APPLICATION NO: AM 3761

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We are now going, reversing to the case of the security guard, are we? Is everybody concerned, present?

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, Roelf Meintjies on record on behalf of Mr Van Jaarsveld. The Committee has requested Mr Van Jaarsveld to be present to answer certain questions. He is available to the Committee, he is Afrikaans speaking, for purposes of the oath.

JAAP VAN JAARSVELD: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: Mr Van Jaarsveld, you were attached to the Security Police Headquarters in Pretoria during the 1980's?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MALAN: From when to when?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: At the Pretoria Security Branch, or the Security Police from 1979 to 1988 and the Security Branch, 1985 to 1988.

MR MALAN: During this time, you were involved in certain counter revolutionary actions for which you asked amnesty. Can you put on record for which you have asked amnesty?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The first incident was in 1984, Matthews Goniwe. The second incident 1986/1987 a bomb explosion at Saagkuilsdrif Road. The third incident on the 14th of July 1986, that was the KwaNdebele 9. The fourth incident on the 1st of December 1987, Dr Ribeiro. The fifth incident was in 1987, Mr Piet Ntuli and the sixth incident during 1986, the attack on a garage and the shopping complex in KwaNdebele.

MR MEINTJIES: I then want to take you back to an incident regarding which evidence has been given to this Committee. I want to call that incident the kidnapping of a security guard.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Meintjies, before you continue, I just want to know for which charges and on which basis, were those applications made regarding these incidents mentioned, was it for murder or whatever?

MR MEINTJIES: If I may have a moment Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, the matter regarding the Goniwe incident has not yet been heard and I will not try to give you an indication of exactly what ...

JUDGE PILLAY: What is he applying for, amnesty in respect of what offence?

MR MEINTJIES: Basically it will be amnesty in respect of conspiracy to murder. As far as the explosion is concerned, that he mentioned as incident number two, it will be accessory after the fact to murder.

JUDGE PILLAY: Where and when was that, I didn't get it?

MR MEINTJIES: The applicant is not exactly sure of the time or the date, but it was somewhere in 1986 or 1987 and it is near an area known as Saagkuilsdrif in the former Bophuthatswana. The third incident is the incident known as the KwaNdebele 9, where amnesty has been applied for for conspiracy to murder, accessory to murder and certain offences under the Explosions and Arms and Ammunitions Act. This incident happened around the 14th of July 1986. The fourth incident relates to the murder of the Ribeiro's, this happened somewhere in December 1986, where amnesty was applied for as accessory to murder after the fact. The fifth incident was the murder of Mr Piet Ntuli, where amnesty was applied for for murder and offences under the Arms and Ammunition Act, as well as the Explosives Act. This incident took place during 1987. The sixth incident that my client applies for amnesty for, is an attack on a filling station and house during 1986 in the former KwaNdebele. The offences would be under the Explosives Act and the Arms and Ammunitions Act.

Mr Van Jaarsveld, if we can return to this incident to which I am going to refer as the kidnapping and assault of a security guard incident. I have given you this morning the opportunity to read the applications of Messrs Momberg and Goosen?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct, yes.

MR MEINTJIES: I have also told you broadly which evidence was given in this regard?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MEINTJIES: And that the basic allegation against you is that you were involved in this incident, and you were actually in command of this?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, you informed in this respect. I was not involved and I have no knowledge of this incident.

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I am open to suggestions as to whether the witness should now be questioned by Members of the Committee or whether representatives of the other parties have a desire to question him first.

MR MEINTJIES: If I may make a submission that I feel that the Committee members must go first, my client is here on the request of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: The problem is that something may be put to him, which then we want to investigate. One of the applicants may give some reason which we then want to investigate fully, so it is difficult to know which will be the better course.

MR MEINTJIES: I will have no problem if the Committee asks further questions after the applicants again.

MR MALAN: Mr Van Jaarsveld, you did not give evidence, but the evidence which was given was that you were attached to Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Were you in charge of Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I was in charge. At certain stages, I was in charge of Unit B, but when I arrived there, Captain Loots was in charge. When he went out on investigations, I took over command of that unit, and at a certain stage, I was in command of that unit for a whole year. He came back again for one or two months as Commanding Officer and then he handled the administration of arrests and I took over the command of this unit again.

MR MALAN: Can you give us the periods when you were in charge of Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, yes, I am going to try, attempt to do that. My first period of command was between February 1986, it lasted for about one year. After that, Captain Loots came back for two months and I took over command again roundabout April 1987 up to December 1987. Then I was seconded to the Security Council.

MR MALAN: The exact dates when this took place, is not available to us, but this took place in 1987 according to the recollection of the applicants. Do you have any explanation why the applicants are so sure that you were involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: The Unit B, what was its responsibilities?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit B was a unit to investigate black power. If I can give you the structure of the Security Branch in Northern Transvaal, it was handed in by means of a telephone list attached to Cronje's application. There was Unit A, which was a white, coloured and Indian investigation, then there was Unit B, involved in black power investigation and then Unit C, involved in ANC or terrorist investigative unit, Unit D was to look after very important people, to safeguard them, Unit E was the job description units.

MR MALAN: Don't you want to explain to us in lay terms, what was the difference in activities between Units A and B, why were there two units, what was the practical implications, what was the practical method of operation?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The practical difference was based on a racial basis. A handled whites, coloured and Asians, handled their investigations, and B concentrated on black power investigations.

MR MALAN: Why do you call it black power investigations, was it the term that you used?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I think it was just a semantic term, the word black power was used.

MR MALAN: What does it mean practically?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It meant that Unit B was responsible for the black townships round and about Pretoria.

MR MALAN: And Unit A's responsibilities?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit A's responsibility was Eersterust, not Lenasia but Laudium and then also all white matters round and about Pretoria.

MR MALAN: Were all the activities geared to towns?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Pretoria was in a unique situation, that was a certain division. It was a division of a larger city, it had two regional offices in Bronkhorstspruit and Britz and therefore the division was structured in the way I have just explained.

MR MALAN: So did it have to do with geographical areas and not with individuals?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, it was geared to geographical areas.

MR MALAN: Now if you speak about if a white person was found in Mamelodi, it was the responsibility of B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Let us go back to a practical situation, there was a white minister in Mamelodi which was investigated by Unit A and not by B. I can't remember this white minister's name, Nico Smit.

MR MALAN: And if you found a black person in Laudium, who would investigate him?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit B would investigate him.

MR MALAN: And in Pretoria, in the centre of Pretoria, a black person would be investigated by B and a white person by A and then if there was an investigation into an MK infiltration, it would be a black person?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It would be Unit C, not B. C was involved in terrorists investigation, it does not matter what the race of the person was, it concentrated on MK and terrorists.

MR MALAN: What black people would Unit B investigate?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: For example it is the activities of the Cosas, Mamelodi Youth Organisation, Mamelodi Students' Congress, Congress of South African Students.

MR MALAN: You refer to political activists?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: We did not have to do with criminals.

MR MALAN: Was Unit B not responsible for obtaining information regarding MK members?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If the information was brought under our attention, it was handed over to Unit C.

MR MALAN: Would you not first do follow up investigations to gather further information?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, that was not the practice.

MR MALAN: In the case then of information that a certain person like you have read for example in broader terms, this evidence, that a certain person is suspected or you receive Intelligence via Mamasela that a certain person is a brother of a trained MK terrorist who had already infiltrated, this person had to be interrogated to obtain further information from him, who would launch that action?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That would be Unit C. There was an anomaly in this whole situation. In Unit B, or in the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal, early in 1986 after a meeting with Brigadier Viktor an Operational Unit was established in the Security Branch. That meeting with Viktor took place on the 12th of February 1986 at half past five in the morning, in his office. Then this Operational Unit was established, and the Commanding Officer for the purposes of operations, was Captain Jacques Hechter, at that stage Lieutenant Hechter. The person who directly co-operated with him, was Mamasela. For administrative purposes, Captain Hechter and Mamasela reported to Unit B, but I wanted to state it clearly that only for administrative purposes, they reported to Unit B.

MR MALAN: So actually they were attached to Unit C?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: They were not attached to one of these units, but for administrative purposes, they were part of Unit B.

MR MALAN: So the Operational Unit was a separate unit?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It was a unit on its own, without being identified in the structures of the Security Branch, but for formal reporting regarding information and operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That would be sent directly to Brigadier Cronje.

MR MALAN: Were you at any stage informed before the closing date of the applications of Goosen and Momberg, you did not know about that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR MALAN: Did anybody talk to you about your possible involvement in these actions?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not at all.

MR MALAN: Did you know about such possible operations by other people?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: What happened is that Captain and Hechter and Mamasela, because they were only two people, if you look at all these applications of all the applicants, they were always the golden threat through this whole thing, under the commanding structure of Brigadier Cronje. Sometimes they approached people to assist them or to help them to execute operations. In other words, I knew of what was going on, I did not know everything. There are a lot of things I really did not know about.

MR MALAN: Were you all operationally involved in the interrogation of people with the purpose of obtaining information where you co-operated with Unit A?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit A by the end of 1987, they brought in a few students from Tuks for interrogation and then I assisted with that interrogation.

MR MALAN: Were those white students?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, they were white students.

MR MALAN: Were you at all involved in the interrogation of black activists where Unit A was involved during joint operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It would be very strange if Unit A was involved in the interrogation of black people, except if it came from the operational structure of Captain Hechter.

MR MALAN: The question was whether you were involved in such interrogations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, not with Unit A.

MR MALAN: Or members from Unit A?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, I can't recall that.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Van Jaarsveld, as I have listened to your evidence, you were involved in a division which handled the so-called black people?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct, yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mamasela, if he received information regarding a black person, and they had reason that this person was involved or was family of another person who was an MK member, where would he mention this information?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: He reported formally to Captain Hechter and he would have conveyed this information to Hechter. Regarding MK activities, in all probabilities and if the structures were taken into consideration, these various structures - Captain Hechter, would handle that in Unit C, because that was MK involvement.

JUDGE PILLAY: And if they were not sure and it was only Intelligence which was only suspect and they had reason to follow that up?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairman, I am going to try and answer your question as follows - where there was uncertainty, because of the way we operated, the question has been put before, the relationship between Officers was not to give orders, it was just based on requests. Captain Hechter, if he was not sure that it was an MK and he would take that Intelligence to B, because it was a black man, he had a route according which that could be channelled. Yes, he could have conveyed that to me or he could have taken that information to Unit C. If I was one hundred percent sure, I would have gone to C and then it could be decided whether it should go to B or A.

JUDGE PILLAY: Do I understand it correctly, there was a way in which you could have become involved in following up this specific information?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If you say there is a certain way and you could become involved, referring to the previous answer, I would say yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: Isn't it then not possible and you have said definitely that you were not involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: During all the applications up to date, many of my old colleagues came to me because my recollection is very good about what happened during that period. I still remember exact dates and really this incident, I really can't recollect this or recall this incident.

JUDGE PILLAY: That might be the case and you really are not able to remember, but does that exclude that you were involved in this incident?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairman, if we are talking about probabilities, I can say that the probability exists that I could have remembered this, but we are not talking about probabilities here.

JUDGE PILLAY: Is there a specific reason why you say that you were not involved, except that you cannot remember?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Well, I can't remember that incident in the first place, and then secondly because I have a very good recollection of what happened during that period and I can say in all honesty that I was not involved.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you are saying is not I can't remember, but I know I was not involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE PILLAY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: From the evidence that we have heard, it wasn't just a casual incident that took place in the charge office, they drove a long way into the country with this man.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is what I have read, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have remembered something like that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Definitely Mr Chairman, because personally I have never been to a residential area near Warmbaths or in Warmbaths. If you ask me where are the townships in Warmbaths, I can't say whether it is north, south, west or east, I do not know the environment.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Please Mr Chairman. Mr Van Jaarsveld, what are your formal qualifications?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairman, BA, BA Honours, MA, MBA.

MR ALBERTS: Can you explain to the Committee when you obtained these degrees?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The BA I achieved in 1978, the Honours in 1981 and the MA in 1984 and the MBA in - just recently, 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when was the first one, the BA?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: 1978 Mr Chairman.

MR ALBERTS: Before you joined the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, you were attached to the Security Headquarters and from there, you went to the Northern Transvaal and there also you completed your career in the Police for all practical purposes?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, in December 1987 I completed my service there and I went back to Headquarters, where I was seconded to the Secretariat of the Security Branch. I was attached in Headquarters and I was seconded as a Military Strategist to the Secretariat of the Security Branch.

MR ALBERTS: When did you resign from the Security Council?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I was transferred, I did not resign, I was transferred from the Security Council on the 1st of March 1988, rather the 1st of April 1988 to the office of the Deputy-Minister Roelf Meyer who was then attached to the Department of Constitutional Development.

MR ALBERTS: But I mean for the present purposes in 1988 or even a bit earlier, you were not involved in Security Policing any more?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Your version to this Committee then is that Unit B of the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal was only involved in investigations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, that is not what I said.

MR ALBERTS: You have emphasised that the investigative work of that unit?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, it is the same responsibilities which A and C also had, but Unit B as I have already said, was attached to him an administrative responsibility, the Operational Unit of Hechter.

MR ALBERTS: And you were outside that unit, if I understand you correctly?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I was not involved in the Operational Unit.

MR ALBERTS: And you were not in command on the Operational Unit of Hechter? Did Hechter ever consult you regarding any operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I have said yes, very often, we were both Officers, we consulted one another. We had daily meetings, all the Officers in the Security Branch and on a weekly basis, we had a divisional meeting where Bronkhorstspruit and other Branches also came in.

MR ALBERTS: But then certainly you were kept up to date not only about what was going on in your unit, but in all other units?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, we knew what was going on in all other units.

MR ALBERTS: And you had information about all other operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I just want to state quickly, operations like those who took place during that time, whether it was counter revolutionary or whether they were Police activities against terrorists, and also combating the UDF strategies and the Security Branch's role in that operational operations, were kept quiet, it was only on a need to know basis. Officers talked to one another, we heard about things, we talked about things, not that we necessarily knew exactly what happened, but in depth information was based on a need to know basis. I think this has been repeated by Cronje and other people in this regard.

MR ALBERTS: You were a senior Officer as far as Captain Hechter was concerned, you were his senior?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, when I arrived at the Security Branch, I was a Lieutenant. He had - hang on a moment, he only became a Lieutenant in March 1985 and in that context, I was his senior yes, although we were of equal rank, I was his senior.

MR ALBERTS: So the answer is yes?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Did you not exercise any command whatsoever over him in respect of any operations in which he was involved, after this so-called Operational Unit was established?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, I did not exercise any command over him.

MR ALBERTS: And also not over Mamasela?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not at all, on the contrary for all intents and purposes, all documentation, Hechter signed himself.

MR ALBERTS: What was the case with Warrant Officer Van Vuuren, did you exercise any command over him?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Van Vuuren fell under my command for a long time, and later when Captain Loots made a reappearance as a Commanding Officer, Paul van Vuuren fell under Jacques Hechter directly.

MR ALBERTS: You are aware of the contents of Messrs Goosen and Momberg's applications?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I am. Not a hundred percent, but I read it, yes.

MR ALBERTS: And it must have been fairly recently that you became aware of the fact that these applications actually exist and that in this particular case, you were incriminated?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: About ten days ago, yes.

MR ALBERTS: Before that you were completely unaware of that fact?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Van Jaarsveld, can we assume that you had no male fides and malicious intent towards Goosen or Momberg as persons?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, you may assume that. We played rugby for the Security Branch on certain occasions, we played cricket upon occasion and we often went to watch cricket as spectators at Centurion Park. I saw Mr Momberg for the first time in ten years this morning, we greeted each other very cordially.

MR ALBERTS: I can give you the assurance that their attitude towards you are the same.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I believe that.

MR ALBERTS: Both of them assure me that they had no reason whatsoever to incriminate you falsely in anything?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I believe that.

MR ALBERTS: You would agree with me that most Policemen and especially those who were involved during the 1980's in the activities of the Security Branch, were people who due to the nature of those activities, are today exposed to criminal as well as civil cases?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And that is a source of concern to all those involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Because - excuse the choice of words - but it could be that there could be very serious consequences for certain individuals as a result of their involvement?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes certainly.

MR ALBERTS: When did you as an individual realise that these potential consequences which are currently in issue, existed for individuals?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I am not a hundred percent sure of what your question exactly is.

MR ALBERTS: Let us approach it in a different way.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Just repeat the question.

MR ALBERTS: What I am asking you is this, today you are aware of the fact that you are all exposed to potentially serious and negative consequences as a result of the involvement in the past?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, which is most unfortunate but we will leave it there.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, when did that realisation actually come to you that it was, when did it become a personal source of concern to you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, it was during 1996 when the former Attorney General of the Transvaal, Dr Jan D'Oliviera summoned me to his office. To give you the exact date, I think it was in August 1996.

MR ALBERTS: Was that your first meeting with the former Attorney General of Transvaal?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR ALBERTS: As far as this issue is concerned?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: To discuss this matter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, what I mean is what my learned friend is referring to is regarding to the total amnesty issue.

MR ALBERTS: No, we are not talking about amnesty. I want to put it to you that long before amnesty became an issue, you were already having discussions with the Attorney General, is that not true?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: About what?

MR ALBERTS: About the involvement of Security Policemen and their activities?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, that is not true. My first discussion was in August 1996 with the Attorney General.

JUDGE PILLAY: And what was the discussion about?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The Attorney General at that stage investigated these allegations, these allegations made by Joe Mamasela and he was preparing himself for a criminal case against Brigadier Cronje and Jacques Hechter. I was implicated and Van Vuuren and Oosthuizen, Gouws, and some others that I can't now recall were implicated, and he called me to his office, along with my Attorney, Mr Meintjies next to me, to try and find out what exactly my involvement was and also to make an offer to me to become a State witness in the Cronje matter.

JUDGE PILLAY: Was that the first time that you found out that investigations were being launched as far as this case is concerned?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: These were the cases surrounding Cronje and Hechter.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did the Policemen never come to you and say look, or just speak to you about these matters?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Long ago, just before the election in 1994, I can't remember the man's name, I think it was Andre - I can't recall his surname - at that stage the political figures tried to push through blanket amnesty and this man whose surname I can't remember but his name is Andre, he came to see me at home on a Sunday afternoon, and he said to me I should also sign this blanket amnesty form, and I refused to do that.

JUDGE PILLAY: This ... (tape ends) ... or his investigators?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Nobody.

JUDGE PILLAY: Something bothers me. What did the then Attorney General, what caused him to think that you could possibly become a State witness?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It was as a result of his approach to the case surrounding Cronje and Hechter, and because I was familiar with the activities and what they had done. The first option was, he wanted to prosecute me as well as an accomplice with Cronje and Hechter, and I think that is why he originally called me in to find out what was going on.

JUDGE PILLAY: He wanted to prosecute you and he called you in?

