MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Cornelius. I wish to call Mr van Heerden.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
MR CORNELIUS: We've solved the logistics, Mr Chairman.
MR SIBANYONI: Mr van Heerden, for the purposes of the record will you state your full name and surname.
ANDRIES JOHANNES VAN HEERDEN: (sworn states)
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, you may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni.
Mr van Heerden, you have prepared a Form 1 application in terms of Section 18 of the Act and you have submitted it to the TRC.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: At all times you were an employee of the SAP, as defined in Section 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(f) of Act 34 of 1995, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: You were deployed to the section known as C1, better known as Vlakplaas. The operations of the unit as it appears from the documents to Judge Wilson in Annexure C, which has been submitted to previous Committees, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: With this particular incident, Mr Eugene de Kock was your commander at Vlakplaas.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And in general you confirm the content of your amnesty application which has been served before this Committee.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well. At all times you carried out the orders of Eugene de Kock.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And at the time of this incident you were on duty and you occupied the rank of Constable.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Now Col de Kock has provided a reasonable background to this incident. I'm going to place you in the canteen immediately. When you returned all of you were in the canteen?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any drinks on that particular night?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Can you tell the Committee what happened from the point when Moses Ntehelang, the victim, arrived in the canteen. Very briefly please.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I was standing outside the canteen and W/O Bellingan and Steven the camp guard arrived with Bruce. W/O Bellingan made a statement to Col de Kock in respect of Bruce who was missing for quite some time and that his firearm had been stolen and that they had recovered it. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR CORNELIUS: Very well, what happened then?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Col de Kock took him into the canteen and questioned him about where he had been and where his weapon was. Ntehelang refused to answer him.
MR CORNELIUS: What was Ntehelang's condition as far as you could see?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He was under the influence of alcohol.
MR CORNELIUS: And his attitude?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He was nonchalant, he appeared not to care. That was his attitude, if I can describe it as such.
MR CORNELIUS: Did an assault take place, did Mr de Kock assault him?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr de Kock hit him over the head with the thin side of the snooker cue.
MR CORNELIUS: And what did you do?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I was still leaning against the wall while Mr de Kock was beating him and then at a stage Mose Ntehelang collapsed on the floor. I don't know how that happened.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you leave the canteen at a certain stage?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I left the canteen at that stage and went to stand outside again.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well. And when did you return to the canteen?
MR VAN HEERDEN: At a stage I returned and I found Lt Snyders and Bellingan who were busy tubing Ntehelang on the floor.
MR CORNELIUS: If you say "tube", could you just explain to the Committee what the method is.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Bruce lay on the ground and they were using an inner tube of a car to pull over his head and suffocate him.
MR CORNELIUS: And I understand that the practice was then that once the person was anxious enough it would be lifted so that he could breathe and that was a method which was applied so that a person would give information.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, the regular practice was to suffocate the person for 15 seconds and then to lift the tube so that he could breathe again.
MR CORNELIUS: You entered and Bellingan and Snyders were busy, what happened then?
MR VAN HEERDEN: They carried on for a little while longer and then they stopped.
MR CORNELIUS: What did you do then?
MR VAN HEERDEN: After that Piet Botha and I began to do it.
MR CORNELIUS: So you took over from Snyders and Bellingan?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?
MR VAN HEERDEN: We suffocated him and interrogated him, suffocated him and interrogated him, and he repeatedly told us that he wouldn't say anything.
MR CORNELIUS: So you didn't obtain any information?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He refused to tell us where the weapon was and where he had been.
MR CORNELIUS: And then what happened?
MR VAN HEERDEN: We spent quite some time doing this with him and he continuously refused to talk. At a stage I left the canteen to go to the toilet and wash my hands and have some water to drink.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and then?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Upon my return to the canteen I found a blanket in the canteen and I also found Piet Botha there holding a rope.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes?
MR VAN HEERDEN: The rope was around Bruce's neck, he was strangling him.
CHAIRPERSON: Who was doing this?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Piet Botha.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well. In your amnesty application you also state that while you were tubing him so to speak, you carried on for too long at a certain stage.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that may be because when I stopped, Mr Ntehelang just lay there, he didn't respond or fight back when we tubed him.
MR CORNELIUS: So are you trying to tell the Committee that he may have been unconscious or dead at that stage?
MR VAN HEERDEN: It is possible, I cannot deny it.
MR CORNELIUS: What happened next?
MR VAN HEERDEN: We then wrapped Bruce in the blanket and tied it with the rope. I left the canteen.
MR CORNELIUS: Was the rope on the inside or the outside of the blanket?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, first we wrapped him in the blanket and then we wound the rope around the blanket.
MR CORNELIUS: What did you do then?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I left the canteen and Piet told me that the Colonel and the others would take him away.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you accompany them?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No.
MR CORNELIUS: And who departed from there, according to your knowledge?
MR VAN HEERDEN: According to my knowledge I did not see the person loaded into the vehicle in terms of my evidence given during the criminal trial. I heard that Mr de Kock and certain other people were going to take the person away. Whether he was in the car I cannot tell the Committee.
MR CORNELIUS: You received indemnity in terms of Section 204, and during the criminal trial in the Supreme Court you also testified against Mr de Kock as a State witness.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And you were placed under cross-examination regarding the Moses Ntehelang incident.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: What was your objective when you tortured him, what was the political objective?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, firstly to determine where he had been because there was already information which indicated that he possibly wanted to defect to the ANC. The second objective was the fact that he had deserted his duties, and wanting to know where he had been and whether he had had contact with the ANC. Thirdly, we wanted to know where his official weapon was which he should not have had with him, which he should have handed in when he returned from the previous operation. So he had already taken the weapon illegally and he was not supposed to have this weapon in his possession.
