, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And do you request the Honourable Committee to read this along with your application?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You mention on page 324 Honourable Chairperson, of your background in the South African Police and more specifically that from 1983 you were attached to the Security Branch, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct Chairperson, from 1983 at Security Branch in the then Northern Transvaal.

MS VAN DER WALT: And before that, you were attached to the Security Branch in Bloemfontein?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, since 1976.

MS VAN DER WALT: What were your duties during your office in Pretoria?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I was the Commander of the anti-terrorist investigative unit of the Security Branch and as such I was also tasked with the recruitment and handling of informers in order to trace terrorists who committed acts of terror in the vicinity of the Northern Transvaal or in the district of the Northern Transvaal.

MS VAN DER WALT: During 1986 you were still attached to the Security Branch Pretoria, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: It seems that there you remained attached until you retired in 1996?

MR PRINSLOO: That is not correct Chairperson, I left in 1990 from the Security Branch Northern Transvaal where I went to the Security Branch, Head Office in Pretoria.

MS VAN DER WALT: In 1986, what was your rank?

MR PRINSLOO: If I recall correctly, I was a Captain Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you were still in command of the division which you have mentioned now?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You then confirmed the contents of your application and the annexures attached to it, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard the evidence of Mr Ras where it has regard to you, do you agree with his evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Except for certain aspects which you will highlight?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: If we may then return to your application with regard to this incident, it is in Bundle 1 Honourable Chairperson, on page 327. You mention in paragraph 1 that you received sensitive information from informers, that is in the plural, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Which had regard to the person Patrick Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do I understand you correctly that it was more than one informer who supplied information about Mr Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Ras has mentioned a report which you had shown to him, will you tell the Honourable Committee what is meant by the statement or report?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, there are various ways of collecting Intelligence, this is for background, there is telephone listening devices, postal interception, and then there is physical informing by which persons are recruited, trained and linked up with a suspect and at that time, I had available reports of physical informers as well as a postal interception Intelligence service which was directed at Mahlangu.

MS VAN DER WALT: From where did this postal item come?

MR PRINSLOO: The postal item arrived from Botswana, from a contact person who wrote under a nom de plume and the nom de plume was known to us, it was a military trained MK member who co-ordinated certain operations within the RSA and the contents what I can recall, dealt with certain persons who would have visited Mahlangu, the persons namely MK members who would infiltrate from outside the borders of the country, and the other information from the physical informer entailed that handling and training of handgrenades and other crash course training for example AK47 courses by Mahlangu, to some of his recruits in Mamelodi.

MS VAN DER WALT: During 1986, what was the situation in the division where you were involved, with regard to acts of terrorism or violence, would you please assist the Honourable Committee?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, there were several acts of terror in the area Northern Transvaal. By means of illustration, a police casspir vehicle during February, was blown up in Mamelodi by means of a landmine, while the police members were busy with patrol work. And there was also a police officer, a Constable Seuntjie Vuma who was shot in his house .

CHAIRPERSON: May I just get the name correctly, is it Mpuma of Vuma?

MR PRINSLOO: Vuma, V-u-m-a.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope the record will be corrected.

MS VAN DER WALT: This Const Vuma, before he was killed, what was his situation at home? - and there were more policemen who found themselves in the same situation, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, Vuma was what they called - was part of a tracing unit who worked in the Mamelodi area, he did the usual criminal tracing work, but during the course of his duties there were strange sitings which they would report to my unit and strange people, in the sense that they might be insurgents or terrorists. He received several threats that he would be killed and for that purpose his house was built like a fortress, when he was still alive, and nevertheless he was killed at his house with AK47 rifles.

MS VAN DER WALT: So except for the fact that he conveyed information, he was not tasked with the Security Branch?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to the evidence of Mr Ras, an operation was planned in which this hearing is dealt with. Why did you plan an operation of this nature?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I may give some background. I've already explained the information which I had surrounding Mahlangu's activities and I realised that I cannot get any deeper with Mahlangu, in other words do the penetration if I did not send somebody else, for example the askaris from Vlakplaas who had background and knowledge of terrorist activities and I would not get any further with the information. That is why I discussed it with the Divisional Commander, Brig Cronje, and proposed to him that I call in the assistance of a unit from Vlakplaas in order to obtain further information and possibly arrive at terrorist groups, operational groups who operated in the Northern Transvaal area at that stage.

He then told me that, I think he was a Captain at that stage, Eugene de Kock, that he had contacted this person at Vlakplaas and that some of his members would come to visit me at the office the following day or the day thereafter.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you never personally spoke to Mr de Kock?