MR MEINTJIES: If I may intervene here Mr Chairman. As I recollect the whole thing, the Attorney General told Mr Van Jaarsveld to report or be arrested. He was given that choice.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Your wife is attached to the staff, the personnel of the Attorney General, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, and I would like to ask that my learned friend not continue with this line, I think it is not a fair line of questioning to try and involve my spouse in this issue.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Van Jaarsveld, it is a fact I am talking about, it is either true or not?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, she works for the Attorney General.

MR ALBERTS: And since when has she worked for the Attorney General?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: She has been a member of his staff for the past 15 years, I cannot give you an exact date.

MR ALBERTS: What is her post?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: She is the Deputy Attorney General, I am not sure of the new term for that post.

MR ALBERTS: I would just like to concentrate on another aspect for a moment. You were involved in junior rugby at the Harlequins Rugby Club in Pretoria, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, and I still am.

MR ALBERTS: And specifically with pre-school and young children rugby?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, the age group was under 9's to the under 13 age group.

MR ALBERTS: I am not going to belabour this point much, but in all fairness I must say that my instructions from Mr Goosen specifically are that his little boy, during the rugby seasons of 1994 and 1995 was involved at the Club?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is right.

MR ALBERTS: And as result of his involvement, he met you from time to time there?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And you had certain discussions?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, we chatted.

MR ALBERTS: And one of the topics which came up during the discussion with Mr Goosen, who at that stage was still a serving member of the Police Force and specifically in the Security Police, was that you asked him what the Policemen were going to do in connection with this potential or the potential problem facing them all and with specific reference to the Security Police?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, yes, I can remember that Eric and I had such a discussion, but that was referring to the establishment of the Truth and the Amnesty Committee, that was in issue at that stage and especially in the press, in the media and the purpose of it was also spelt out in the press and it was as a result of those happenings, events, that we had this or that I had this discussion with Eric Goosen.

MR ALBERTS: You also specifically asked him what he was planning to do in this connection?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If I have to say yes, I did it, I specifically asked him that, well, I can't remember that, but you know, you chat about a lot of things, so let me say yes.

MR ALBERTS: So are you prepared to accept the truth of that statement?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: It is very clear in any event but perhaps we should just repeat it, you were aware of the fact that Goosen were involved in activities which exposed him, not so?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I was aware that the majority of Policemen in the Security Branch, Pretoria had been involved in things which constituted grounds for an appearance before the Amnesty Committee and in that connection, specifically Goosen.

MR ALBERTS: And you as well?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And you knew that he knew of your involvement?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes of course, because we served together, that is how I explained it earlier.

MR ALBERTS: And especially relating to these clandestine operations which led to all these offences currently before the Commission?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: At that stage you already foresaw that trouble was brewing, it wasn't a secret any more? You knew or foresaw that these things would be revealed and that there would be some kind of action, whether by means of an Amnesty Committee or whether there would be criminal prosecutions, it was no longer a secret?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, but it was spelt out in the press and the media that the Amnesty Committee had been or would be established in terms of the TRC legislature.

MR ALBERTS: And you say that in August of 1996, you became involved with the Attorney General, correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Because you already were under threat of prosecution at that stage?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: You are probably aware of the fact, if I may put it bluntly and in general terms, that the then Attorney General showed particular interest in the people who had been involved at a high level and who had been in decision making posts and positions regarding these offences?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I think that is an assumption which we could make after discussions with the Attorney General, it is a valid inference.

MR ALBERTS: Initially when the Attorney General of the Transvaal started investigating the activities of the Security Police in particular, the emphasis was on establishing what the higher structure of command had been, even as far as the political level was concerned. They wanted to find out who had given authorisation at the highest level?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: For the commission of these offences?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: So the accent or the emphasis at that stage, was not so much on this type of incident which we have before us today where relatively junior people were actually involved in the carrying out of interrogation. That was not the emphasis originally?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Could one then assume that what was of particular interest to the Attorney General at that stage, was to gather information and to gather evidence which would incriminate these people and especially to involve them in incidents which enjoyed wide publicity and well known?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I will concede that.

MR ALBERTS: Such as for instance the Goniwe incident, that incident enjoyed wide publicity over the years. And eventually this process got stuck to a certain extent at the middle management level if I can put it that way, and that would be the level where Brigadier Cronje and the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal, etc, were involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I had already testified that this situation had been a War of the Captains.

MR ALBERTS: And as far as the Attorney General was busy investigating this middle management structure, that was where he started involving people like yourself and your juniors?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is not entirely correct Chairperson, because in the Attorney General's search for the structure of command and lines of authority, what was important was looking for Intelligence regarding the National Intelligence System and how that functioned and with specific reference to Trevits and other organs. And because I had been with the Secretariat for the State Security for a long period, I was important in that regard, and that is why he also approached me in that regard, to help with that.

MR ALBERTS: So your help was specifically required by the Attorney General, slightly under coercion, but it was at that level?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: In other words it didn't concern the smaller operations on the ground?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR ALBERTS: It is no secret that as a result of your negotiations if we could call it that, negotiations with the Attorney General, that you were given the assurance that in exchange for the evidence which you would place at his disposal, you would then receive an indemnity from prosecution?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, I want to make it very clear that there was never such an agreement, there was never an indemnity against prosecution.

JUDGE PILLAY: So what did you mean when you said that you were supposed to be a State witness?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: We have also handed in the documents at a previous occasion and I have the document here on the table, this document was discussed at length in the Eastern Cape where you were also the Presiding Officer, it is a document entitled Top Secret and the name is Secretariat of the State Security Council - ANC Strategies.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, if I can intervene here, I don't think my client understands the question, because he is busy with information regarding the "Staatsveiligheidsraad", if I may call it that for the moment. If I can just confer with him for a moment.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Meintjies has just explained to me that I was going in the direction of the State Security Council, but as far as the prosecution or potential prosecution of the Attorney General regarding Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter, I was given indemnity from prosecution, should I testify in that case, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that have been an indemnity in respect of the events you testified about?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The normal indemnity given to State witnesses?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Is that promise still alive?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I am not sure. I don't know. I don't think it is applicable any longer, because the cases in which I was supposed to testify, well, Hechter and Cronje have already received amnesty for those.

MR MALAN: In any of those cases, the Cronje and Hechter cases to which you referred, did you apply for amnesty in any of those cases in which you were supposed to testify?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR MALAN: In all of them?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: In all of them in which I had an involvement.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: You are now referring to the prosecutions against Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter which took place in 1996 already?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I think it was at the end of 1996.

MR ALBERTS: My information is that those two people had already been in criminal courts before they ever showed their faces before the Amnesty Committee, would you agree with that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct. It was only in November 1996 that the amnesty application started, and I think Mr Du Plessis, next to me, can inform us as to what the exact date was.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I mentioned that during that time, in October 1996, while we were busy arranging with the Truth Commission to apply for amnesty and while we were drawing our amnesty applications, we tried to withhold the fact that we were going to apply for amnesty, from the Attorney General. He got to know of it in the week before the matters were placed on the role. He charged Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter on the Thursday before we would have started with the amnesty applications on the Monday, I think, and they appeared on the Friday morning before the Monday and then the matters were postponed thereafter. Thereafter I think they appeared as far as I can recall, twice during the amnesty process and I am not hundred percent sure, but I think all the matters have been either withdrawn, I am not sure if the charges had been withdrawn at this stage, but that is the impression that I have. In any event, as far as I can recall, they were removed from the role, and they never appeared again. I don't think they appeared in the last year and a half, two years again, on those ...

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I would just like to record my gratitude to my colleague for placing those facts on record. Mr Van Jaarsveld, the point is simply this the Attorney General had obviously progressed quite far in his investigations against these people before they applied for amnesty?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Against Hechter and Cronje?

MR ALBERTS: Yes.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That would appear to be the case.

MR ALBERTS: Did you not become involved with the Attorney General at that very point, when he was busy with these investigations, to try and decide what evidence he had against these people?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: As I said it was in August 1996.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, and that is when you reached this understanding with him, that you would not be prosecuted if you would give evidence against them, for acts in which even yourself had been involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR MALAN: I am sorry, could we just get some clarification, acts in which he had been involved in respect of which prosecution was instituted against Cronje and Hechter, or are you making a wider statement, any acts? Could we just clarify that please?

MR ALBERTS: Any acts in which he could be prosecuted and in which he testified against others, such as for instance Cronje and Hechter?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we come back to the same thing, are you limiting yourself now to acts which he was going to give evidence about, which we dealt with ten minutes ago that he was offered the amnesty that is given to State witnesses? Are you going back to the same point? Do you remember that some time ago he told us that what he was given was an understanding that he would not be prosecuted in connection with cases where he gave evidence, in which he had been involved?

MR ALBERTS: Yes Mr Chairman. Obviously that could only be limited to cases in which he was involved. I mean, otherwise there would be no ...

CHAIRPERSON: In cases in which he gave evidence, we cleared this up I thought, before, that he was not offered a general amnesty in respect of cases in which he was involved. He was offered amnesty in respect of cases which he had been involved in, which he gave evidence against Hechter and Cronje. Didn't he say that?

MR ALBERTS: That was his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Obviously Mr Van Jaarsveld, the Attorney General would also have been interested in evidence which you could give against other people, other people in the Security Police or was it only limited to those two people?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, it was limited to Hechter and Cronje. The Attorney General never approached me afterwards in connection with anything else. On the contrary, he made a request to me in the past couple of days, Dr Pretorius of the Special Investigation Team asked me to help them with an investigation into Trevits. Those were the only words or the only contact I had via my Attorney after our amnesty application had been lodged on the 13th of December 1996.

MR ALBERTS: Perhaps this is an unfair question, but I have to put it to you. In all the cases in which you applied for amnesty, were there charges in respect of those cases also brought against Cronje and Hechter, in which they had been involved obviously?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, there was one specific instance where it was not the case, and that was the Goniwe case.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, but they were not involved in the Goniwe matter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, they weren't.

MR ALBERTS: The cases in which you are applying for amnesty and in which they were also involved, were they also charged by the Attorney General, in respect of those cases?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I don't know.

MR ALBERTS: You don't know?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, I never saw the charge sheets and I never heard about it. I think once again, maybe Mr Du Plessis could help us here.

MR ALBERTS: When did you decide to apply for amnesty?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: This decision was taken in November, no before November, I think it was already in October of 1996. The Attorney General then offered to help us in compiling our applications.

JUDGE PILLAY: Please tell me, did you tell that to the Attorney General, namely that you were intending to apply for amnesty?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It came from his side, he wanted all of us.

JUDGE PILLAY: But what guarantee would he have had that you would in any event testify, because he must have had some kind of a lever against you to keep you within that ambit?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct, but at that stage, when the date for the final lodging of the amnesty applications approached, it was decided in consultation with the Attorney General that I would apply for amnesty. I was not the only State witness, I know of quite a few other State witnesses who also applied for amnesty at that stage.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, if I may intervene here, at the time of the first meeting with the Attorney General, I submitted to the Attorney General that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would stop him in his tracks. He did not agree with me, we came to the agreement with the Attorney General that he would give my client the protection in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, but that we would continue with amnesty applications.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain Van Jaarsveld, the simple fact which I want to determine from you is this, the indemnity or the undertaking which you got from the Attorney General relating to the indemnity, that preceded your decision to apply for amnesty, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It was part of the negotiation as my Attorney has just explained.

MR ALBERTS: Because if you could not reach some agreement with the Attorney General, then certainly it had nothing to do with him at that stage whether you were going to apply for amnesty or not?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, no, it wouldn't, it wouldn't have had anything to do with him.

MR ALBERTS: You first confirmed your situation with him, and then as a result of this agreement which you reached with him, as a result of that, came the applications for amnesty? Is it not as simple as that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: So before you had applied for amnesty, you had already been given the assurance that you would not be prosecuted for acts which you had committed and in respect of which you were to testify against inter alia Cronje and Hechter?

MR MALAN: No Mr Alberts, that was not the evidence. It wasn't amongst others, it was specifically against Cronje and Hechter and he made that very clear that the agreement was not a wider agreement. It did not relate to other matters in which he had been involved. Please.

MR ALBERTS: I beg your pardon Chairperson. The Committee is entirely correct, it was only for acts in respect of which you testified against Hechter and Cronje, that was the express agreement with the Attorney General?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Did you foresee that your involvement could be wider than that, as we already know that those things had been stopped in their tracks by the amnesty applications, and that is why the Attorney General's interest in Cronje and Hechter, did not progress any further, it was as a result of the amnesty procedure?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: But the Attorney General also looked at other possible accused surely?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It wasn't expressly discussed.

MR ALBERTS: But we would be very naive if we didn't assume that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes. If one for instance looks at the Eastern Cape, they tried to bring prosecutions there and elsewhere in the country, it wasn't very successful.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, and would a person not be equally naive if you don't accept and assume that his existing sources of information and witnesses such as yourself, would also have been used in a wider context than just relating to Hechter and Cronje should further prosecutions follow?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If you knew exactly in what kind of things the other people had been involved, yes, because you can't testify about things about which you don't know anything.

MR ALBERTS: No, obviously not, but that at least had been foreseen at that stage?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it any relevant to continue with this debate about the Attorney General's possible practices, he would not as I understand him, use State witnesses whom he had to give indemnity, where he had a cast iron case without them. It would depend entirely on what the Attorney General's investigations had shown to the Attorney General, wouldn't it as to whether he was going to use potential witnesses in other cases or whether he was in fact going to prosecute, because he had a better case against them? The Attorney General's job was to prosecute and obtain convictions, not to help people who had committed offences.

MR ALBERTS: No, most certainly Mr Chairman. I am almost at the point of leaving this line, might I with your permission, just complete the line in a short fashion, I don't want to belabour this point overly Mr Chairman. Mr Van Jaarsveld, you say that you compiled your application for amnesty with the help of the Attorney General's staff?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Myself and my Attorney, Mr Meintjies, prepared the application and it was then submitted to the Attorney General, I think in Cape Town, and they would then submit it in Cape Town.

MR ALBERTS: It would seem to me as if your application was lodged in December 1996?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I think the cut off date was the 3rd or the 13th of December or something like that.

MR ALBERTS: I think it was the 14th, but it doesn't matter.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: It was extended after that, and one can assume it was in December, just before that date?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And then relating to incidents in which you had been given indemnity, you actually had a sort of double guarantee in the sense that you could be granted amnesty on the one hand, and on the other hand, irrespective of whether you received amnesty or not, if you gave satisfactory testimony in court, you would then also be given indemnity for those same acts?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And obviously you would not receive indemnity for things which you did not mention to the Attorney General?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If I had been involved in it, yes.

MR ALBERTS: And that was in terms of your express agreement with the Attorney General?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: So there was no mention of a blanket amnesty or blanket indemnity?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR ALBERTS: And if you did not apply for amnesty for those things not covered by the indemnity, then you still run the risk of being exposed to prosecution, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And that is the case in this incident, is that not so?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If I had been involved in this, yes.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, but you are running the risk of being charged for this if the Attorney General sees fit to prosecute you for it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And you say you can't recall this incident at all, and on that basis and as a result of your recollection, you can state that you were not involved, and you can state that as a fact?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: You would agree with me that everybody's memory is fallible?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Of course, we are all just human.

MR ALBERTS: Correct. In fact, perhaps you contradicted yourself, I don't want to belabour the point, but at some point during your interrogation or questioning this morning, you said that that is probably what happened.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I think one has to be very careful about this. I can't recall the question immediately, but the probability was expressed that a person being human and fallible, could forget things.

MR ALBERTS: And you would concede that you are as fallible as the next man?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If you would look at me, you would see I am just a human being like yourself.

MR ALBERTS: Correct, so the possibility or the probability that you just forgot about this incident, or the possibility can be described as a probability?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Wait a bit, is that fair to say a possibility can be described as a probability that he forgot? Do you concede that it is probable that you forgot or do you think it is unlikely that you forgot?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unlikely.

MR MALAN: Mr Alberts, I didn't react earlier when the issue of probability was first raised when you said that the witness had probably contradicted himself. I thought what had happened was that it was a mere slip of the tongue and that he used possibility instead of probability, but I left it there. I think that it was also conceded that he acknowledged the possibility.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, in all fairness to him, to the witness, I am not taking that point any further, I will accept that his evidence is that it is a possibility and that when he said probability, it is used incorrectly and I will just leave it at that. You were also involved in an operational sense of the word, in the activities of Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct. Not Unit B, the Operational Unit.

MR ALBERTS: Oh, were you also involved in the Operational Unit?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit B was never really operational as a unit, it was an Investigation Unit and there is a very big difference between an Investigation and an Operation.

MR ALBERTS: Are you saying that Unit B never performed any operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit B's staff also participated in the operations.

MR ALBERTS: But you, in whatever capacity you were acting in Unit B, never acted operationally?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not in Unit B, but as part of the Operational Unit, yes.

MR ALBERTS: So you did act operationally?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Whilst you were a member and even the Commanding Officer of Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Does it really matter what complexion we place on your actions, whether you were a member of the Operational Unit or a member of Unit B, does it really matter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I don't think it really matters.

MR ALBERTS: Exactly. So it is not a read distinction, is it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Does that matter?

MR ALBERTS: Yes.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Why?

MR MALAN: No sorry, Mr Alberts, let's not degenerate into a debate. The evidence is that he as an individual also took part in operational activities. Your first question I understood as being, was referring to whether he as a member of Unit B, acted in an operational sense, and his answer was no, not in Unit B, but that he as an individual took part in operations but then as a member of the Operational Unit. Let us not start fighting about that. The answer is if I understand it correctly, that Unit B and Unit A were not Operational Units, but Investigating Units.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Chairperson. Just a moment Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were operating as part of the Operational Unit, would you have been in command?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who would have?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The Commanding Officer of the Operational Unit.

MR MALAN: And in this period that would have been Hechter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: So what you are actually then saying is that for purposes of operations in which you had been involved, carried out by the Operational Unit, you were therefore subordinate to Captain Hechter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct, I also testified earlier that that had been clarified at an earlier with the Committee that our ranks were similar, we were both Captains, but where it was his command unit, then I with a similar rank would have fallen under his command, as far as chronological status was concerned, my rank was older. But there was an Officer and gentleman relationship between us.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, might I just be permitted to take a brief instruction from my clients as this point? I don't ask for an adjournment. Mr Van Jaarsveld, just as a point of clarification in respect of the Operational Unit within Unit B of the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal, Messrs Goosen and Momberg says that they were not aware, to this day, of such an independent unit. All the members of Unit B were seen by them as members of Unit B, in other words as far as their knowledge was concerned, there was no such distinction between Unit B on the one hand and an Operational Unit within that unit.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, that could be correct that they were not aware of that distinction. As I said earlier Hechter and Mamasela fell administratively speaking within Unit B, but for operational purposes, command and reporting, they fell directly under Brigadier Cronje and they did not work through the Commanding Officer of Unit B, but they worked directly. So for people who were not involved in Unit B and not directly belong to the Operational Unit if you can call it a unit, they would not be aware of such a thing, yes.

MR ALBERTS: So they can be forgiven for their ignorance in this regard as far as you are concerned?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I don't think it is a question of forgiveness for their ignorance, they simply weren't aware of that fact.