MR CORNELIUS: Was that the basis of your interrogation?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you know that he had not arrived for duty with the previous deployment?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I heard that on the evening when we returned.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any sense of personal vengeance or malice against Mr Ntehelang?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, not at all, I lived with him on the farm.
MR CORNELIUS: So you had no reason for revenge to kill him?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No.
MR CORNELIUS: And by nature of the situation, you did not receive any form of compensation for your participation in the deed?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No.
MR CORNELIUS: You apply before this Amnesty Committee for your participation in the murder of Moses Ntehelang, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: After this incident, were any statements taken from with regard to this incident?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Never, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: You only received your salary?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr van Heerden, just one thing to clear. You say you had information that he possibly wanted to defect to the ANC, any specific in the ANC or just the ANC as an organisation?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Back to Mrs Winnie Madikizela.
ADV SANDI: Did anyone give the instructions that you should interrogate him and tube him?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Your Honour, what I did I did on my own.
ADV SANDI: Did you take in any liquor?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Your Honour.
ADV SANDI: Would that have been to the extent of - you were not drunk were you?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Your Honour, I knew exactly what I was doing.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Just one final matter, Mr Chairman.
If Moses Ntehelang had indeed conveyed or supplied information to for example, Mrs Mandela, would this have jeopardised your existence at Vlakplaas?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, the existence of Vlakplaas, the members of Vlakplaas and the people who lived there at Vlakplaas would have all been in danger.
MR CORNELIUS: So if your name and address had been supplied to the political movements, that would have been a problem.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record.
Mr van Heerden, during this incident you have just mentioned that you lived at Vlakplaas.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You occupied a room in the house.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: You were also proficient in several black languages.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And for that reason, were you used in the past in assistance in interrogation of persons?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: Would you say that you had experience or broad experience of the interrogation of people?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I would say so.
MR HATTINGH: And when you interrogated this person, Mr Ntehelang, what was your impression? Was your impression that he had information which he did not want to disclose, or was it that this man didn't know anything?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, he definitely knew something which he did not want to tell us.
MR HATTINGH: Was that your perception?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that was my perception and observation.
MR HATTINGH: You were also used a group leader of askaris who were deployed in certain areas in order to identify terrorists?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And because you understood the language well you obtained information which other people who were not proficient in the language would have missed?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct. Let me just continue. While I lived on the farm with some of the members there were many discussions between myself and the other members.
MR HATTINGH: If you say "members", do you include the askaris?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And did you obtain information in this manner to the effect that Mr Ntehelang could not be trusted anymore?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That was quite clear, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: One further issue. Mr de Kock's recollection is that he was in the canteen when Mr Ntehelang was brought there, he was playing billiards and that is why he had the cue in his hand. Can you say that he was outside?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Maybe you understood me incorrectly, I was outside and Mr de Kock was inside when he was brought there.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr van Heerden, I'm going to cross-examine you in English, but feel free to answer in Afrikaans please, you don't have to answer in the same language that I'm cross-examining in. And if there is anything in my English that you don't understand, you are aware that there is an interpreting facility, or if you don't understand, if you don't make use of that, just tell me and I'll try and explain my questions to you.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden, Mr ...(indistinct)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens.
MR BOOYENS: Mr Isak Gerhardus Morkel, was he a member of Vlakplaas?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Is that Sakkie Morkel?
MR BOOYENS: I don't know, I've got a name Isak Gerhardus Morkel.
MR VAN HEERDEN: If it's Sakkie Morkel, yes.
MR BOOYENS: Perhaps I should help you. He's - have you got a copy of a total application in front of you? If you go to page 281.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that would be correct, that's Sakkie Morkel.
MR BOOYENS: Now Mr Morkel at page 289, line 36, states the following
"One evening Brood van Heerden awoke me and told me that he, Gene, Balletjies, Martiens Ras ..."
And maybe you can help me here, because this doesn't make sense.
"... and I, through Duiwel, had hung an askari and he died."
CHAIRPERSON: Would it be easier ...(intervention)
MR BOOYENS
"... and I think Duiwel ..."
CHAIRPERSON: ... to do the typed version at page 298?
MR BOOYENS: Well my Lord, I've looked at the typed version, that - when I compared the two I thought I better try and stick to the original because here's a character called "Deurwel".
MR VAN HEERDEN: And "Beeltjies".
MR BOOYENS: And "Beeltjies". So I've got even more problems with the typed version I think than of - so I'll try and struggle through it. Perhaps of a comparison and a bit of knowledge of cypher writing, we may be able to make out what this witness is saying.
MR SIBANYONI: Which paragraph are you reading, Mr Booyens?
MR BOOYENS: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, it's paragraph 36 at the bottom of page 289 that I started reading from.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.
MR BOOYENS: May I continue, Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.
MR BOOYENS: Sorry, Mr van Heerden, I think actually - as my learned friend on my right-hand side had pointed out to me, I think what is written here
"After Martiens Ras and I think Duiwel had hung an askari ..."
He then continues to say:
"... and that he died. He said that it had been in the canteen and that he wanted us to accompany him to dispose of corpse ..."
... something of the Botswana border. And then he continues, he says:
"I discarded it and did not believe what he had said. He then departed and was missing for two days. His bakkie was also missing. I never spoke to him again about the incident. Brood was under the influence of liquor when he conveyed this to me."
That's the passage that I want to refer you to in the next number of questions. Mr van Heerden, did you speak to Morkel that evening?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I never spoke to him, Chairperson, and I would never have spoken to him about it. I did not trust him, and why would I go to him if I could go to Col de Kock, whom I trusted.