MR PRINSLOO: No. The method was then that Divisional Commander would liaise with the Commander of Vlakplaas, if the service of Vlakplaas was needed.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then you confirm the evidence of Mr Ras, that he had arrived there with the askaris?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Ras and Vermeulen came to speak to me firstly at the office, where I informed them about the situation and that I required a deeper penetration and they had to assist me with that.

MS VAN DER WALT: On page 328 of your application, paragraph 5, you mention that members of the them Bophuthatswana Intelligence Service were also involved in the operation. Would you inform the Honourable Committee as to what had happened there.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, to give you a broad background, at that time there was information from several sources of so-called units of MK, who operated in Northern Transvaal and Bophuthatswana area, adjacent to Northern Transvaal and with my contemporary in Bophuthatswana I made contact and on a co-operative basis we established a so-called safehouse on the other side of Soutpan. It was an old dilapidated farmhouse which we furbished as such, so that we could co-ordinate operations further in Northern Transvaal and Bophuthatswana. Two members of the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Service, also former askaris, were involved in the collection of in intelligence.

MS VAN DER WALT: A question was put to Mr Ras and I would you to assist the Honourable Committee as to how long would such an operation last? Are you able to say whether there was a specific time? What was your objective with this operation?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, firstly, no time factor is attached to such an operation, one plays it as the information becomes available, until one has collected enough intelligence in order to spread the net as far and wide as possible and to take out people from the terrorist business, as many people as possible, and the information has to be co-ordinated and evaluated, so it does take some time. One cannot attach a time period to it.

If information does become available and one can convert it to evidence and then one would strike out at that network about which one has information.

MS VAN DER WALT: On page 329, and it was also the evidence of Mr Ras, you stated it clearly that they had to infiltrate and collect information and at that stage nothing further had to happen, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, that is correct. Amongst others, information to my availability at that stage was that Mahlangu had contact with MK members trained outside the country, and I believe that is was some of the groups whom I was hunting, who were responsible for acts of terror in the Northern Transvaal area.

MS VAN DER WALT: If I understand your evidence correctly, it was your intention to collect as much intelligence as possible in order to surmise whether it was correct, so that it could lead to an arrest or the like.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Roslee's application, Honourable Chairperson, on page 2 - bundle 2, page 283, where he mentions that you and himself decided that Mahlangu had to be abducted in order to interrogate him, is that not correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is definitely not correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Roslee, was he under your command?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was his rank at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: He was a Constable.

MS VAN DER WALT: Would you have in any case discussed such a matter with him, him being of a lower rank?

MR PRINSLOO: Not at that given time, Chairperson. It was between myself and members of Vlakplaas to infiltrate Mahlangu, in order to obtain more information. It would have been ridiculous from my side before I had launched an operation, to obtain information to arrive at the terrorists, then to say that I want to abduct the man to get information from him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do I understand you correctly that you can also collect intelligence, for example about Mahlangu and from there obtain further information with regard to other persons?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, that was the exclusive purpose for which I requested the assistance of Vlakplaas.

MS VAN DER WALT: During the operation did you also obtain information about other persons or only about Patrick Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I've already said a variety of information was followed up, Mahlangu was just a part of it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you recall whether other important persons - whether you received information about other important persons?

MR PRINSLOO: There was a group of terrorist under the command of one, Jabu Obet Masina and others who operated in the old Bophuthatswana and in the Northern Transvaal area whom I was looking for, as well as the name Oderele Mishak Maponya, the name was also mentioned. And earlier, I cannot recall whether it was in 1984 that he was involved in the murder of a W/O Tswane at Ramagode in Bophuthatswana.

MS VAN DER WALT: This was the person who was killed in an explosion which he caused himself at Sterland, at the Sterland complex in Pretoria?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have mentioned Obet Masina, were these persons later arrested, following on the information which you received during this operation?

MR PRINSLOO: Information which I received during this operation and afterwards, these persons were arrested and charged in a Court and sentenced to death and were sentenced to long-term imprisonment.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were these persons responsible for acts of terror?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, various acts of terror. I can think of a limpet mine explosion in Pretoria Road, Silverton, Pretoria, the murder of Mr David Lukhele and his sister, Elizabeth Dludlu ...(intervention)

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just interpose. This Mr Lukhele, what was he, what position did he fill when he was killed?

MR PRINSLOO: He was the leader of the opposition in the then Kangwane, of which I recall Mr Enoch Mabuza was the Minister or the Chief Minister.

MS VAN DER WALT: And he was killed in his house with an AK47?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Any further incidents for which these persons were responsible?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, there was the death of the Commissioner of the Bophuthatswana Police at Garankuwa, he was a Brig Malope, whom they ambushed at his friend's house and killed.