MR MALAN: It sounds as if your client is very grateful for forgiveness on one point at least.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Van Jaarsveld, I assume that it would then also be logical that all the logistical support, etc, which the Operational Unit so-called, which it needed, was that which was provided by Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, that is not one hundred percent correct. Once again, administratively speaking, yes, but logistically speaking they had their own structures. I know they had their own vehicles somewhere on a farm or smallholding outside Pretoria and things like that. So logistically speaking, they looked after themselves. Administratively speaking, you would be correct.

MR ALBERTS: Now what about minibuses and vans which they operated with, wasn't it just busses belonging to Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, there were more than one minibus van in the Branch and it simply was a case of which vehicle was available, Unit C and all the units had transport, busses.

MR ALBERTS: Are you saying Unit A did not have minibuses?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I can't recall whether they ever had a minibus.

MR ALBERTS: Their testimony earlier was that Unit A did not have a bus?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I don't think they had any need for a bus.

MR ALBERTS: But Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unit B had minibuses and they had the most minibuses.

MR ALBERTS: And then Unit C also had them, but they had fewer?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, I really think there is not much in that difference.

MR ALBERTS: And I think the minibuses used, were Unit B's busses?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not in all cases, Unit C's minibuses were also used by Hechter and Mamasela. If Unit B's minibuses were not available, then they simply used the other unit's bus where a bus was needed for a specific operation.

MR ALBERTS: And your personal vehicle was also used on occasion?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: You had a vehicle with false Lesotho registration plates?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And that vehicle was also used for certain operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes. But the driver of the vehicle wasn't necessarily always in the vehicle, or the owner of the vehicle wasn't always in the vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: But if we could call you the owner of a car, as far as your vehicle was used, you would be aware of that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: You would be aware of the fact that it was used for an operation?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Where it was my personal car, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just make this quite clear, you are talking about your personal car? Did you have a personal minibus?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR ALBERTS: I may just mention to you for what it is worth, Mr Van Jaarsveld, that my clients, Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg incriminate you as far as three cases are concerned, three cases where they are applying for amnesty and today's session deals with the first of these cases. Yesterday there was another case in which you were also being incriminated by them, and there is also a third matter in this application. However, it seems as if that matter will not lead to a hearing, but will be dealt with in some other way by the Committee. Are you aware of that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, my Attorney is informing me that that is the Pienaarsriver case, that is this one, and then there is something about a house in Soshanguve.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, that is correct. For record purposes I may mention that the Soshanguve case can be found in this Bundle, I think it is Bundle 2 in which Goosen's application also appears, on page 410 of that Bundle. I assume that you haven't yet had the opportunity of reading what is said about you in that context, that is now relating to the Soshanguve incident?

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, if I may intervene here, I must object to us looking at another incident at this moment in time, before any evidence has been led in everything.

CHAIRPERSON: Why, he is questioning him as to his credibility?

MR ALBERTS: Am I correct Mr Van Jaarsveld, in my assumption that you haven't yet personally read that incident?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, you are.

MR ALBERTS: Have you discussed the matter with your Attorney yet?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: He mentioned it to me, but I haven't yet really read it in any detail.

MR ALBERTS: In so far as he has mentioned it to you, what is your view on the matter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I can't have a point of view, because I haven't yet read the applications, I am not fully informed to what is said there.

MR ALBERTS: Well, then I will have to ask the Committee to ask you the opportunity to look at it briefly, but I will leave it there for the moment. Mr Goosen in his application, also refers to - and this is on page 322 of the application - in the same bundle, Bundle 2, paragraph 5.9.3, it is a fairly short paragraph, I may just read it to you and then you can tell me what your comment is. It is part of the general information which he gives in the preamble to his application regarding his personal experiences in the Police during the period, during the relevant period. He says inter alia in this paragraph and you must pardon me if you feel I am quoting this out of context, I think you have the Bundle in front of you. I just want to read it -

That is the end of that particular sub-paragraph. What is your comment in general on the allegations contained in this?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I remember this specific incident Chairperson, but with all deference to my friend, Eric, I think his memory failed him a bit in this instance, but I remember this incident.

MR ALBERTS: What do you mean by that? Are you saying that it didn't take place as he says it took place?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, his facts aren't hundred percent correct and I can just mention it to you. The incident took place in a street, we were driving along the street, he was in the vehicle with me and there was also Sergeant Vani Coetzer, there were two vehicles driving along and petrol bombs were being exploded and we turned around, it was near the church, he is right as far as that is concerned, and it was then that the vehicle was stoned and petrol bombs were also hurled at us. We were in a life threatening situation and the instruction which I gave, was to shoot at the attackers. That is correct, those are the facts.

MR MALAN: Can you recall that, was there a shooting incident?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, there was shooting, but whether Eric himself, shot, or fired any shots, that I cannot recall. If he says that he didn't fire any shots, I will accept that, but I know that shots were fired, because there was an Alfa motor car, a wreck alongside the road and at a later occasion, we went out there because the Unit 1, the Riot Unit, also fired shots in that area later that day and people were killed, and we just went to point out where we had fired our shots because the red Alfa had been damaged by our bullets.

MR ALBERTS: You say you gave the order to shoot at the attackers?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Who were these attackers?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: They were youths. I am not talking about children this high, the speaker is indicating, I am talking about 17, 18, 19 year old youths.

MR ALBERTS: So you say that Goosen has an incorrect recollection of the facts?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes. I am just actually giving you more facts about the story, about the event.

MR ALBERTS: Did you also fire shots?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And what were the results of that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: There were no results, the children then dispersed. We never received any feedback or report back that anybody had been hit.

MR ALBERTS: Are you sure you are not getting confused with another incident in which you also personally fired shots?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I am quite certain, fairly certain.

MR ALBERTS: Because Mr Goosen says that he is not so sure, but we can leave the matter there. You admit that there was such an incident and that you were involved, and that you gave this order and that Goosen did not carry it out?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I can't recall or I can't say whether he carried it out or not, but shots were fired.

MR MALAN: Mr Alberts, is your client's version that there were no shots fired that day, is that your instruction?

MR ALBERTS: May I just take instructions? Mr Van Jaarsveld, my instructions in this regard is the following, to put it to you that in this particular incident, Mr Goosen says that Coetzer was not present, he was not in the car, it was just the two of you and that no shots were fired that day and that he was never involved in an incident in Mamelodi in which shots were fired from a vehicle and during which other vehicles were damaged, I think he is referring to the Alfa that you mentioned. Would you dispute that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, I wouldn't dispute it. I just can't say where we are heading because - never mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, is it true or not? You have said that he was involved in an incident in Mamelodi where shots were fired, he said he wasn't. Is that true?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairperson, I said that and I stand by that.

MR ALBERTS: Just to get back to another incident, can we accept that your attitude towards the Pienaarsriver incident is that you also were not involved in that in any way and you have no knowledge of that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Unequivocally I say not at all.

MR ALBERTS: So you have the same attitude?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: So in as far as you are incriminated or implicated by Mr Goosen, Mr Momberg and as far as the Pienaarsriver incident is concerned, also by Captain Prinsloo, you deny all involvement?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Categorically yes.

MR ALBERTS: Although you concede the possibility that your memory might also be failing you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not in that case.

MR ALBERTS: But in the case of the security guard?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: As we discussed it, yes, the possibility.

MR ALBERTS: Just to get back to one general statement, Mr Van Jaarsveld, I am sure you would agree with me that in cases where - specifically in this one case with which we are currently dealing, cases where you are potentially at risk of prosecution if you had in fact been involved, that would give you a possible motive to deny your involvement?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, if that was my idea, I would really be a very stupid person.

MR ALBERTS: May I lastly ask you another question. I suppose you know that Captain Hechter also says that he doesn't remember this incident at all, he can't remember it at all?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I know that Captain Hechter does have a problem with his memory.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, and as a result of that problem, that he can't recall this incident. But he does not deny Goosen and Momberg's version? He doesn't deny it because ...

CHAIRPERSON: He's got a problem with his memory and he says I can't deny it, I just don't remember things. There is medical evidence that he is suffering from a defect.

MR ALBERTS: I am aware of that Mr Chairman. But that is his attitude about that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as I am concerned, it certainly doesn't add any credibility whatsoever to their versions, a man saying I have a total memory lapse, so it might have happened, I can't deny it.

MR ALBERTS: That is not the point to the question, with respect, Mr Chairman, but I hear what you are saying.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that was what you were putting to him, you were saying Hechter accepts what they said. But he didn't really accept anything, he says I can't deny, didn't he? I don't know.

MR ALBERTS: That is correct. I am merely putting what Hechter's attitude is, to the witness. So are you happy that you understand what Hechter's attitude is?

MR MALAN: Mr Alberts, with respect, he explained to you why he is happy. He says he is aware of the fact that Mr Hechter has a memory problem. Please, it really isn't necessary to repeat it over and over.

MR ALBERTS: Nevertheless, on that basis Hechter applied for amnesty in respect of this specific incident, are you aware of that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And if you had known in 1996 that you were being implicated amongst others, in this incident, what would your attitude have been then?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: The same as it is today.

MR ALBERTS: Would you have gone to the trouble of contacting the two applicants and telling them that they are making a mistake or that they were lying?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: You are actually putting words in my mouth, you are mentioning the word lying, that is not my attitude towards the two applicants. I want to make it very, very clear, but if I was aware of it earlier, I probably - maybe I would have contacted them and we would have sat down and I would have said maybe you are confusing the issue here, maybe you are thinking of somebody else. I want to put it to you very clearly that I was often confused with two or three other people in the Security Police, where people used my name and it turned out to be somebody else. It was this Captain Hendrik Prinsloo, if you look at the profile, the dark features and also Paul van Vuuren. There was often confusion between us, people confused us. If the applicants had mentioned this earlier, we could have sat down and tried to find out who exactly had accompanied them on that day.

MR ALBERTS: So you would have tried to solve this whole thing if you had become of it earlier?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Of course, I am not angry with them or they with me, that was made clear right at the outset today. We made it clear that there was an amicable relationship between us.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, and they appreciate that Mr Van Jaarsveld. Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. Thank you Mr Van Jaarsveld.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment at this stage.

ON RESUMPTION:

JAAP VAN JAARSVELD: (still under oath)

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, please excuse me for being late. Might I just inform you that at this stage - during the adjournment I received certain information which might be relevant to the present inquiry, I should be in a position to finally determine whether that is relevant or not relevant and I will inform you accordingly by two o'clock this afternoon. Might I, in the circumstances, it might involve a further witness, might I in the circumstances request you to have my cross-examination of the witness, Mr Van Jaarsveld, stand down until then? Obviously I have no objection if any further cross-examination follows at this stage?

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, Mr Van Jaarsveld has got a definite problem with this afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Under these circumstances, I think that we should perhaps just continue now and then leave the matter and if you get information that you think justifies calling him again, you can make an application to do so. You said at the moment, you are waiting to receive instructions. If those instructions are such, because it may well be that evidence is, further evidence is led in the other hearing, the next one that we are proceeding with, which may necessitate Mr Van Jaarsveld coming back to give evidence in that, you have briefly mentioned it here, but it may well be, so I think we should just continue now and then see what happens and if necessary, we have been told Mr Van Jaarsveld has problems today, he was called today to suit our convenience, so he was not given very much notice, so I think we might have to meet his convenience, so we will go on with the evidence now unless information is suddenly coming, your clients have just come back, I wondered if they had come back with information.

MR ALBERTS: No Mr Chairman, they are not the source of that information at this stage. Obviously I have no objection whatsoever to as far as the convenience of Mr Van Jaarsveld is concerned, and I will do whatever is necessary to accommodate him in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, so let's continue then.

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I am not representing any clients that were involved in the first day incident, the security guard, but may I ask the Committee's indulgence to put just a couple of questions, it won't be longer than five minutes, relating to an aspect to which the witness testified which will become relevant in respect of a matter which will be heard later in the week in which one of my applicants are involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Van Jaarsveld not involved in that matter?

MR ROSSOUW: No, he is not involved, but it deals with the workings inside the Security Branch and the need to know principle to which he testified.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is of general application to all the cases?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, carry on.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Jaarsveld, you have testified that as far as the operations of the Operational Unit, let's call it the consequences or the planning of such operations, were done on a need to know basis, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: I want to ask you then if an operation is executed, would the consequences if somebody came to know about it during an Officers' meeting, would you discuss that there?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: What happened during an Officers' meeting, what we discussed there is that it was mentioned that an incident had taken place, if they knew our people were involved, they would not mention that members of the Security Branch executed this operation, but they had to report about that to Headquarters.

MR ROSSOUW: Junior Officers were not present there?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR ROSSOUW: Then would you find it strange or would you find it not strange if in a situation where there is a petrol bomb attack on a house and later on it appeared from a Police report, that somebody had been killed, the people who executed that operation, did not know that somebody had been killed in such an operation?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It would be difficult Mr Chairman, that the people could always know about what the consequences were. Were they junior Officers, it was the case especially. If it was mentioned during an Officers' meeting, it would not have been mentioned that the Police were involved, and if somebody had been killed, it would be discussed there, but on a need to know basis, those who were involved, would not be informed.

MR ROSSOUW: And in such a unit, they would know if it was discussed, but this need to know principle, am I correct in stating that it was strictly applied to prevent that any leakages occurred and that people should know that Police were involved in clandestine operations? That was a principle drilled into Security Police.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman, but it was one of those anomalies in the Police, but need to know was sustained on an official level, but when people met informally like at a "braaivleis", they discussed these matters. So need to know was officially applied, but otherwise things were discussed.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Van Jaarsveld. Mr Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, I take it you have no questions?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, I am not involved in the first application, thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have just a few questions, Mr Alberts actually dealt with the issues, some of the issues that I wanted to deal with. Mr Van Jaarsveld, I want to ask you a few questions to clarify the issues regarding Unit A, B and C. You refer to an Operational Unit of which Hechter was the senior or Commanding Officer, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, you have also at previous occasions in the past, said that Brigadier Hechter and Cronje, you confirmed the evidence that Cronje said they should fire with fire, if they threw bombs, we had to throw bombs?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: This is also applicable in this case and you also testified that that was part of the counter revolutionary strategy which was operational at that stage or was put into operation by the government?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words, you, Captain Viktor, Brigadier Viktor's son and Captain Hechter received this instruction and you testified what the date was, it was the 12th of February 1986, and leading from that, Mr Van Jaarsveld, it happened that in practice there were certain people who started to put this operation, this instruction into operation. Will it be correct to say that Captain Hechter took the lead in this regard?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: He was the person, he is the person who from a motivational point of view, was the strongest person or the best equipped to do this kind of work, it was not you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, certainly not.

MR DU PLESSIS: It was not Captain Viktor either?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: And he, like in the evidence in the Cronje/Hechter hearings, he had a few people who assisted him?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I think Paul van Vuuren's evidence was that if you put it in a journalistic manner, they were the hit-squads of the Security Branch in the Northern Transvaal.

MR VAN JAARSVELD: They were actually the Security Branch's MK's.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the core of this group of people was Hechter, Van Vuuren and Mamasela?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: And they were also involved in most of these incidents?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this also appears from their evidence and their applications. And if you talk about this Operational Unit, these are the people you are actually referring to?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: But from the nature of this Operational Unit, it was not incorporated in the formal structures, is that correct?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because they were involved in clandestine operations? Because they couldn't call them Unit D and give them separate offices and a separate administrative system, so they also formed part of Unit B for administrative purposes?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is what I meant, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the work they were doing, was extra work on top of the other work they were doing in Unit B, but now and then cases occurred where other people were also involved or went on operations, is it correct to say that in the Security Branch, in the units in which you were involved, there were people who were more suited for these type of operations, more suited than other people?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is true, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: They could handle it better?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, physically as well as mentally.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Brigadier Cronje also testified to this regard. You were not here, rather, the day before yesterday, and his evidence was as I understand it, that Goosen and Momberg were suitable people for these type of operations, they could handle it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Certainly yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: They would not run away if somebody shot at them, they would not get frightened, they wouldn't do wrong things, they would be cool-headed and Mr Chairman, I am doing this for purposes of giving you a broad overview because I know all the applications and what they involve and so on, so I know who was involved, and I am trying to give you a broad overview. In certain instances, other people were also used for certain operations, as we can gather from Goosen and Momberg's applications, they were involved in other operations. Now and then Hechter told them that he needed them for operations, do you agree that it could be that they were required because Hechter, Van Vuuren and Mamasela, the three of them, were not enough to execute a certain operation and they needed more members?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That was the case, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Or that other people were not available and they were taken along? The question of whether they were members of Unit A, B or C, was not relevant?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Not at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the other people who went on these clandestine hit-squads operations, were among others Hendrik Bokaba?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: In which unit was he, also Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If I can remember correctly, Unit B.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Slang, that is Danny Hlehlali?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I am not certain, I am not certain myself.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then there was Colonel Flip Loots?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: He was from Unit B.

MR DU PLESSIS: Also from Unit B? And there was Mamasela and Van Vuuren also from Unit B?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Captain Johan Viktor?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Johan Viktor was from the Detective Branch.

MR DU PLESSIS: Oh, he was not from the Security Branch. And then also Goosen and Momberg, they were the people who were mostly involved in these clandestine operations regarding the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Here and there other names appear, but these people were mostly used?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember then whether there was not a good relationship between Captains Hechter and Prinsloo?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, does that mean there was a good relationship or not?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, there wasn't a good relationship.

MR DU PLESSIS: And they did not cooperate very well?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would you agree with the statement that Captain Hechter would not have approached Prinsloo or somebody working under Prinsloo to go on an operation?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No the relationship between Hechter and Prinsloo was of such a nature, they did not even talk to one another.

MR DU PLESSIS: But for purposes of such an operation, it did not really matter whether if you refer to a clandestine operation, an illegal operation, it does not matter from which unit these people came, what was important was who could do this work and who was capable of doing this type of work?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You would also agree with me that this type of operation, it was not talked about?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: As I have said, we did not talk about it a lot. The people in the field reported about something and said something happened, they did not know who were involved.

MR DU PLESSIS: Sometimes they did not know at all, but there was this core group of people where you can also be included, who knew about these type of operations and about what happened? In other words you would have heard afterwards of a specific incident in which you were not involved, but you heard what had happened. So it happened with the other people too? It was like a core group, an informal hit-squads and these people informally, they played rugby, they had a braai, they played cricket and naturally Brigadier Cronje was the Commanding Officer of all these three units and he was also aware of the activities of these internal group?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Definitely, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words it is not strange that Momberg and Goosen, forget about what you say about your involvement, that Momberg and Goosen accompanied Hechter and Mamasela on this operation?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, definitely not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because they were from another unit, it is not strange?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, definitely not. The fact that they were under Hechter's command, is not strange.

MR DU PLESSIS: And naturally it is not strange that Hechter and Mamasela were involved?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Chairman, I may just point out, I tried to find out from Captain Hechter in which unit Slang, Danny Hlehlali, was and I will present you with that information the moment I get it. I may mention that Bokaba made amnesty applications as you know, Loots did as well, Viktor did, but Hlehlali for some reason or other, has not applied for amnesty.