MR BOOYENS: So are you suggesting that Morkel is sucking this out of his thumb?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He's a "jam stealer".
MR BOOYENS: He's a what?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He's a "jam stealer".
MR BOOYENS: Oh a "jam thief". I see. Who was Charlie Luck(?).
MR VAN HEERDEN: Repeat the name.
MR BOOYENS: Charlie Luck.
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, is that Hugh Luck?
MR BOOYENS: Ja, Hugh Luck. The Committee will find his statement at page 272 to 275.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Hugh Luck was an askari.
MR BOOYENS: But he was of European descent, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: Now have you had an opportunity to read Hugh Luck's statement?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: Hugh Luck tells the following story in essence, about the assault. He said that he was outside, he was called to go to the canteen and - I'm referring to page 272, and paragraph 6. He says when he got to the canteen the following persons were not present. In fact he says that you were one of the people that pulled him out of bed, Mr van Heerden, would that be correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: How could I have taken him out of bed when I was in the canteen tubing the man?
MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden, let's not try ...(intervention)
MR CORNELIUS: I'm sorry to interrupt my colleague. He says
"I think it was Brood van Heerden or Piet Botha"
Just in fairness.
MR BOOYENS: I'm indebted to my learned friend. Very well. So you did not pull him out of bed?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I did not.
MR BOOYENS: Did you see Charlie Luck there that evening?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He was on the farm.
MR BOOYENS: Was he in the canteen?
MR VAN HEERDEN: At some stage he was in the canteen.
MR BOOYENS: Would you agree with the statement that he makes at the bottom of page 272
"That day Baker was not present, Willie Nortje was not present and Sakkie Morkel were not present."
These three?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I can agree with that, I cannot recall that I had seen them.
MR BOOYENS: Very well. Then from page 273, paragraph 8 onwards, he describes how the assault commenced. I'm not going to read everything to you, but I think the essential part is that Luck says that when this person was on the ground he was kicked and jumped upon.
"The following persons were taking part in this assault, Eugene de Kock, Brood van Heerden, Piet Snyders, Piet Botha and Leon Flores."
Would that be correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Will you please read that to me again.
MR BOOYENS: I'm sorry. Very well, then perhaps I should read it to you. Paragraph 11 of Luck's statement reads the following. In background I should just perhaps tell you he said this person was pushed into the room by Piet Botha and Piet Snyders. He was being shouted at because he'd lost his firearm and that then he does say that Mr de Kock hit him over the head with a snooker cue. He then continues to say the following
"I think that this person was tripped because he fell to the ground. Once he was laying on the ground he was kicked and jumped on. The following persons were taking part in this assault: Eugene de Kock, Brood van Heerden, Piet Snyders, Piet Botha and Leon Flores."
Did you jump on him, Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: What he says there is a lie, not one of us jumped on him.
MR BOOYENS: And then - in any case, at some stage he seemed to return to the truth because in paragraph 12 he says the following
"Leon Flores joined in the attack during later stages. Whilst the person was laying on the ground, Brood van Heerden brought a piece of inner tube known as a "tube". Van Heerden, Piet Botha and Flores took turns to "tube" the victim."
Is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is not correct, that is not correct.
MR BOOYENS: Well you did tube him didn't you?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Piet Botha and I did, but no, Leon Flores didn't have anything to do with that.
MR BOOYENS: Very well. So it leaves you and - you two did tube the man. He also says that you brought the tube, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, that is incorrect, Bellingan brought the tube.
MR BOOYENS: I see. And he then continues to describe the assault, including the twisting of the testicles of the deceased, or his genitals.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is a lie, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: The one thing that's significant, he doesn't mention the name of Bellingan at all in this assault. Do you wish to comment on that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I wonder is he was there during the whole time or whether he's just sucking this from his thumb.
MR BOOYENS: Yes, another thumb sucker in other words we're dealing with. A "jam thief" you called him. Very well, let's go on. At page 39 we find your initial amnesty application, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: Now, perhaps you can just explain to me. Then you have got a document referred to, starting at page 46, a typewritten document, the one that's got
"Summary and Background"
... at the top.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: Now Mr van Heerden, was this supposed to be an annexure to your amnesty application? You start off by saying that you were born at Groot Mariko etc., etc., and there seems to be a signature at the bottom of page 52.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I will accept that it's an annexure which was drawn up by my legal representative.
MR BOOYENS: Who was your legal representative at that stage?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Fanie Rossouw who is seated next to you.
MR BOOYENS: And - well look at the - just return to the signature please, at the bottom of page 52. Is that your signature?
MR VAN HEERDEN: It looks like my signature.
MR BOOYENS: Well is it or isn't it? You're not suggesting it's a forgery, are you?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I cannot say that, it's a big vague on this photocopy, but I would say it's mine.
MR BOOYENS: Well has my learned friend perhaps got the original here?
ADV STEENKAMP: No, unfortunately not, Mr Chairman.
MR BOOYENS: Well if it comes to - if this really becomes material, we'll try and get the original here. What was the purpose of giving Mr Fanie Rossouw this information?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know, but he was my legal representative who wanted it from me.
MR BOOYENS: Very well. So he asked you about the various incidents, right?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: He also asked you who took part in the various incidents, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: At page 49 there's a section dealing with
"Verspreiding van Vigs - Hillbrow 1988"
... which reads as follows:
"W/O Bellingan from Vlakplaas arrived at John Vorster Square with an askari named Ndam, who had contracted AIDS. The purpose was to deploy him in Johannesburg and Hillbrow in order for him to spread AIDS."
You remember telling your legal representative that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR BOOYENS: And that is true, that statement?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That was Bellingan's version at that stage.