And the other incidents which I have mentioned, the landmine incident, the police vehicle and then there was a landmine incident at Soshanguve, in which a bulldozer which was repairing a road, was also blown up.

MS VAN DER WALT: This operation was primarily, if I understand Mr Ras' evidence, was executed by the askaris under his command. Did you know some of these askaris who were involved in this operation?

MR PRINSLOO: I would assume - with regard to Mahlangu, when Ras and Vermeulen came to speak to me at my office - by nature of my work one knows most of these askaris because one recruits most or all of them for the services which they rendered later, and asked which group they would bring and Ras mentioned to me that Chris Mosiane, who was well-known to me, would be one of the members.

I then told Ras that he would be the appointed person to send in to Mahlangu. Mosiane is an extrovert, he is quick with the tongue. And the group which Ras mentioned which would operate with him, out of that group he was the appointed man to send in to make contact with Mahlangu and extract further information.

MS VAN DER WALT: The evidence is further, and also on page 329 of your application, paragraph 8, that you at some stage arrived at the farm where you saw the person who had been severely assaulted, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, maybe I must place it in context. The farm was set up so that some of the members could sleep there. From time to time I visited there because of my work, I was involved in other operations as well.

I arrived at the homestead one morning and I walked past to the room where Ras and Vermeulen had arranged their sleeping quarters and then I noticed a person in one of the rooms, there were no doors, the person was just lying there. When I went in and I looked at the person I saw his lips were swollen and bloodied and the one eye I still recall was entirely swollen shut and I enquired from Ras as to what was going on, who was this person. I was then informed that it was Patrick Mahlangu, the person whom they only had to infiltrate in order to extract further information.

Ras then explained to me that he had questioned Mahlangu and certain notes which he made, he made available to me and I then saw, on the grounds of one of the names which was mentioned on this note that Ras had made, that it was one of my sources. I then ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, may I interpose here, this is central here and you are just passing over it. In which regard was the name of the informer mentioned?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as Ras had interrogated Mahlangu he made notes as to whom he knew and Mahlangu admitted there that he gave training to persons. He mentioned the names of the persons and he mentioned names of contact persons within the ANC.

One of the names which I almost want to say, filled the central position with regard to training in the handgrenades, local training in handgrenades, was that of my informer.

MR MALAN: But he did identify him as a source, he identified him as one of his colleagues?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Is that your ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: He was a trustee, the informer was a trustee of Mahlangu and certain information could only have come from the informer, with regard to names about which Ras questioned him and the report which I showed to him at the office, that he questioned him about, which was not supposed to happen.

MR MALAN: You may proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose here, Ms van der Walt.

Maybe I'm not clear on this issue and then I'm probably swimming in my own confusion all by myself, but I don't understand this particular aspect of Mr Prinsloo's evidence in relation to the identity of the informer. In what context was that revealed by Ras to him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I've already testified that I made certain information available to Ras in my office with the first meeting, when he and Vermeulen arrived there. In the document of information which I provided to him ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon. The information was that he read it, not that you provided him with it. In other words you kept it, he didn't keep it with him?

MR PRINSLOO: No. By nature of the circumstances he read certain names on this document and these names and their involvement could only come from one person. I would almost say with this specific instance, with regard to training, it must have been the informer, it couldn't have come from anybody else. Should Mahlangu be confronted with it, it would have been much easier to put one and one together and get to and say it could only be that person. And what I saw in the notes that Ras had made from his interrogation of Mahlangu, was a reflection of that.

CHAIRPERSON: What exactly did you see, what is it that was on his notes?

MR PRINSLOO: The names which appeared in my information reports were the same names which appeared during Mahlangu's interrogation. He would not have provided these names and stated that this person was his Warrant Officer who had administered training in handgrenades, unless it had not been submitted to him by Ras, unless he had not said "Do you know this person, is this the person who assisted you with training?"

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, please, you must attempt to help me understand this because I don't understand what you're saying. Which names did you expect to find on Ras' list? Why didn't you expect that the names of the person who were in either event working with him would also be on Mahlangu's list, or the list of the names that he provided to Ras?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, I will reiterate, if one is working in that milieu and acting in such a milieu, there are certain tactics to be followed with interrogation. For example, one would never betray the strongman working with you, if you were in trouble. He could have mentioned any name. And in this specific regard I suspect that Ras must have submitted the name of this particular person to him. Ras was not aware of who my informer or informers were and Mahlangu, in terms of Ras' notes, mentioned this particular person and in conjunction with this, Ras also told me that he suspected that Mahlangu knew that this person was an informer or that it appeared to him that this person could be an informer, as a result of certain things that Ras interrogated him about. I don't know if that clarifies matters for you.