MR PRINSLOO: No questions Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: I just want to understand this core group concept, Mr Van Jaarsveld. You have said this core group included the people who played rugby, cricket and who had braai's. If I understand you correctly, you said in the beginning that the two applicants opposite you, Momberg and Goosen played cricket and rugby with you and had braai's with you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct yes.

MR MALAN: Do you include them then in this core group?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Definitely yes.

MR MALAN: So they knew everything about all these developments, you said the core group knew about these operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Let me put it this way, we did not discuss everything in detail, but we know that everybody was busy with something here and there.

JUDGE PILLAY: What is the purpose of having such discussions as they did not know what it was all about?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: If you have social gatherings, meet socially, I have often thought about this principle why there are leakages of information, when you are in a specific group, you talk about things, because it is a place where you can talk about these things.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why do you speak about it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Sometimes details are given, sometimes you just mention that something had been done.

JUDGE PILLAY: But then are kept abreast about what had happened, if somebody had been killed, they know?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes. They knew what was going on.

MR MALAN: Was the core group then the source of the Operational Unit, Hechter's Operational Unit?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, not necessarily. The operational information worked on the principle that it came through the units and then it was carried forward to the Operational Unit, always under instruction of Brigadier Cronje and he said get Hechter.

MR MALAN: Was Hechter part of the core group?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR MALAN: Was Brigadier Cronje part of the core group or was he outside that group?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: He was often with us, he was a good Commanding Officer, he spent time with his men in the field.

JUDGE PILLAY: He also watched cricket with you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Definitely yes.

MR MALAN: The decision to take certain actions, that is the implementation which you mentioned on reaction on Mr Du Plessis' questions, and this instruction that you have to fight fire with fire, that was used in Hechter's Operational Unit and this was extended to the core group as well?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: So many things were happening at the same time, and Hechter and them required assistance, they just had two or three people too little and other people were involved to cooperate and they formed the core group.

MR MALAN: Did Hechter decide all by himself what to do or did he act on instructions?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, I don't think there was a blanket instruction to do whatever you wanted to do.

MR MALAN: Who would then give him instructions?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: To kill somebody for example, his instructions he obtained from Brigadier Cronje.

MR MALAN: Would he clear that with him, would he get approval or would he get instructions? He would not go with suggestions or propositions himself?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Inn other cases where Mamasela conveyed some information, and it was conveyed directly to Hechter and Hechter would convey that information to Cronje with a certain proposal and then the instruction would come.

MR MALAN: And during these Officers' meetings, there were no reports about the execution of operations?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR MALAN: In other words whether you were part of the core group, it was not reported to you what had been done because other Officers were there? To whom were these reports made?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: To Brigadier Cronje.

MR MALAN: Directly through Hechter?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, regarding the success of the operation, what had happened there, and otherwise the information would have come through the usual sources, to tell them something had happened, who was responsible, who executed this. This information was not made available there.

MR MALAN: It was not put to you, but Mr Meintjies would have put it to you and I am following up, based on Mr Alberts' question. Mr Momberg and or Mr Goosen testified that you would have given an instruction to shoot this unknown person at that instance. Was that conveyed to you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: I read that yes.

MR MALAN: And it was also testified that he refused to do that, Mr Goosen said he refused to do that and he did that because he knew, he saw that Hechter did not agree with that instruction?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is what I have read in the application.

MR MALAN: The impression I could gather from that evidence and I will look at the record again, is that Goosen was under the impression that Hechter was under your command. I am just putting it to you, that was my impression. If this was an operation, would you have been under the command of Hechter, or Hechter under command of you?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Operationally I would work under Hechter, always, that is how it worked.

MR MALAN: And if you gave instructions, would Hechter resist that if he didn't agree with that, he would not only keep quiet?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Definitely not.

MR MALAN: We have two pieces of evidence provided by Mr Goosen and we heard about the evidence regarding the Mamelodi incident where he was given instruction to shoot and he refused to shoot. Did you ever experience something like that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Mr Chairman, I have also said that I have never heard, or let me put it in this way, there were shots fired. Mr Goosen never physically refused to shoot.

MR MALAN: Were you ever refused by anybody to shoot?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No.

MR MALAN: You can't remember that any junior Officer refused to shoot when you gave the instruction?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: No, it didn't work like that.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, just for purposes of the questions of Mr Malan, may I perhaps just ask Captain Van Jaarsveld one or two questions, just to put certain things into perspective, flowing from the previous evidence at the Cronje hearings? There is just one thing that concerns me, that I want to rectify. Captain Van Jaarsveld, evidence was led by Brigadier Cronje and Hechter that there were instances where Hechter made the decisions because decisions had to be taken quickly and then afterwards he only took that up with Cronje and got approval?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: It could happen like that. He did not report back to me, so I can't say a hundred percent.

MR DU PLESSIS: So it was not a question that Hechter always got Cronje's permission or approval?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: In this core group then, it was not a question that everybody knew everything at all stages, in other words Goosen and Momberg did not know about the Ribeiro incident for example, as an example?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Perhaps not, ten to one, not.

MR DU PLESSIS: There were certain operations where - Hechter, Mamasela and Van Vuuren which nobody knew about, except Brigadier Cronje?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the position and please correct me if I am wrong, in these times, the instructions that would come from Cronje for example, might be in very general terms, he would tell Hechter, look, go out and sort this out and then Hechter would decide precisely what he was going to do about it?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Just for my information and please excuse me Mr Chairman, if a senior Officer tells you sort out this problem, we have problems, would you regard it as an instruction to go and do something?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Taken into consideration the circumstances of the time, and the counter revolutionary strategies which were put into operation, you could take such an instruction and view it in this regard.

MR MALAN: In other words the political comment like the Police must get the country into order, that could be taken as an instruction? Was that how you interpreted that?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: Yes, you had to do things but you had to use your discretion.

MR MALAN: That is exactly the point, use your discretion. Was that where the instructions from the top came? I am still trying to decide where this political instruction from the President came right down the hierarchy?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: This is very interesting, if you look at how the media and the politicians played as well.

MR MALAN: I don't want to investigate this matter any further, I am just trying to determine whether that was the relationship between Cronje and Hechter or would Cronje make sure about the details with the reports to him, then based on the information contained in the report, he will make a decision and then approve a strategic plan?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: This example you are giving, is a military example. The Police was a quasi-Military Force, but the Police did not have all those skills to work like this.

MR MALAN: They assaulted a person, somebody, till he said he was a crocodile.

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that concludes your evidence for the moment. We have been told that you will not be available this afternoon. I take it that if Mr Alberts decides that he does want to put certain further questions to you, clear up certain issues, arrangements can be made that you will come back, so we can do that through you, can we?

MR MEINTJIES: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. I am afraid that is the best we can do for you at the moment, Mr Alberts.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, that suffices and I just want to convey my personal appreciation for the willingness of Mr Van Jaarsveld and his legal representative, to cooperate in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: I thank you. You may be excused.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, may I just be excused for a moment myself, I just want to find out what my client's schedule is for the next few days in case - thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Right, we go back to Pienaarsriver. Had we completed Mr Momberg's evidence?

MR ALBERTS: I was under the impression yesterday, yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: My notes appear to confirm that, and that is my recollection. Who is the next person giving evidence in this regard?

APPLICATION NO: AM 4907

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call the applicant H.J. Prinsloo, Mr Chairman.

HENDRIK J. PRINSLOO: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: We commence at page 961 and the relevant incident appears on page 949 of Bundle 4 and commences up to page 951 and then as far as the political background motivation is concerned, that appears in the same Bundle as from page 955 Mr Chairman, up to page 961. In addition to that Mr Chairman, Exhibit A which was handed in yesterday at the commencement of the proceedings, it is a supplement to the incident itself. May I commence Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Prinsloo, you are an applicant in this matter, regarding the Pienaarsriver incident?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: During this incident, you were a member of the South African Police Service and you were a member of the Security Branch?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Committee, at that stage, how many years service you had with the Security Branch?

MR PRINSLOO: About ten years, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And what was your rank?

MR PRINSLOO: I was a Captain at that stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: Were you a Captain or a Lieutenant in 1986?

MR PRINSLOO: In 1986?

ADV PRINSLOO: This incident allegedly took place in 1986.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage I was a Lieutenant.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, your application is contained in Bundle 4 as I have already explained to the Committee, is that correct, and at a certain stage you have added alterations, after a request have been made by the Truth Commission. I just want to read one paragraph, it is dated the 25th of March 1999 -

CHAIRPERSON: What are you reading from?

ADV PRINSLOO: I am reading from a letter from the Amnesty Committee from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Mr Chairman. I can hand in the letter itself. May it be referred to Mr Chairman, as Exhibit A1 as the statement is referred to as Exhibit A? In response to that, there was a letter submitted by my colleague, Louisa van der Walt, which I will also read into the record and it refers to this incident -

This was signed by Louisa van der Walt. It would be Exhibits A1 and A2 with your leave, Mr Chairman. I also have copies available Mr Chairman, may I just send them up.

CHAIRPERSON: I am returning the originals to you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I proceed Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Prinsloo, is it correct that after this letter from the Truth Commission, you have made a further statement, which is now Exhibit A?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And do you confirm the correctness of that statement?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, during that time you were a Lieutenant in the Security Branch, you were involved in the Security Branch since 1976?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: As far as this specific incident, you have already listened to evidence that - is it correct that you were contacted by telephone by Brigadier Cronje and that you met him somewhere?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And that telephone call, was that during the day or in the evening?

MR PRINSLOO: It was in the evening.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where did you meet Brigadier Cronje then?

MR PRINSLOO: I met Brigadier Cronje at the Silverton police station, not on the premises, but next to the police station, there was a big tree and under the tree was a kombi and that is where I met Brigadier Cronje.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did Brigadier Cronje give you instructions there, what happened?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, Brigadier Cronje told me that there was an MK member in the vehicle, that he had certain information about where other MK members were hiding in Mamelodi as well as one or two safe houses in the Mamelodi vicinity and this MK member was willing to identify that.

ADV PRINSLOO: The other members there in this kombi, were they from your unit or not?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: To which unit were you attached?

MR PRINSLOO: I was attached to Unit C. Unit C at that stage had to trace MK and Apla terrorists and infiltrators, and to investigate terrorism like bomb explosions and assassinations and also gathering Intelligence regarding such infiltrators and activists and also their activities in the country.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, for which reason, why did Brigadier Cronje contact you?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage I thought it was because of my knowledge regarding ANC activities, especially in the Division Northern Transvaal and also my background regarding the operational methods of MK and also the suspects in the region Northern Transvaal, and there were also hangers on or sympathisers - were known as hangers on or sympathisers.

ADV PRINSLOO: Up to that stage, were you involved in various investigations and tracing of people known as terrorists and hangers on?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And did you use informers at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: As far as this specific incident, this person to whom we refer to as the deceased, did you know who he was or did you know about his arrest?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, only when I had arrived at Silverton police station with Cronje and the other members, it appeared to me that this person had been arrested. I was not aware that he was being detained as a terrorist because these detentions were also under my command according to legislation.

ADV PRINSLOO: According to what you could determine, by whom was this person arrested?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I saw Captain Van Jaarsveld there and also Tiny Coetzer, they were members of Unit B at the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal and from what Brigadier Cronje told me that Van Jaarsveld's unit picked up this MK person, this is a Police term, picked up, it means arrested. I inferred that Van Jaarsveld and his unit arrested this person based on Intelligence they have received.

ADV PRINSLOO: If this person had been arrested or picked up by another unit, would it have been conveyed to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: During the normal course of your activities, would it have been brought under your unit's attention if a person like this person, if he had been arrested, would it have been brought under your attention?

MR PRINSLOO: Depending on the circumstances Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: You have already testified that it was mentioned to you that this person had certain Intelligence or that this person was involved with other MK members. What happened afterwards?

MR MALAN: Can I just go back to the previous question, you have asked your client whether such an arrest would have been brought under his attention and he said under certain circumstances yes, and you have just left it there.

ADV PRINSLOO: What do you mean by certain circumstances Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, there were clandestine operations happening all the time, people were picked up or arrested and these people were not treated according to the specifications of security legislation. For example they were charged under the Criminal Procedures Act and they were perhaps transferred to other units where these people were wanted. It was purely an administrative action and I would not know about that, only later on, they would have informed me about such a person and the basis and the circumstances under which he was arrested and that will be based on the information obtained from this person.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, in this specific incident it was the first time, at the Silverton police station, that you heard about this person?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE PILLAY: What did you come to know about this person there?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman what I have just said is that this person was an MK member, he had information where other MK members were in Mamelodi and he knew about where safe houses were in Mamelodi.

MR MALAN: Just before you continue Mr Prinsloo. Mr Prinsloo, did you listen to Mr Van Jaarsveld's evidence previously during the cross-examination?

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we only came in right at the end.

MR MALAN: Then you can continue.

ADV PRINSLOO: Before we start with the incident itself, can you tell the Committee who were the members at that stage, the members of Unit B?

MR PRINSLOO: I can remember Tiny Coetzer, Sergeant Coetzer at that stage, Captain Van Jaarsveld, I can remember them specifically. This vehicle that was standing there, belonged to Unit B, it was a white kombi, a Hi-Ace kombi.

ADV PRINSLOO: And a person by the name of Slang, did you know him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I know him as Danny Hlehlali, he was a member of Unit B, he was a member of Captain Van Jaarsveld's unit.

ADV PRINSLOO: You said that this vehicle belonged to Unit B. Could it happen that other units made use of your vehicles or vice versa?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, mostly in two or three cases because we operated clandestine especially when we were involved in tracing terrorist deeds and for security reasons and also when you had to contact informers, you did not easily make your vehicles available for use to other people because you could place your own people in jeopardy, perhaps they could be killed in future and people could come to know them as people from the Security Branch.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Momberg and Mr Goosen, two other applicants, did you see them there that evening?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Momberg, to which unit was he attached?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can remember, he and Goosen, Momberg and Goosen, were attached to Unit A.

ADV PRINSLOO: Brigadier Cronje was the Overall Commanding Officer?

MR PRINSLOO: He was the Divisional Commanding Officer of the Northern Transvaal Branch.

ADV PRINSLOO: To come back to this incident, the kombi was there and what happened then?

MR PRINSLOO: I got into the kombi and this MK member was sitting behind the back seat and the back door, sitting on the carpet. Whether he was sitting or whether he was laying down, I can't remember, but I told him to climb over to the back seat, and he was then sitting between me and Captain Momberg.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then did you drive to Mamelodi from there?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct yes. After I started interrogating this person, I tried to get some background information from him.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue. You mentioned this climbing over, this person was sitting or laying there, were his hands or feet tied?

MR PRINSLOO: Not as far as I can remember because he climbed over to the back seat all by himself, it was a small space between the back seat and the back door.

MR MALAN: So you can't remember that his was handcuffed or that his feet or hands were wound?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I can't remember that.

ADV PRINSLOO: This person was sitting between you and Momberg and you then drove to Mamelodi?

MR PRINSLOO: That is so.

ADV PRINSLOO: What happened then?

MR PRINSLOO: While I was interrogating this person, I gave him instructions that he had to identify these houses where the MK members were hiding. In such an instance, time is a very important factor, because it was very important to find those people as quickly as possible because that person was part of a unit of terrorists and their security measures boils down to the fact that they contacted one another on a regular basis. If that did not happen like that, they would move from their hiding places to other hiding places and then this MK member which was in detention, would not know about those places. We were driving around in Mamelodi, we went down one street, up another street. He could identify not one single house where MK members were hiding. He could not identify the so-called safe houses. In this process, I hit him with my open hand, I hit him with my fists and I also hit him with my elbow in his ribs. I can remember at a certain stage, I grabbed his throat. The purpose of this was to bring the seriousness of this matter, under his attention, that we seriously needed the information from him.

ADV PRINSLOO: At that stage Mr Prinsloo ...

MR MALAN: Just explain to me quickly, how do you bring the seriousness of the information regarding the identification under his attention? Are you not trying to tell us that I was just maltreating him and I was assaulting him to convince him to give us the information?

MR PRINSLOO: (No interpretation)

MR MALAN: But he was surely not aware of how important the information was?

MR PRINSLOO: I can perhaps explain as such. MK members are trained never if he is arrested, to divulge the information where the other members of the unit, are, where the explosives are. And therefore they had to make use of misleading actions, in other words to delay the Police so that their comrades would not be traced. This is a classical example and then you drive up and down before a certain house, so that the people in the house, can become aware that something is happening, there were white people in the kombi and those people in the houses were aware if something like that happened. Those were misleading actions to give the other members a chance to get away and to remove all evidence. What I was trying to say here, as you have said it, I have assaulted him to bring it under his attention that we are not playing now, we are serious about finding the information.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo was it necessary for you or not, that this person should identify those MK persons and safe houses?

MR PRINSLOO: It was absolutely very urgent for us that we should identify those. At that stage, many terrorist incidents had happened in the Pretoria environment, Policemen were killed during those incidents, there were assassinations, bombs were placed at certain places and these people had not been caught at that stage, the people who did that. It could have been this group of terrorists. So, it was absolutely of cardinal importance for me, that I should get this information from that member at all costs.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is it correct Mr Prinsloo, that in 1986 in September 1986, there was a group of ANC terrorists called the Messina Group, who were responsible for assassinations on Policemen and politicians and bomb explosions?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And those people were also prosecuted later on, is that correct? You can continue, you then hit the person and assaulted him, as you said, and then?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, we stopped in Mamelodi at an open spot and I got out. I spoke to Brigadier Cronje and I told him or I suggested that this person was busy with delaying tactics and he should be interrogated in a more robust way.

JUDGE PILLAY: What did he do that was so misleading?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

JUDGE PILLAY: What did he do which was so misleading? What did he say or what did he do?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have already referred to the fact that he didn't point out, didn't or couldn't point out anyone of the houses where MK members were hiding and which were used as safe houses at that stage. I then suggested to Brigadier Cronje that we should take the person to another place.

JUDGE PILLAY: I am sorry, I just want to clarify something. So it is not the case that he pointed out a certain house and that you found out it was the wrong house, it was a case of that he didn't or couldn't point out the house, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Perhaps I should just qualify my evidence, according to what Brigadier Cronje told me, I had no reasons for doubting Brigadier Cronje's statement to me, I believed that that was true and correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes, no Mr Prinsloo, we are not talking about that.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I just want to join up with that aspect, the specific purpose was to go to Mamelodi, which we did, to test this person's willingness to point out these houses, but he didn't point out any houses. During my interrogation, he was evasive. I asked him specifically whose houses they were and in most cases he didn't have any names for me, he said he didn't know who stayed there and that was information that they received via their other colleagues. It is on that basis that I said he was using delaying tactics.