MR BOOYENS: Well that's what Bellingan said to you obviously.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: That he wanted to use the man to spread AIDS, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: But I cannot understand what that has to do with this matter ...(intervention)
MR BOOYENS: You'll find out just now. You'll find out just now, just curb your enthusiasm please. The very previous paragraph deals with the following aspect: "Moord - Moses Ntehelang"
"On my return from an operation on the Swaziland border, W/O Piet Botha and I were responsible for the torture and killing of Moses Ntehelang. This was a continuous action after Col de Kock and Lt Piet Snyders had assaulted and tortured the deceased. This act was because of the fact that the deceased had been missing for three days and during this time he lost his service pistol."
You said that to Mr Rossouw?
MR VAN HEERDEN: If it says it there, then I would have said so.
MR BOOYENS: Well do you accept that you said it to him? Very well, let's deal with this. Here you tell us that he was missing for three days, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I had been away for those three days on operations and I accepted those three days when I was missing.
MR BOOYENS: Well if the man had already missed an operation - that's not what's written here, you signed this document.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS
"... that the deceased had been missing for approximately three days ..."
... means that the deceased had been missing for three days, not that you were away for three days on an operation. You've already told us that the man has been away for a long time.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct. There I referred to the three days when we were away, it might have been stated wrong there.
MR BOOYENS: And you didn't notice - did you read this before you signed this?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That was a long time ago.
MR BOOYENS: Did you read it before you signed it? Answer my question.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I signed it.
MR BOOYENS: Well did you read it before you signed it? Stop hedging and answer my questions please.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I would have read it before I signed it.
MR BOOYENS: Very well, then you would have realised that that statement that the deceased had been away for three days is wrong.
MR VAN HEERDEN: It could be incorrect.
MR BOOYENS: When you read the document at your attorney before you signed it, you would have realised that the statement that the deceased was missing for three days was wrong, yes or no?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I said, it may be wrong. I cannot say it was wrong or it is not wrong.
MR BOOYENS: But how long was the deceased missing?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I am not certain now for how long he was missing.
MR BOOYENS: Okay. The fact that there's no mention of Bellingan in here, that's another mistake. One of the prominent characters, because he tubed him.
MR VAN HEERDEN: If you listened to my statement properly, I said Bellingan brought the tube, I didn't say that Bellingan tubed him.
MR BOOYENS: Did Bellingan not tube him?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No.
MR BOOYENS: At any stage?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Het ek so gesê in my verklaring?
MR BOOYENS: Did Bellingan tube him at any stage?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I did not say he tubed him, I said he brought the tube.
MR BOOYENS: Very well.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can you just wait ...(intervention)
MR BOOYENS: Would you be so kind to proceed to page ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: He said did he not in his evidence
"I returned and found Snyders and Bellingan tubing the deceased on the floor."
MR BOOYENS: Yes, perhaps ...(intervention)
MR VAN HEERDEN: Snyders was doing the tubing, not Bellingan. If I mentioned Bellingan there I have stated it incorrectly, he brought the tube, Piet Snyders was tubing him.
MR BOOYENS: Well ...
CHAIRPERSON: That's not what you said a few minutes ago.
MR BOOYENS: Certainly not. And if you would be so kind to go to page 63 please, the second paragraph there, it's not numbered
"When I returned to the canteen, de Kock was no longer in the canteen and I noticed that Piet Snyders and Bellingan were torturing Ntehelang."
How did Bellingan torture him?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, if I could explain it to you. Bellingan brought the tube, he was standing next to Piet when Piet was tubing him. If I refer to Bellingan and Snyders, it was because Bellingan was standing next to him while he was tubing Moses. "Bellingan het nie fisies die "tube" gedoen nie", he was with Piet Snyders while they were doing it. And I described it there as being part of what Piet was doing.
MR BOOYENS: Well my recollection of your viva voce evidence was that you said "Bellingan and Snyders tubed him".
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I said in my statement, but now I'm telling you he brought the tube. He was standing next to Piet when Piet was tubing him. I did not say Bellingan personally tubed him.
MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden, listen to my questions. Your viva voce evidence, when you were speaking here before His Lordship, you said Bellingan tubed him. Now why this shorthand way of speaking, why did you then at that stage, say look Bellingan brought the tube and Piet Snyders tubed him. No, you said Bellingan tubed him. I want to know why.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I may have been mistaken, Chairperson, in what I had said and I will - if I stated it incorrectly I will place it correctly. Bellingan brought in the tube and Piet Snyders tubed him and Bellingan was standing next to him while the man was being tubed. I may have stated it incorrectly.
MR BOOYENS: Well you see, this second statement of yours, this one that was very clearly signed by you, at page 67, and was in fact sworn to by one, Hartzenberg - I don't know what the man is - well, let's go to page 67, Mr van Heerden. Have you got it? Is that your signature?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: And is it correct that you took the oath before one, Hartzenberg, that this statement was correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: What were the circumstances of making - this is obviously Annexure A, which I presume would be to your amnesty application. When was that - and that was made on the 26th day of June '97. Okay. 26th day of June '97. You took the oath that this statement was correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct.
MR BOOYENS: You read through this statement before you took the oath?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I believe I read it.
MR BOOYENS: Well did you or didn't you?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I believe I read it.
MR BOOYENS: You're a policeman, you know it's important, especially something like this, not so? Because after all you are applying for amnesty for your - the part you played in the death of Mr Moses Ntehelang.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct.
MR BOOYENS: So it's an important document. So can we accept that you would have read through it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct.
MR BOOYENS: Well, then let's return to what you said about Mr Bellingan's role, and we return to page 63. Why didn't you rectify that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you repeat the question?
MR BOOYENS: Why didn't you rectify your statement at page 63, the second paragraph that
"... Piet Snyders Bellingan besig was om Moses Ntehelang te martel"
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I said, he was there when Piet Snyders was torturing him.
MR BOOYENS: Exactly, but that doesn't mean that
"... Piet Snyders and Bellingan were torturing him"
I am also capable of speaking Afrikaans as you are, that is not what is stated here.
MR VAN HEERDEN: He fetched the tube, Piet Snyders was tubing him and that is why I say he was tortured "want hy het by Piet gestaan".
MR BOOYENS: I see. And why do you carry on in the very next sentence
"Afterwards Piet Botha and I took over from Snyders and Bellingan."
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, I did.
MR BOOYENS: Now was it necessary to take over from Bellingan, Bellingan wasn't doing anything he was just standing there looking.
MR VAN HEERDEN: He wasn't - he was not physically doing the tubing, but he was part of the group. When Piet was tubing him, he was putting the questions and also participated, but he did not physically to the tubing.
MR BOOYENS: Oh, so Bellingan was actually busy asking the questions?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: Why didn't you tell us that before? Have you got a reply?
MR VAN HEERDEN: What do you want me to say ...(intervention)
MR BOOYENS: Have you got a reply to the question? Why didn't you tell us that before?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I said to the Court, that he was standing next to him. He did not physically do the tubing, but he participated.
MR BOOYENS: In what sense, by asking him ...(intervention)
MR VAN HEERDEN: That he was standing there and told him - put questions to him and those things.
MR BOOYENS: Mr van Heerden, at page 280 there's a further statement ostensibly made by you, and I think that's made to some policeman, I don't know where the original of this is, but it seems to me - perhaps my learned friend can assist us. It is
"Andries Johannes van Heerden states supplementary to my statement in 1994/4/26 in Copenhagen ..."
When you were sitting in Copenhagen, where you told about having an interview with W/O de Jongh, he showed you a photo, a photographic album, that you identified the deceased. You remember making a supplementary statement to your statement that you made in Copenhagen, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I made this statement at the Attorney-General.
MR BOOYENS: Oh, so you made this to the Attorney-General, at the Attorney-General's office.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, here.
MR BOOYENS: In this one you do not - the only mention that Mr Bellingan gets here is that they brought Steven in - oh, Steven and Bellingan rather, brought the "geeletjie", which we know is that deceased in this matter, in.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I said, yes.
MR BOOYENS: You also in this mention no assault by Bellingan, you mention him not participating at all in the tubing. In fact you mention a number of other people.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, when I made this statement - in my original statement I implicated many members of Vlakplaas, what had happened at Vlakplaas. Those people were not involved in this incident and I added this statement to correct that. Where other people's names had been mentioned in the first statement, those people who had been implicated, to get them out of the story. I repeated this story so that I could mention the names of the people who were involved in this incident.
MR BOOYENS: So that's why you excluded Mr Bellingan? Why didn't you mention that he went to fetch the method of, or the tool of torture?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did I not?
MR BOOYENS: Mention that Bellingan went to fetch the took of torture?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Because it was part of this statement, to get the people's names out there and to correct the names of the people who were there, it was not about the tube.
MR BOOYENS: I see. Well you did, because you said
"The following members actively participated in the assault, myself, Eugene de Kock, Piet Snyders en Piet Botha."
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct. Did I not tell you just now that Bellingan did not physically tube him, he was standing there, but he brought the tube.
MR BOOYENS: Well you mention another statement. This must obviously be the 26 April statement that you are referring to. Did you implicate Bellingan there in the assault? - and other members of Vlakplaas.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is the statement which I made the first time where I mention all those members who were involved in the Swaziland operation, who went back to Vlakplaas and this additional statement was made to correct the fact that some of the members who were at Swaziland were not involved in this incident.
MR BOOYENS: You see Mr van Heerden, Mr Bellingan says that the only part he played that evening is, he was standing in the canteen when the deceased reported to him that his (that's the deceased) firearm was missing, he referred to the deceased to Major, I think, de Kock at that stage or the commanding officer, and that thereafter he's aware that an assault started, but he walked out. Is it possible that you are making a mistake about Bellingan's presence?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I beg your pardon, will you please repeat the first part.
MR BOOYENS: Bellingan says that he was standing in the canteen when he was approached by the deceased, he doesn't know how the deceased got there, he might have been fetched by the camp guard, who reported to him that the deceased - the deceased reported to Bellingan that he had lost his firearm, Bellingan said to him "Go and speak to Col de Kock". That's the first time he had anything to do with the deceased that evening. Are you able to dispute that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I dispute that because he's lying to you.
MR BOOYENS: Well what did he do?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He arrived there with the guard, Steven and Bruce, he called Col de Kock while Col de Kock was inside.
MR BOOYENS: Sorry, the "he" being Bellingan?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Bellingan.
MR BOOYENS: Did he call Mr de Kock out of the canteen?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Canteen, ja.
MR BOOYENS: So this discussion took place outside?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, at the door.
MR BOOYENS: And was that the occasion when you said Mr Bellingan reported to Col de Kock that the deceased had been missing for a period of time?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, that the deceased was there "Here is the deceased". I did not hear what he said to the Colonel.
MR BOOYENS: Well you had no problem of hearing it when you were giving your evidence-in-chief, you said that Bellingan reported to Col de Kock that the deceased had been missing and that he'd lost his firearm.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is what I heard, but that is not all that he said to the Colonel.
MR BOOYENS: So you did hear him reporting that the deceased had been missing?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: So your impression was that Mr de Kock didn't even know it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, it's not the impression that Col de Kock didn't know, it's that he brought the person to Col de Kock and then informed Col de Kock of what was going on.
CHAIRPERSON: If Col de Kock knew the person had been missing for a month, there was no need to inform him was there?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I accepted that when he brought the person there, that Col de Kock did not know that the person was back on the farm and that this was the first time that Col de Kock had heard "Here is the man, he's at the farm", and that is why he was brought to him.
MR BOOYENS: But Bellingan said - according to what you heard, also one of the things you heard is that he reported to Col de Kock that this is the person that had been missing. Chairperson, I don't have exact notes, but that's a clear recollection that I've got.
MR VAN HEERDEN: It may be so, but what I told the Court is what I can recall and what I heard.
MR BOOYENS: What was your state of sobriety that evening?
MR VAN HEERDEN: What?
MR BOOYENS: What was your state of sobriety that evening?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Wat is "sobriety"?
MR BOOYENS: Were you drunk?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I was not drunk.
MR BOOYENS: Were you sober?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I also wasn't sober.
MR BOOYENS: Is it possible that you're making mistakes due to the fact that you had been under the influence?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, perhaps your client is also a "jam thief" and he's trying to place the blame for the incident on the shoulders of another.
MR BOOYENS: In what sense is he implicating other persons?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, he's too scared to take responsibility for what happened and he's trying to pass the buck to others.
MR BOOYENS: And so obviously one would expect Mr Snyders to be aware of Mr Bellingan's involvement, not so?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Who, Mr Snyders?
MR BOOYENS: Mm.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I'm not sure.
MR BOOYENS: Well Snyders was tubing and Bellingan was asking the questions, Snyders would be a complete idiot if he didn't see that, not so?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That would be his version of what he saw. I have given my version of what I saw and what I can recall.
MR BOOYENS: Just listen to the questions. You would expect Snyders to be able to tell us that he was doing the tubing while Bellingan was asking the questions.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot speak for Mr Snyders.
MR BOOYENS: But that is the way you remember it.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What I said in Court is what I saw and what I can recall.
MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, sorry, I see I've ..(indistinct)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone). Would 2 o'clock suit you gentlemen? We'll adjourn till 2 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
ANDRIES JOHANNES VAN HEERDEN: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: (cont)
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr van Heerden, just switch on your microphone please. Now Mr van Heerden, let us just find out what your current version is about the role of Mr Bellingan. Would you mind repeating to me exactly what role Mr Bellingan played in this incident, in toto.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That evening on the farm while I was standing outside at the door, Mr Bellingan arrived at the canteen with the camp guard and Moses. He called Mr de Kock out of the canteen and reported to Mr de Kock that Moses had returned and that he was there. Col de Kock took Moses Ntehelang into the canteen where he hit him with the snooker cue. After that Balletjies went out. He went to fetch the tube. He returned, upon which Piet Snyders began to tube him and Balletjies stood with him.
MR BOOYENS: Now when Mr de Kock came out of the canteen, did he have the snooker cue in his hand?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I didn't when Mr de Kock came out of the canteen.
MR BOOYENS: You did see Col de Kock hitting the deceased with the snooker cue?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's right.
MR BOOYENS: And where did he get the snooker cue from, do you know?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He had the snooker cue in his hand in the canteen. I don't know, I stood outside when the man arrived there.
MR BOOYENS: Who told Bellingan to go and fetch the tube?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know.
MR BOOYENS: You were outside?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: You remained outside until at a later stage when you came back and saw Mr Snyders in the process of tubing the deceased.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's right, Balletjies was standing with him.
MR BOOYENS: Standing with him and asking questions? Don't forget that.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's right.
MR BOOYENS: In which of your statements did you disclose these facts? Would you mind showing it to me.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot recall, I said it in my evidence and in my evidence during the criminal trial.
MR BOOYENS: I'm talking about in your statement that's before us. Did you at any stage mention that Bellingan was just asking the questions whilst Snyders was busy tubing the man? Did you mention that in any statement?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot recall saying something like that, but that is what took place.
MR BOOYENS: Well why didn't you say it? Because that's the truth according to you.
MR VAN HEERDEN: It's very easy for you now to make up things and ask me why I didn't say this or that. At the time when I made this statement, I said what I could recall. I may have omitted that Balletjies did certain things or didn't do certain things, but what I'm telling you now is what I recall having taken place there.
MR BOOYENS: No, but the question is simply the following. Why, if you say you left it out and so on - I mean, what you did say in fact in some of your statements is that Bellingan actually assaulted the man, he took part in the tubing. Did you say in any statement that Piet Snyders was tubing him and Bellingan was asking the questions, yes or no?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot recall, I don't see that I wrote it that way.
MR BOOYENS: Yes, well on what I have read of your statements, you certainly did not. Let us just refer to a few further aspects. Are you aware of the existence of an Intelligence section, a section that was set up by Col de Kock?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No.
MR BOOYENS: You're unaware of it. So you're not in a position to say whether or not Messrs Baker and Bellingan were in fact in charge of this Intelligence gathering capacity on the activities of the askaris, you don't know?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot say that.
MR BOOYENS: This initial, this statement of yours that you made in Copenhagen, you obviously implicated a lot of people in that statement and then subsequently you retracted that, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I mentioned the names of persons who were involved in the operation and after that I rectified it by saying which persons from Vlakplaas were involved.
MR BOOYENS: Did you implicate anybody else? And I've got every reason to believe that statement is available, so I'll check it if necessary, but maybe you can help us and make it unnecessary. Did you implicate anybody else in your Copenhagen statement, except the people that you now say were the actual assaulters? - in the assault.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Not that I can understand, because those persons that I know who were involved, were added by me in my additional statement when I returned, the statement that I made to the A-G.
MR BOOYENS: And you stated here that the only people that took an - played an active role in the assault, were yourself, Mr De Kock, Mr Snyders and Mr Botha.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Botha. I am appearing on behalf of Snyders.
Mr van Heerden, you say that you drank liquor, and I just want to make certain from you to which extent your capacity to distinguish time and to make observations was affected, can you prove more clarity regarding that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't understand what you want me to say.
MR BOTHA: To what extent were you senses affected, were you still 100% at your full capacity or were you completely drunk?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I was still sober although I had consumed alcohol.
MR BOTHA: To such an extent that you would be able to distinguish exact times?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I provided the times as I perceived them or as I recalled them.
MR BOTHA: And what is your evidence today, were you the cause of the death of the deceased?
MR VAN HEERDEN: As I have told the Court, I participated in his tubing. When I stopped at a stage, I cannot tell the Court that I was responsible for his death, I cannot tell the Court that anyone else was responsible for his death. I accept my share of the responsibility for what I did and not like others who want to run away from their responsibilities.
MR BOTHA: Well the reason why I'm asking you is in reference to page 63 of the record which was made available to us, just before paragraph 9(b), and I quote
"That evening I had already had a few drinks and at one point I confused the times of when the inner tube was placed around Moses and when he suffocated and died of torture."
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, it is just as I have told you. I cannot say whether I was the cause of it or whether Piet was the cause of it. I tubed him and I suffocated him. At a stage when I left the room, I also stated in my statement, the man was just lying there.
MR BOTHA: Just before you began to suffocate the deceased you say that Snyders and Bellingan did this, and I do not refer to Bellingan's inferior role as it is stated in your later version, why did you find it necessary to take over from them?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Do I always have to ask when I want to do something, if there's work to be done?
MR BOTHA: Why did you deem it necessary to take over from them?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Because we had to tube the man, he had to tell us where he had been and where his weapon was.
MR BOTHA: Did you stop them?
MR VAN HEERDEN: They stopped themselves.
MR BOTHA: Do you know why they stopped?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know.
MR BOTHA: And then you decided to continue?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I did that.
MR BOTHA: The procedure which Bellingan and Snyders used in suffocating this man, could you perhaps clarify that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Piet sat on top of him and had the tube over his face and suffocated him.
MR BOTHA: And Bellingan?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Bellingan stood next to him, but Bellingan went to fetch the tube in order to do this.
MR BOTHA: What else did he do?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He stood there asking questions as what he would usually have done.
MR BOTHA: While Snyders was suffocating the man?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR BOTHA: It doesn't sound logical, how could the man answer any questions?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Because you would remove the tube from his face, one wouldn't suffocate him all the time by having the tube on his face.
MR BOTHA: So Bellingan would ask the question when the tube was removed from his face?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.
MR BOTHA: What was his answer?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He didn't say anything.
MR BOTHA: And then they would just continue?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR BOTHA: Did they give him the opportunity to speak or was he already unconscious at that stage?
MR VAN HEERDEN: He had opportunities to speak. You would tube him for a while and then give him an opportunity to speak, if he didn't want to respond you would begin again.
MR BOTHA: Was the deceased at that stage on his stomach or on his back?
MR VAN HEERDEN: On his back.
MR BOTHA: Were his hands bound or not?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, they were not bound.
MR BOTHA: I put it to you that it would have been extremely difficult under those circumstances if one person without assistance, had to suffocate a person in the manner that you have described.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Well then you haven't seen how it is done yet.
MR BOTHA: No, I haven't seen it yet. I also refer you to page 49 of your amnesty application, the second paragraph under the heading "Murder: Moses Ntehelang".
"Upon my return from an operation on the Swaziland border, W/O Piet Botha and I were responsible for the torture and death of Moses Ntehelang."
And then you continue by describing the part that de Kock and Lt Snyders were involved in. Is there any reason why you don't mention Bellingan's name?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I have no reason for not mentioning his name, what I stated here was a summary of incidents that I was involved in, and what I meant by that is that Piet Botha and I were directly involved or responsible for what happened to Moses Ntehelang. The others were partially involved, but they were not responsible for what happened to Moses Ntehelang.
MR BOTHA: Do I understand you correctly, that at the end of your version Snyders was involved in an assault on Ntehelang?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
MR BOTHA: Is there anything that you made mistakes about in your application?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't understand, what do you mean?
MR BOTHA: Were you consulted once again before you gave evidence or before your application was submitted?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Consulted with me, before I submitted my application?
MR BOTHA: After you made the statement, did you study it with your legal representative?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I believe I did.
MR BOTHA: Were you satisfied with the content?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, because it was a summarised version.
MR BOTHA: But in your summary you still state that Botha and you and de Kock and Snyders were involved. Why don't you mention Bellingan's name in your summary, you mention everyone except Bellingan.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I did not put Bellingan's name in this because he did not physically participate in the tubing. He fetched the tube, but he did not participate in the action.
MR BOTHA: I put it to you, Mr van Heerden, that Mr Snyders will deny that he was involved in any way in the suffocation of the deceased as you have described it.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Then he is lying, he was involved, he initiated it.
MR BOTHA: Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Jansen on behalf of applicant Ras, I have no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
MR SIBANYONI: Tell me, is it not usual that if a person is suffocated with a tube, he lies on his stomach and the person suffocating him kneels over his back?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I've never done it that way, Mr Chair. How can you suffocate a person lying on his back, how are you going to put the tube on his face? You can't do it.
MR SIBANYONI: We saw it being demonstrated on the hearing - I can't remember the person who was demonstrating it, but he was kneeling over him on his back and then the person was lying on his stomach and the tube was put over his face like that.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I think you're referring to Mr Benzien that used a bag.
MR SIBANYONI: Yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Not a tube, a bag, the wet bag. If I'm correct in what you're referring to.