MR MALAN: No, everything has become more unclear for me. With the greatest respect Ms van der Walt, can you assist us?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Prinsloo, is it correct - and I just want you to think very carefully about this, is it correct that the ANC adopted a certain working method with regard to the MK members and the manner in which they operated? And then, there were certain persons who were very sensitive for them, about whom they would not have spoken openly, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is what I'm trying to explain.

MS VAN DER WALT: And this person was your informer, this sensitive person was your informer, is that how I understand you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mahlangu would never of his own volition, have spoken of this person?

MR PRINSLOO: No, he wouldn't have.

MS VAN DER WALT: But with the interrogation and certainly as a result of his assault, certain information was obtained from him.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when this name was mentioned, if I understand your evidence correctly, are you telling the Committee that Mahlangu would immediately have known that the information which the Security Police was confronting him with could only have come from that person, from the informer?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what I'm trying to say.

MR MALAN: Ms van der Walt, with the greatest respect, you are making a leap here which isn't very fair. May I just make extra sure? You say that you saw the name of the informer on Mr Ras' list. If I understand you correctly you drew an inference that this name could only have appeared on this list if Mr Ras had stated this name to Mr Mahlangu.

MR PRINSLOO: Within the determined context, Chairperson. As I have already stated, it is about the handgrenade training per se. Mahlangu was involved in other aspects as well, according to the information at my disposal.

MR MALAN: No, but what I'm saying is that it is your inference. Due to the fact that you saw the name of the informer on that list you inferred that Ras must have given this name to Mahlangu.

MR PRINSLOO: Let me attempt once again ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, I'm asking you a question.

MR PRINSLOO: It is not that simple.

MR MALAN: Is it incorrect?

MR PRINSLOO: That assumption is incorrect.

MR MALAN: But then please explain to me what happened when you saw this name.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. One didn't only receive, or I didn't only receive a list of names from Ras, with everyone a section was written indicating what they were involved with in co-operation with Mahlangu, and Mahlangu would never, according to my information at that stage, have betrayed this particular person who assisted him in the training of the youth in handgrenade usage.

He would have exposed the names of others who were well-known activists, who were involved in other activities And when I read that this man had assisted with handgrenade training, it became very clear to me as a result of the information that I had made available to Ras at our first meeting, that Ras or whoever, it could have been him or Vermeulen, must have confronted this man with a particular name and that is the name of the informer.

They could not have confronted him with the name of that specific person if they didn't know more regarding the activities of which only Mahlangu and this informer could have known. So it was Mahlangu and the informer who were aware of certain aspects of these activities.

MR MALAN: Can you highlight these aspects for us, because as I understand you this informer gave training to people in handgrenade usage in Mamelodi, so there would have been more people who were aware of this or at least that they were aware of the instant training.

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know who was trained. At that stage I didn't yet know who had received training. That was precisely one of the aspects of the infiltration of Mahlangu, in order to clarify this aspect.

The second was that there was information that he had established contact with externally trained MK members. One must bear in mind I stated that I was searching for two groups of ANC terrorists who were operating in the Western Transvaal/Bophuthatswana area and they may have had contact with Mahlangu.

To return to the handgrenade training, the information indicated that the informer had to fetch certain things at a certain place and bring this to Mamelodi where it was made available by him and Mahlangu, solely through him and Mahlangu, to train earmarked recruits in the usage of such items. And Mahlangu would not have exposed this, he would never have exposed this ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand, Mr Prinsloo. Why shouldn't Mahlangu not expose this information when he is being subjected to torture? Why shouldn't it be something to be disclosed by somebody who is under extreme torture? He did disclose, not voluntarily you concede, he disclosed when he was subjected to torture, so why should it be something that he should rather die with than to expose when he is subjected to extreme means of torture?

ADV MOTATA: And before you respond, and that you did not know much about Mahlangu, you wanted certain information hence the infiltration. Why now if a certain informer's name is given, then it suddenly becomes sensitive that he knew about that informer? Why should it be, because they all belonged to the ANC?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I will repeat what I've already said. I agree with what you've said from the bench. The actual situation on ground level is somewhat different than one would visualise it to be. I will stand by what I said, that Mahlangu made certain names known yes.

I don't know to what degree he had been assaulted, I wasn't present, but he exposed certain aspects to Ras. But this man whose name was mentioned there, was a very important link to him with, as I've already stated, with the ANC and possibly also abroad. He wouldn't simply have exposed the name of that man, for the simple reason - and I've stated this previously, I asked Ras, if I recall correctly, what he said regarding MK members from abroad, whether he had contact with groups of such members and Ras said no, he hadn't said anything like that, but later he mentioned names, which could have been any names because these names didn't figure in the information that was at my disposal. That was the inference that I drew at that particular point in time, that the informer could possibly be in serious danger and that his cover had been blown.