JUDGE PILLAY: I still don't know, did he or did he not point out a house?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I said he couldn't point out any houses. And he didn't point out any place where any MK members allegedly were hiding or which were used as safe houses. May I continue?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, I want to clarify something too, please. You went to Mamelodi. Who chose what streets you should go up and down?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I was busy with this person and it was as a result of his indication, that the driver took a certain course, he drove up certain streets and not others.

CHAIRPERSON: So he indicated the street which would indicate to you, when he didn't point anybody out, that he was wanting you to be seen driving up and down the road?

MR PRINSLOO: That was my impression yes, that was what I considered to be his misleading and delaying tactics.

MR MALAN: You say that he told the driver where to turn left and where to turn right?

MR PRINSLOO: He told me and I then conveyed it to the driver and I would then say turn left, whatever the case may be.

MR MALAN: You were sitting right at the back of the kombi and you spoke to the driver right at the front?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: And it is one of the 14/16 seater Hi-Act Toyota's?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it was a Hi-Act. I can't remember how many seats there were.

MR MALAN: And was it possible for the driver to hear you clearly right from the back?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. It was totally quiet in the kombi and he would hear me if I said left or right.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, you testified that you stopped in this open piece of land and you had a discussion with Brigadier Cronje, in Mamelodi. What did you tell him?

MR PRINSLOO: I suggested to Brigadier Cronje that we should move to another spot which wasn't quite as visible, because where we were, it was in the vicinity of Mamelodi, there were lots of people walking around, vehicles, and chances were quite good that some of this man's colleagues could walk by, so my suggestion was that we take him to some other spot where we could interrogate him in a more forcible way.

ADV PRINSLOO: If you say in a more forcible manner, did you have any equipment to do that with?

MR PRINSLOO: No, at that stage we had no devices or equipment or anything else, other than my hands.

ADV PRINSLOO: From Mamelodi, you went somewhere else, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, the driver then drove and I don't know who decided that spot to which we then drove. We drove along the old Warmbaths Road in the direction of Warmbaths and near the Pyramid railway station, we turned left and we then crossed the railway line to the left, in a westerly direction into what was then Bophuthatswana. We then proceeded along a gravel road. At some point, the driver stopped and in the meanwhile I had constantly been continuing with my interrogation and assault of the MK member to try and get information out of him.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did somebody then tell the driver to stop at that particular point where he did?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I have already said I don't know who gave the instruction to go to that particular place and who told him to stop there. I was still constantly busy questioning and interrogating this man in the kombi, so my attention wasn't really focused on what was happening elsewhere in the minibus. I just simply suggested that we go to a safe place.

ADV PRINSLOO: Then the kombi came to a halt, did you then interrogate the person further?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. At some point, we sat inside the kombi and I still spoke to him for a bit, then I removed him from the kombi by the side door, and took him to the back of the kombi. The hatch of the kombi was open, it was facing the top and during my interrogation of him, I realised that this man would not be forced to talk by means of the force used on him until that stage. Then I grabbed him by his throat and I started throttling him to such an extent that I forced him backwards into that part of the kombi, between the back seat and the hatch. He handed up on the floor there. I can't recall for how long that was, it wasn't a very long period. I started feeling that he was getting limp. I then let go of him, and then he slid down onto the ground and he remained laying down on the ground. At that point, I thought that he was simply unconscious, but I did foresee that I could possibly kill him in this process of throttling him.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, some of the other applicants, Momberg and Goosen said that their impression was that he was dead at that stage, could you dispute that or would you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't dispute that, no.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you ever throttle him while he was on the ground?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: After the person slid out of the bakkie or kombi and landed up on the ground, and lay there dead or unconscious, the body was then disposed of, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you know who took the body away?

MR PRINSLOO: It was Momberg and Goosen, they removed the body to the front of the kombi and started moving along the road with him.

ADV PRINSLOO: We have already heard evidence that the body was blown up?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Were you aware of this fact beforehand that explosives or any explosive devices were in that vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: When did you become aware of that for the first time?

MR PRINSLOO: It was only when I saw Momberg walking along the road in the lights of the kombi, and I thought I saw him carrying what looked like a landmine.

ADV PRINSLOO: Now after the person had been blown up, you then left the scene?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Mr Chairperson, we first drove some distance away until we heard the explosion and then we again drove passed that spot where the man had been blown up. I then observed in the lights of the kombi, I observed that there was a certain disturbance of the surface, there was a slight indentation in the road, which would be reconcilable with the explosion of a landmine in that area or some explosive device.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, according to the evidence of Brigadier Cronje, which has been placed at our disposal in Exhibit B, Brigadier Cronje testified that a person by the name of Du Plessis, was in the back of the kombi with you, and not Momberg.

MR PRINSLOO: No, Momberg was sitting in the back of the vehicle with me and the MK member was between the two of us. I didn't notice Du Plessis at all, he might have been there though but my attention was focused on the MK person and the pointing out actions that he was supposed to have done.

ADV PRINSLOO: At that stage, was Mr Du Plessis known to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he was the Unit Commander of Unit A at the Security Branch Northern Transvaal if I remember correctly. I don't know whether as Mr Momberg testified, whether Captain Blaauw was the Head and Du Plessis was second in charge, but he was definitely attached to Unit A.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, as far as your original application is concerned, which we find in Bundle 4 on page 949, in which you describe this fourth case, you have made certain amendments in terms of your additional statement?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: You specifically refer in your statement to paragraph 2 of the statement. Is it correct that the last sentence of paragraph 2 in the original application, on 949 where it ends "the driver did not", that there should be a fullstop and then the word "but" should be deleted and then we went with the old Warmbaths Road from Pretoria in the direction in Warmbaths, and that should be inserted in paragraph 4 between paragraphs 4 and 5?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Should it read -

and that paragraph 5 in Exhibit A should be inserted in paragraph 5, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: The third sentence, where the third sentence starts "after", just before that, that should be inserted.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then paragraph 5 should also be amended as follows -

and then the words -

should be inserted there, Momberg and Goosen. The word from the kombi, Momberg and Goosen should be inserted there?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you then further confirm the correctness of your statement on page 949 to 951, and also then Exhibit A in conjunction with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I do.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then the political motivation of your application, we don't need to go through that, that we find in Annexure B, 955 of this Bundle.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And it goes as far as page 961?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you confirm the contents and the correctness of this?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Reference is made to certain submissions and presentations made by Gen Van der Merwe?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Are you also familiar with certain portions which were given as general background to amnesty applications by certain applicants which were attached to their applications?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, your conduct on that particular evening, did you do that for your own personal benefit or what is the situation?

MR PRINSLOO: No. What was at stake for me was to obtain or to achieve a certain political objective, to prop up and maintain a political regime of the day and to ensure the stability and security of the Republic of South Africa.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage doubt or have any doubt as to the fact that the deceased was not a supporter of a liberation movement?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I always believed, firmly believed what Brigadier Cronje had told me.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you believe, bona fide believe that your actions were in connection with your duties as a Policeman and that you were therefore authorised to act as you did?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Are you requesting the Honourable Committee then to give you amnesty on the charge of murder and the charges connected with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would like to do that. I also request that I be given amnesty for my participation in this event, on the basis of considerations, such as for instance set out in the general background and I would also like to emphasise that my action took place in the context of the struggle of the past, and it was aimed at the supporters of a liberation movement, which at that stage was illegal and it was done to protect the previous political regime. I request that you grant me amnesty in this particular case. As it pleases you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, at this stage, I don't have any particular questions, I don't want to waste time. If necessary, would you afford me an opportunity after everyone else has cross-examined, but there are small differences which in my opinion, are not material at this stage, as you please.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Prinsloo, I see that you made an amendment in your amnesty application. could you please tell us, the evidence which you have given today, was that based entirely on your memory and recollection or was it as a result of what was said by previous amnesty applicants before this Committee and after listening to the evidence here yesterday, what is the case?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chair, perhaps I might just qualify here that during the time that I lodged my original application, and my

legal representative would be able to confirm this, it was close to the cut off time for the lodging of applications, and things were a bit hectic, because my legal representatives were dealing with quite a few applications. When I was approached by Mr Prinsloo, my legal representative, in respect of the query from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I had obtained those details or I then received that information and I would have amended it here and have elaborated on it further here, but as a result of that query, I then immediately put down this further explanation in an addendum to my application.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, I will accept that you were under pressure when you were compiling your application, but what I am asking you is this, did you, when you were drafting your application, were you simply making a mistake or could you not remember certain things at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: As a result of the pressure and the fact that things were hectic, I think I couldn't recall everything immediately because there were many incidents in which one was involved, whether as part of a legitimate operation, or a clandestine operation.

MR ROSSOUW: And is it possible that you could be confusing people and incidents with this particular incident?

MR PRINSLOO: No. I could also qualify that as follows, it is very seldom, I think this was one of one or two cases in which I was summoned to a particular place in this way. I just want to refer to something that was said earlier when Mr Van Jaarsveld testified earlier this morning, that the relationship between myself and I want to put it very clearly, Unit B, it was not satisfactory. I did not really want to share my area of work with them, and I had very good reasons for that. And therefore I say my testimony and the addendum to my application is based on the best of my recollection, as to what happened.

MR ROSSOUW: I will accept that, but we are looking at the time when you were actually drafting your application, you have already conceded that it would be possible to forget certain incidents as a result of pressure on you at the time, and also because there were so many incidents involved. But do I understand you correctly when you say that the people mentioned in the amnesty application, you have no uncertainty as to that?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct yes. I may just mention that in respect of the name of Coetzer which I mentioned, I think a day or two after this incident, I was busy chatting to him and we were talking about this incident in particular and the place where we had been. Coetzer then mentioned to me that he knew that area very well, because he had gone there in the past to hunt illegally. It was on that basis that I drew the inference that he was possibly the person who had been giving, or making the suggestion to Brigadier Cronje that we should go to that remote place, because I didn't know that place at all. It was the first time that I had been there on that occasion.

MR ROSSOUW: In other words, you drew an inference in this case, it is not as if you are saying that Mr Coetzer was definitely in the kombi, I can actually remember that he was there and he played that role. You had a conversation with him a couple of days after the incident, and from that conversation, you made an inference that he knew the area well?

MR PRINSLOO: No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that I saw Coetzer at Silverton, the first time we got together there and I can't recall what the conversation was about a few days later, it might be that I was making certain enquiries as to whether anything had happened, whether they were hearing anything from the Bophuthatswana Police, had they been aware of the explosion, etc, and that is how the matter arose and in the context of which he mentioned that he knew the area very well, because he had gone on illegal hunting expeditions in the past. That is how I came to the conclusion that the man knew the area very well and also because I personally had seen him in the kombi, for all these reasons, I came to the conclusion that he was the man who suggested that we go to that area.

MR ROSSOUW: Where in the kombi was he sitting?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't recall that. I can't even remember, apart from the people that I mentioned, who else was in the kombi.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you tell us what his role was in the whole incident, when you were driving around in Mamelodi?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I can't. I really don't know what his function was. What I could perhaps say and this - well it was a 14 or 16 seater and there were quite a few people in the bus, because if action at a particular house pointed out by the MK person, was necessary, then you had enough people to actually carry out that action. But I can't say exactly who was present, because they weren't members of my unit.

MR ROSSOUW: When you arrived at this open piece of land in Mamelodi, Mr Coetzer, did he get out or did he stay seated?

MR PRINSLOO: Once again, I can't remember that. I was specifically talking to Brigadier Cronje as I have testified.

MR ROSSOUW: When you drove away from that spot, I am asking you to recollect what the position was inside the kombi, you were driving away to a safer place, you testified, you say that you can't remember who suggested that you go to this more isolated spot, but is it possible that Mr Coetzer said that? Or you say that Mr Coetzer said that, can you recall where he sat, can you recall him chatting to the driver, talking to the driver at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: I have already testified that I was busy with the man's further interrogation and therefore I was not paying attention to what was happening elsewhere in the minibus, that was not my task at that point. Obviously we left Mamelodi, we were driving away from Mamelodi and I accepted that Cronje would give the instruction that we go to a safer place. What further happened, is purely speculation. All that I said is that a couple of days after the incident, I had a discussion with Coetzer from which it appeared clearly that he knew the area, and that is what I based my inference on. That is why I said it was possibly Coetzer who said that we should go to that area, not because he said that he hunted there illegally, but because I saw him in the kombi.

MR ROSSOUW: When you arrived at Pienaarsriver -

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going on to another issue now Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, no I am not. Can I perhaps just have five minutes to deal with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, when you get to a convenient stage, we will take the adjournment. Carry on.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, it won't be long Mr Chairman. When you arrived at Pienaarsriver, and you had taken the MK member out of the side of the kombi, did you notice Mr Coetzer, what was he doing?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, after I got out of the kombi, I noticed that some of the members who had been inside the minibus, you must remember it was dark, were standing along the side of the bakkie where the sliding door was, I was busy with the MK member at the back of the minibus, where I was busy with my further interrogation and assault on him so once again, my attention was not focused on who was standing where and what they were doing.

MR ROSSOUW: So, apart from the fact that you said you saw him in the bus at Silverton, you can't place him in the bus in the course of this subsequent operation and you cannot say what role he played?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, we were all in the minibus, nobody left the group, so he was constantly present as far as I am concerned.

MR ROSSOUW: I am just asking whether you can place him in any way as far as the further operation is concerned. My instructions are that Mr Coetzer was not in any way involved in this incident. You also yesterday heard the testimony of Mr Momberg where he initially mentioned Mr Coetzer in his statement and then on further reflection, realised that he had made a mistake. What is your comment on this?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I stand by what I testified and that is to the best of my recollection.

MR ROSSOUW: Would you then concede that maybe your memory is at fault?

MR PRINSLOO: On what aspect in particular?

MR ROSSOUW: In respect of the entire operation, that there might perhaps be certain aspects about which you are making a mistake or there are certain aspects which you couldn't really recall while you were drafting your application for amnesty. I am asking you do you concede that there is a possibility that you could have made a mistake, but I hear that you say that you stand by your view?

MR PRINSLOO: There is always a possibility that your memory could be failing you on smaller points, but not on these specific points which I have testified about now.

MR ROSSOUW: You see Mr Prinsloo, it is not just a smaller issue here on which you could possibly be making a mistake. In your original application, you did not include any details about throttling the person until he went limp and that is not a small matter. So on that aspect, when you were filling in your application form, you made quite a big mistake as far as your recollection is concerned. Would you not concede in the light of that, that you could be making a similarly big mistake about the identification of a person in the dark, during an operation?

MR PRINSLOO: No. No, I stand by what I said and for the reasons which I have already given, I have an additional explanation. If that was not the case, I would have corrected the matter today.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, maybe just one last aspect. Mr Prinsloo, I accept that you would have corrected the matter today, but I am talking about your recollection and your memory at the stage when you were still drafting your application. At that stage you neglected to mention a material point in your application, so in the light of that, at that point, would you concede the possibility that you made a mistake as far as the identification of Mr Coetzer?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, no, I stand by what I said.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I will leave that for argument and that will be a convenient time to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we are adjourned until two o'clock.

HENDRIK J. PRINSLOO: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Prinsloo, just a few smaller aspects. During this time when you stopped on that open field near Mamelodi, you said you got out of the vehicle, you had a discussion with Cronje, did you take the activist from the vehicle and assault him there?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you threaten him at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I have already said that I continuously assaulted him at that stage. When we stopped, I got out and had a conversation with Cronje, when I made the proposal to him. He was never taken out of the vehicle, it would have been senseless, because it was near houses.

MR ROSSOUW: My clients said that he was also assaulted there on the open field, and that he was seriously threatened for example that they were going to shoot off his foot if he doesn't cooperate. Can you react to that?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know about that, I can't remember such threats. Perhaps somebody else I don't know about.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, it was specifically Brigadier Cronje.

MR PRINSLOO: No, I don't know about that.

MR ROSSOUW: And then at Pienaarsriver, after you stopped there on the road, I don't know whether I have understood you correctly, when this explosive device was placed there and this limp body was placed on this explosive device, where did that happen? Did you drive a little way away and did you come back and pass this scene again?

MR PRINSLOO: I have never said that I saw that this body was placed on the landmine, I only saw when Momberg took out the landmine from the bus and walked away with that, in the light of the vehicle. Then I saw how they carried the body from there. If I can remember correctly, we turned back and we drove back in the direction from which we had come. After the explosion, we drove passed that place again to see whether it had detonated properly and whether the body had been completely destroyed?

MR ROSSOUW: In other words, from the point where you had stopped, you turned back, you drove back in the direction from where you had come, after the explosion you turned around?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes and came back to the place where the explosion had taken place. And if I can remember correctly, we took a different road back to Pretoria.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Prinsloo, do you agree that Mr Wouter Mentz or Hechter were not involved in this incident?

MR PRINSLOO: Not as far as I know.

MR DU PLESSIS: And as I understand your evidence, it coincides with Cronje's evidence that the death of this person was an accident, and you did not purposefully kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: I have already said that I did foresee that possibility. For me it was important to obtain this information from this person at all costs.

MR DU PLESSIS: My only question is, you did not on purpose decide or had the intent to kill him, but you foresaw that in this process, he could be killed?

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Prinsloo, how did it happen, you strangled him in order to force him to give information and you still expected him to be alive to give the necessary information? How is it then that you foresaw that he could die, that he could have been killed, while you expected from him to give you answers?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, under these circumstances and because of the purpose I wanted to achieve and in the light of the previous assaults which had taken place after we got into the kombi, it was my purpose to obtain the information from him, at all costs. It is so, it had happened before that you can use more force than you actually intended to. That is why I said that I reconciled myself with the fact that this person could possibly be killed. And then I want to go further and say that because this was approved and because I wanted to obtain the information from him, and that is information regarding the informer and psychologically I geared myself to the fact that I know that he was not going to be released again because he was not giving the necessary information. I had to use brut force and under those circumstances you could use more force than usual.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did it happen in that way or not? Did it happen that this person will not be released?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, to a certain extent.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you purposefully kill him, or with the intent?

MR DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Prinsloo, let me explain to you why I am asking this question, this is a question whether it appears from you and the other people's evidence, whether you were only negligent and whether you had intent, that is dolus eventualis to kill this person. To have had dolus eventualis and I want to ask you then, if I give you an indication of what dolus eventualis is, of whether that describes your situation. If your evidence is that you thought that there was a possibility that this person could be killed, that you did not take the necessary steps to prevent him from being killed, and that you told yourself, well, if he died, it is just one of those things, and it happens. Does that describe what your activities were that day?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: If I understand you correctly, you said if he did not die during this process of interrogation and strangulation, then it was your idea that in any case, he would have been killed after that and would not have been released?

MR PRINSLOO: It depends on whether he had given us the information.

MR MALAN: I am sorry for interrupting you, because you have just testified that at that stage, when he did not want to give the information, that your orientation was that he was not going to be allowed to go free, that he was going to be killed in any case?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, depending on the circumstances. If he had given us the required information, then we could have taken a decision afterwards.

MR MALAN: But at that stage, you did not suspect that he would give the information because he was purposefully withholding information?

CHAIRPERSON: And if he did not give information, he would be killed, is that what you thought?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I want to qualify what I have said. Depending on the circumstances, did he cooperate, did he identify the people, we would have made a decision whether he would have been killed, or whether he would have been charged.

CHAIRPERSON: But if he did not cooperate was my question, had you decided that if he didn't cooperate, he was going to be killed anyway, so you might as well use all the force you can, to get him to cooperate? Was that your attitude?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Prinsloo, certain amendments in your evidence were indicated by Mr Rossouw. I am not going to go into that again, because those are on record. Can you just please answer a few questions regarding Mr Van Jaarsveld. Do I understand you correctly when you say that Brigadier Cronje told you that Mr Van Jaarsveld had arrested that person?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, I have said if I can remember correctly, I have said that Brigadier Cronje told me that Captain Van Jaarsveld's unit was involved in picking up or arresting this person because he was an MK member and what followed afterwards.

MR MEINTJIES: So in other words it was not told to you that Captain Van Jaarsveld personally was involved in this regard?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MEINTJIES: If we look at the evidence of Brigadier Cronje, in his amnesty application regarding this matter, and I refer you to page 11, it forms part of the specific Exhibit B, it says Brigadier J. Cronje, "Evidence Pienaarsriver Incident".

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, what we've got here is cross-examination of Brigadier Cronje, which commences on page 11 of the typed transcript.

MR MEINTJIES: That is the correct document.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is that correct?

MR MEINTJIES: That is correct, yes. I refer you then to the last quotation referring to the words of Brigadier Cronje on that page where he mentions that Captain Du Plessis had brought in a male activist.

MR PRINSLOO: I can see that.

MR MEINTJIES: Does that agree with what you have said here?

MR PRINSLOO: I am only referring to Silverton here, there I got the impression that it was Van Jaarsveld and his unit who picked up this person.

MR MEINTJIES: Did Brigadier Cronje inform you in this respect?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MEINTJIES: Now the question is, if Brigadier Cronje said that Captain Du Plessis had brought in this person personally, was Captain Du Plessis then part of Unit B?

MR PRINSLOO: No, at that stage he was attached to Unit A, he worked with white matters.

MR MEINTJIES: Was Captain Du Plessis at that stage then involved in your Branch at the Security Police?

MR PRINSLOO: If I can remember correctly, yes. I don't know exactly when he started there.

MR MEINTJIES: Would you say that Brigadier Cronje had made a mistake in his evidence here?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't say that, because I don't know what had happened before that stage. I only know what happened from Silverton and afterwards.

MR MEINTJIES: In terms of your testimony regarding what Cronje had told you, can we say that Brigadier Cronje had made a mistake in his evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: He might have made just as much a mistake in saying it was Van Jaarsveld?

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. Well the evidence of Brigadier Cronje differs from he told you at Silverton?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, there he told me it was an MK member and if I look at the records of Cronje's cross-examination, he talks about an activist. There is a big difference between an activist and an MK member. Those are two different concepts according to me.

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you. Where did you or were you supposed to have seen Mr Van Jaarsveld for the first time in respect of this incident?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, as I have said beforehand, at Silverton, when I joined this group in the kombi, then I saw Van Jaarsveld when Cronje got out of the kombi and gave me the instructions and told me what this was all about.

MR MEINTJIES: Where would you say was Van Jaarsveld in this kombi?

MR PRINSLOO: When you open the sliding door, there is directly opposite the sliding door, there is a row of seats, that is where he was sitting. That was the first time that I noticed that he was in the kombi.

MR MEINTJIES: And then you drove to that open field near Mamelodi?

MR PRINSLOO: First we drove around in Mamelodi and then to this open field where we stopped and I had this conversation with Brigadier Cronje and made the proposal.

MR MEINTJIES: What was Mr Van Jaarsveld doing at that stage while you were driving around in Mamelodi until you came to the open field?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't say what he was doing, all my attention was being paid to this person next to me, I was devoting all my attention to the interrogation. I was also telling the driver right here, left here, so that this person could identify the specific houses. I did not notice what the other people were doing.

MR MEINTJIES: After you drove from Mamelodi to Pienaarsriver, is there anything specific you can remember what Van Jaarsveld were doing at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, I was busy with the interrogation of this person in the back seat of the kombi. I did not pay any attention to the other people. I can't remember that he was doing anything specifically.

MR MEINTJIES: Did Mr Van Jaarsveld at any stage get out of the kombi, according to what you can recollect?

MR PRINSLOO: Not that I can recall. I can only speculate to say that there where we stopped at Pienaarsriver, all the people got out of the kombi. I was sitting in the kombi, interrogating the MK member and then I got out and walked to the back of the kombi.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Van Jaarsveld was sitting on the middle bench of the kombi, and he was sitting there until you arrived at Pienaarsriver?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't say that. I have just said where I noticed him for the first time, that was your question. I remember what I saw at Silverton. I can't remember where he was sitting afterwards and what he was doing.

MR MEINTJIES: In other words, was there a possibility that he could have moved around in the bus? Is there is possibility that he could have been in the driver's seat?

MR PRINSLOO: That could have been possible, I did not notice that. It was dark, it was at night, there were many people in the bus, I was sitting right at the back.

MR MEINTJIES: In other words, Captain Van Jaarsveld according to you, did not play any role in this whole incident?

MR PRINSLOO: All that I can go on is what Brigadier Cronje had told me, and there is no reason to doubt that what he had told me, was wrong. I executed my task to the best of my ability, I had to interrogate this person to obtain the information from him, and after he had not been able to identify the places in Mamelodi.

MR MEINTJIES: What I notice from your official statement and from the amendment and the amended statement is that initially you did not place Goosen as being on the scene and you only did that later on. When did you realise then that Mr Goosen had been there?

MR PRINSLOO: It was shortly after I had handed in my first application. I was under a lot of pressure to get these applications to the Truth Commission on time.

MR MEINTJIES: And did you just thought about that all by yourself that Mr Goosen was there?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I just naturally remembered that Goosen was with Momberg. It was all about who was going to put this person on the landmine.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Prinsloo, all that remains to put to you is that my instruction is that Captain Van Jaarsveld was not involved in this incident and he has no knowledge of this whole incident?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I stay with what I have said.

MR MEINTJIES: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

ADV PRINSLOO: No re-examination thank you, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Prinsloo, you signed your application?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Were you aware of the contents of your application, were you satisfied with the contents?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: I am talking about your first application, especially the typed part?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: You testified today that you foresaw that you could possibly kill this person when you strangled him. At what stage did you realise that you were going to kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to that specific incident at Pienaarsriver, next to the kombi?

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: During the interrogation process it dawned on me, but the adrenaline is pumping and you are all worked up to get this information from this person, it is almost as if you get out of control, and you continue in that vein, you want to obtain that information from this person, and only after his body become limp, you realise that.

JUDGE PILLAY: You said that while you were strangling him, you realised that you could possibly kill him in the process, why then did you not stop because you want to keep him alive, because you want him to answer your questions?

MR PRINSLOO: It was during this process when he suddenly became limp, I realised that I could have killed him.

JUDGE PILLAY: Before his body went limp, did you not think about that you will be able to kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: But only when his body became limp, I realised that I could have killed him.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why did you not stop that moment when you realised that you could possibly kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I had a task to do.

JUDGE PILLAY: When you kill a person, you wouldn't be able to do your task or fulfil your task that is why I am asking this question. Are you still saying that it was accidentally that you had killed this person?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would say that it was by accident. I foresaw the possibility, I did go too far.

JUDGE PILLAY: There is one important question, his death, what political purpose did that serve?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I think you should see this whole matter in the broad context. I have described the surrounding circumstances in my main evidence, I referred to the circumstances in the country, all the terrorist activities in Pretoria in which I was involved, the investigations and tracing all these activists and if you look at those scenes, you look at the people who were killed, who were maimed, they were usually innocent people, then you realise once more that you have to make a special effort to avoid at all costs, this onslaught and this was my mental state when I did all these things and this was also as I have submitted in the annexures. It was about the government of the day, keeping them in power and to prevent further terrorist acts, that was what it was all about.

JUDGE PILLAY: That answer I can understand in the context of the assault on him, but his eventual death, that aspect, what political purpose did that serve?

MR PRINSLOO: It was in the process I have just described, I see everything in that context.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did he give any information while you were interrogating him?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can remember, he revealed a few minor details to me, and I realised that there was a strong possibility that he did have other information. The rest of the names he referred to and the houses he described, which he could not identify, were not known to me, I could not place that within the information I had in my possession.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you know his name?

MR PRINSLOO: His name was mentioned to me, he mentioned his name to me, but I can't remember that. You must remember that they operated under different names. His real name was not known to us, they used various names. He did not provide his name to me at that stage. He mentioned name, but I can't remember what that was.

JUDGE PILLAY: And before he was killed, whether was strangled or blown up, that is not relevant here, were you still convinced that as you call it, he was a terrorist?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: In your initial application on page 950 it says after the group came to that gravel road, after you had stopped there, the group was talking and discussing whether this person really was a terrorist and it is not stated here what you had decided regarding him.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, can I just have a look at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you might like to look at a little bit earlier on the same page, where you say that you told Brigadier Cronje that you couldn't as a result of the questioning, decide whether the man was a terrorist or not?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, that is why I put my request to Brigadier Cronje and asked him, can't we move to a different place where I could interrogate him in a rougher way. I was convinced that that person was a terrorist, what he had said, because terrorists used certain ways of saying things, I don't know where they get that from, in training perhaps or where, and he used those ways of saying things.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you say you couldn't decide if he was a terrorist or not when you are now telling us that you were convinced he was a terrorist because of the way he spoke, so you had decided on information?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you didn't say that in your original application, you made no mention of strangling him and killing him, did you?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You said rather you strangled him, but didn't seriously hurt him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is right.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you make a full disclosure in your affidavit, in your original application?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I have already under cross-examination stated what my reason was, I can't expand on that any further.

MR MALAN: Can you just give me your reason again, I am not sure whether I heard that.

MR PRINSLOO: A question was posed to me why you did not mention that you had strangled this person, that you had killed him, and my answer was yes, I realise that and in my initial application, I did not mention that. Afterwards I realised which incident it was, after enquiries were made by the Truth Commission and I have put it straight afterwards and I explained fully what had happened then. There are no excuses why that was not in the first application.

MR MALAN: Are you telling me you only realised what incident it was after the Truth Commission had made enquiries?

MR PRINSLOO: No, what I am saying, after I handed in my application, a day or two before the deadline, afterwards I realised which incident was being referred to, then I had the necessary information, I remembered these things and when this enquiry was made, I gave the information in the additional application.

MR MALAN: Based on what, did you provide the initial information, you said you did not know what the incident was and you do give a lot of information?

MR PRINSLOO: Brigadier Cronje had contacted me.

MR MALAN: Did he provide you with the information?

MR PRINSLOO: He contacted me and said he was going to apply for amnesty for that specific incident. I did not have further discussions with him.

MR MALAN: You did not ask what specific incident that was?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, there were two incidents in the Pienaarsriver environment, vicinity, in which I was involved. This one I only recalled after the applications had been handed in.

MR MALAN: I don't understand that, was the other one precisely the same incident?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it was completely different.

MR MALAN: If it was completely different, Brigadier Cronje knew about that and as I have already said, he didn't only know about it, he was there. I am talking about the other incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you applied for amnesty for the other incident?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: At Pienaarsriver?

MR PRINSLOO: At Pienaarsriver, in that environment.

MR MALAN: I want to come back to this thing, I don't understand your answer, please help me or we must leave it there. You are saying that this is one incident, the other one is a separate one. You are applying for amnesty, you remember the detail who was in the bus, the nature of looking for safe houses, of stopping at certain places, of certain places where you went like Pyramid Road. I think Pyramid is not near Pienaarsriver, so the road you are telling us about is a different road than the road that Mr Momberg and Mr Goosen told us about, and I am confused to give you these facts, and you said Coetzer knew the world so well, and he knew, told you everything, but you refer to a completely different road than the other applicants are referring to.

Secondly, do you expect from us to accept that you have made a full disclosure, that you have told us everything you knew, when you made your application, but that is not acceptable. How would you say that two people walked away with this activist from the kombi and he just walked with them, and you heard an explosion. On which basis would you provide such information if that was not calculated misleading? It could not be poor memory, not if you had killed somebody, you have strangled him, went too far, realised it afterwards and then saw how a landmine was planed? Try to explain that to me, I find it terribly difficult to understand?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, to come back to the statement you have just made, I am referring to a different road, I am talking about the same road as the two previous people mentioned. It is the old Warmbaths road in the direction of Pyramid station. I turned to the left and crossed the railway line.

MR MALAN: The other people said they went through Pienaarsriver and then turned off, and you say that you turned off at Pyramid station?

MR PRINSLOO: According to my knowledge, Pyramid station is on the other side of Pienaarsriver.

MR MALAN: This is not how I remember this road. But let's not make an issue of this. As far as I know, those are two different roads, but we have to pay attention to that, and I am repeating this point, this makes your evidence regarding the involvement of Coetzer not acceptable, if those were two different roads, or the other people's evidence, it makes it less acceptable, if these are two different roads. Please explain to me how I can understand it that the core of what really happened, the shock of a person being strangled while being interrogated or perhaps he was unconscious and then being blown up and you see the people leaving with the body, you see him being blown up and you can't remember that, you can't remember him being strangled to death and you said he walked away with two people?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I didn't say I couldn't remember that, I remember that.

MR MALAN: But at that stage, when you applied, you did not remember that, that is what you are telling us now?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't say I provided all the detail at that stage.

MR MALAN: That is exactly my question, why did you not make a full disclosure?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't explain, except what I have already given under cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you forgot that you strangled this man, just one of the things?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then why didn't you say so?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I completed this application, I did not put all the detail in this application, that is why I have made an additional statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, in this application, you tell us how Brigadier Cronje phoned you at home one night and told you to meet him at Silverton and how you met him at the police station and you parked your car there, you give a wealth of detail, but you leave out the one important factor that you killed the man? How could you come to do that unless you were seeking to conceal the fact?

MR MALAN: Can I just follow up this previous point, did you work that day, were you at your office?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: The evidence of the applicants was that they received instructions at the office, that they had to report at a certain place and do this. Why did Brigadier Cronje not give you the instruction at the office?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know.

MR MALAN: Didn't you consider that?

MR PRINSLOO: No. In many cases it happened that at any stage of the day or night, people were picked up.

MR MALAN: You said that you were absolutely sure that the individual was not assaulted in Mamelodi on the open field? Was it an open field where you stopped?

MR PRINSLOO: You can regard it as an open field. If I can remember correctly, Mamelodi is along one of the main roads in Mamelodi.

MR MALAN: I assume that you drove to Mamelodi with this person so that he can make certain identifications? You were sitting next to him on the back seat, you can't remember whether he was handcuffed or what, he climbed over, he was sitting between you and Mr Momberg, you started interrogating him. Why - didn't he have to make identification of houses?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, based on what Brigadier Cronje told me, I had to obtain information from him, I had some background information, could he provide names which made sense. At that stage, I was trying to trace quite a few terrorists being involved in terrorist activities in Pretoria. That is why I interrogated him. I wanted to ask who those people were, where were they living, which weapons were they using.

MR MALAN: You haven't been here all the time, but the evidence is that this person was brought in, it doesn't matter by whom at this stage, but from there, he was taken to pick up you and Brigadier Cronje, in other words he was near the offices while you were in your office, you did not know that he had been arrested before you received the telephone call?

MR PRINSLOO: I received the telephone call that evening at my home, I was working usual office hours.

MR MALAN: If it was determined that he was an MK terrorist and it was conveyed to you that he was an MK terrorist, wouldn't they have handed him over to Unit C?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is what I have said, that's why I became involved in this group of persons.

MR MALAN: And then the identification of the places, would that have been your action or the other unit's?

MR PRINSLOO: It would have been my unit's action. These people in the bus were enough if you had to take immediate action, they were all people from the Security Branch.

MR MALAN: Didn't you wonder whether your unit whose responsibility it was, was not involved here? Here are a lot of operatives who were taken with, not one of them was from your unit and only at a late stage you received a telephone call to cooperate and then your instruction was to obtain information.

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know when this man was picked up.

MR MALAN: I just want to make sure whether these are the facts from your side.

MR PRINSLOO: I just want to expand on this, should an operation take place and that MK people were arrested, which could lead to their interrogation, I would have immediately summoned some of the people from my unit to take this thing further. Few of the people in the bus did have the necessary expertise to execute this interrogation and processing.

MR MALAN: But the evidence, for example also Brigadier Cronje, was that these people were taken with so that should identification be done, action could immediately be taken.

MR PRINSLOO: That was impression, I have said that.

MR MALAN: But I am asking you again, this would actually resort under your unit and you were the last one to learn about this action? You never asked Brigadier Cronje why he did something like that to you?

MR PRINSLOO: I did not have any reason, it was an instruction I followed. Many strange things happened.

MR MALAN: Yes, we have realised that and you said you had to get certain information from him. What information did you have to get from him?

MR PRINSLOO: As I have already said Mr Chairman, I wanted background information, who were the people who co-operated with him because they don't usually move one by one, they move in a unit, existing out of various members. I wanted to know who the members in that unit were. Were those names well known, he had to identify the houses, who were the people in those houses.

MR MALAN: Did he provide you with names?

MR PRINSLOO: He gave some names, but not any names that I knew.

JUDGE PILLAY: What was wrong with that? You are asking him, he is answering you?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the Security Branch had a lot of information and especially my unit in which I was involved, who concentrated on various terrorists per se. We had a lot of names available to us, we knew where they were trained, where he was coming from, where he was going to. So in other words, one of those names, one of those MK names, could have made sense, and it could have coincided with information I already had to my disposal. I wanted to determine whether that was not perhaps the same group I was looking for.

MR MALAN: Did he at any stage admit that he was an MK member or a terrorist?

MR PRINSLOO: On the way to Pienaarsriver, I asked him, if I remember correctly, where he had been trained and he told me that. He gave me details.

JUDGE PILLAY: Then I really don't understand Mr Prinsloo, because there was a despite amongst you about whether this man was indeed a terrorist or not. After you had stopped near the Pyramid railway station, it says so right here in your statement, paragraph 5 on page 950 and I also asked you did he make any concessions to you and you said no.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you mean concessions, in what respect?

JUDGE PILLAY: What did you understand by that when I asked you the question?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, what I answered.

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes, well that is the point. I asked you whether he made any concessions to you, he gave you any information and you said no. The question was asked of me whether I was convinced if he was a terrorist and I said yes, on the basis of certain information which he gave me on the way there. In Mamelodi I suggested that this man was busy with misleading action and had to be robustly and forcefully interrogated. On the way to Pienaarsriver I questioned him on an ongoing basis. On the way to Pienaarsriver area he gave me the name of a training camp and that camp wasn't generally know amongst the man on the street, wherever they have been trained.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, don't you want to look at page 950 of your original application, look at paragraph 4. You say during the interrogation he was very arrogant and I gave him a couple of smacks, grabbed him by the throat and I throttled him, but did not injure him seriously. Brigadier Cronje was present the whole time during the interrogation and I quote -

Is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Now that was just before the vehicle, as you have it, crossed the railway station at the Pyramid railway station?

MR PRINSLOO: No, that was before, that was where I made the suggestion to him that maybe we should go to Pienaarsriver or to another place where I could interrogate him more forcefully.

CHAIRPERSON: You make no mention of that in your original application, nor do you say that you stopped in Mamelodi? You say in paragraph 2 that you went on the old Warmbaths Road to the direction of Warmbaths, no question of stopping.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, where is paragraph 2.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 949.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 2, the last section, and then paragraph 3, that is what I meant in my application in respect of the Mamelodi part. I didn't think it necessary to say where all the places were where we had been.

MR MALAN: I would like to take it a little bit further along this line, look at paragraph 5, page 950.

I am assuming that you were part of that discussion or debate?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Was that to obtain greater clarity in your own mind or certainty?

MR PRINSLOO: If I remember correctly, that was after the man, after I had throttled him and he fell to the ground and he lay there.

MR MALAN: Were you then still discussing whether he was really a terrorist or not?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, then the discussion arose as to what the information ...

CHAIRPERSON: Please read on Mr Prinsloo and stop telling us fairy stories.

MR MALAN: Read the whole sentence right to the very end. Let me read it to you. You say -

You have amended your application, but you haven't yet amended this. This still stands as part of the statement if I understand it correctly, or have you deleted that from your application?

MR PRINSLOO: It was amended.

MR MALAN: Was this part deleted?

ADV PRINSLOO: This part was amended.

MR MALAN: You inserted a certain part?

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes, I specifically said where it says "I don't know who they were", that was replaced with "Momberg and Goosen", the word "from" ...

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, no, I am talking about - that is how you amended it, by for instance mentioning the names of the members but the fact that they took him and walked down the road with him, that still stands?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, they walked in the direction of the front of the kombi.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was after, according to your application, that was after you had discussed whether he was a terrorist or not?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, after he was dead.

CHAIRPERSON: Then they took him out of the kombi, the evidence is after you strangled him, that he fell on the ground at the back, he wasn't taken out of the kombi when he was dead, he died outside?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Which version you have given us - a moment ago you said yes, it is correct that they took him out when he was dead, now you agree that they didn't take him out? Please Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, this application was amended that it was from ...

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking you why you made this false application in that case, why you made an application where you didn't mention that you throttled the man, you did not mention that you killed him? My main difficulty is why you did not, when you are applying for amnesty, make an honest application and you have said because you were confused with another matter. I have not been able to discover what other matter you were confused with, which you made application for amnesty for. Can you refer me to the matter, you said you made application in connection with the other matter, that must have been where you strangled someone. Where is that application?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I didn't say the other case was a case where I also throttled a man, I said it was a totally different case to which I referred.

CHAIRPERSON: You said you didn't put details in this one, because you applied in another one?

MR PRINSLOO: No. No, it was a mistake on my part that I didn't give all the particulars in my original application.

MR MALAN: Who drafted this statement for you?

MR PRINSLOO: My legal representatives.

MR MALAN: Which one?

MR PRINSLOO: This I drafted myself, the core of the application I drafted myself.

MR MALAN: This typed document, was this typed by your Attorneys?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. I gave it to them and they typed it.

MR MALAN: Did they have a consultation with you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did they read through the statement when you spoke to them?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. I drafted this statement myself and I gave it to them to process.

MR MALAN: In other words they drafted it in its final form? Now, if you were in your Attorney's shoes and he has this statement in front of him, is there any indication to him that you had anything to do with the killing of the black man, or would he have been led to believe that Momberg and Goosen took the black man from the kombi, you couldn't get the information out of him and that they then walked down the road with him, not carrying his corpse, they were walking with the man down the road? What would your Attorney have thought, did he ask you whether you killed the man?

MR PRINSLOO: No, there wasn't enough time.

MR MALAN: So there was no discussion as to whether you killed him? You didn't tell your Attorney that you killed him?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

JUDGE PILLAY: Adv Prinsloo, I think yesterday you put it to one of the other witnesses that the deceased was throttled inside the van and not outside, is that correct?

ADV PRINSLOO: No, that is not correct. I made it clear that the person had been throttled inside the minibus in Mamelodi, but the killing of the person, the throttling which led to the killing took place outside the minibus, as it also says here in the application.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Prinsloo, I have one or two further questions. This entire operation, was it an investigative operation or was it a Section 29 type operation, Section 29 of the Internal Act?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage when I joined Brigadier Cronje's group, he told me what information they had. At that stage my focus was on the tracking down and arrest of terrorists, to try to prevent any further acts of terror and to try and find out whether they were in fact involved in acts of terror, there were many such cases. So Section 29 was not relevant at all, because I don't even know who originally arrested this man, I didn't know that. I simply acted on what Brigadier Cronje told me.

JUDGE PILLAY: One last aspect, this discussion amongst yourselves as to whether the man was a terrorist or not, did it take place?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I remember such a thing.

JUDGE PILLAY: Immediately afterwards he died?

MR PRINSLOO: No, as I have said, before that. He died before that. I said he died before that.

JUDGE PILLAY: But according to your statement -

That is what it says there.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, and that is what has been amended because it is not correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: My question is then the following, if that point was in issue amongst your group, how could it be that you decided whilst you were still interrogating him, that this man was not to be released?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I am going back to what was told to me and what the information at our disposal was, the man was arrested, he was picked up and I had to bear in mind that there was an informer or informers involved who had given information about this man. He had seen members of the Security Police whom he could possibly identify subsequently and then certain assassination attempts could result from that, so I had to bear in mind all those aspects.

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes, but that does not align with the fact that you spoke to the other people and you had this debate as to whether he was a terrorist or not.

MR PRINSLOO: What I meant was that after the man had died or was unconscious, there was this issue that I could not say with any certainty whether this man was part of a group or not, because he hadn't yet really pointed out houses and given sufficient information. I bona fide had the belief, believed what Cronje had told me that he was a terrorist.

JUDGE PILLAY: But later on, you doubted that?

MR PRINSLOO: After the man had died, yes. I said that I believed or I initially believed the man was a terrorist and he was hiding certain things.

JUDGE PILLAY: You entertained this doubt before you got to the Pyramid railway station and turned left there, because you mentioned that to Cronje who sat next to you?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I said we should interrogate the man in a more forceful way, because part of their training was also to waste as must time, to play for time, and I interrogated hundreds of them and they all used this tactic to protect other comrades, and give them a chance to get away.

CHAIRPERSON: On this question of time, as I understand you, while you were driving around Mamelodi, you decided time was very important because otherwise MK people kept in touch with one another and if one of them disappeared, the others would also move? So time was of the essence as I understood your evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you then elect to drive 55 kilometres away?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that wasn't my decision, I simply conveyed my request to Brigadier Cronje and I couldn't countermand him saying where we should go or not. I suggested simply that we should go somewhere else where we could interrogate him further.

CHAIRPERSON: But surely Brigadier Cronje, the Officer in charge of these units, would also be aware of the importance of time?

MR PRINSLOO: Oh yes, I believe so.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

APPLICATION NO: AM 3760

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON RESUMPTION:

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I first call applicant Andre Oosthuizen. Mr Chairman, you will find the applicant's application on page 882, in Bundle 4 and the specific incident, Mr Chairman, you will note there are two sets of annexures to the application form, the second one is the one that was supplemented and the specific incident, you will find from page 921(a) and onwards.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here? Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here. May I request a short adjournment at this stage? The matter that Mr Alberts referred to this morning relates to one of my other clients who is here now, in respect of the security guard. I would like to have an opportunity to be able to tell you exactly what the position is, and if we have to call him as a witness or not.

CHAIRPERSON: How long do you think you would be?

MR DU PLESSIS: About five minutes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

ON RESUMPTION:

MR DU PLESSIS: ... a little bit longer than five minutes, and I apologise for that. Mr Chairman, I have had a discussion with my client, Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren and Mr Alberts was present during the discussion, during which Mr Van Vuuren indicated to us that he can shed some light on the security guard incident. I don't want to go into the evidence, but it relates to a discussion that he had with Captain Van Jaarsveld shortly after the incident. It arose only now, because Captain Hechter spoke to Van Vuuren yesterday about Brigadier Cronje's condition and during their discussion, this incident was mentioned, and Van Vuuren then recalled the discussion that he had. That is why it only arises now and so that - it may be of assistance to the Committee, I am not sure of how much value that will be. However, we tried to contact Captain Van Jaarsveld to be here when such evidence is presented to you, and we couldn't get hold of him at this moment. It seems that in all probability we will not be able to deal with that today and we will have to deal with it either tomorrow or Friday. Could we perhaps try and sort it out amongst ourselves and indicate to you when exactly that would happen?

CHAIRPERSON: I can see no difficulty in that. It seems to me, I am maybe being optimistic, that we should finish the present application quite soon. We would then expect argument to be delivered immediately after the end of the evidence in that, and we would have time tomorrow or Friday would otherwise be a clear day, so I think ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we have actually had a discussion, Mr Alberts and I, about that possibility and we have decided to request you, if that possibility should arise tomorrow, if we could be afforded some opportunity to try and put together some form of very short written argument. I won't present you with my big bundle again, and then to deal with it perhaps on Friday, if that would be all right.

CHAIRPERSON: If you deal with it very briefly on Friday, we are going to adjourn at midday or thereabouts.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, then we will be able to deal with only ...

JUDGE PILLAY: But what is the difficulty arguing tomorrow? ... we have gone through a long enquiry.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes, there shouldn't be too much of a difficulty. I for myself, would have wanted to present you with some form of written argument and not just oral argument and although I have started with that, I haven't finalised that and I am not sure if I will be able to finalise it tonight, but if you say, if you give me a deadline, obviously that is part of the job, we are all used to that.

JUDGE PILLAY: Well, I am glad you know.

CHAIRPERSON: But the written argument would I hope, give us page references and things, which should be of assistance? Let's see how we go. Right, so we will convert to where we were and if you can discuss the question of the calling of other evidence, the availability tomorrow or Friday and keep contact on that?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, as soon as we know what Mr Van Jaarsveld's situation is, we will let you know what time would be convenient time, Mr Chairman, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: I regret that my memory has failed me completely, have we sworn in the next applicant? No?

ANDRE OOSTHUIZEN: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Oosthuizen, do you have a copy of your amnesty application in front of you?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: The first page of that, 822, there is an amendment to your identity number?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, that is correct, the 009 should be 005.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if I could just move for that amendment to the applicant's identity number. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Oosthuizen, do you then confirm the amended page 1 of your application?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And do you also confirm the rest of your application, on page 886, where you signed?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Page 887, there you give a background sketch, do you confirm the correctness of that?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Before we get to the incident which starts on 921(a) and follows, that is the Pienaarsriver incident, could you briefly tell the Committee, at that stage, when you were involved in this incident, where were you working and what was your rank?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was a Warrant Officer, I had been allocated to the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal under the direct command of Captain Hechter and Brigadier Jack Cronje.

MR ROSSOUW: Before you went on secondment to Northern Transvaal, where had you been working?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was attached to a Special Investigations Unit put together by Police Headquarters in Pretoria and which operated country wide and our mandate was to deal with riots and politically related matters.

MR ROSSOUW: And after this secondment to the Security Branch, where were you transferred to then?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: To the Murder and Robbery in Pretoria.

MR ROSSOUW: Is it correct that at the stage when you were working under Hechter and Cronje, that you shared an office at Compol building with Captain Hechter?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Correct, myself and Sergeant Gouws shared an office with Hechter.

MR ROSSOUW: You then are applying for amnesty for the murder of this person at the Pienaarsriver and for any other offence which might arise out of your involvement there?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Could you tell the Committee - Mr Chairman, I will during argument present you with a list of the various offences that we are specifically going to ask amnesty for.

CHAIRPERSON: I have requested you all to do that, but we are not going to decide which we think it should be, you must tell us what you want.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, can you tell the Committee how it happened that you became involved in this specific operation, where did you get the order from?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: In my original application, I referred to Captain Hechter but upon further consultation, a long time after that, it became clear in my own mind that it couldn't be Hechter. During the filling in of my amnesty application, I think I made that assumption because I shared an office with Hechter. Later however, I was able to work out for myself, that the order either came from Captain Prinsloo or Brigadier Jack Cronje, which I received during the day, in the afternoon if I remember correctly, at the offices of the Security Branch Northern Transvaal.

MR ROSSOUW: What was this order, did you receive a briefing?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Briefly yes, what it was about was the fact that an activist had to be interrogated, he was an MK member and that houses would be pointed out where his cohorts or people belonging to his cell, were hiding in Mamelodi.

MR ROSSOUW: And you were then requested to meet at a certain time at the Compol building that evening, is that correct?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, the order was given to me that myself and Sergeant Gouws should report at the Compol building at a certain time, whereupon we would then join the other members who would go out on the operation.

MR ROSSOUW: During these hearings you have heard the evidence that this activist or the MK member had earlier been interrogated at the Security Head Office, were you part of that, did you know about that?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I formed no part of his arrest or his interrogation.

MR ROSSOUW: Could you then please turn to the particular evening when you met, what happened, who was present?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can recall that Brigadier Jack Cronje, Captain Prinsloo - I don't know at what stage Captain Prinsloo joined us - Wimpie Momberg, myself and Deon Gouws were present. Later I refreshed my memory and realised that Eric Goosen was also present.

MR ROSSOUW: And in your application you also mentioned that you couldn't say who else was present, but you mentioned that it was possible that there was one other person present, is that correct?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You have heard the evidence that from the Compol building, you drove to Brigadier Cronje's house, to go and pick him up, can you recall that?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I can't recall that I ever went to Brigadier Cronje's house.

MR ROSSOUW: According to you, where did you drive to?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: We went to Mamelodi, the eastern side of Pretoria where we would let the activist point out these houses where his cohorts, co-terrorists, activists, were hiding.

MR ROSSOUW: You also heard that he was supposedly involved in a cell, involved with attacks on black Policemen, etc. Did that become clear to you from the interrogation during the drive to Mamelodi and whilst you were driving around in Mamelodi?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct. There was a lot of talking and from this discussions, I came to the conclusion that this was a trained person, and that he would take out his cohorts in the process.

MR ROSSOUW: Who did this interrogation?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Captain Prinsloo ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, was this discussion amongst the rest of you, in the bus or was it the interrogation of the activist where you learnt that he was involved in a lot of things?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, this related to the discussion in the bus and the trend of the interrogation, the questions put to this person, it is from this that it appeared to me to be the case.

MR ROSSOUW: Was an effort made in Mamelodi to try and get this man to point out houses, was it successful?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, attempts were made, we drove around in Mamelodi, but no pointings out were made.

MR ROSSOUW: You then say that near an open piece of ground, he was further interrogated. Could you please tell the Committee what happened there? Do you remember it?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: We stopped in this open space which adjoined Mamelodi. He was questioned once again by Captain Prinsloo and according to me, he was also assaulted. He was also assaulted in the minibus, I didn't mention this earlier.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you take part in any assault?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.

MR ROSSOUW: What was the mood when you arrived and stopped at this open piece of ground, was there an escalation of the assault on him and the urgency with which you wanted to get the information from him?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, and there was also a concern about the fact that this person had not yet pointed out anybody, taken out any of his comrades. I think what exacerbated the whole thing was that the information indicated that his cohorts were to become involved in the killing of Policemen.

MR ROSSOUW: Were any threats uttered towards this person when you were at this open piece of land?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, I can recall that Brigadier Jack Cronje remarked that he thought we should shoot this person's foot off so that this person could understand that we were really serious with the interrogation. I believe that he simply said it to try and frighten the man.

MR ROSSOUW: Now, we have heard that you once again then drove around in Mamelodi after that, and then left for Pienaarsriver. Who took the decision to go to this more remote, safer place?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't recall that after the interrogation in the open field, we went back to Mamelodi, but that we drove in the direction of Pienaarsriver.

MR ROSSOUW: There apparently was confusion about the road where you were to turn off. After yesterday's evidence, you were able to refresh your memory in this regard. Could you please tell the Committee or help the Committee on this particular point as to where you turned off?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, I know the area quite well, and at that stage it was also quite familiar to me. We drove across the bridge, after you get the Pienaarsriver Police station, immediately after the bridge, you turn left on the Saagkuilsdrif Road, that road, after 30 kilometres, leads to a black township with the name of Lebomogomo. We must not confuse this with Leboagomo, this is Lebomogomo. On that road, there is also a trust area known as Gongwane.

MR MALAN: Just repeat the name.

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Gongwane.

MR ROSSOUW: Right, we have heard the evidence that somewhere on this dirt road, you stopped. Could you give the Committee an indication how far away from the turn off, you stopped?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: It was about in the middle of the turn off on the old Warmbaths Road and this Lebomogomo residential area.

MR ROSSOUW: Please describe to the Committee what happened then?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: We stopped in the same direction as the direction from we had just come. It is a very quiet road. There are two reasons for that, that is how I saw it, and how I also saw it when somebody mentioned the fact that we would drive in that direction. It is a quiet road, there is very little traffic at night, because the residents of Lebomogomo make use of a tarred road from there to Pretoria, which is much shorter than the road which goes via Pienaarsriver. The farms are fairly scattered, far apart and the place where we stopped allows you to be able to see both ways for quite some distance. We stopped and I can remember that Deon Gouws and I remained seated in the kombi, we didn't get out. We could not take part in the interrogation, because we didn't know what it was about and we also didn't have the background information which Captain Prinsloo had. He got out and I think as far as I remember, the person who was to be interrogated and who had been interrogated, had sat right at the back of the vehicle. Captain Prinsloo then walked around, I think other members also got out, but I can't identify them now. I can't remember it. The hatch was opened and the interrogation started again. He throttled this man, I can't say for how long. I saw the man sinking down to the ground and I assumed, and this is merely my own opinion, I assumed that he might simply be unconscious. I saw that Wimpie Momberg and one other person, I have heard in evidence here that the person who went with him to set up the explosive device, was Eric Goosen, during the time that I compiled my application, I couldn't remember him.

MR ROSSOUW: Could you just stop there please. Did you know that there was an explosive device in the kombi?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.

MR ROSSOUW: In your application you mention that one or two limpet mines or landmines were placed in the road. Were you uncertain about that point when you made your application?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was uncertain as to what kind of explosive device it was and whether there was more than one. I thought about the matter later, that is after we started consulting with yourself, my legal representative, and I seem to recall that they were limpet mines, and I could also recall that somebody at the Security Branch remarked, and I can't say who it was, somebody remarked that a device - it is where the delaying element is located, as they describe it, there is a certain kind of a plug which you can screw into this device, that that had been picked up and that that came from the limpet mine. That is how I formed the idea that it was a limpet mine.

MR ROSSOUW: You are not trained as an explosive's expert?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.

MR ROSSOUW: What happened further after the person was taken away along with this explosive device?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: My recall is that the vehicle had stopped and that the interrogation took place at the back of the vehicle, that the body had lain there, whether the person was dead or unconscious, I can't say. Wimpie Momberg took the device along with his co-applicant and they then walked back down the road and placed this device in the road and then came back to fetch the body and placed it on the explosive device. At no stage can I recall that this happened in the headlights of the vehicle. What I can recall is that Wimpie Momberg came running towards the vehicle and climbed into the vehicle, and we took off very slowly until we heard the explosion. Then we turned around and drove passed this hole in the road, back to Pretoria, along the same road as we had come.

MR ROSSOUW: All right, in your application you say that after Mr Momberg had got back into the vehicle, I am sorry, you say that after the interrogation at Mamelodi, you realised that the person was about to be blown up or would be blown up after interrogation. Could you clarify that part of your amnesty application for the Committee?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I have to admit that that word blow up, came from the fact that I had to cast my mind back and the fact that the person was indeed blown up. I have to admit that that was never discussed from the moment when I got into that vehicle that night, it was never discussed that the person would be killed, irrespective of whether he gave the information or not. I was surprised that we were driving in that direction that night. I also didn't take part in the planning and the discussion around these matters, because I wasn't really aware what it was about. My main purpose was to act if something was about to happen.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, but you say that you realised, is it correct then that you subjectively perhaps foresaw that the person might be killed?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, that is so.

MR ROSSOUW: The threat which Brigadier Cronje made at the open piece of field in Mamelodi, along with the fact that you drove away to a quieter, more remote place, could that perhaps have strengthened that conclusion?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, but that is my own conclusion.

MR ROSSOUW: That was not discussed, you say I can't remember who remarked this, this is in your application, there was too much other discussion going on, but you have now said it was never discussed?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: When I refer to the remark, I must say that it was about who had made the suggestion that we should drive to Pienaarsriver because that, along with the fact that I know it is a quiet area, and the influence of Brigadier Cronje's remark had perhaps created a perception in my mind that something could possibly happen.

MR ROSSOUW: Now to get back to the area to which you had driven, according to your recollection, you listened to the evidence, Mr Coetzer, was he involved that night at all?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, not at all.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you know whether he knew the area to which you were driving?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I don't know. Just for completeness' sake I could say that Tiny Coetzer is quite a big man, is a very big man and I think if he had been present in the bus, we would all have been suffering. I really can't recall that he was there, in fact I am certain that he wasn't there.

MR ROSSOUW: All right, you also heard that there is a possible confusion or a dispute as to whether Captain Van Jaarsveld was involved. Could you, from your recollection, throw any light on this matter?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, Van Jaarsveld was not on the scene.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, I also refer you to evidence given in previous amnesty applications and also certain submissions made to the Amnesty Committee. I have compiled a list of that and I am placing a copy of that list now in front of you. Please look at this list and do you request that your amnesty application be seen in the context of all those submissions and also the political context and objectives sought to be achieved?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I beg leave to hand up the document to you. Could you tell us very briefly, the interrogation of such a person and the assault of such a person, did you see that as something which was accompanied by a political motive?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: What would that political motive have been relating to the gathering of information?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: It was essential that the information be obtained from this man, because I had already seen how Policemen ...

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, I think that will be Exhibit C.

CHAIRPERSON: C, I think, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, may I just for the sake of avoiding any confusion, indicate to you that on this document you will see that I have referred to certain Bundles where this evidence is contained. Mr Chairman, these were the Bundles that were made available in the Cronje 1 cluster. I don't know if this Amnesty Committee has insight into those Bundles, but the relevant pages and the extracts from the submissions to the TRC, are in my possession. I can make them available if the Committee so wishes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you also personally in your career, had experience of people, Policemen, being killed by MK members and by members of the Liberation Forces?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, several occasions.

MR ROSSOUW: And the methods used to obtain information, did you regard these methods as essential in order to prevent this onslaught against members of the Security Police being continued?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, it was essential.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you also regard it as essential as a member of the Security Police, to keep the existing government in power and to avert the revolutionary onslaught?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: In your amnesty application, you referred to an activist, the interrogation of an activist. You have now heard that it was an MK member and you also testified that during the briefing at the Compol building, reference was made to the interrogation of this MK member. Could you perhaps explain to the Committee how that arose because there is a distinction between an activist and an MK member, how is it that you only referred to an activist in your application? What was your conclusion about this person?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was originally told that it was an MK member. In my application I referred to him as an activist and in all my previous applications before the Committee, I also referred to an activist, because there were activists. The reference, the word, was used throughout my applications, and I concede that I made a mistake in that regard. I may just mention that I drafted my application entirely by myself, I had no legal help. As my application is before you today, it is entirely my own work. It was done throughout the night, and handed in the next morning.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, do you confirm the rest of your application?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, I confirm it.

MR ROSSOUW: And you also request the Committee to grant you amnesty for this incident. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: How long do you think you will be?

MR ALBERTS: I will be five to ten minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's see if we can complete you this afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Very well, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Oosthuizen, did I understand you correctly that you received your order during a briefing?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Where did that take place?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: At the offices of the Security Branch Northern Transvaal.

MR ALBERTS: Were Goosen or Momberg or both of them, present there, can you recall that?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.

MR ALBERTS: So if Goosen testified that he received a direct order from Brigadier Cronje and it is my instruction that it didn't take place in the form of a joint briefing, you would not deny that?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I can't deny that.

MR ALBERTS: And you could also then not dispute Momberg's evidence that he later that afternoon, or early evening, received instruction for the first time when Brigadier Cronje phoned him at home and told him to report to the Brigadier's house at about seven o'clock that night?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't deny that, no.

MR ALBERTS: You don't recall at all that Brigadier Cronje's house was visited?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I can't remember it at all, and it also seems very unlikely that with a trained terrorist in your company, you would go to a Brigadier's house. It would seem very strange.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, but if the terrorist is in the boot and to all practical intents and purposes, he is hidden, what would the problem be? How would he then be connected with the occupants of the car?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Could you please repeat your question.

MR ALBERTS: Let me rephrase the question. Where was this black person who had to be interrogated, after you left the Compol building?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: He was at the back, on the floor, right at the back of the bus, not on a seat.

MR ALBERTS: Would he have been visible to people on the street for instance, as the bus passed them by?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, it would be very unlikely.

MR ALBERTS: But then I don't understand why it would have been a problem to in those circumstances, drive to Brigadier Cronje's house with a minibus?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I am not disputing the fact that the minibus went to Brigadier Cronje's house. It just seems odd to me that you would take a trained terrorist to a senior Security Policeman's house. I can't recall that the man was cuffed or covered with a blanket and he was certainly not unconscious at that stage, so nothing would have prevented him at that stage, to jump up to see where we were. That is how I see it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, is there evidence that they actually went into Brigadier Cronje's house, they went to pick him up at his house. Well one, certainly speaking for myself, quite often says that and you go and wait in the street, so it doesn't mean that they would have taken the trained terrorist into the grounds of Brigadier Cronje's house when the evidence is that they picked up Brigadier Cronje and Momberg at his house, does it?

MR ALBERTS: Indeed Mr Chairman, that is how I understand the evidence. There isn't evidence that they actually went into the property itself.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand the difficulty raised by the applicant, but if they didn't go into the house, if they merely stopped in the road, that falls away, doesn't it?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I will accept that, yes.

MR MALAN: I am sorry, just on this point, was the evidence not that Brigadier Cronje lived on a smallholding at Erasmia, or was it simply that he lived in Erasmia?

MR ALBERTS: Chairperson, as I recall the evidence, it was simply that his home was in Erasmia, I don't think there was evidence that it was a smallholding. As it pleases you. To get to the point Mr Oosthuizen, you then don't deny or dispute Momberg and Goosen's versions that the party went via Brigadier Cronje's house?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can only say as far as my presence is concerned, I was not there.

MR ALBERTS: Are you saying that the minibus didn't go there?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I am saying, I wasn't there.

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson,

MR ALBERTS: Isn't this simply a matter which you don't recall, because there is no specific significance to this, it is just simply part of the journey?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I wasn't there. I became involved and came into the vehicle at the Northern Transvaal Branch.

MR ALBERTS: No, I understand that, there is no dispute about that. Are you telling the Committee that the minibus didn't go via Brigadier Cronje's house at all?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, you are not listening to me. I am saying that I got into the bus at the Northern Transvaal Branch and I was not in the bus when it went to his house.

MR ALBERTS: Were you close to his house?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was not in the minibus on its way to Brigadier Cronje's house in Erasmia?

CHAIRPERSON: Was Cronje in the bus when you got in?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: My recollection Mr Chairman, is that when I became involved, when I climbed into the vehicle at Northern Transvaal, all the other members were present, because from there, we went directly to Mamelodi.

MR ALBERTS: Well, in that case, I want to ask you to reconsider that evidence. It is interesting that when Goosen and Momberg testified, they were not cross-examined on this point, otherwise they might have perhaps given other evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it of any relevance, they all agree, they were in the bus and they went? As to how precisely or how they got into this bus, does it matter?

MR ALBERTS: My submission, no, Mr Chairman. I merely pursue this line because I cannot afford to run the risk of adverse credibility findings being made against my clients.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I assure you there won't be?

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I appreciate that. I also note the qualification, Mr Chairman. Then I am afraid Mr Chairman, I have a few more questions, but I will be as brief as I possibly can. Just as far as the particular persons are concerned, your evidence was very positive in that regard that Captain Van Jaarsveld was definitely not involved, is that correct?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Now, there seems to be some uncertainty on the evidence about this point, but as far as Goosen and Momberg is concerned, it is their recollection on probabilities at the end of the day, that he was involved. Goosen especially, is not dogmatic about it, however the question is the following - what are you basing your positive statement on that he was not there?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Because he was not present, simply on that fact.

MR ALBERTS: Once again, it was your observation on that particular day and as far as you can recall it now, and when you compiled your application?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can say with certainty that Jaap van Jaarsveld wasn't present there.

MR ALBERTS: You however say that somebody else could have been present?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I said so in my application, yes.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, and you confirm that today?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, if my recollection serves me right, he said it came to his knowledge that Mr Goosen was also there and this might be the person that he referred to as the other person in his application. You will see Mr Chairman, in the application he does not mention Mr Goosen and he says there might have been another person.

MR ALBERTS: All right, maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention. So that is what you are saying that the unknown person who was unknown during the compilation of your application, later became known as Goosen or that Goosen later became involved, whatever, you know that Goosen was there. Can we still then perhaps assume that there might have been somebody else whom you can't remember?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I accept that the other person was Eric Goosen, the person to whom I had earlier referred. At that stage I didn't know him all that well.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, then I have clarity.

CHAIRPERSON: When you gave your evidence today, you said as I recollect and I noted -

One other present, that is after Goosen?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes Chairperson, at the time that I was compiling my application, and perhaps because I didn't know Goosen well, I couldn't place him on the scene. When I compiled my application, I wasn't certain whether there could have been another person and that is why I mentioned that in my application, but after I became aware of the fact that Eric Goosen was definitely involved, I can accept that that was possibly the person whom I couldn't place on the scene, by name.

MR ALBERTS: You confirm that the communications made before the operation and before it took an active commencement, was to the effect that it was indeed an MK member who accompanied you to Mamelodi?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: It was conveyed to me that it was a trained terrorist, also known to us as an MK.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, but that is very certain, that was the information which was generally or more or less, generally known to all the participants in this operation?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Correct.

MR ALBERTS: And you actually made a mistake by describing the person in your application, as an activist, is that correct?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes. Well, I think it was simply a slip of the tongue.

MR ALBERTS: As far as the explosive device used here is concerned, I am not quite sure how we should understand your evidence in that regard. Is your evidence that it was a limpet mine or is your evidence that it was a different kind of explosive device, such as for instance, a landmine?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I am still speculating on that point. I originally suspected that it was a limpet mine, and I mentioned that it could have been a landmine as well, because I was uncertain. The only additional piece of information which gave substance to my original supposition, is the fact that I had heard that it was the mechanism of a limpet mine that had been picked up on the scene, so I still speculate on this point, I must admit that.

MR ALBERTS: But it would seem as if the uncertainty in this regard, was simply and purely born out of hearsay? Is that correct? What part are you referring to as hearsay?

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Alberts, does it matter, the body was blown up? We all agree that the applicant was present. What is this line of questioning all about?

MR ALBERTS: Chairperson, the cross-examination is simply aimed at establishing the credibility of my clients, and as far as there are discrepancies, I am testing it on that basis.

MR MALAN: I am sorry Mr Alberts, that is a judgement and the witness said right from the outset that he wasn't an expert in explosives. He conceded that and he referred to his further speculation in this regard. I don't think he is attacking the statement that it was a landmine.

CHAIRPERSON: And the other point is some gossip he heard later in the Security Branch about something, somebody had picked up somewhere, which really doesn't take the matter anywhere.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will leave it just there.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't his evidence that when they drove passed, all they found was a hole in the road and nothing else, point very much more to a landmine than a limpet mine?

MR ALBERTS: On probabilities, yes, Mr Chairman. I won't pursue that any further. You say that during the interrogation at Pienaarsriver, you and if I remember correctly, you said Gouws remained seated in the vehicle?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Were you sitting there all the time until the vehicle left from that place?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: At Pienaarsriver, from when we stopped, until we came back to Pretoria, I never left the vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: Was it only the two of you who remained in the vehicle?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't say that with certainty, but I know that we remained in the vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: Because the evidence says that most people got out of this vehicle, where in the vehicle were you sitting?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: On the first seat behind the passenger.

MR ALBERTS: It wasn't the back seat in the bus, the one you are referring to?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.

MR ALBERTS: The people who were sitting there were Momberg, the MK member and Prinsloo, do you agree with that?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: As I have already said, I don't know who else got out of the bus.

MR ALBERTS: I am not talking of getting out of the bus, I am asking you who were sitting on the back bench, the back seat of the bus? I am putting it to you that those three people were sitting there, and I am asking you am I correct?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't help you in that respect, to tell you who were sitting on the back seat.

MR ALBERTS: And for what it is worth, I am going to touch on it, are you absolutely sure that Momberg and as far as he was assisted by Goosen, did not prepare this explosive device in the lights of the vehicle?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't remember that any part of this operation which took place at Pienaarsriver, took place in the lights of the vehicle. I can't remember that.

MR ALBERTS: And that while you were sitting in the vehicle?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Their evidence was clearly that they used the lights of the vehicle to see what they were doing. It is certainly important when you work with an explosive device, to see what you are doing, do you agree with that?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: If you are an expert, you are more capable of doing that than somebody like me, regarding explosives. But regarding your clients' version, I am not disputing that, but I am just saying what I am recalling. I can't remember that they did anything in the lights of the vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: Can we accept then that your recollection does not negate the correctness of the recollections of Momberg and Goosen?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: Because the evidence was as I recollect it, that they went obviously being cautious people, some 20 paces in front of the vehicle, so it would be very easy not to notice what they were doing there. Do you agree with that, that you wouldn't have been looking right away in the front?

MR OOSTHUIZEN: Mr Chairman, yes. I have a problem with these lights. I had to look back to see from where Mr Momberg was coming. I am sorry, I can't assist the Committee any further in this regard, but as I can remember, they were working at the back of the vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: Perhaps I can put your mind at ease in this regard, according to Mr Momberg he said that after he had positioned the body on this explosive device, and after he activated this device by means of the capped fuse, he also approached the bus from the back and got into the bus, before this explosion took place, and now listening to your problem, these two facts are reconcilable.

MR OOSTHUIZEN: I accept that Mr Chairman.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we will now adjourn until tomorrow morning. Gentlemen, how much time do you think we will take tomorrow, including your addresses?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, my cross-examination of this witness and of the next witness, will be very brief. In total I don't think my cross-examination will exceed 10 to 15 minutes, and I will only argue on the security guard matter, which will depend on the questions you ask, but I can't see that it will be longer than half an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: We will finish easily tomorrow.

MR ALBERTS: Excuse me Mr Chairman, may I interpose. When my learned friend refers to arguing on the security guard matter, that I assume presupposes that we finish it? Our present dilemma is that that is an uncertainty.

CHAIRPERSON: No, what I have in mind and I think Mr Du Plessis must be reading my mind, is if we are going to have a short day tomorrow, we might agree with what he suggested the other day and start at half past nine, rather than at nine o'clock, he's got quite a long way to come. Do you think that is safe gentlemen?

MR ALBERTS: Starting later?

CHAIRPERSON: Half past nine.

MR ALBERTS: That would be in order Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You all agree?

JUDGE PILLAY: What is your problem Mr Alberts?

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, the only problem that I have at this stage is that I can't give you an assurance when we are going to finish the first matter we commenced this week.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR ALBERTS: For the simple reason Mr Chairman, that we will in all probabilities call another witness and the calling of that witness will I would think, necessitate further cross-examination in all fairness to Mr Van Jaarsveld, so his cross-examination will be continued, because at least that evidence would have to be put to him and he must have a fair chance to comment to that and after that, the further witness would have to testify, and obviously be subjected to further cross-examination again. The practical problem is that that all implies Mr Van Jaarsveld's presence here, but we haven't been able to contact him this afternoon to ascertain when he is going to be available, when this is going to be convenient to him. Obviously I think it is in everyone's interest, including his own, to get him here as soon as possible, and to dispose of all this, and if that is possible tomorrow, Mr Chairman, then I can't see us, even with argument outstanding, etc, going beyond lunch time on Friday at the outside. Finishing tomorrow Mr Chairman, I don't see possible at this stage, not if it concerns both incidents and argument, and further evidence, quite frankly.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I see indications that you wanted to talk?

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have only had a chance during the short adjournment to try and contact Mr Van Jaarsveld, my cellphone has been off since then, but I will liaise with both Mr Du Plessis and Counsel and see whether we can arrange for him to be here tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the nature of this evidence? I don't ask you to commit yourself to the witness yet, but ...

MR ALBERTS: No, I shall not, but I am at liberty to give the outlines to you Mr Chairman. The witness will be Mr Paul van Vuuren who has testified before, and who is also involved in the whole amnesty process.

CHAIRPERSON: A discussion we have already had?

MR ALBERTS: Yes, what Mr Du Plessis advised you.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we should start earlier Mr Du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: I am in your hands Mr Chairman, I have no problem with that.

JUDGE PILLAY: ... about the availability of Van Jaarsveld? It depends on when he is available.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't know yet, he says his cellphone broke down, he didn't come and borrow any of ours.

MR MEINTJIES: Excuse me Mr Chairman, no, it didn't break down, I switched it off and I will immediately contact, try and contact Mr Van Jaarsveld.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you said you had not been able to attempt to make contact with him since the short adjournment, so I took it that your cellphone was not working during the long adjournment.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Meintjies, I thought Mr Van Jaarsveld said that he would be readily available, we just needed to contact him?

MR MEINTJIES: The situation, Mr Van Jaarsveld specifically asked to be excused this afternoon. I fully expect him to be willing and able to be here tomorrow morning first thing.

CHAIRPERSON: I tried Mr Du Plessis, but I don't think I can, nine o'clock tomorrow morning.