MR SIBANYONI: And then again, was it the liquor which caused you to confuse the time on which you were supposed to put the tube over his nose, or what caused that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I won't say so. I wouldn't say that.
MR SIBANYONI: You say ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that precisely what you said in your statement?
"That evening I had already had a few drinks and at a certain stage I mistook the time when the inner tube was placed over the air channels of Mr Ntehelang."
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, but it may just be that I kept the tube down too long, that I took too long before removing it. It isn't as a result of the alcohol.
CHAIRPERSON: Well you start off your statement saying
"That evening I had a few drinks ..."
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Obviously you considered it relevant to explain how you behaved as you did.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, there were two options, either I took too long and didn't give him enough oxygen or it may be that seeing as the person was under the influence of alcohol, he may have choked in the process. It may be one of those two reasons.
CHAIRPERSON: And you go on to say
"And he suffocated and died."
That's while you were putting the tube on him.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That could be as a result of the tube that I placed, that could be the reason for his suffocation.
MR SIBANYONI: You say thereafter you left the canteen and then when you came - when you left the canteen, was he lying there motionless?
MR VAN HEERDEN: When I went out to go to the toilet he was just lying there. When I returned there was a blanket and a rope and Piet Botha had a rope around his throat.
MR SIBANYONI: And was the deceased motionless while Piet Botha had a rope ...(intervention)
MR VAN HEERDEN: If I refer to the fact that he was motionless, it means that he didn't fight back, he didn't fight back anymore.
CHAIRPERSON: Was Botha strangling him?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON: And did he fight back before, while you were putting the tube on his face?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, that's why Piet Botha held his hands.
CHAIRPERSON: And when Snyders was doing it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I'm not certain how Snyders did it, but when I saw, Snyders was doing it alone.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. This suffocating, how long did it take?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson approximately 10 minutes in the process that one would tube and release and tube and release and put questions.
ADV SANDI: Did you have any reason for not postponing the questioning of a person who was under the influence of liquor? Don't you think it would have achieved better results if you had questioned him the next day?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Would you repeat the question please? There are people talking in the background here and I cannot hear your question properly, could you repeat it please.
ADV SANDI: This man, the deceased, was he drunk?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, he was drunk.
ADV SANDI: Was he very drunk?
MR VAN HEERDEN: When you say "very drunk", it wasn't as if he was stumbling about or falling about, but he was drunk.
ADV SANDI: In your assessment would you say he was so drunk that he would never have known what he was doing?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson, he would have known what we were doing.
ADV SANDI: Was there any reason why you could not postpone your questioning till the next day when you could obtain perhaps better results, by questioning a sober person?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't have an answer for that.
ADV SANDI: Was there any compelling reason that you had to question, to torture and beat up a man who was drunk?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, the big thing was that when he was brought in and questioned about his whereabouts and where his weapon was, he had a very nonchalant attitude in answering our questions. The second point was the fact that we were concerned about the whereabouts of the weapon and where he had really been, the dangers inherent to that, the possibility of him re-establishing liaison with the ANC and people such as Winnie Mandela. The fact that on that specific evening he was questioned and why this was done, I cannot say. It was initiated and I participated in the interrogation. I did not question the issue of whether this should take place now or later or tomorrow, it was initiated and I participated in it.
ADV SANDI: Ja, but I thought you had said no-one had given you an order that you should take part in the questioning and the beating up of this man.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson and I accept responsibility for what I did. The fact that I was involved and that I participated in the interrogation and the assault, was due to my own decision and my own will because it had already been initiated.
ADV SANDI: You said in your evidence-in-chief you had the advantage of speaking some of the languages that were commonly spoken by the askaris, did I understand you correctly?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
ADV SANDI: And in that process you were able to gather some information in the course of the conversations that were taking place amongst the askaris.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.
ADV SANDI: What did you do with that information, normally? What did you do with the information obtained from such conversations?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I would have conveyed it to my Section Head.
ADV SANDI: Do you recall gathering anything specific about the deceased?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, not specifically. It may be, but I cannot tell you definitely that there was anything like that.
ADV SANDI: Where were you when the deceased disappeared from Vlakplaas?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I was on the farm, I was living on the farm.
ADV SANDI: You were aware that he had escaped?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, if you say that I was aware that he was gone, I cannot say specifically because he wasn't a member of my team or the group that I worked with, there were various groups. So he may have been a member of another group which had been deployed and I simply accepted that he was in or out. I cannot say that I knew specifically that he had defected. He wasn't under my section that worked with me.
ADV SANDI: I thought in your evidence when you started, you said you gathered from the askaris who were talking amongst themselves, that they did not really trust the deceased.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't believe I said that. I may have been mistaken, I cannot recall.
ADV SANDI: Did the askaris say anything in particular about the deceased?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, if you ask me a question like that, I would not be able to recall things which are specifically connected to that. I cannot say anything like that.
ADV SANDI: You say you were away, did you say you had to go to hospital for three days?
MR VAN HEERDEN: No, we were busy with an operation at the Swaziland border.
ADV SANDI: Where was the deceased when you were away for three days?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know where he was.
ADV SANDI: It was already known at that stage that he had left Vlakplaas?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That may have been so. The other members may have known, such as Col de Kock, who had his own team of investigators, but it wouldn't have been said to me that he was gone at that stage because I was busy with an operation in Swaziland, so I didn't know specifically. I heard that he had gone, that evening when he was brought to Col de Kock on the farm.
ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?
MR CORNELIUS: I have no re-examination, thank you, Mr Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Who will we have next?
MR BOTHA: I just want to enquire from my one colleague. Thank you, Sir. We'll call Snyders, Mr Chair.