CHAIRPERSON: Simply because his name has been disclosed by a person who is being subjected to torture.

MR PRINSLOO: That was my perspective and my conviction at that particular point, because the entire operation was shipwrecked, the man was never supposed to have been picked up or arrested. I wanted more information from him and I wanted to see who he had contact with.

But just to return to the informer. At that stage it was my conviction that this man must have inferred out of the interrogation, who the informer was. He could also put two and two together. He would be able to infer the identity of the informer, whereas another person who was simply receiving training, would not be aware of what was being discussed in the inner circles. And that is why I say that Ras must have made certain information known to him during interrogation, which led him to one conclusion only, and that was that this information that the Security Police had, could only come from one person and that was the informer. You wouldn't share such sensitive information with people that you were training.

CHAIRPERSON: You are saying that you then came to a conclusion that the disclosure of the informer's name by Mahlangu must have been as a result of Ras' bungling in his interrogation.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't consider it a probability that his disclosure was as a result of a successful interrogation by Ras, that this man simply broke up and came with the name, even though it was of a sensitive person within his inner circles, because he was the person he was undertaking training with. Wasn't that a probability, other than merely to infer that Ras had bungled?

MR PRINSLOO: It is a possibility, Chairperson. I will stand by what I said about my position at that stage. And in conjunction with that, that the entire operation which could have been taken further had been skewed due to incorrect action.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you confront Ras with regard to your inference? Did you confront Ras, did you ask him whether he had actually supplied certain information to Mr Mahlangu during the interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson. The aspects which were mentioned surrounding certain persons, indicated to me that he had indeed been interrogated with regard to specific incidents or activities, for example the handgrenades One wouldn't interrogate a person if you didn't know what you were going to interrogate him about in the first place.

One couldn't simply ask a person in a casual way "Tell me what you know", you would have to have certain information at your disposal, but also protect that information at the same time. And that is why I realised that the information that I made available was not protected and that it was due to this that the informer was exposed.

CHAIRPERSON: My simple question, Mr Prinsloo, maybe I have not made myself simple enough, my simple question is whether you ascertained from Mr Ras whether he had given certain indications of names to Mr Mahlangu during his interrogation.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no, I said what my inferences were that I drew at that particular point and I accepted that that information must have been disclosed to Mahlangu. I did not confront Ras about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Isn't it extremely important for you to train Ras in the method of conducting an interrogation if you deal with such cases?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I was not a training officer, these persons were obtained by me for a specific operation and the operation was simply to collect intelligence and to liaise with certain persons and possibly even more persons after the initial liaison.

At no stage did I order for the person to be arrested or abducted. One must view this case within its entire context. I accepted when I saw that specific name there, that he must have disclosed it due to certain questions which were put to him, questions which another person would never be able to answer, questions which were only between him and the informer.

MR MALAN: And you didn't confront him about this?

MR PRINSLOO: No, because I assumed that the informer's cover had already been blown and that is why I was extremely unsatisfied with the course of events.

MR MALAN: Yes, that was Mr Ras' evidence as well, you were very unsatisfied, but we don't know what you did about this dissatisfaction, except to decide that the man had to be killed.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, then I will have to continue and elaborate regarding the other aspects.

MR MALAN: Well very well, continue.

MR PRINSLOO: I touched upon the other aspects earlier when I said that the information was available, that he Mahlangu, had received external training and that he had contact with externally trained MK members who were operating in the Northern Transvaal/Bophuthatswana area.

MR MALAN: But you had that information previously.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was information, one didn't have names, one didn't have people. Part of the operation was to follow up the information and to see whether or not these persons could be identified in order to determine whether these were the persons that we wanted or not. One couldn't just move in and seize certain peoples because they would move around under pseudonyms in the country.

MR MALAN: I think I shall have to let you continue, Ms van der Walt, because I am extremely confused.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were asked with regard to Mr Ras, and you also spoke of certain information. If I understand Mr Ras' evidence correctly, the person had already been brought in by the askaris because Mahlangu had realised that these persons were not the persons that they pretended to be, is that correct, is that your evidence? Is that how you understand it?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now usually if one arrested a person under such circumstances or managed to get such a person to give information under such circumstances, one would confront him with certain information that the Security Police possessed.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct, with consideration of the protection of the informer of course.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now that person who was being interrogated, if he were to be confronted with certain information which was at the disposal of the police, let's say with regard to certain accidents or with regard to training in handgrenades, would the possibility exist that such a person could draw an inference that that information could solely have come from the informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct and that is what I'm trying to suggest here.

MS VAN DER WALT: And this is without Mr Ras mistakenly interrogating? For example, he didn't even know who your informer was, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: But simply as a result of the correct method of interrogation, that this person could realise that that information could only have come from one person?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you saw the name of the informer there, you immediately knew that it was your informer.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: There were various names, but if I understand you correctly in what you said to the Honourable Chairperson, there were not only names but names were mentioned and attached to certain incidents, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is what I stated.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now when you saw this, as a result of all the information, along with the name of your informer, could you draw the inference that your informer, if Mahlangu were to be released, could be identified?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Yes, I was convinced.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now you then arrived there and you were very dissatisfied with the whole situation because you wanted more information.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And also as a result of the information that you received and other investigations, Masina and the other persons were arrested afterwards?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And that is the information that Mahlangu gave to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, partially so.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your dissatisfaction was testified about, did you confront anybody else with regard to this abduction of Mahlangu so to speak, along with your dissatisfaction with the situation?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who?

MR PRINSLOO: I confronted Chris Mosiane who was present at the farm homestead, I called him aside and asked him "What happened, why did you bring the man here?" Then Mosiane informed me that Mahlangu said to them that he had contact with Botswana and that the names or the information that they had been giving to Mahlangu, were unknown in Botswana and that this contact person or issuer of orders in Botswana had told Mahlangu to be careful, upon which Mahlangu asked them whether or not they were police officers.

As a result thereof, Mosiane told me they were frightened because they saw that everything had been blown, their cover had been blown and furthermore, their identities as police officers or askaris had also been exposed. They then grabbed the man and took him out to Soutpan to the safehouse.

MS VAN DER WALT: So according to what Mosiane told you, was it clear that he was involved in the actual abduction?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, definitely, as I have already stated, because he was the relevant person who would start the process of winning Mahlangu's confidence and so forth.

MS VAN DER WALT: You state on page 330, paragraph 9 ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Ms van der Walt, before you continue.

What was your particular relation with Mosiane, why did you know him so well?

MR PRINSLOO: Upon various occasions I worked with Vlakplaas members over the number of years that I was at the Security Branch, from 1976 onwards. At that stage I had been there for approximately 10 years. I often visited Vlakplaas as well.

MR MALAN: Did he tell you how they had seized Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I didn't go into the detail of it, as far as I can recall. For me it was about the reason why they had seized him, why they had brought him there. Because by nature of the circumstances I sat there with the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services and the askaris, who were working under deep cover, who were not even aware of the existence of something like that. This man could then very easily have seen all of this.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do I understand you correctly then to say that you didn't want Mahlangu to see these members from the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because they also worked under cover?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to paragraph 9, page 330, you state that you then gave Vermeulen and Ras the order to remove Mahlangu from the safehouse and to get rid of him, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You had now decided this, is that correct? You were the commander.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As per Mr Ras' evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was this the only resort at your disposal to escape from this quandary that you found yourself in? You have now discussed the information that was provided, was there no other way out with the exception of eliminating him?

MR PRINSLOO: From my perspective, no. As I have stated there are various reasons for this, such as the exposure of the informer as well as the exposure of the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services and their staff members. Thirdly, that the information that I had that he had contact with a group of MK members, indicated that it was logical that he would immediately report to those persons and say "Beware, these persons are aware of you, get out". And that point there was only one way out in my mind, and that was that Mahlangu had to be removed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Furthermore you state that ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Ms van der Walt.

Why the third reason? The MK members would have known if he had disappeared, especially if he disappeared under the pretence of going to the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, according to my recollection, what Mosiane told me was that they had removed him in such a way from his house that there had been no suspicion that the police per se or anybody connected to the police had taken him. How I don't know, because I didn't ask him for any further details.

MR MALAN: And then a letter would be delivered to his family stating that he would be going for further training, then those MK members would have known immediately.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I am not going to discuss the letter issue because it is not an aspect of my evidence, I don't have firsthand knowledge about this.

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, it has been indicated to me that it is 4 o'clock, I don't know if this will be a suitable time to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll proceed, Ms van der Walt, we would prefer to conclude Mr Prinsloo's evidence-in-chief.

MS VAN DER WALT: I will do so.

You now took this decision, did you then take it up with a higher authority?

MR PRINSLOO: By nature of the matter I discussed it with my Divisional Commander, Brig Cronje, and I suggested to him in the light of all these circumstances, that Mahlangu be eliminated and he agreed with this.

MS VAN DER WALT: Therefore he expressed his approval?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. And you then state that a day or two later once again you met Ras and Vermeulen at the safehouse, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, along with Roslee. At that stage I had control over a white kombi vehicle and we drove out to Soutpan to the safehouse, where I met Ras and Vermeulen.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then inform them that the plan could continue?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. At that stage they told me that they had thought of a way in which they could kill Mahlangu, which would be by means of explosives.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know about the fact that Mr Vermeulen went to fetch explosives at Vlakplaas?

MR PRINSLOO: No, all that I know of that I can recall, is that Vermeulen said that he, Vermeulen, had fetched explosives at Vlakplaas. Where and when, I'm not sure.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you also participate in the interrogation of Mr Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall this was the first day upon which I saw him that I put certain questions to him with regard to certain aspects which were contained within Ras' notes. Basically that is all. I didn't interrogate him any further because the information that Ras had conveyed to me in my opinion, was more than we could have hoped for at that stage, due to the fact that the infiltration had to be ceased.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you assault Mr Mahlangu in any way at any time?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was he assaulted in your presence?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not on the farm.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now on this particular evening after you had returned from Mr Cronje, your commander, did the rest of the incident take place on that same day? If you look at page 331 of your application paragraph 11.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, that is why by nature of the situation, I took Roslee along with his kombi vehicle, so that we could drive only in one vehicle to where Ras and Vermeulen had decided that the man should be eliminated.

At the farm, at the homestead, I think it was Ras or Vermeulen, I can't recall precisely, they mentioned to me that they had issued an order to one Simon Radebe, who was one of the SAP members, to meet us at a particular place, which was removed from Soutpan, from the homestead.

I then drove the kombi. As far as I can recall, Vermeulen sat next to me in the front and Ras and Roslee sat in the back of the vehicle. At a certain point, I cannot say precisely where, we stopped next to a vehicle. I knew Radebe and I saw that Mahlangu was loaded over from Radebe's vehicle into the minibus that we were travelling in. It was already dark.

Then upon the instructions of Vermeulen and Ras, I followed a gravel road onto a tar road. I didn't know exactly where we were going, however we agreed that they would blow the man up next to the railway track somewhere, so that it would appear that he had attempted to blow up the railway line.

By nature of the situation I would drive the vehicle away after I had dropped them off at the point, so as to avoid unnecessary attention to a stationary vehicle next to a railway line. And then I think we agreed that 10 to 15 minutes later I would return to pick them up in the same area.

The three of them climbed out and they went into the dark with Mahlangu. I followed the road. It was a tar road. A number of vehicles passed me and at a certain stage I turned around, looked at my watch and drove back and picked them up in the area where I had dropped them off.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know anything about any further assault on Mr Mahlangu in the kombi?

MR PRINSLOO: I did not see. While we were driving I heard noises coming from the back of the kombi and I felt movements, but I had to focus on the road. It sounded to me as if Mahlangu was being assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Ms van der Walt.

You are all driving in a kombi, did you hear Mahlangu screaming?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, there were sounds which sounded like someone whose mouth was being muffled, someone who was attempting to shout and whose shouting sounds were being muffled, so I inferred from that that he was being assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Now having drawn that inference, did you not give an order to the people who were sitting with him, not to assault?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson, by nature of the situation the decision had already been taken that this man would be eliminated.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you find it in your heart to accept the further assaulting of Mr Mahlangu notwithstanding the fact that there was in any event a death warrant and you were about to execute him? What political objectives would achieved by further assaulting him because the information for which he was assaulted had already been extracted and there was nothing, nothing more to be gained by further interfering with the physical being of the person who was in your charge? You were overall in command, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson, I was in command. I don't know what went through Roslee and Ras' heads at the time, I can't take responsibility for that. Years later now yes, maybe I might be guilty that I did not tell them to discontinue what they were doing. There was no sense in it for me in any way, to torture the man in order to obtain more information from him.

CHAIRPERSON: You do agree that there could have been no political objective to have been achieved by further assaulting the man who was in any case going to his deathbed?

MR PRINSLOO: I will once again say, Chairperson, I do not know what went around in Ras and Roslee's heads, all that I know is that where we stopped I noticed that the man, when they opened the door behind, I could see that the man fell out from out the back door of the kombi and it seemed as if he was unconscious or whether he had already been killed. I don't know what they did to him.

ADV MOTATA: The question is directed to you that since it was decided that he was in any event going to be killed because he had disclosed sensitive information about certain informers, that when you took the drive to wherever he was going to be executed, by further assaulting him you were not going to achieve anything because he was going to be blown in any event. Now assaulting him further, would that achieve any political objective? That's the question, not that you did not know what was going on in their minds. The question is directed at you that if the man is further assaulted, would it achieve any political objective? That's all.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that is what I am trying to say, from my vantage point, no. I agree with what the Chairperson has put to me now. I cannot account for Ras and Roslee's actions, I don't know what they tried to reach.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were in command. Ras and Vermeulen fell under your direct command, is it not so?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yet you did not exercise the authority that you could have exercised to stop the people who you saw - you didn't know what was going on in their minds, we accept that, but did you accept that it was correct for them to assault a person that you had decided should be eliminated?

MR PRINSLOO: That is how I regarded it at that stage. CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) it was not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I did not interpose and discontinue it. I've said that. And if I gave instruction to them to stop and I did not do it, then I was negligent in that regard. I did not do it. I don't know why they continued assaulting the man, I don't know what their objective was.

MR MALAN: Did you not listen to the evidence of Mr Ras?

MR PRINSLOO: I have listened to it, Chairperson and it was asked of me what political objective would be reached with this, and if I understood Ras' evidence correctly, it was to strangle the man so that he becomes unconscious when we arrive at the point where they would blow him up ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: But his evidence was quite direct, that he wanted to kill him, he wanted to strangle him to death, he did not want to shoot him.

MR PRINSLOO: I heard that.

MR MALAN: So how did you think Mahlangu would be killed?

MR PRINSLOO: There are various manners.

MR MALAN: I'm not asking about the various manners. What did you think now, he's in the kombi, he will be blown up somewhere or his body will be blown up, how did you think he would be killed? That is the question.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, Chairperson, I did not think properly, I thought that everything would happen at the scene where he would be blown up. Explosives were available, the detail was not discussed with me. Only afterwards, here and here today, I heard of Vermeulen who was shocked by the wires, I was not even aware of that.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, you could not have thought that the explosives were to kill him, you knew the explosives was to get rid of his corpse. The question is, how did you think he was to be killed? Mr Ras said that he decided that he would strangle him to death. I am just asking you what did you think, how was he to be killed? Don't beat around the bush with me.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, Chairperson, I thought it didn't matter to me, it was not of interest to me.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

Did you realise - leading from Mr Malan's question, did you realise that he would be killed before he would be blown up, or what was your knowledge?

MR PRINSLOO: My assumption from which was my point of departure, was that as I've already said, he would be draped over the railway lines and blown up with explosives. Whether he there, after he was unloaded from the kombi, would be killed or drugged, I did not ask and I was not aware. I assumed that after they had taken him from the kombi they might hit him or shoot him or whatever in order to drape him over those explosives, so that as much of his human remains would be destroyed.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you knew he would be ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Ms van der Walt.

You maintain the version that you've already given in your affidavit on paragraph 11, page 331? Which is basically the fact that you thought he was going to be blown and that's how you thought he was going to - I mean, you thought he was going to be killed through ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Through blow - ja, ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Whether they wanted to drug him or shoot him before, it was not relevant to me at that point in time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have now testified that you picked up the persons again, where did you go to then, after the incident?

MR PRINSLOO: After the incident, if I recall correctly we arrived on the Warmbaths road, Chairperson, and via Warmbaths we went to Soutpan, the house at Soutpan, where I dropped off Vermeulen and Ras and Roslee and I went back to Pretoria.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you inform Brig Cronje about the incident?

MR PRINSLOO: I - briefly after I arrived in Pretoria, briefly informed him telephonically and told him that the person had been taken out.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did he comment?

MR PRINSLOO: No, he did not.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mention was made, and you have heard the evidence of Mr Ras, that a letter was written by the deceased before his death, to the family. Do you have any knowledge of it?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were not involved there?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And with regard to the clothing of the deceased?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson, I was not aware of it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you receive any personal advantage or benefit from this incident?

MR PRINSLOO: None whatsoever, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you have any feelings of vengeance towards Mr Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson. I have already explained what the circumstances were as I saw it, whom and what I had to protect at that stage and that weighed heavier than the life of Mahlangu itself.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you have already testified with regard to the situation which reigned in 1986.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms van der Walt.

I don't know, you can give an indication lady and gentlemen, whether this would be an appropriate time to adjourn until tomorrow morning, or whether we should proceed.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, you may have noticed that Mr de Kock has left the hall already.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes.

MR HATTINGH: He has to be back at a certain time at the prison. I will have to take instructions from him on certain minor issues before I cross-examine, so I would prefer that we take the adjournment now if possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Hattingh, I'd actually forgotten that prison authorities are very strict with regard to when to stop our proceedings when we have the inmates during our proceedings. I think in the interest of making sure that you are also afforded an opportunity to take proper instructions as the hearing progresses, it will be an appropriate time to adjourn until tomorrow morning at nine thirty.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS