--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, it is Thursday the 20th of May 1999, we are continuing with the amnesty applications of Coetzee & Others in respect of the Simelane matter.

Mr Lamey, you hadn't completed your evidence-in-chief?

MR LAMEY: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Veyi I remind you that you are still under oath.

NIMROD VEYI: (s.u.o)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)

Sorry Mr Chairman, my client just points out to me that he wants to change his headphones. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Veyi, I just want to come back on one aspect, can you hear me, during the times that you were present during interrogation sessions at the farm in Northum, can you comment about, can you give any comment about the question whether the lady Simelane, about whether she was allowed to sleep and if so, how did it happen?

MR VEYI: As I have already said, she would sleep maybe for 30 minutes or an hour and then she would be woken up and questioned again.

MR LAMEY: Okay, now you say in your supplemented application in paragraph 9(a)(i) that you apply for amnesty for your involvement, participation and the kidnapping of this person and the assaults on her during interrogation, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: So you also apply for amnesty for every other offence or delict which may be inferred from the facts of your participation and involvement, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Further you state that in so far as you have been informed by the late Sergeant Mothiba, this lady was shot and her body buried at Rustenburg, you also apply for amnesty for your omission to report this or for the possible offence of being an accessory after the fact, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: In this regard, when Sergeant Mothiba told you this that she was shot and killed and buried at Rustenburg, can you comment as to why you did not report this to any authority?

MR VEYI: After I met with Mkhize at the four way stop ...

MR LAMEY: Is that now Coetzee, Mkhize? Who is Mkhize?

MR VEYI: It is Coetzee. At the four way stop I saw Nokuthula in the car boot, I didn't tell anybody, but I kept that to myself.

MR LAMEY: Right, perhaps can I just get back, when you saw her in the car boot, she was still alive, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, she was still alive. She was swollen, her face was swollen.

MR LAMEY: I am asking when Sergeant Mothiba told you that she was shot and killed and buried at Rustenburg, you didn't report that, or you didn't report this to any authorities?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct, I didn't report it.

MR LAMEY: Can you explain perhaps why you did not do that?

MR VEYI: I didn't report it because the situation at those times, it did not allow me to report it. If I would have reported this, I would be regarded, I don't know how to put this, I would be regarded as a sell-out, as somebody that cannot keep the government secrets.

MR LAMEY: And if you were being regarded as a sell-out, what in your mind, could something happen to you?

MR VEYI: Yes, I would be charged for revealing that sensitive information.

ADV GCABASHE : Explain that, you would be charged for revealing that information, just explain that?

MR VEYI: Everything that we did at those times, those things were secrets. If you joined the Police, you take an oath, especially at the Security Branch, that everything that would be said there, you won't reveal it to anybody. Everything that took place, you won't tell anybody. If it happened that they found out that you are selling out the information, you would be charged.

MR LAMEY: Now the secrecy aspect, what was the reason behind the secrecy aspect and the way the Security Police worked at that stage? The secrecy, you say that you worked under secret conditions during those times, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: In your mind, what was the reason behind all this secrecy among the Security Police members and their activities?

MR VEYI: I can put it this way, because at those times it was during the struggle, if the information, if I would give out the information, it might be possible that the enemy would get that kind of information.

MR LAMEY: Would the enemy then use that information to their advantage against the Security Police and the government at that stage?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: So in other words it was, the reason behind the secrecy if I may make an assumption from what you are saying, it was in order to protect the workings and activities of the Security Branch who actually had to combat the ANC and MK during the struggle and also to protect the government at large, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now further on on this paragraph 9(a)(iii) you say, you refer also to the places is that correct, the Carlton Centre, Northum and so forth?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You explained that she was seriously assaulted as to the nature of her injuries and she suffered injuries on her body, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And further on, if we get to the political objective, Mr Chairman, can I proceed just to lead the witness on this and to read it out to him and ask his confirmation on this?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Thank you. The witness is saying he cannot hear me. Can you hear the Interpreter?

MR VEYI: No, I can't.

MR LAMEY: Which channel? 3? Can you hear me now, can you hear the interpretation?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You say under the paragraph, it is Exhibit S, page 8, yes, thank you.

MR VISSER: Paragraph 1.

MR LAMEY: Paragraph 1, you say one of the main tasks of the Security Police was to combat the armed struggle led by Umkhonto weSizwe, MK, being the military wing of the ANC, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you were part of that Security Police, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You say further that this armed struggle posed a serious threat to the existence of the previous government, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You say further that -

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You say that the information which was mainly sought as far as you know, was the presence of other MK members or terrorists in the RSA, particularly in Johannesburg, Soweto area?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Further on, particulars on planned attacks or infiltration of MK insurgents from Swaziland, armed caches and the like information, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Further on in paragraph 3, page 9 you say the impression that you gained during the interrogation that she was not co-operative and refused to divulge information?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: She was assaulted in order to force her to divulge information which the Security Branch was interested in which you believed that she had?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: From your political own motivation, paragraph 10(b) you say your participation is motivated by the fact that you were at that stage a member of the Security Branch at Soweto and that you strongly believed that the armed struggle of the ANC in collaboration with the South African Communist Party, posed a serious revolutionary threat to the previous government and population, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You also followed orders from your superiors, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You also say that you kept quiet after you heard from the late Sergeant Mothiba that this lady was shot and killed by Coetzee and Pretorius as the disclosure or report would have placed your own life in danger?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You worked as a Security Policemen under highly secret conditions? You have already actually said that, I am just reading this to you out.

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Such a report would have been regarded as a serious breach of the secrecy, as a result you would have been regarded as a similar threat to the Security Police and be viewed in the same category as the enemy, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You referred previously also as a sell-out, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You received no any other remuneration as a result of your participation here, except that you received your normal salary?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, that is the evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Visser, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Veyi, I understand that you are still a member of the South African Police Service, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: What is your rank at the moment?

MR VEYI: I am a Sergeant.

MR VISSER: Did you attend Police College and pass out from the Police College?

MR VEYI: Yes, I attended.

MR VISSER: I want to read something to you Mr Veyi, Chairperson, I will refer to Exhibit T, specifically to the newspaper reports, in my order it is the first ...

ADV DE JAGER: I don't know what is wrong with our system. There seems to be something wrong with the system, we receive constantly other noises on the system.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know sometimes if people touch this when it is on, then of course it produces a disturbance, but I don't know ...

MR VISSER: (Microphone not on) Yes Chairperson, I am referring to the newspaper reports and unfortunately we did not paginate it, we should do that, Chairperson it is the one with the heading "Burden of Guilt lifted off Mr X", it is about the sixth page I think, from the front yes. It is dated February, 15, 1995, I just want to read something to the witness. Mr Veyi, would you please listen to what I read to you and I will ask you some questions about that. Under the heading "Time for Truth" it states, this newspaper report states "he knew" and that he refers to Mr X and we have heard that Mr X was you, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: "He knew it was time to reveal the truth, the evil deeds of his Intelligence Unit and especially those of his white Commanders had remained hidden for long enough. Mr X thinks it is time they were brought out into the open, his conscience demanded that he do something about it." I skip a sentence and then the next paragraph "besides his getting on years and after almost two decades of serving in the Police Force, he remains a lowly Constable. His white bosses have climbed the ranks to Colonel and General." Now is that information which you gave the reporter?

MR VEYI: The information I gave was about the shooting of Nokuthula because after it appeared in the Sowetan ...

MR VISSER: ... can help you?

MR VEYI: The article that appeared in the Sowetan was this photo. The heading said "Missing in Action". This is what made me to go to the Sowetan and tell them about my story.

MR VISSER: My question to you is this, did you in fact give the information to the reporter, which I have just read to you?

MR VEYI: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : Can I just get clarity on that Mr Veyi, you are saying that you told the reporter that these evil deeds had to be divulged essentially and that your bosses had moved, climbed the ranks from Colonel to General, while you are still a lowly Constable, that is what Mr Visser read to you in essence, you say you gave that information to the Sowetan?

MR VEYI: I apologise, I didn't understand the question, I didn't say anything about the ranks, but what happened is after I saw this heading in the Sowetan, "Missing in Action" and this photo that I have already showed you, I then went to the Sowetan and then I told Sharon Chetty that I know about this story. She then made a follow up and she wanted to know what happened and then I told her from Carlton Centre, I told her what happened.

ADV GCABASHE : Mr Visser's question is specific, he actually read that passage to you in full and that is what he wants a comment on, not generally what you said to whom, he actually asked you a specific question.

MR VEYI: I didn't say that, I don't know anything about that.

MR VISSER: Are you saying that which I read to you is something which the reporter came up with and it is not based on anything you told her?

MR VEYI: Maybe she just wrote that, but what I told her is about the missing of Nokuthula.

MR VISSER: Yes, and that was after you saw her photograph in the Sowetan, is that right?

MR VEYI: Yes, it was after I saw the photo and then read the story.

MR VISSER: And you indicated, you showed the Committee members the photo that you were referring to, isn't that right?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Is this the one that I am holding in my hand at the moment?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Are you sure of that?

MR VEYI: Yes, I am sure.

MR VISSER: It is not true and I will tell you why not, because the article that I read to you from, is dated February, the 15th 1995 and the one that you showed the Committee is dated two years later, in May on the 22nd of May 1997. What you say, can't be true.

MR VEYI: The photo appeared in the Sowetan and the story you are referring to, I don't know anything about that. I saw this photo and the heading of that story was "Missing in Action".

MR VISSER: But would you agree with me that the reader of the portion which I read to you, might come to the conclusion that you resented your white co-Policemen? Would you agree with that? There is a resentment towards white Policemen that emanates from what I read to you, do you agree with that?

MR VEYI: It is the first time that I hear that I resented them, I don't agree with that.

MR VISSER: You don't agree with that, all right, now you told this Committee that Mkhonza came back from Swaziland and you said "we had a meeting". Do you remember saying that?

MR VEYI: I said there was a meeting. I know about the meeting but I don't remember whether I was present at that meeting.

MR VISSER: Try to listen to the questions and answer them instead of trying to find out where we are going.

MR LAMEY: I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to make by my learned friend.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, can he just answer the questions. Where was this meeting held?

MR VEYI: I have already said that I don't remember about the meeting, but I knew that we were supposed to go to the Carlton Centre.

MR VISSER: Mr Veyi, let's start again, you said "when Mr Mkhonza came back from Swaziland, we had a meeting", did you say that?

MR VEYI: I said there was a meeting but I don't remember whether I was present in that meeting, but I knew that there was, people were going to go to Carlton Centre.

MR VISSER: Are you saying you attended a meeting where it was said that people would go to Carlton Centre, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: I am saying because this happened at that time, I don't remember whether I was present in the meeting or not but I knew about what was going to happen.

MR VISSER: How did you know what was going to happen?

MR VEYI: First of all in the Unit, we were working like this, even if you were not present at the meeting, if there was going to be a meeting, we as members of the Unit, especially black members, if Lazarus attended the meeting, he would then report back to me about the discussion. Even if I attended the meeting, I would tell him. That is how we were working.

MR VISSER: Well, all right, we heard that there was a meeting and within an hour or two after that, the arrest was apparently carried out. Do you know anything about that space of time between the meeting and the arrest?

MR VEYI: Yes, I have already said that I knew that a lady from Swaziland was going to be arrested in Carlton Centre.

MR VISSER: I just want to put it to you that I am going to argue that you were present at the meeting which Coetzee and Pretorius and Mong and Williams and Ross testified about and that this was the meeting where you heard what the plan was in regard to the arrest of this lady. Do you want to make any comment on that?

MR VEYI: I have already said that I can't say I was there or not, but I knew about it.

MR VISSER: You see Mr Veyi, I want to put a few things to you and I want to suggest to you that what has happened here with what was put on your behalf to the witnesses which I have just mentioned, creates the impression that you opposed what they said basically just in principle, and let me tell you what I am talking about. You see on your behalf it was put by Mr Lamey to those applicants which I have just referred to that you did not attend the meeting where Coetzee informed those present, that the intention was to kidnap Simelane in order to recruit her as an informer. That was put, now ...

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, if I remember correctly it was put specifically about a meeting about a "kop draai aksie", that he did not attend such a meeting where there was a specific discussion about the purpose of kidnapping for a "kop draai aksie."

MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, I put it exactly correctly as I wrote it down, and I don't withdraw that question. I will repeat it then.

CHAIRPERSON: In whose cross-examination was that put Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: That was put to both Coetzee as well as Pretorius as well as to Mong that when Mong gave evidence Chairperson, I am not quite sure but I think in Mong's cross-examination it was conceded that he might have been there. To Coetzee and Pretorius it was specifically denied that he was present at any such meeting.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, if I may come in here, in Exhibit T there is specific reference, I don't have it now in front of me Exhibit T, by Coetzee and also repeated by the other members about the meeting of the "kop draai aksie" and it was about the way in which they put it in a "kop draai aksie", in a meeting where that was specifically spelt out to the members present, but it was put to the witness, as far as I recall that he was not present at a meeting where specifically a "kop draai aksie", or - my learned friend put it in the way of recruitment, that is just perhaps another way of saying it, but that was the gist of I think if I remember correctly, what was put.

CHAIRPERSON: Just remind me Mr Lamey, is there a reference in the statements of Coetzee & Others to the effect that, or to the allegation that your client was present at a meeting where a "kop draai" was discussed, I don't want to search for that here, I am trying to look at Coetzee's ...

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, page 5 of Exhibit T Chairperson, from paragraph 10 onwards.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on), paragraph 10 was about a "kop draai".

MR VISSER: Well, that was the evidence Chairperson, there was only one meeting at which all of this was discussed.

CHAIRPERSON: According to my colleague, drew my attention to paragraph 15 on page 7 of Exhibit T, the last sentence, it says -

And then paragraph 12, yes, this is Muller all right, then paragraph 13 says -

so that seems to be what Exhibit T says.

MR VISSER: That is what those witnesses stated Chairperson and what was put to them was that Mr Veyi will say that he was not present at that meeting. That is what I am putting to him now. The record will speak for itself.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just come in here, in Exhibit W it could be that this was, I can't remember exactly to which witness it was put, but in paragraph 5 of Exhibit W Ross states that, paragraph 5 onwards, page 3 of Exhibit W Ross states that he was told beforehand that it was decided by Brigadier Muller to give approval for this turning action and that certain members were informed as such. Yes, he just makes mention of certain members ...

MR VISSER: No, no, he mentions them, he lists them Chairperson. My learned friend can't just say that he just makes mention of certain members.

MR LAMEY: Sorry then, I was looking actually for that whether he was mentioning it specifically, but it could be that it was then specifically put to this witness, but I remember putting it in the context of a meeting where there was mention specifically made of a decision of kidnapping for purposes of the "kop draai aksie".

MR VISSER: That is what I was referring to. I don't understand the objection Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Perhaps we are speaking then on cross purposes here, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the objection seems to be that Mr Lamey is of the view that what he had put to your witnesses, to your clients was that Mr Veyi was not present at a meeting where the "kop draai" of this intended arrestee or abductee was discussed, so it is in that context that he had put that Mr Veyi wasn't there. From there I understand, from that submission I understand that he is disputing that he had put on behalf of Mr Veyi that he was not present at a meeting in the sense that you have referred to in your cross-examination, a meeting where there was discussion about arresting and so on. This witness' position seems to be that he could have been there, I can't remember but he could have been there.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I don't want to make this more involved than what it is, because really it is quite simple. The applicants whom you have heard up to now, have given you evidence about a meeting that was held where it was discussed that this person had come into the Republic, that she was going to meet Mkhonza, that she was an MK agent, that she was going to be grabbed and the purpose would be that she would be recruited to become an informer. Mr Lamey quite explicitly put that Mr Veyi wasn't present at that meeting and the only point that I am making now, is only when Mr Mong gave evidence did Mr Veyi concede that he might have been present at that meeting. That is as simple as that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but except that on what Mr Lamey says, there seems to have been a lack of common ground as to what was discussed at this particular meeting. Mr Lamey says that what he had put to your clients was focused on the question of whether a "kop draai" was discussed beforehand or not. He says his client wasn't present at a meeting where that was discussed. His client seems to say that he knew about the arrest, he could possibly have been present at a meeting where that was discussed, he can't remember and he can't dispute it, so it seems to be that that is where you part company, you and Mr Lamey.

MR VISSER: I will put the question on this basis if I may then Chairperson, I put to you Mr Veyi, that on your behalf if was put that you did not attend any meeting at which the kidnapping of Simelane was discussed. I put to you that the evidence of Mr Mong, it was conceded on your behalf that you might have been present, but you had forgotten about it. In fact it was in your own evidence yesterday, you said that you might have been present, but you might had forgotten about that, is that correct?

MR VEYI: What I am saying is, it might be possible that I was there or not, but I knew that people would go to Carlton Centre.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, I didn't have my, I am sorry, could you just repeat for my benefit the answer, please.

MR VEYI: What I am saying is, it is possible that I was present or not, but I knew that people would go to Carlton Centre and arrest a lady from Swaziland.

MR VISSER: All right. Let's go on to the next thing. Do you agree that it was put on your behalf that your Unit, the Intelligence Unit, in 1983 had safe houses available which they used?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did I understand you correctly when you gave evidence yesterday to say that they came later than 1982?

MR VEYI: No.

MR VISSER: I see. Let's go on to the next point. You, it was put on your behalf, consistently, that you never knew that Simelane was being recruited while she was in your detention, is that correct?

MR VEYI: There is a question that I didn't answer, I thought that we were still continuing about the safe houses. Yesterday I said there were safe houses before 1983, at the time when Simelane was kidnapped, there were safe houses and I quoted about Peter Lengene. After Peter Lengene was kidnapped in Botswana, he was taken to Klipspruit. We then sometimes would be in Rustenburg.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, you know Mr Veyi, if you want to discuss that, we can do so, I have already stepped off that point, but let's discuss that. Were you involved in the kidnapping of Mr Lengene?

MR VEYI: No, I was not involved.

MR VISSER: Yes, so how do you know anything about it?

MR VEYI: But I was working in that Unit.

MR VISSER: How do you know where he was kept and where he was questioned?

MR VEYI: I was working with that Unit even though I didn't go when they went to kidnap him.

MR VISSER: So are you saying that you told the Committee something which you heard from someone else, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: When there would be an operation, for example, maybe there would be eight of us in the Unit and then six of us would go outside and there would be those who are left inside the country, those who would handle the sources inside the country and collect reports. In Lengene’s case, that is what happened. Others went outside to kidnap and I was inside the country. That is why I didn't go, but when they brought him here, I was present. When we were recruiting him and turning him, convincing him to join us, I was there. I was one of the members who took part, we tried to turn him.

MR VISSER: ... while he was being assaulted?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct, he was assaulted and that didn't take a long time like in Nokuthula's case. It only took a short period and then after that he agreed to cooperate with us until he became a full member of the South African Police Force.

MR VISSER: And exactly where was he assaulted where you were present? In which place were you?

MR VEYI: In Klipspruit, as I have already said we had three safe houses and then we abandoned the two, we used one. It is where we were interrogating people in Klipspruit West.

MR VISSER: Yes, right, now let me tell you something which may come as a surprise to you. In Bundle 2 at page 382 and following the late Mr Lengene’s application form for amnesty can be found. From page 395 onwards, from paragraph 22, he describes in great detail in the minutest detail in fact, how he was kidnapped and how the next day in paragraph 23, he regained consciousness while he was sprawling on a garage floor. If you turn to page 396 you will see at the bottom of paragraph 24, the names which he mentioned of the people who kidnapped him, Willem Coetzee, Anton Pretorius, Jan Martins(?) and in paragraph 26 he mentions Sergeant Mothiba. Coming back to the garage he says in paragraph 28 at page 397 that he later realised that that garage was in a house in Rustenburg, okay. He then goes on to say that he was assaulted, he was interrogated and he was brutally treated until suddenly on a specific day, there was a message over the radio he says in paragraph 30, there was an announcement over the radio about himself and the allegation was that he had been kidnapped by the South African Police and from there onwards, his treatment changed and a Major Schoeman came to see him, he says in paragraph 32 apparently only after he had agreed to work with the Police, that they brought him to Johannesburg, in paragraph 33 you see that. The evidence of Mr Coetzee before this hearing was that it was only after he was recruited, "sy kop gedraai gewees het", that he was brought to Klipspruit West where he was given a house in which to stay, where other Policemen also stayed. What do you say of what I have just put to you? First of all, you are not even mentioned sir, and secondly his version is in direct conflict with what you have just told us?

MR VEYI: I would like to tell this Committee that the way that the Internal Intelligence of the SA Police was working, you wouldn't understand how it was working. The story that you are reading to me, sometimes what you are reading, might not be what happened. I think that the people who are mentioned, you are saying that they kidnapped Peter, I would like to ask whether you have referred to David Djane and George Putukezi.

MR VISSER: Are you saying that Mr Lengene is not telling the truth in his affidavit, in his application for amnesty, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: I would like to know whether George and David Djane are written in that list of names that kidnapped him?

MR VISSER: Can you just answer my question please, are you saying that Mr Lengene is not telling the truth in what I have just put to you, he says?

MR VEYI: Before answering that question, I would like to ask about David Djane and George, whether their names are in that list?

CHAIRPERSON: No, their names are not. Yes Mr Visser, I don't know where it is going to take us.

MR VISSER: I am not going to waste time, I am merely recording that the witness is either unable or unwilling to answer the question. May I refer you to page 400 Chairperson, paragraph 36, just to - I wasn't even going to cross-examine him on this, but he brought it on. The last, second last sentence, he says - actually he refers to him being taken to Benoni after having been taken to Johannesburg and Protea Police station and Benoni, I don't want to go into detail, but he says he was then guarded by three people who were changing days, they were Sergeant Mothiba, Lazarus Selamolela and Manuel Oliphant. I just want to point out that this witness' name doesn't feature anywhere.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just come in here, I think in all fairness, the witness should be asked - I don't want to be prescriptive to Mr Visser, but I think the question should be asked first whether he had an opportunity to read the statement in total of Mr Lengene, in order to enable him to reply to the question whether he - the general question -whether what Mr Lengene is telling, is not the truth. It is a very general question and there is a whole lot of detailed facts, as Mr Visser has put it, in very detailed information. I mean it is such a general question and perhaps the witness should be asked whether he had an opportunity to read this, in order to comment where he agrees and where he does not agree, as it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think Mr Visser has indicated he has stepped off this. It is up to you if you want to deal with it in re-examination.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Let's come back to the question where we were, I put it to you that it was put on your behalf to the previous witnesses that you never knew that Simelane was being recruited "kop gedraai", if you want to use the word, as an informer of the Police. Do you agree with that?

MR VEYI: What I am saying is that I knew that people were going to go to Carlton Centre and arrest Nokuthula. What I was expecting to happen after her arrest, I expected her to be detained. The fact about "kop draai" and all that, I didn't know about that.

MR VISSER: You never knew about that until the last time you saw her, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: This happened when we were in Northum, that is where she was recruited. We were also present, but when initially she was going to be kidnapped in Carlton Centre, the idea was to arrest her.

MR VISSER: I am not talking about the Carlton Centre, I am talking about the farm, it was put on your behalf that you never realised that she was being recruited. Do you agree with that, on the farm?

MR VEYI: When we were with her at the farm, when she was interviewed, we would tell her about the advantages when she would agree being a Police, that was the way we were using to recruit her, that happened at the farm.

MR VISSER: I just want to put it to you your evidence is crystal clear that you knew very well that she was being recruited, even though there was an attempt made to hide that fact from the black members, you knew very well and that is very clear from your own evidence, because you told this Committee yesterday she was told "we will do this and that for you", those were your words and you said "I got the impression that we were trying to recruit her, but she would not cooperate" and statements such as that, but let's step off that. The fourth issue which I want to raise with you is it was specifically denied on your behalf that any toiletries were provided for Simelane from the beginning on the farm. Do you agree with that statement?

MR VEYI: I don't remember seeing toiletries.

MR VISSER: Yesterday you conceded that it may have happened. Do you agree with that?

MR VEYI: I don't remember yesterday toiletries being referred to.

MR VISSER: All right. You, it was denied on your behalf that Coetzee is truthful when he says that his modus operandi when he turns a person to an informer, was to use the method of assaulting, that person. That was for some reason or other, denied by you, do you remember that? It was put on your behalf?

MR VEYI: Coetzee would assault a person if he was trying to recruit that person, that was the way he used.

MR VISSER: Yes, well that is exactly the point, because that was his evidence, and that was denied through Mr Lamey when Mr Coetzee was cross-examined? Do you have any explanation for all of this? All right, you see, I am going to argue that you placed these matters in dispute because you have a resentment against the white Officers that gave evidence here, and it was for the mere sake of denying whatever they were asserting, that is what I am going to argue, if you want to make any comment on that, please do. If you don't, then perhaps we can go onto the next one. You said something strange yesterday ...

MR VEYI: It is the first time that I hear that I resented them.

MR VISSER: All right, you said something strange yesterday, you were asked about what you knew about Simelane and you said and I wrote it down "she could possibly be an MK member", did I hear you correctly or is that not what you intended to say?

MR VEYI: Can you please repeat your question?

MR VISSER: You said "she could possibly be an MK member", that is what you heard about Simelane, perhaps if one of the members would check my note, but I wrote it down exactly like that.

ADV GCABASHE : What were they discussing?

MR VISSER: The evidence, it was right in the beginning, Mkhonza came back from Swaziland and he told them about somebody that was coming in and then he said "she could possibly be an MK member" and because we haven't got a record, I want to be quite careful with my notes, they are notoriously bad. I am sorry for asking you to check for me, but that is what I wrote down.

ADV DE JAGER: In his evidence in chief?

MR VISSER: His evidence in chief, it was right at the beginning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he said that he understood that this lady would be arrested, trapped and arrested because she might be a member of MK.

MR VISSER: Words to that effect yes, she might be, yes. That is the only point I want to raise with the witness now. Mr Veyi, could there have been any doubt in your mind at the time, that she was in fact an MK member?

MR VEYI: Because Scotch, Mr Mkhonza, in Swaziland, his contacts were MK members, so I took it for granted that this person who was coming this side, was also a member of MK.

MR VISSER: Yes. Just press your button, can you just keep your hands away from that then please, thank you. In other words you did not intend to convey to the Committee yesterday that you were uncertain about the fact that she was an MK member?

MR VEYI: At the time when she was coming to this country, I was not certain, but the way Mr Mkhonza was operating, I knew that he was operating with MK members, so I just assumed that she was also a member of MK.

MR VISSER: You know Mr Veyi, let me just tell you what you say in your own application, Exhibit S page 3, paragraph 3, you say

is that right or is that wrong?

MR VEYI: As I have said, Scotch was dealing with MK in Swaziland, so it was possible that this one was also a member of MK, that was what I was trying to say.

MR VISSER: Look at page 8, paragraph 2 -

Why suddenly the doubt in your mind?

ADV GCABASHE : Page what was the last reference?

MR VISSER: I am sorry, page 8, paragraph 2 the first sentence. In any event, perhaps if we can try to cut this short, are you conceding today she was an MK member or are you saying you are still doubtful?

MR VEYI: I would like to look at my statement first that I made.

MR VISSER: Are you saying you cannot say today in your own mind as you sit there, whether Simelane was an MK member or not, is that what you are saying, without looking at your statement?

MR VEYI: At the time when I was making the statement, I knew that she was a member of MK, but when she was arrested, I didn't know.

ADV GCABASHE : And today, the question is today, what do you think today?

MR VEYI: She was a member of MK.

CHAIRPERSON: On what information do you base that? Why do you say that?

MR VEYI: When we were in Northum, when she was tortured, interviewed and all these things, it is where we got the information that she was trained and she was an MK member.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what she told you under torture?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you confirmed that independently?

MR VEYI: According to the reports that Coetzee found and the contacts in Swaziland, confirmed that she was a member.

CHAIRPERSON: So Coetzee confirmed this you say, independently from what she was saying under torture?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. You went to visit Simelane's parents not too long ago, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you find out whether they did anything in the struggle?

MR VEYI: I was not interested of what they did in the struggle, I was concerned only about the child that was missing, the child that I knew about.

MR VISSER: You say that Simelane was kept at the Norwood flats for approximately a week, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Are you quite sure of that, you are absolutely certain that it was a week, not one or two days?

MR VEYI: I can say it is a week because after she was taken to Norwood, I went there and I stayed something like three days guarding her and then I went back. I didn't know when she had arrived.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, I am not sure that you understood my question. My question to you is, how long was Simelane kept at the flats at Norwood?

MR VEYI: I think it was about a week.

MR VISSER: When you made your statement, Exhibit S, did you - I am sorry - when was Exhibit S dated? I don't have a date on mine, the 7th of May 1999? When you made your statement on the 7th of May 1999, which was just the other day, did you say at page 4, in paragraph 5, with reference to the words -

You made a footnote and in the footnote you say -

What this means in brief is in your original amnesty application you said she was taken to Northum the day after her arrest, do you agree with that?

MR VEYI: Yes, I agree with that.

MR VISSER: And this year, in May 1999, you changed that to a week, is that correct?

MR VEYI: There is nothing that I changed, I only added to what my initial statement was.

MR VISSER: Well, all right. Did you read Mr Selamolela's application at the time when you made your, when you completed your application, the first one?

MR VEYI: I don't remember reading it.

MR VISSER: Did you read it after you completed your original application form?

MR VEYI: No, I don't remember.

MR VISSER: Well, I want to suggest to you - well, did you speak to Mr Selamolela about the time that this lady was kept at Norwood?

MR VEYI: What I did when I was with Mr Lamey, he told me that Selamolela was also present, after taking my statement he would take Mr Selamolela's statement. Selamolela then came and I greeted him and we haven't been seeing each other for more than five years. We didn't discuss about Simelane's case.

MR VISSER: Did you listen while Mr Selamolela was telling Mr Lamey what he remembered about this incident?

MR VEYI: I was present, I was there.

MR VISSER: Yes, and you heard him say that Simelane was kept at Norwood for approximately a week, page 567 Chairperson, Bundle 3. Bundle 3, 567.

MR VEYI: Mr Lamey only wanted to know whether I know the story of Simelane and Selamolela, whether I was present in this case and I then agreed that I was present during the Nokuthula incident. Then I don't remember anything else.

MR VISSER: You are avoiding the question, did you hear Mr Selamolela tell Mr Lamey that this lady was kept at Norwood for approximately a week, it is a simple question?

MR VEYI: No, I didn't hear him.

MR VISSER: Well, I suggest to you that that is exactly where you heard about the week and that is the reason why you changed your original statement from the - more or less the correct situation of one day, it was in fact two days, but one day after her arrest, to a week after her arrest. That is the reason why you changed it. I put it to you, what do you say to that?

MR VEYI: What I am saying is, I didn't change, I just added to what I have forgotten after I consulted with Mr Lamey.

MR VISSER: Did you tell this Committee yesterday that you visited Simelane twice during the time that she was at Norwood, did I hear you correctly?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And on each occasion for how long did you spend time in her presence?

MR VEYI: When she was in Northum ...

MR VISSER: I am talking about Norwood, at the flats, I am not talking about the farm. I am not talking about the farm, at the flats in Norwood, in Custodum Flats, at the office.

MR VEYI: In Norwood I went there twice if I still remember well.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right, the next question is, on each occasion, how long time did you spend with her?

MR VEYI: I would sleep there, spend the night there or spend two days there and then you would go back.

MR VISSER: All right, so while she was at the flats in Norwood, you spent two nights there with her, guarding her I take it and you say that you also spent two days with her, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: Please repeat your question?

MR VISSER: Perhaps you must tell us, how long on each occasion did you spend with Simelane while she was at the flats at Norwood.

MR VEYI: I went there twice, I would go this day. In a week I would go twice.

ADV GCABASHE : Now come back to the first time you went to see Simelane at Norwood, how long did you spend with her that first time, then you went away. Then tell us about the second time, how long did you spend with her that second time, that is the gist of the question. Break it down for us, thank you.

MR VEYI: I can say that when I first saw her, I stayed for two days and then I went again after two days, for another two days.

ADV GCABASHE : And on these two days each time, you would spend one night or two nights at the flats, just break it down for us again.

MR VEYI: If I would go to Norwood, I would arrive maybe today, let's say on Monday and I would spend the night, Monday night and I would spend Tuesday night and then I would go back, and maybe a day would pass, after a day I would then go back, spend two days and then I would go back again.

MR VISSER: During the time that you spent with Simelane at the flats at Norwood, were you alone with her or was there another black Policeman with you?

MR VEYI: I was not alone, in most cases I was with Selamolela.

MR VISSER: Well, we only know of two cases, was Selamolela with you on both those occasions that you have told us about?

MR VEYI: I don't remember whether the first day I went, I went with Selamolela the first day or the second day, I don't remember, I can't remember that.

MR VISSER: All right, are you saying you were not with him there on both occasions?

MR VEYI: I would not dispute the fact that I went with him the first time or the first day or second day, but I was there with him sometime.

MR VISSER: Are you saying you were not with him on both occasions, please it is a simple question? Is there a problem with the microphones again?

MR VEYI: The first, firstly I used to work with Selamolela and with Sefuti sometimes, I don't know whether the first time I went with Selamolela or Sefuti and I don't know the second occasion whether I went with either of them, which one of them I went with.

MR VISSER: All right. Let's come to the assaults of Ms Simelane. Why do you say at Norwood, I am just talking about Norwood at the flats, why do you say was she assaulted?

MR VEYI: She was assaulted because we wanted her to reveal about her activities and the contacts in South Africa and her mission in South Africa and the targets that were attacked during her presence in South Africa and the countries where she was trained and the people that she was trained with. That was the information that was needed from her. The reason that made her to be assaulted was because she was not willing to talk.

MR VISSER: Right. Coetzee and Pretorius said and Mong stated that they assaulted her by slapping her with the open hands, hitting her with the fists at Norwood in her back and in her ribs apparently, do you agree with that?

MR VEYI: Coetzee and Mong and Pretorius are not telling the truth, are not relating properly as to what happened. Some of the things did happen, but some of the things that they are saying are not true.

MR VISSER: What is not true about them saying that they slapped her and hit her with a fist on the body?

MR VEYI: First of all, if an MK member was caught or captured, an MK member used to be regarded as a most dangerous person, more than a criminal. The treatment would not be assaulted with open hand, the others would kick him, the others would strangle him or her, the others would even walk over his body or try to trample her body, something like that. The treatment was not soft at all.

MR VISSER: Okay, let's take that in turn. Did either Coetzee, Pretorius or Mong kick Simelane?

MR VEYI: They were kicking her, they were doing anything that you do to a person if she is captured, she was pulled roughly and hit against the wall and she would scream, that is why when she was in Norwood, she was later taken to Northum. It is because people were suspecting that something was going on at the penthouse.

MR VISSER: Mr Veyi, did Mr Coetzee kick Simelane?

MR VEYI: The way he was kicking her, he even told her or he would tell her that he himself was more dangerous than ANC, and if she was not willing to talk, he would kill her.

MR VISSER: I am sorry. Did Mr Coetzee kick Simelane?

MR VEYI: Yes, he was kicking her and doing everything and smacking her face and he would do anything.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Mr Veyi, do you have a problem with the Translator?

MR VEYI: No, I don't have a problem at all.

MR VISSER: Did Mr Pretorius kick Simelane, at Norwood at the flats?

MR VEYI: The two of them were doing that and even though we were there ourselves, we wouldn't stand up and fold our arms, we would try and do something, though we knew very well deep down from our hearts, that what was happening was not acceptable.

MR VISSER: I don't know what that means really. The question was whether Pretorius kicked Simelane, that was the question.

MR VEYI: They were having turns, if Pretorius was hitting her and the others would be standing there and push her to the other side and the other person would take a turn also.

MR VISSER: Mr Veyi, I think we must sort out the problem that we have, I asked you whether Pretorius kicked Simelane and you talk about others standing around and pushing and - don't you understand ...

ADV GCABASHE : I was going to say it is a language issue. It is expression because what they were doing, he also is agreeing with you as I understand Zulu, Xhosa, they were in fact doing exactly that, but they were actually exchanging, he is adding to what you are saying, so he is agreeing and adds, he agrees and adds. Maybe you need to agree one way or the other that he is either going to be more specific and not expansive in language or something, but that is what I think the problem is Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Here I was thinking that he has a disagreeable way of agreeing with me. All right, Mr Veyi, I just want to put to you that - let me ask you this, did Mr Mong kick Simelane at Norwood at the flats?

MR VEYI: I cannot say, as I was saying the other members were also participating whenever she was beaten up. Maybe if she happened to run towards your direction, you would try and push her and say go away and the room was so small.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you perhaps try and take it step by step? I suppose Mr Visser would come to the slapping and the pushing, but at first can we only deal with kicking? Who did the kicking?

MR VEYI: I don't know how to explain this. I think Mr Visser does not understand the way that the Police were working. If the suspect is captured by five Policemen and the suspect is there in front of the Police, there would be no time to check or monitor who is doing what. All the people who are there in front of the suspect, if perhaps I smack her across the face, the other one is kicking and the other one is punching her, such things used to happen. That was happening, that is what was happening there, I can not say that so and so did this and that, but it is something that would happen there.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you just all attack this lady? You would smack, you would kick, you would push, you would strangle, you would step on her body, all those things that you described to us that would happen to people in your care at that time?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So it wasn't a nice thing where you

would not all kick for five minutes and then you would slap for five minutes and then you would strangle for five minutes?

MR VEYI: No, that was not the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that what happened there?

MR VEYI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Are you saying that for the time that you were in the presence of Simelane, four or five people assaulted her continuously together, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is what I am trying to explain. This is exactly why I say the way she was assaulted, she didn't look the same, her appearance changed. Her physical condition had changed completely.

MR VISSER: I just want to put it to you that it is most unlikely that that could have happened. I put it to you that what you are telling this Committee about strangulations, about trampling on her body, was never put to Coetzee or Pretorius or Mong in regard to Norwood, nor was it ever put to them that any of them ever kicked Simelane and that means only one thing and that is that you never told Mr Lamey that.

MR LAMEY: I think it was conceded by the clients of Mr Visser that they each participated in one way or the other in the assault by hitting with fists, slapping and also possibly kicking, they also conceded in their own evidence.

MR VISSER: That is just not so.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I have a note in which Mr Coetzee conceded that it is possible that he might well have kicked the deceased, Simelane, it happened I think on the morning, the second morning whilst he was being asked questions by members of the panel. I have a note specifically to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I think the record will eventually bear out what was the position. Mr Visser, you had put your recollection to him.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, then obviously I can't take it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: The record will speak for itself. I also want to put it to you that you never, it was never put to Pretorius that he would push Simelane against another person who would slap her, that made her fall to the ground. That is evidence which we only heard for the first time when you gave evidence.

MR VEYI: It is, you are supposed to hear that for the first time from me, because I mentioned it for the first time.

MR VISSER: Yes, but you were supposed to make a full disclosure in your application, you know, Mr Veyi. All right.

MR VEYI: Even if you are in court, if you give evidence in court, you do make your statement, but when you are in the dock or if you are in the podium there, you start revealing, you get into details and the things, some of the things that you mention in court, are the things that you did not write down. That is what I am saying that even if I did not write some other things in my statement, right now I am having an opportunity to spell it out in details.

MR VISSER: Fair enough. Fair enough, this is after all your application, I accept that. Let's talk about your participation in the assaults. Did you slap Simelane, listen carefully, did you slap Simelane with the open hand at Norwood?

MR VEYI: I said as you are working together, all of us, I was not supposed to stand there and fold my arms if the other people are busy, because if I would do that, I was going to be perceived the other way.

MR VISSER: About not just saying "yes I slapped her", if that is your evidence, or no, I didn't slap her.

MR LAMEY: I think Mr Chairman ...

MR VISSER: Is it a language problem again?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, it might very well just be a cultural issue here. Let's try, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I don't want to be at all - interrupt my learned friend's cross-examination, but I get the impression that he answers it by implication, what he is saying, it is a way of expression.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that seems to be the position Mr Lamey. Counsel is trying to find out exactly what you did, if you can tell us, if you can remember exactly what you did to Ms Simelane, exactly what you did, if you can help us. The first question was did you slap her with an open hand, can you remember whether you slapped her?

MR VEYI: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: You slapped her. Mr Visser, what is the next...

MR VISSER: I must come for lessons from you Mr Chairman. Did you slap her in her face?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Was it a hard slap?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you slap her more than once?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct, I was participating, I was smacking her as she was being assaulted.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right. Did you slap her many times, let me ask you that, did you slap her in the face many times?

MR VEYI: I did, but when we realised that she was

changing, her physical condition was changing, we withdrew, we did not participate.

MR VISSER: That is my next question, because of inter alia your slapping of her, did her face swell up and did she change her appearance? Is that what happened?

MR VEYI: As she was still in Norwood, she was better there, the condition deteriorated when she was in Northum.

MR VISSER: Did you hit Simelane with your fist?

MR VEYI: I cannot remember, I can only remember me slapping her.

MR VISSER: Did you kick Simelane at Norwood at the flats?

MR VEYI: Yes, I did kick her, but I was not kicking her because I wanted to kick her.

MR VISSER: Yes. Where did you kick her on her body?

MR VEYI: Just on her body.

MR VISSER: Where on her body? On her head, on her foot, on her stomach, where?

MR VEYI: I don't know how to explain that, according to us the body is from the waist up to the shoulders. We don't regard the head as the body and even the foot, we refer to them as feet. I was kicking her on her body.

MR VISSER: That means then from the waist to below the head, that is where you were kicking her, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct. It is not because I am the one who was kicking her, but because people were kicking her, I was not alone in kicking her, this was happening in Coetzee's presence only. During their absence, that is Coetzee and the others, nothing would happen.

MR VISSER: Now you said yesterday, you kept on referring to "we assaulted her", now what I want to ask you is this, did you participate in assaults on Ms Simelane on both the occasions when you say you spent time in her presence, on both those occasions at Norwood, I am just talking about Norwood?

MR VEYI: When she was assaulted at Norwood during my presence, I would participate during those two times.

MR VISSER: So, at least on one occasions Mr Selamolela was present while she was being assaulted by you at Norwood?

MR VEYI: As I have already said all the members including the black members, they would do what the others were doing, they were participating though we knew very well that what was happening was not acceptable, but we were forced by the situation prevailing at the time.

MR VISSER: Did you see Mr Selamolela assault Simelane?

MR VEYI: I am going to repeat this, I explained this, if a person is a captive and the people who are present there, they are hitting him or her, you don't watch what the others are doing, as she was there, everyone was taking part in assaulting her.

MR VISSER: I take that to be a "yes" to my question.

MR LAMEY: I take that not necessarily as a "yes".

ADV DE JAGER: He is saying everyone was taking part, he didn't say everyone was kicking, it was about an assault. Could you then perhaps tell us whether Mr Selamolela, whether he in fact kicked or slapped or pushed her, what did he do?

MR VEYI: He was also assisting in assaulting her, but I cannot remember exactly what he did, because assaulting refers to various things or methods. If you are kicking or punching or slapping a person, that is assault.

MR VISSER: Do you know what he says, in Bundle 3 page 567, let me tell you, he says, he refers to the Norwood flats as the married quarters and he says "whilst in my presence at the married quarters, nobody assaulted her." What do you think of that?

MR VEYI: I am saying she was assaulted.

MR VISSER: And in fact you say he also helped assaulting her?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is what I am saying.

MR VISSER: All right, I am going to go over to the farm now Chairperson, might this be a convenient time to take the adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will adjourn for 15 minutes.

NIMROD VEYI: (s.u.o)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Veyi, can we come to what transpired on the farm in Northum and may I say that all the questions that I am going to ask you now, will only relate to what happened on the farm, do you understand that?

MR VEYI: Yes, I do understand.

MR VISSER: To cut a long story short, were the assaults on Simelane on the farm the same as those at Norwood perpetrated by the same people that you testified to this morning?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Except that on the farm, if I may remind you, there was evidence that a sack was also used to draw over Simelane's head to prevent her from breathing, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct and when she was being put into the dam.

MR VISSER: All right, let's talk about the dam. What do you make of this, or what do you want us to understand about the putting into the dam of Simelane, what are you saying to us?

MR VEYI: As she was being put into the dam, she would be assaulted and later be put into the dam, I think that was part of the torture.

MR VISSER: That is not the impression that one gets when one looks at Bundle 3, page 567 of the evidence of Mr Selamolela, page 567. In paragraph 7 he says in the third sentence, "at night this same lady was taken to the zinc dam where Radebe threw her in, but hold her so that she could not drown." If I may stop there, do you agree with that?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct. When she was put into the dam, she would be put in there and be taken out, that was the procedure.

MR VISSER: Right. And it was only done by Radebe?

MR VEYI: Yes, that was Radebe.

ADV GCABASHE : No the question was only done by Radebe? Only?

MR VEYI: Yes, it was himself and the others, Coetzee were present and that was an instruction from Coetzee.

MR VISSER: Well that was never put to Coetzee, I put it to you that he instructed Simelane to be put in the dam. That is a question for argument. I just want to continue reading to you - no, let me just make absolutely certain, you now say that putting her in the dam was part of her torture, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And that was in order to obtain information from her?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: The next sentence of Mr Selamolela says this -

and that seems to suggest that it was not part of her interrogation, but it came after that. Do you agree with my interpretation?

MR VEYI: Perhaps that was not his perception, but I maintain that it was part of interrogation.

MR VISSER: You disagree with him, all right.

CHAIRPERSON: You in fact say you think it was part of the torture? That is what you said?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As he refers to interrogation?

MR VEYI: I am saying it was torture.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VISSER: But you also say it was part of the interrogation, to elicit information, Mr Veyi, you just said so just now.

MR VEYI: I said she would be interrogated and be tortured at the same time.

MR VISSER: And putting her into the dam was part of her interrogation?

MR VEYI: Maybe I made a mistake there.

MR VISSER: What is the mistake you made?

MR VEYI: I am saying torture and interrogation were all happening all at once and by her being put into the dam, it was part of torture while she was being interrogated.

MR VISSER: Thank you, that is what I understood you to say. When - first of all, I am not certain how long you visited the farm, can you remember today on how many occasions did you go to the farm, two or three or four or six, can you perhaps remember?

MR VEYI: I think I would go there twice a week, twice or thrice a week, up to four weeks.

MR VISSER: Okay. So you would have gone then roughly eight times to the farm?

MR VEYI: Yes, that could be the case.

MR VISSER: And on those occasions, how long would you stay on the farm?

MR VEYI: If I go there let's say the distance between Johannesburg and Northum, it is about plus minus 300 kilometres, if I plan to go there, I know that I will be there for two days and after two days, I would come back again.

MR VISSER: Yes, but would it be two days and two nights or just two days and one night or what was your shift?

MR VEYI: I am going to calculate it like this, say for instance if I am there on a Friday, I would spend a night there, Friday and Saturday night and Sunday evening or during the day, I would go back to my place.

MR VISSER: So you would spend two nights there on each occasion?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you always go to the farm in the company of another black Policeman?

MR VEYI: Yes, we were changing shifts. When I arrived there with someone else, we would find the others there and we would release them, they would go back and we would stay over.

MR VISSER: I don't think you understood, would you always go to the farm in the company of another black Policeman?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And who would that have been?

MR VEYI: A person who used to be in my company was Selamolela or Sefuti.

MR VISSER: All right. I am sorry to ask you this but it is important, did you go there half the time with Selamolela and half the time with Sefuti or did you go to the farm with Sefuti more often than with Selamolela or the other way around?

MR VEYI: I cannot be certain about that.

MR VISSER: Were you used on the farm sometimes as an Interpreter?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And I want to ask you just to explain again about this question of sleep.

ADV DE JAGER: What language was Simelane actually speaking?

MR VEYI: She was speaking in Zulu.

MR VISSER: I understood your evidence yesterday and stop me if I am wrong, that Coetzee would arrive during the day and he would start interrogating Simelane until late at night, ten o'clock at night? Is that what you said?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And I understood you to say that if she became tired or sleepy, he would let her go to sleep?

MR VEYI: When she was getting sleepy, she would look tired, he would let her relax for something like an hour or 30 minutes and then he would later start questioning her thereafter.

MR VISSER: That is what I understood you to say, all right. So in other words, your evidence is when she got tired, she was allowed to sleep for a while, if I may sum it up.

MR VEYI: As I am saying her sleeping time was limited, she wouldn't sleep normally, her sleeping time was limited, she wouldn't sleep perhaps from eight o'clock and wake up the following day, that was not the case.

MR VISSER: Yes, I understand. Now was it only Coetzee when he was there, that would interrogate her? Let's try to role a few questions into one, when the white Officers came there, did they interrogate her together, whoever was there?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: They didn't take turns among themselves to interrogate her through the night for example?

MR VEYI: If it would be Pretorius and Coetzee, Pretorius would ask questions and then he would hand over to Coetzee to say something, that is what was happening.

MR VISSER: While they were both interrogating her?

MR VEYI: This is what they were doing there, this is what they would go there for.

MR VISSER: Now, in regard to the assaults on the farm, if I may refer to Exhibit S page 5, perhaps in fairness to you, I should read to you what you said so that you can remember, paragraph 6 at page 4, the sentence starting with the following:

and over the page -

and then the footnote says this -

Would that still be correct, is that still your evidence?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR VISSER: Would Selamolela have assaulted her on the farm as far as you can remember?

MR VEYI: At some stage it says if I remember correctly, it might happen that Selamolela did take part, that is why I have mentioned there that if I remembered very well, because we wouldn't go there, we wouldn't be there at the same time, we were changing shifts. I would be present and he would be absent or things would happen vice versa.

MR VISSER: I am not quite sure, is it your recollection that Selamolela also assaulted Simelane on the farm, yes or no?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR VISSER: There weren't any luxuries on this farm if I understand it correctly, do you agree? There was a toilet?

MR VEYI: It was a back room at the main house.

MR VISSER: Did you hear the evidence that this room was quite a distance away from the main house?

MR VEYI: Yes, I heard that.

MR VISSER: Do you agree with that evidence?

MR VEYI: No, I disagree with him.

MR VISSER: Mr Mong said you couldn't see the one building when you were standing at the other because of the bush? Did you hear him say that?

MR VEYI: This incident took place some time ago and Mong was still new there, it might happen that he cannot remember or perhaps he was not there, the distance from the main house to that back room, is from this wall that I am facing to the other wall that is behind me, you could see the main house. Mong, if my memory serves me well, mentioned something like 100 meters.

MR VISSER: Yes, did you tell your Attorney that Mr Mong is mistaken in that evidence?

MR VEYI: I did not tell him because he did not ask me.

MR VISSER: I see. Do you agree or disagree that there was a washbasin, a blue washbasin in which water was poured for Simelane to wash with?

MR VEYI: I just heard that for the first time, there was no washing basin there.

MR VISSER: All right. Did you wash on the farm?

MR VEYI: No.

MR VISSER: You stayed there for two nights and two days and you didn't wash, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Why didn't you wash on the farm?

MR VEYI: There were no facilities, there was no water, there was no time to wash.

MR VISSER: But there was a dam, I thought there was a dam with water in it?

MR VEYI: The water was dirty and we wouldn't wash ourselves in dirty water or filthy water.

MR VISSER: I see. What was the purpose do you think, why Simelane was hand- and footcuffed?

MR VEYI: In those time's language, Simelane was referred to as a terrorist and a terrorist was a person who was regarded as a dangerous person, that is why she was cuffed because it was possible for her to escape any time.

MR VISSER: Yes, of course. And the whole point about foot or ankle cuffs is that one walks with difficulty when your feet are cuffed, isn't that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you sometimes help her when she had to go to the bush, to the toilet, help her to walk?

MR VEYI: She, as I have already explained that her physical condition had completely changed, she could barely walk, we were assisting her.

MR VISSER: Are you saying that she was unable to walk properly because she was injured, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Where was she injured?

MR VEYI: She would be kicked on her body, I think that was a result, her condition was a result of her assault of her being assaulted.

MR VISSER: I am asking you the question Mr Veyi, can you tell us of any particular injury that caused her to walk with difficulty?

CHAIRPERSON: He seems to suggest that it was the condition, it was a result of the assaults Mr Visser. Does it help to take it any further than that?

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. So this physical condition that you talk about, would that have been the result of the assault by all the people that you mentioned, on her?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Veyi, I want to refer you again to the newspaper reports, this time Mr Chairman, let me count the pages again, we really must paginate these now ...

ADV DE JAGER: If you could just continue, I think the last page is the typed page 15.

MR VISSER: I am referring to the newspaper clippings that were attached to Exhibit T, is that what you are also referring to?

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not on)

MR VISSER: Mine consists of 60, don't ask me how that happened. There may have been a page duplicated, but I am suggesting that we should mark them 15(a), etc.

ADV DE JAGER: 16, 17, carry on.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do we have the same sequence of articles? Won't you just refer to them as ...

MR VISSER: Chairperson, yes, I will do so. The first one, page 16 will be "Families plead with TRC", 17 will be "MK Agent's Death", 18 will be "Mother's Agony", 19 will be "Hope for Daughter Lingers", 20 will be "NCIS Suspense to Officials", 21 "MK Heroes Are Forgotten", 22 "SAP Informers Spied on ANC", 23 "Burden of Guilt Lifted", 24 "Cops Trapped and Killed MK Cadre", 25 "Police Strike Hard at ANC", 26 is a follow up page on that, I think Chairperson, it just says "motivated and protection", 27 "18 Trained Terrorists Apprehended", 28 will be - oh no, that is it, that is it Chairperson. Thank you I am sorry about that, we should have done that before, it kept on slipping our minds. Mr Chairman, I just want to refer now to page 24 of Exhibit T, there is a heading in the middle of the page "she was very beautiful" and just to place you in the picture here, Mr Veyi, I want to start reading directly under the heading "Constable X, that is you who prefers not to be named at this stage, said the black members of the Unit, guarded Simelane while the white members tortured her." Do you understand what I have just read to you?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you tell the reporter that?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Why didn't you tell her the truth that all of you assaulted her?

MR VEYI: I am saying that today that all of us, we took part in assaulting her.

MR VISSER: But why didn't you tell the reporter that, this is a dishonest statement as it stands here, isn't it?

MR VEYI: I said when you are making a statement, you make a statement, but when the time to testify comes, that is where you get into the details of everything.

MR VISSER: And then the next paragraph appears to be a quotation of your own words which you told the reporter, it says-

he said, did you tell the reporter that?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: But why did you lie to her?

MR VEYI: I want you to explain where did I lie, how did I lie?

MR VISSER: Because you did not tell her that all of you assaulted her.

MR VEYI: As I am here in front of this Committee, that is the reason that made me to be here, is to come here and tell exactly what happened. This is what I am telling today.

MR VISSER: Yes, I just want to put to you what I put to you right in the beginning, it is because you resented your white Officers and you wanted to get back at them, and that is why you told the reporter that, isn't that so?

MR VEYI: Please explain how did I resent them.

MR VISSER: Because you implicated them in this assault which you describe here, without telling her that you were also involved in it.

MR VEYI: I am telling about my role, I am saying that I also played a role in that.

MR VISSER: I am not talking about now, I am talking about then, what you told her, and this is something that went into the world Mr Veyi, this is a newspaper that is circulated. It is circulated in the country.

MR VEYI: I think as I am here before this Committee, saying what I am saying now, it can be published, because I know that there are media people around, they can also publish this and tell the people that this is the truth.

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Veyi, I think you are far cleverer than you pretend, you understand exactly what I am asking you, let's step off that. When the white Officers were away, Coetzee, Pretorius and Mong, from the farm, did Coetzee order you to interrogate Simelane?

MR VEYI: No, during their absence nothing was going on, except for her paging the album, photo album because she would be given the album and she would be given instructions to identify the people in the photo album and they would tell her that they will be coming back the following day to get the identity of the people who were in the photo album.

MR VISSER: But you say Coetzee never ordered you to interrogate Simelane to get information from her?

MR VEYI: I said she studied during his absence, we would stay there with her and she would page the album and she would tell us that she doesn't know anything and when they come, they would tell her that she was lying and they would assault her.

MR VISSER: Mr Veyi, I cannot believe that it is a language problem, that you can't understand a simple question or that you are quite incapable of giving a simple answer. Did Coetzee order you to extract information from Simelane while he was away from the farm?

MR VEYI: What he would tell us during his absence was that he would tell us to talk to her and tell her about the disadvantages and advantages of being a Policeman and let her page the photo album and try to identify the people.

MR VISSER: Forget about what Coetzee told you to do, did you ever interrogate Simelane when the whites were not there?

MR VEYI: No.

MR VISSER: Did you ever assault her while they were away?

MR VEYI: No.

MR VISSER: Now when - you told this Committee that after some time, you decided that what you were doing was wrong and you felt sorry for her, is that right?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: When did this happen, in the first week, second week, third week or fourth week or the fifth week while you were on the farm?

MR VEYI: I cannot remember clearly but during the first days, when she came, she started, she was assaulted first at Norwood and she came there after a week or two and her condition had changed. That is when we got this feeling.

MR VISSER: Somewhere in the middle perhaps, while she was being kept there?

MR VEYI: There were only white Officers who were assaulting her, and we just told ourselves that we are going to back off, we were not prepared to take part in assaulting her.

MR VISSER: You, please stop me if I am wrong, but didn't you say in your evidence that it took place in the latter part of her detention at the farm, in the fourth week, thereabouts?

MR VEYI: Maybe I made a mistake, I cannot say I did not say that, or I cannot say I said so.

MR VISSER: That is not the point, the point that I want to ask you is this, after you came to the conclusion that what you were doing, was wrong and you felt sorry for her, and the white Officers left, did you take off her shackles, her cuffs from her arms and from her legs to allow her to move freely because you felt sorry for her?

MR VEYI: We would take the cuffs off.

MR VISSER: Both the arms and the legs?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you ever tell anybody that you did that? Did you tell your Attorney that you did that?

MR VEYI: I did not tell him because he did not ask me.

MR VISSER: You see, what surprises one with respect to you Mr Veyi, is at page 5 of Exhibit S, you dealt with this whole question of the cuffs and there you never made the qualification. You were addressing yourself to that and you never made the qualification to say that when the white people were not there, the cuffs were removed. At page 5 the top of the page, you simply say this -

That is it. Now I am putting it to you that if it were true that you decided and in fact did remove her cuffs, then it was the easiest thing in the world just to say so. Don't you agree?

MR VEYI: I can see that I did not write that, but I am saying it now. I don't know where the difference is.

MR VISSER: You don't see it, all right. Were the white people still interrogating Simelane at the last week, during the last week when you were there?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Now at that stage, according to your evidence, she had now been interrogated for a month, a week in Norwood and three weeks on the farm, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: And in all this time, she refused to cooperate?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: But what could possibly have been the point of continuing to interrogate a person who clearly doesn't want to cooperate and doing it for a month? What is the purpose of that, I mean it is rather stupid, isn't it?

MR VEYI: Mr Visser or Mr Venter is going to see this thing with his own eye because he doesn't understand the way the Police were operating, this was possible that this process could go on for more than a month because they would be hoping that this person might end up co-operating. That is the motivation behind that.

MR VISSER: Give us an example of another person that was interrogated for more than a month, who refused to participate right from the word go?

MR VEYI: As I am saying Nokuthula's case was different from the other cases because Joe who was from Angola, who was trained in Angola as an MK member, took two weeks and he co-operated. Peter Lengene who was from Botswana, he didn't take much, it was only less than a month and then he co-operated. During his first week of interrogation, he agreed immediately. The interrogation discontinued. With Nokuthula's case, she was totally refusing, it was something that was unusual to exceed two to three weeks, trying to turn a person without success. That is the reason why it took more than a month in her case.

MR VISSER: What you have just told us about Peter Lengene, is something that somebody else told you, is that right?

MR VEYI: I did not hear it from somebody else, I know him, I was in the Unit. When he was kidnapped, I was not present, but as part of my duty was to recruit the people, informers, giving them training, Peter Lengene was one of those people. I did not hear it from anyone else, I was working in that particular Unit.

MR VISSER: Mr Veyi, we have gone through this before, you were not present, you had nothing to do with the kidnapping and turning of Mr Peter Lengene, I put it to you before?

MR VEYI: Yes, I was not present during the kidnapping, but during the process of orientating him, telling him about the advantages and disadvantages of being a Policeman, not disadvantages, this is when he was staying at a safe house that was in Klipspruit and sometimes he would be at Mr Coetzee's in-laws in Rustenburg, he was staying there in a garage.

MR VISSER: Did you participate in the attacks on the power stations of either Bryanston or Fairlands or both?

MR VEYI: Yes, I was present at Fairlands and Bryanston.

MR VISSER: What was that about, why did you do that?

MR VEYI: It was part of my duties as a member of the Security Police.

MR VISSER: Mr Selamolela says that it was done to preserve the credibility of SAP agents in Swaziland, page 571 of Bundle 3 Chairperson, paragraph 2.

MR VEYI: Yes, I agree with you.

MR VISSER: You don't have to agree with me, do you agree with him that that was the purpose?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: It was a false flag operation?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you know about the fact that a certain MK Mpho, was arrested while Simelane was held on the farm?

MR VEYI: I think Mpho's case is different to Simelane's case. Mpho's case is different from Nokuthula's case.

MR VISSER: Why don't you just answer the question?

MR VEYI: Will you please repeat your question?

MR VISSER: Please listen to the question then. Do you know about the fact that Mpho was arrested while Simelane was on the farm?

MR VEYI: He was not arrested because of Nokuthula.

ADV GCABASHE : The question was do you know of his arrest at the time that Nokuthula Simelane was at the farm, at that time?

MR VEYI: That was not the time of his arrest when Nokuthula was on the farm.

MR VISSER: Did you hear that Coetzee and Pretorius and Mong gave that evidence?

MR VEYI: Yes I heard so.

MR VISSER: Did you tell your Attorney that you disagree with them?

MR VEYI: He did not ask me about that.

MR VISSER: I didn't ask you whether he asked you, I asked you whether you told him.

MR VEYI: I did not tell him.

MR VISSER: Do you know about the arrest of some 17 other ANC members later?

MR VEYI: I was surprised to hear about the 17 people who were arrested.

MR VISSER: Do you find it impossible to answer a question? Did you hear of 17 people who were arrested later?

MR LAMEY: Later here at the proceedings or when exactly, can we just get clarity on that.

MR VISSER: They were arrested not at the proceedings Chairperson, my learned friend couldn't possibly think that I am saying that.

MR LAMEY: No, at the moment when he heard it. At the moment when he heard that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, will you try to specify Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Do you know or did you hear that some 17 ANC or MK members were arrested towards the end of 1983 and in 1984?

MR VEYI: The people who were arrested were arrested in the beginning of 1984 if my memory serves me well, it was from 1984 upwards. They were not 18.

MR VISSER: All right. You see that is the point I tried to make right at the beginning, anything that is put to you on behalf of the white Officers in principle, you will oppose, but let's go on. Can you deny that those arrests were made possible from what was either directly or indirectly, learned from Simelane?

MR VEYI: I dispute that. The people who were arrested were not arrested because of Nokuthula, they were arrested by SWT66, that is Nompumelelo. They were arrested because of SWT66. There was Cheche among them, Justice Ngedi.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right. Did you concede yesterday, did I hear you correctly to say that Simelane wrote down stuff on paper?

MR VEYI: I said I did not remember her writing down, but she was paging the photo album.

MR VISSER: Did you ever see her write anything on paper?

MR VEYI: No, I do not remember that.

MR VISSER: Can you deny that she wrote things down on paper when she was requested to do so by Coetzee?

MR VEYI: I cannot dispute that, perhaps she did during my absence, but I do not remember seeing her doing that.

MR VISSER: Do you recall Pretorius giving evidence that when they left, Coetzee told the black members who stayed behind with her to see to it that she writes down things on paper?

MR VEYI: Yes, I remember hearing that from him.

MR VISSER: Do you agree that that was correct? Is that evidence correct?

MR VEYI: I am saying during my presence, I do not remember that. Perhaps if he is referring to black members, he is also referring to the other people excluding myself. I was not the only black member there.

MR VISSER: Yes, we all know that. You stated in Exhibit S page 7, paragraph 9(b) right at the bottom of the page, you say -

Now, we know what you are talking about when you refer to body, but later on and I am not quite sure where it was, but later on you stated that she was swollen, swollen over her whole body, did I hear you correctly, swollen all over I think you said? That was yesterday afternoon.

MR VEYI: I said her face was swollen, her body and she couldn't walk. I think the reason for that was because she was being kicked, but her face was swollen.

MR VISSER: And I think you also added her wrists I think Mr Chairperson, you pointed that out to me when I didn't hear the answer. I just wanted to make sure of that. What would have happened to you Mr Veyi, in 1983 if the ANC had suspected that you were a sell-out?

MR VEYI: If it happened that the ANC learned that I was a sell-out, the MK and the SAP Intelligence were working almost the same, but what was going to happen, the ANC would try to recruit me and let me go back to them and work there, work for them there and work here in South Africa.

MR VISSER: And are you naive enough to believe what you have just said?

INTERPRETER: Will the speaker please repeat the question.

MR VISSER: Let me rephrase the question. Were sell-outs not a legitimate target of MK?

MR LAMEY: Could we just get clarity, sell-outs as sell-outs from the Security Force's side, namely people that turned against the Security Force or sell-outs that turned against MK? From what area are we talking about? I think that is where the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Or was your client a Security Policeman?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Your client was a Security Policeman all along?

MR LAMEY: Yes, I believe so.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean in that sense Mr Visser, what would happen to a Security Policeman?

MR VISSER: No, I mean sell-out in the sense that the ANC means it in their target selection. They talk about sell-outs, government stooges, meaning people whom they suspected of working with the system, with the government. Obviously Policemen fell under that.

CHAIRPERSON: They were the system, the Police were the system, people who worked with the system.

MR VISSER: They were the system, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: People who worked with the system, as I understood it, were members of the community who were assisting the system. So what is the ...

MR VISSER: Well, I understood this witness to be an undercover agent.

CHAIRPERSON: No, not him.

MR LAMEY: No.

MR VISSER: Oh well, all right, well then I can understand my learned friend's objection, all right, fair enough, I am sorry, then I withdraw that. I am sorry, then I withdraw that. Let me ask you this, if the ANC came to know that the Police had arrested Simelane and kept her on a farm for five weeks in seclusion, what do you think would their reaction have been if she were to be released thereafter?

MR VEYI: First of all Nokuthula Simelane was an MK member. Coetzee wouldn't take that risk of taking Nokuthula back to Swaziland knowing very well that he had kept her for that time. The ANC would know obviously that that person was sent, was on a mission. That was not possible.

MR VISSER: Why wouldn't Coetzee take her back to Swaziland after five weeks, what would happen to Simelane do you think?

MR VEYI: He wouldn't do that, first of all I do not remember since I started working for the Security Branch, I do not remember an MK member after being turned to work for the Police, and be taken back again. What used to happen was if the person works for the Police and if Coetzee does not want that person to work with him in the Unit, he would be taken, he or she would be taken to Pretoria, not for that person to be taken back again. That never happened, more especially with an MK member. If she did go back, she would go back there and there would be people who would be monitoring her movements in Swaziland, if she had co-operated with the system this side and she goes back to Swaziland, Coetzee would get a report that this person has changed her mind.

MR VISSER: Bluntly Mr Veyi, I really don't know what your answer has to do with my question, but wouldn't she be killed in all probability by the ANC, if they suspected that she had become an informer?

MR VEYI: Because she was trained, it would be impossible for Coetzee to take her back. There was never a case like that before, a case whereby an MK member is taken back after being turned to work for the system and then be taken back again to Swaziland.

ADV GCABASHE : Mr Veyi, Mr Visser is asking you to speculate because you were part of the Security Branch. He is asking you to speculate on what you think might have happened to Nokuthula if indeed she had been put back, speculate, he wants your opinion?

MR VEYI: As a person who was working for the ANC, Nokuthula that is, I think the ANC would tell her that they were having suspicions about her and they would tell her to go back to South Africa as if she was there to give a report, and then she would be a person, she would pretend as if she was working for the Police, therefore she would be working for the ANC and for the Security Police at the same time.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean they would turn her into a double agent?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And use her in turn against the Security Police?

MR VEYI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: And is that what you think would probably have happened?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. Can you deny that Simelane was in fact recruited as an informer? Can you deny that?

MR VEYI: What I didn't understand, if Nokuthula was recruited Selamolela and myself were working with those people, we knew about her and if she was recruited, we would know that she was recruited and she was working. Coetzee would tell us, that is why I was surprised when I heard him saying that she was already working.

MR VISSER: I understand that you are drawing inferences from what you know, but I ask you this, can you deny that in fact without you knowing it, Simelane had become an informer, can you deny that?

MR VEYI: Yes, I dispute that on the basis that during the last weeks of her being kept on the farm, she was still swollen and her condition was not changed and if she was really recruited and sent back to Swaziland with swollen face like that, what story would she give to the people in Swaziland.

MR VISSER: Yes, well of course, there is a conflict of the evidence you see, because the applicants whom I represent, disagree with you. They say that the assaults took place during the first week and thereafter only occasionally, you have a different story about that. Can you deny that she was registered as an informer in Soweto?

MR VEYI: I heard Superintendent Coetzee saying that. What my Attorney asked me or the family Attorney asked was the number, her number, but Coetzee could not tell her number. That is impossible for a person who is recruited, and I know Mr Coetzee is very, very brilliant, he will never ever forget that number.

MR VISSER: Can you deny it or can't you deny it, are you speculating that it didn't happen because he cannot remember the number?

MR VEYI: I dispute that, because he could not tell the Committee about her number.

MR VISSER: Is that the only reason why you deny it? I am sorry, that is an unfair question, I withdraw that. You - I want to come to the meeting at the Fochville/Potchefstroom roads. Was Selamolela present?

MR VEYI: I was with him.

ADV DE JAGER: I am not sure whether it was, whether the road the four way cross-roads was identified as the Fochville/Potchefstroom road.

MR VISSER: (Microphone not on)

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, was Fochville mentioned? I know Carltonville was mentioned.

MR VISSER: (Microphone not on), page 5, paragraph 7 of Exhibit S. Nothing turns on it, I just want to identify where I am going to now, nothing turns on Fochville or any of the other names. The day where you met Coetzee on his own with his blue XR6, Ford motor car on the road at the crossing, where you saw according to you, Simelane in the boot of the car, that is the incident I am referring to, do you understand?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Was Selamolela present?

MR VEYI: I was with Selamolela if my memory serves me well.

MR VISSER: Yes, you said it all over, you said it in your statements, etc, etc, you said it in your evidence. So he also saw Simelane in the boot of the car?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And if he is talking the truth, he will come and confirm that as far as you are concerned?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And when you saw Simelane in the car, the boot was closed and Coetzee told you to go back to Soweto?

MR VEYI: Coetzee opened the boot, when I saw him there, I want to explain this so that you know what happened, what led to those circumstances.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, you lost me completely. Would you please explain that.

MR VEYI: We were now at the office, there were guards that were at Northum.

MR VISSER: Mr Veyi, I am sorry ...

MR VEYI: We were to go back to Northum to guard her, but before going to Northum, we would stop at the office and get instructions because we would go to the office and get instructions, because Mr Coetzee was not in the office, he was on the farm at the time, because when we saw him before that day, he had told us to go to the farm, but when we arrived at the office, the plan had changed. He said we should meet with him at Potchefstroom at the Security Branch office where Colonel Loots or Colonel Steyn was, who was involved with the Western Transvaal Security Branch. We drove to Potchefstroom to meet him in those offices. On our way on this Fochville crossing Carltonville, we saw an XR6 car approaching and then he flashed the lights, it was during the day, he stopped and we realised that that was him, Mr Coetzee that is. We went to his car and he got out of his car and he told us not to go to Northum because the guards were withdrawn. He instructed us to go back and then he said here is the lady, he opened the boot and then he told us that he was taking her back home. After that he closed the boot and then we went back. When I looked at her, she was cuffed on foot and her hands were at the back and they were also tied and then he closed the boot and then we went back to the office.

MR VISSER: I don't know how that is an answer to my question but you said something interesting, he opened the boot to show you the lady and he told you he was taking her home? That is what you have just said.

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What did you understand by that?

MR VEYI: There was nothing else that I could think about because I was listening to what he was saying, he said he was taking her home.

MR VISSER: What did that mean to you, was he going to release her?

MR VEYI: Yes, I thought so because he was taking her home, it means he was releasing her.

MR VISSER: Now let's come back to my question, according to you, after you and Selamolela saw Simelane in the boot, Coetzee closed the boot and he told you to go back to Soweto?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: That is the question I asked. My question to you is on your evidence, why do you think did Coetzee let you come down to Potchefstroom to do what he did?

MR VEYI: This meeting here on the way, we were on our way to Potchefstroom but when we met her on the way, stopping us, we did not know why did he leave Potchefstroom because when we moved from the office, we were going to Potchefstroom but we met with him on the way to Potchefstroom.

MR VISSER: But he said nothing to you, he told you nothing, he gave you no orders, he just showed you Simelane in the boot and he told you to go back to Soweto?

MR VEYI: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Do you have any idea why he would have done that?

MR VEYI: I don't know.

MR VISSER: Well, neither do I. I want to put it to you that this meeting where Simelane would have been shown to you, is a figment of your imagination. It never happened, there was no reason for it and you can't even give any kind of explanation of why it should have happened.

MR VEYI: It happened.

MR VISSER: And lastly, your version is not supported by Mr Selamolela.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Veyi, did you have radio's at that time in the motor cars, the Police vehicles?

MR VEYI: The way we were operating, we were working like underground Policemen and our identity was not to be revealed because we were working with sensitive information and the informers were not supposed to know anything. Therefore we did not have radio communication.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I see it is close to one o'clock, can I go on a little while longer. I want to refer you again to Exhibit S, page 6, paragraph 8 where you said that a few days later, that is now a few days after you saw her in the boot of the car, you spoke to Sergeant Mothiba who told you that Coetzee and Pretorius had shot, killed and buried Simelane at Rustenburg, is that still your evidence?

MR VEYI: Before talking to Sergeant Mothiba, I asked Mr Pretorius as to what happened to Nokuthula, and he said to me I must stop asking a lot of questions. I kept quiet. After a few days, after a day or two, as we were chatting in the office with Sergeant Mothiba, Mothiba told me and said to me Mchana, I am scared of these white men. I asked him why and then he said that they are very cruel. Then he said they shot her, killed her and buried her in Rustenburg.

MR VISSER: Yes. And if you have resentment for white Officers, that is a very nice story to tell, particularly because Mr Mothiba is dead and he can't come and tell what he says about this?

MR VEYI: It is the same, Mr Coetzee and Sergeant Mong's evidence, in their evidence they did not mention myself and Selamolela who are still alive, they were talking about SRA to Fred Langa who is no more and Sergeant Mothiba and I want to know, I am talking about Sergeant Mothiba who is no more and they mentioned Sergeant Mothiba who is no more, where is the difference now?

MR VISSER: Why would you think if Coetzee and Pretorius wanted to kill Simelane, why would you think would they tell Mothiba about it? One wouldn't expect that, would one?

MR VEYI: Will you please repeat your question?

MR VISSER: One wouldn't expect the murderers to spread the story around, would one, that they killed someone?

MR VEYI: The way he was telling me this, Sergeant Mothiba, it looked like he witnessed this incident.

MR VISSER: Oh, I see, so he was actually part of the killing of Simelane, as a witness or as an accomplice or whatever? Is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: I think so because when he told me, it was not a hearsay, it is something that he was present when it was being done.

MR VISSER: Why would he have told you about this do you think? Is there any reason why you could think why he should come and tell you about that if he was involved?

MR VEYI: Perhaps he was not feeling good about it, so he decided to tell someone about it.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now when you spoke to the newspaper reporters about this alleged killing of Simelane, did you tell them that Mothiba told me this or did you state it as a fact that she was killed by Coetzee and Pretorius?

MR VEYI: I told them that Mothiba told me that Pretorius and Coetzee killed her.

MR VISSER: Well that takes care of that question Chairperson, it has just landed on the floor, all my papers. I see it is one o'clock, so the clock has come to my assistance.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take the lunch adjournment, and we will reconvene in 30 minutes' time.

MR VISSER: (Microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: We will meet you, yes.

ON RESUMPTION:

NIMROD VEYI: (s.u.o)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as promised, I did draft a new list of Exhibit to bring it up to date, I think it has been handed to you, it should have been handed to you. It now goes to AA2 and I am going to hand up an Exhibit straight away within a moment or so, which will be Exhibit BB. Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Veyi, I better get my headset on, just before we adjourned, I asked you whether you had told the reporters that you heard from Mr Mothiba that Simelane was killed by Coetzee and Pretorius, do you remember that?

MR VEYI: Yes, I do remember that.

MR VISSER: What was your answer, I don't remember your answer?

MR VEYI: I said I told the reporters that Coetzee and Pretorius killed Simelane and I was told by Sergeant Mothiba.

MR VISSER: Page 17 of Exhibit T, Chairperson, in the right hand column, the third paragraph I just want to read that -

Would that have been what you told the reporter Sharon Chetty?

MR LAMEY: Sorry, may I just give the article to him? Is it on page 17? Which column?

MR VISSER: My question is, is that a correct reflection of what you told the reporter?

MR VEYI: The heading about "MK agent/cop seeks amnesty", I would like you to go back to the one with the heading "Cops trapped and killed MK", that is what I said. I think this is a story that followed up from what I said.

MR VISSER: Which is this page?

MR LAMEY: It is pointed out, there are some loose leaflet pages that have also been distributed about articles in the Sowetan, there is a number 3, I don't know they are marked Exhibits, I know that they were distributed to the legal representatives. I think that is repeated in the Exhibit T, although the copy that we have before us on Exhibit T is not a good copy, the loose leaf copy in front of the witness is a better copy. I think he refers to what is on page 24.

MR VISSER: What on page 24 are you referring to?

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not on)

MR VISSER: He was told by Sergeant - yes thank you Chairperson, thank you Mr Veyi, I missed that, I am indebted to you. The other reference which I could find was at page, yes, that is page 17 and then at page 18, just a short sentence in the right hand column, first, second, third paragraph, "he claimed that she was killed after held for about two months", but you have also pointed out the other one where reference is made to the Sergeant, yes. Thank you. Now, in Exhibit S, at page 4, you listed the names of those people that you could remember, who came to the farm at Northum, is that correct? Is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: All right, then at page 6 in paragraph 8, the second last sentence, you stated -

We are talking about the farm, is that evidence correct?

MR VEYI: No, I made a mistake here.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR VEYI: After we discussed, the first heading of City Press, I made a mistake.

MR VISSER: Yes, and Mr Kobe was informed about what you said and he made a statement, Chairperson that was a statement that was handed to me by the Evidence Leader, it professes to be a statement under oath, but mine is not attested to, oh, I see, it is a retyped version of, yes, in fact, it is an affidavit, it is in fact an affidavit, and Chairperson, as I want to refer to one sentence of that, perhaps it should go in as Exhibit BB? BB1 and BB2? I remember it was placed on your table yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have a hand-written statement by a Mr Kobe, yes and then somebody had retyped it for us, a typed version where he is referred to as Robe?

MR VISSER: Yes. Perhaps if you want to mark the manuscript BB1 and the typed version BB2. Thank you Chairperson. Now you say you made a mistake, all right. He says and I am referring to the last paragraph of BB2, the third last sentence, he says -

I am not so sure whether this should be, perhaps I should refer to the hand-written portion Chairperson, it doesn't make sense, yes, it should be he.

ADV GCABASHE : Second last line.

so it is "I".

Thank you, I will read it again -

It must clearly refer to the witness or Mothiba? I also said I once heard ...

ADV GCABASHE : He heard from Mothiba Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: He, being Kobe?

ADV GCABASHE : Yes.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, yes, then it doesn't make sense at all, because it starts off by saying "he told me that he knew about the lady, he explained to me that the lady was being arrested by our Branch. I also said I once heard ..."

MR LAMEY: In the context it would appear a conversation between him and Veyi.

MR VISSER: Arrested the lady, well, then there is no point to be made out of this and I leave it Chairperson. I just want to put it to you or let me rather ask you, Exhibits AA1 and AA2 do I understand correctly that that is a statement you made to the South African Police, Mr Veyi?

MR LAMEY: May we just have an opportunity just to get that portion.

MR VISSER: Don't you recognise the statement?

MR LAMEY: It has just been placed before the witness, I was trying to find it.

MR VISSER: I thought he handed it in.

MR LAMEY: Yes, he did hand it in but when the question was asked, I took it out from my pile here and just placed it before him.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Veyi looking at Exhibit AA1?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All right Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Veyi, is that the statement that you made to the Police?

MR VEYI: I haven't read the whole statement but this is my signature.

MR VISSER: Did the police give you indemnity against prosecution, Mr Veyi? - the Attorney-General.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I don't know whether the Attorney-Attorney can as a matter of law, give indemnity to any witness.

MR VISSER: Well, what is the purpose of Section 24?

MR LAMEY: It's for the court, as I understand, to give indemnity.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You asked about the Attorney-General.

MR VISSER: Perhaps I should choose my words better then. Were you promised indemnity by anyone, Mr Veyi?

MR VEYI: I can't remember.

MR VISSER: I see. You can't remember whether you were promised indemnity in case you gave satisfactory evidence against someone else in a case, in this particular case of Simelane?

MR VEYI: No, I don't remember, I can't remember.

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

CHAIRPERSON: It looks like that kind of indemnity doesn't bear very much weight nowadays, Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Advocate Gcabashe?

ADV GCABASHE: Is it Gobe or Kobe?

MR VEYI: Kobe.

ADV GCABASHE: K-O, Kobe, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, I have a logistical difficulty at the moment. There is a person who might be a potential witness, but he has time constraints and he needs to leave fairly soon. Could I have a short adjournment, no more than five minutes, just to make those logistical arrangements? I apologise for the inconvenience. I know that we're running well behind schedule and at the rate we're going, it looks like we will battle to finish by the close of business tomorrow. So I apologise for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I'm indebted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll stand down for a few moments.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Veyi, you're still under oath. Mr van den Berg?

NIMROD VEYI: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG:

Mr Chairperson, I'm indebted for the short adjournment. I have been able to make other arrangements in respect of this particular witness.

Mr Veyi, can we just start with your relationship with the other members of the unit that you were part of. If we can just take them one by one. Sergeant Mothiba, what was your relationship with him? How long had you worked with him? That's the kind of information I'm looking for.

MR VEYI: Sergeant Mothiba, I knew him very well. I started working with him when I joined the Police Force in 1978. He was stationed in Meadowlands. I met him in Meadowlands in 1978, and then in 1981 I joined the Security Branch in Protea when I again met him. We then worked in the same unit until he died. I can't remember when he died, but it was the mid-'80s.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And this work that you did as a member of the Security Branch, this was fairly dangerous work, you were involved with the tracking down of information relating to MK cadres and to other members of the liberation movement. Would you agree with that assessment?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And it would be necessary that the people that you worked with were people that you trusted?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If we can move on. Sergeant Langa, RS269 I believe his code was, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When did you first meet him?

MR VEYI: I can't remember well when he joined but when he joined the Police Force, I met him then for the first time. It was the early '80's. I think it was '81 or '82, I'm not sure, but it was the early 1980's. We were the people who were training him when he started at the police, until he died.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And what was his role in your unit?

MR VEYI: Langa was an undercover police. He was playing the same role as Mr Mkhonza's role.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he a person who reported to the same office as you did or was he a person who - ja, let me ask you that way, was he a person who reported to the same office as you did?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And he would report for duty regularly at Protea?

MR VEYI: No, those who were working undercover were not doing the same job as ours, they were not reporting at the office.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So where and when did he report?

MR VEYI: He would phone and then he would tell where he was and Mkhize would send Lazarus or myself to pick him up. We'd meet in a certain place and then he would interview him..

MR VAN DEN BERG: So your unit was the way in which both Langa and Mkhonza reported to the police, their reporting would be through your unit, is that correct? Do I understand you correctly?

MR VEYI: They were the police, but they were working undercover. They were reporting to Coetzee. Each and every report was reported to Coetzee.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now what was the position in respect of Peter Lengene, when did you first meet him?

MR VEYI: I met Peter Lengene, if I still remember well, in 1982.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And from the evidence we'd heard earlier today, this was after he had been abducted in Botswana and he had agreed to work for the South African Police, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was your relationship like with him?

MR VEYI: I ...(indistinct) were working together with Peter Lengene after he was turned to be a police official. He worked the same way as us, together with Lazarus.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There's a policeman referred to in these papers, by the name of Sefuti. I understand he was a member of your unit, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was his role in the unit?

MR VEYI: Sefuti was from the Police College. We were doing the same job, the normal police duties.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then I presume the same goes for Radebe?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: How did the RS programme work? What I'm really interested in is who reported to who? To whom did informers report, to whom did the undercover policemen report?

MR VEYI: RS programmes was operating this way; in Protea there was an office, a recruiting office where everybody who was joining the Police Force would be at that office. We would go to that office and then observe these people and if we could see that a particular person can be able to work with us, we would take that particular person to our office. And in our office that person would tell us whether he wants to be a police, and then after that, because there were a lot of them, there was a group of people, we would recruit that particular person and then Coetzee would tell him that there's a short way that he would use to help him to be a police, he won't take six weeks to be a police. We would then take his papers, his particulars and fill in the papers.

He would then give out a story at home to the people who saw him, that he's a police. He would say that he doesn't want to be a police anymore, he stopped being a police, he found a job somewhere else. And then after that he would be trained and we would tell him and explain all the ways of infiltration and then he would be sent to that particular organisation to infiltrate.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Is this - are we talking her about people like Mkhonza and Langa, is that who you referred to now? Are they examples of what you referred to?

MR VEYI: Yes, all those who were RS were police.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now the informer network, to whom did the informers report? For example, SWT66? And I don't want you to mention her name.

MR VEYI: All of them they were reporting to Coetzee.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did they report directly to an officer like Coetzee, or were there instances where they might report to somebody like Langa or Mkhonza?

MR VEYI: They were reporting directly to Coetzee.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was there ever a situation where an informer would report to an uncover policeman? - just by way of general.

MR VEYI: No, that didn't happen. I don't remember something like that happening.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Would there have been a reason why that didn't happen, or are you saying it simply didn't happen?

MR VEYI: I don't remember it happening.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When you last saw Nokuthula Simelane, your version is that she was in the boot of Coetzee's car. You remember giving that evidence?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you describe her condition at that time, what was she wearing and what did she look like?

MR VEYI: As I've already said, the last time I saw her at the farm when I was going back, she was swollen. The condition had not changed. Her face was swollen and she was wearing a brown overall, a police overall.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know a policeman by the name of Garibe? Does the name mean anything to you?

MR VEYI: Radebe we're talking about here?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Not Radebe, Garibe; G-A-R-I-B-E. Does that name mean anything to you?

MR VEYI: Yes, I do remember Garibe.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he involved in this incident at all?

MR VEYI: There were different units in Protea. We were in the Intelligence Unit and Garibe, if I remember well, was in the group that was under Captain Grobbelaar. When there was an information that there's a terrorist somewhere, that particular group would go there and arrest the terrorist.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So if I understand you correctly, this person was not involved in this incident at all? He was no involved in either guarding or the interrogation of Nokuthula Simelane?

MR VEYI: No, I don't remember him there, he was not there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I want to show you a photograph. This is the photograph that was given to me, or put in my possession by Mr Wagener and Mr Visser, the photograph of what is described here as MK Mpho. Do you recognise this person at all?

I'm afraid, Mr Chairperson, there aren't copies of it, but I'll hand it up once he's had a look at it.

You will see that there is a person crouching, wearing dungarees. Do you recognise that person at all?

MR VEYI: I can't see this person clearly. I don't know him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, I wasn't listening to the interpretation, what was the answer?

MR VEYI: I don't know him.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, are there two people on the photo?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, the photo contains three individuals, two white persons who from the look of the photograph, appear to be policemen and then a person with his hands cuffed behind his back, kneeling. And then the designation on the back of the photograph is "MK Mpho", with the date "1983". Can I hand the photograph back to the Panel, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it was handed to us at some stage and it drifted back to Mr Wagener. I'm not sure if that was handed in as an exhibit, not really.

MR VAN DEN BERG: My recollection is that it wasn't handed in as an exhibit and I don't think that anything particularly turns on it. It's certainly different from the Mpho who was the handler of Nokuthula Simelane, the person known as Gilbert Twala.

CHAIRPERSON: The Swaziland one, okay. Yes, no, we've got enough documents.

MR VISSER: We make no point that it's the same person as my learned friend's witness, not at all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I'm indebted to Mr Wagener for the loan of his photograph, or his client's photograph.

The group of 18 ANC members who were arrested, reference is made to it in pages 25, 26 and 27 of Exhibit T, and from what I understand from the evidence of Messrs Coetzee and Pretorius, included the arrest of Cheche. What is your recollection as to when that occurred? Was it at the same time as the arrest or the detention of Simelane, was it before, was it after?

MR VEYI: I think it was the following year when Cheche was arrested. If I still remember well it's either 1984 or 1985, but it was after Nokuthula's arrest.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now I put it to both Coetzee, and I think I put it to Pretorius as well, that Cheche is a person known as Justice Ngedi and that he was arrested on the 25th of May 1984. Can you confirm or deny that?

MR VEYI: That might be so.

MR VAN DEN BERG: In your opinion, what led to the arrest of Ngedi and the 18 other, or the 17 other people?

MR VEYI: I can't remember the 17 people, but Ngedi’s arrest was after Frank and Scotch used to frequent in Swaziland, and they would come with the report and there was RS SWT66 was also in Swaziland, in Manzini. He was from Swaziland. He brought a report to Coetzee and then RS SWT66 was close to Cheche, he knew him.

According to the information I got, he had to recruit a person here in South Africa and take that person to Swaziland. So he told Coetzee, he gave this report to Coetzee and then he took Selamolela and said that he was the one who was supposed to be introduced to Cheche because Cheche was the one who was supposed to come to South Africa. Selamolela then went, they went to the border post in Oshoek. That is where Cheche was arrested.

They were together with Nompumelelo, and the three of them with Lazarus were arrested there. I still remember that when Coetzee came back, it was during the night. He came with Cheche because when he went to Swaziland, Nompumelelo phoned and said that they were on the way, together with Cheche and then Coetzee drove to the border post where he was arrested, where Cheche was arrested.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When you say "they" were on their way to the border post, you refer to Cheche and to - was it RS269, to Langa? Do I understand you correctly, that he was one of those people?

MR VEYI: SWT66 and Selamolela and Cheche. There were three of them. SWT66 phoned, confirming that they found Cheche and they were on the way out.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, I misunderstood you. Thank you for correcting me.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, just for some clarity. All you are really - not all, but one of the things you are saying is that SWT66 was instrumental in Cheche's arrest?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you have any dealings with SWT66? Did she pass information on to you? Did you handle her at all?

MR VEYI: As I've already said, SWT66 I knew her. According to the information she was from Swaziland, staying in Manzini. Most of the MK cadres that were in Swaziland would go and hide weapons in her home.

I remember one time when Coetzee sent us together with Selamolela to Swaziland, that SWT66 said that there were weapons. Her boyfriend was a cadre. We went there and then she gave us those weapons. We brought them back to the office, explosives and AKs.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I don't want to revisit the aspects of the interrogation which you testified to at some length during your cross-examination by Mr Visser, and I think that we have sufficient evidence insofar as that is concerned. I just want to ask you about the participation of Strongman, the Mozambican. Was he also involved in both the interrogations and the assaults?

MR VEYI: Strongman was working, was doing the same job as I was. He took part in interrogations, because sometimes when an informer was to be fetched or an RS, Coetzee would send him to go and pick up that particular person, together with Malung(?).

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, I want to return to the aspect of SWT66.

ADV DE JAGER: Could we just have clearance here. Did Strongman participate in this interrogation?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct, he took part, he participated. As I've already said, the black members also took part. The fact that he was guarding the farm is not true.

ADV DE JAGER: But what language did he speak, what did he ask her? Do you remember anything about what his role was in the interrogation?

MR VEYI: For example, if she was assaulted he would take part as any other person who was there, and he was speaking English and Zulu. He knew Zulu, a little bit of Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, I want to return to the, one or two further aspects surrounding SWT66. Do you know if she was ever withdrawn from Swaziland?

MR VEYI: I can't remember that. When I was still working at the Security Branch - I left there in 1986 and I was ...(indistinct) to the CIDs in Cape Town, when I left she was still working.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And do you know if she had any contact with the person who has been referred to in these proceedings as Mpho, the handler of Nokuthula Simelane?

MR VEYI: No, I can't remember. If I still remember well, I can connect Mpho and Cheche's case. I can connect her with Mpho and Cheche's case. After Cheche was arrested he came to South Africa and then when he arrived here in South Africa, he was together with the Investigation Team of Protea. They were taking him to John Vorster. On the way to John Vorster -they took him to John Vorster and then they brought him back. On the way, under the chair the police had placed weapons and then on the way he took one firearm and he pointed them and they jumped out of the car, they ran away, and then he drove the car and he abandoned the car in Diepkloof. That's when he managed to escape the first time.

After his escape, Mkhize sent Nompumelelo back to Swaziland to report because according to my understanding they were working under the command of Gabuza Sephiwe Nyanda. He was sent to tell him that this person had not escaped, he was working together with the police. And then if I still remember well he got a lift from Swaziland back to South Africa. On the way she arrived back here and then she was together with an informer. After some time he was then arrested again. Then she went back to Swaziland and Nompumelelo reported again.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand - I could extract from what you've told us, the aspects which I believe are relevant, it would seem that this SWT66 was well placed and that she had access even to a person like Gabuza, who is, that was the MK name for Sephiwe Nyanda. Did I understand that correctly?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct. As I've already said, most of the MK cadres that were in Swaziland, they trusted her. Everything that she said they were listening to it, because when Cheche escaped Gabuza took Nompumelelo's story as the truth. He then sent her again so that she could be ...(indistinct) the second time.

To add on that, on the case of the 18 cadres who were arrested, after Cheche was arrested I remember we were going to Dube to SWT66's uncle. We were with her and we told her to call, to phone Swaziland because there were people who were supposed to pick her up, and we told her to tell them that everything was okay, she arrived and she is fine. Then Cheche would phone and the people would come to South Africa and then they would be arrested. There was nothing else you could do because we were there with him and then he was phoning.

MR VAN DEN BERG: This discussion that you had with Sergeant Mothiba, during which he apparently said that he was afraid of these white men and that they were very cruel. Can you just give us a bit more information about that? You said to us in-chief and in cross-examination, that this took place some few days after you last saw Nokuthula Simelane. Can you remember where the discussion took place, were at the offices, were you out on an assignment? Can you give us that sort of information?

MR VEYI: If we would be in the office we would just chat generally about the work and I think it was about a week when we had come back from Northum.

Usually what used to happen is Coetzee and them would then give us the feedback about what happened, but in this case we did not get any feedback, they kept quiet. It is when I then decided to ask Pretorius where this girl was, what happened to her. He then told me not to ask a lot of questions. Two days after that, after asking that question we were, I was together with Sergeant Mothiba and then he said to me: "Mchana, I'm very scared of these white policemen". I ask him why, he said: "They are very cruel", and I asked why, he said: "They shot her and they killed her, they buried her in Rustenburg". That was the end of the story.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Where did this discussion take place, in the office?

MR VEYI: We were on the premises, Protea premises.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was anybody else present when this discussion took place?

MR VEYI: At the Security Branch you would not just talk anything, sensitive things, you would tell a person that you trusted, that you knew that he would keep the secret, because if that kind of information can be revealed, if it could be found out that you knew something that you were not supposed to know, that would place you in a dangerous situation.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I accept that it wouldn't have been discussed with other members of the police, would it have been discussed with other members of the unit, were there other members of your unit present when Mothiba, when you had this discussion with Mothiba or was it just the two of you?

MR VEYI: It was just the two of us.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you repeat the story that Mothiba had told you, to any of your other colleagues?

MR VEYI: No, I didn't repeat it to other colleagues, I first started talking about this, I think it was in 1995.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That was when you saw the newspaper story.

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, the original or the newspaper clipping which gave rise to this whole thing is not before you, so I'd like to hand it up to through this witness. I have made copies available to my learned friends, I think that only the Panel are not in possession of this. It's a series of three photostat copies. If I could hand a copy to the witness and then hand up copies to yourselves and I'll get him to identify it and to sort it out.

Mr Veyi, if you have a look - can we mark that, Mr Chairperson? There is some duplication between this and what is contained in the other bundles, but if perhaps we could mark it CC 1, 2 and 3. There should be a single copy of each page, 3 pages.

MR LAMEY: Which one will be 1, 2 and 3?

MR VAN DEN BERG: The first page ...(indistinct) - sorry, my microphone, I apologise, is a copy from the Sowetan and headed:

... with a poor photograph on the left-hand side.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that with the 2 written on it, and "perpetrator"? Switch on, switch on your mike.

MR VAN DEN BERG: With the 2 at the top, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the first one?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That's the first one.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it a single page?

MR VAN DEN BERG: It's a single page and then later from the same edition of the Sowetan, a page headed:

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, so that's the second article?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That's the second article.

CHAIRPERSON: Now let's start marking them. The first one will be CC1, the one that you've just identified. And the second article in that same edition of the Sowetan, dated January 27, 1995, will be CC2. Which is the next article, Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: The next article is, there's already a copy of this before you in Exhibit T, but that's the Sowetan of the 6th of February, Monday the 6th of February, headed:

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you want that ...

MR VAN DEN BERG: As CC3.

CHAIRPERSON: Marked Exhibit CC3. Yes? What is the next one?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Those are the three that I handed up.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, then this is just simply duplicates, extra copies.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Well, if I could retrieve those from you at the end of the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we're no on board. Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Veyi, can I refer you to CC1? Do you recognise that?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Is it correct that this is the article which caused you to go to the Sowetan to speak to the reporter, Sharon Chetty?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And this is an article dated 27th of January 1995?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then what you told the Sowetan is recorded in CC3, the article dated the 6th of February 1995, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And that's the article on which you've been cross-examined by Mr Visser earlier on today?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now at a stage you were referred to Exhibit T and page 17 thereof, do you have that exhibit in front of you? Do you have it in front of you, Mr Veyi?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Would you agree with me that that photograph is the same photograph which appears on CC1?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the newspaper seems to have used the same photograph continually throughout its reporting of this matter?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Obviously this is an article of a much later date, the 22nd of May 1997?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr van den Berg. Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No questions, Mr Chair.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm going back to the very beginning of the evidence-in-chief. You were talking about knowing that somebody was going to come to the Carlton Centre and meet Mr Mkhonza. Did you know it was a woman? That's the note I have here. It wasn't clear to me.

MR VEYI: I knew that there was a person who was going to come there. I didn't know what kind of a person.

ADV GCABASHE: Then my next note is about your role in the interrogation of Nokuthula. You said she was questioned about whether she was trained etc., etc., what answers did she give you? Just give us examples of the answers she gave you.

MR VEYI: I think that she did say that she was trained. I don't know where Coetzee got it, but we heard that this lady was trained. That is when we made a follow-up, asking her where she was trained and who were other people that she knew.

ADV GCABASHE: Now assist me, I just want you to tell us about what you heard, what you heard from Nokuthula herself, not what you might have heard from Coetzee or Pretorius, just what you yourself heard during that interrogation. Did you hear her say that?

MR VEYI: I don't remember hearing her saying that.

ADV GCABASHE: You then talked about going up to the farm, you were picked up at the police station. Who did you find on the farm the first time you went there?

MR VEYI: I can't - I don't remember clearly who we found there in the farm, but there were people that were there.

ADV GCABASHE: White officers, black officers or just civilians?

MR VEYI: There were police. I think there were both black and white police. I can't remember clearly.

ADV GCABASHE: We have heard evidence about Mr Mothiba's involvement in recruiting Nokuthula, do you know anything at all about that, that he was this father figure and he would be explaining certain things to her? Do you know anything at all about that?

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

ADV GCABASHE: Ah, you know when you were being cross-examined by Mr Visser I think it was, you were asked about Nokuthula's stay at the Norwood flats, and essentially what you were being asked about was that you said she had been there for a week before she was taken to the farm, alright? And then you were asked if you were sure and you said "yes", and my note may be incorrect, but what I've got here is:

Now the "I didn't know when she had arrived", lost me a bit. Just help me through that one, - unless I recorded it incorrectly.

MR VEYI: I said I didn't know when she arrived there because that was my first time to go there after she was taken in Carlton Centre. I don't know whether she was taken from Carlton Centre to Norwood, but I first guarded her in Norwood. That is what I meant.

ADV GCABASHE: So you are simply explaining that you don't know if she went directly from Carlton Centre to Norwood? You went there three days after Saturday, is that correct? - three days after Saturday.

MR VEYI: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Then you were asked about where you washed when you were at the farm, and you said you wouldn't wash in that dirty water in the tank, in the dam, remember that?

MR VEYI: Yes, we didn't wash.

ADV GCABASHE: Nokuthula, how did she wash? I mean you were there when she went to wash, what happened?

MR VEYI: I don't remember seeing her washing herself.

ADV GCABASHE: Nothing was made available for her to wash herself?

MR VEYI: I don't remember anything like that.

ADV GCABASHE: And on the occasions that she was thrown into the dam, she was thrown in fully clothed in that brown attire that she was wearing?

MR VEYI: Every time that she was there she was wearing that brown overall.

ADV GCABASHE: I understand that. So when Radebe threw her into the dam she was still in that brown overall?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And she would keep it on wet as it is, she wouldn't get a change of clothing or anything like that?

MR VEYI: It would dry, she would not change it.

ADV GCABASHE: Is Radebe still alive?

MR VEYI: Yes, I think he is in the Fraud Unit here in Johannesburg.

ADV GCABASHE: Do you have any idea why he hasn't applied for amnesty in this matter?

MR VEYI: I don't know.

ADV GCABASHE: Ah, my last question. SWT66, did she know Nokuthula, or did Nokuthula indicate that she knew SWT66, or both ways?

MR VEYI: No, they didn't know each other according to my knowledge.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Veyi, where did the white officers wash?

MR VEYI: I can't remember, I don't know where they will wash.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what kind of water was it in this tank? You say it was dirty water, but what was it, what was in the water?

MR VEYI: I don't know whether it was water that was used to, that was drunk by the cows because that was a farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it just an open dam, the top was open?

MR VEYI: It was a sink and then water inside.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was standing high on the ground, it wasn't sunk into the ground, it was on top?

MR VEYI: It was high.

CHAIRPERSON: If you stand on the ground outside, can you look into the dam or is it too high for you to look in? Must you get on or what?

MR VEYI: Yes, you were able to see inside.

CHAIRPERSON: But on what level would it be, would it be, would you have to stand on your toes for example or would you stand normally and be able to look over the top? What did you have to do to be able to look inside?

MR VEYI: If you just standing up normally you were able to see.

CHAIRPERSON: Over the top?

MR VEYI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when Ms Simelane was taken to that dam, did she still have the foot-cuffs on?

MR VEYI: She was always foot-cuffed, there was no time when she was not cuffed. So yes, she was foot-cuffed.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't have an idea as to how tall she was, now if she had to stand up straight outside the dam, would she be able to look inside?

MR VEYI: Yes, she was able to see.

CHAIRPERSON: If you had to go and wash in the dam, what would you have to do to be able to wash in the dam?

MR VEYI: You wouldn't be able to wash there because the water was dirty, there was fungus there. So you wouldn't be able to wash there.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you - assume the water was clean in the dam and you wanted to wash in the dam, what would you have to do?

MR VEYI: You were to jump inside the dam, to the dam.

CHAIRPERSON: So you'll have to - you must get over the side and into the water inside the dam?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you'd have to stand up there or whatever?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you say that when Radebe put Ms Simelane into the dam he had to help her not to drown, did I understand that correctly or what?

MR VEYI: What I'm saying is, this dam was used when she was tortured. He would put her in and then take her out of the dam.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he hold onto her, put her in the water and hold onto her or what would he do?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if he left her, if he didn't hold onto her what would have happened to her?

MR VEYI: Maybe she would drown because she was hopeless.

ADV GCABASHE: Helpless or hopeless?

MR VEYI: She was cuffed.

ADV GCABASHE: Oh.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's fine. Did you see the white policemen giving Ms Simelane painkillers?

MR VEYI: I don't remember seeing that when I was present.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see anybody giving her medicine, medication?

MR VEYI: I didn't see anybody doing that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did she complain about pains or any discomfort or anything in that nature?

MR VEYI: Yes, when she was with us she would complain.

CHAIRPERSON: About what?

MR VEYI: About pain and the fact that she wanted to go home.

CHAIRPERSON: And I assume you had nothing to give her, no medication to give her?

MR VEYI: No, we had nothing to give her.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see any - inside this room, did you see any toiletries?

MR VEYI: No, there were not, I didn't see them. They're not there.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever see Ms Simelane using any toiletries?

MR VEYI: I don't remember seeing her.

CHAIRPERSON: No I think Mr Visser asked you about this and I wasn't sure what you were explaining. Was there a place where one could put toiletries or anything like that into a cupboard or whatever? Was there anything like that in the room?

MR VEYI: No, there was nothing like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: When she complained about pain and having nothing to take for the pain, didn't you think you should buy some disprins or aspros or whatever and take it with you next time you got to the farm?

MR VEYI: No, that did not occur to us.

ADV DE JAGER: Well you were - she complained and you said you were worried because she wasn't treated well, why didn't you do something about it?

MR VEYI: We did not think about it.

ADV DE JAGER: You said in answer to a question, that she was always foot-cuffed, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Didn't you tell us that when the whites left you took off her cuffs?

MR VEYI: Yes, we used to do that when they were not present.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, so she wasn't - you answered here:

So that wasn't correct?

MR VEYI: When the whites were present she would be cuffed but when the whites were not there we would remove the cuffs.

ADV DE JAGER: So at times the whites weren't there, not one of them, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, sometimes they would go and leave the black officers behind.

ADV DE JAGER: For how long would they leave?

MR VEYI: They would be away, sometimes they would leave in the morning and come back late.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, and sometimes did they stay away for a few nights?

MR VEYI: I do not remember them staying away for the night, but they used to leave the farm and come back again.

ADV DE JAGER: When these explosions at Bryanston, or is it Roodepoort, took place, Sandton, were they away or were they on the farm?

MR VEYI: The Bryanston incident had long passed. It's a different incident from this one.

ADV DE JAGER: Because I don't know whether I'm wrong, perhaps somebody could correct me, but I believe the bombing was round about the 9th and the 10th of September.

MR VEYI: It had nothing to do with this incident. Those are two different incidents.

ADV DE JAGER: Weren't those incidents while she was still on the farm?

MR VEYI: No, they did not take place when she was still on the farm.

ADV DE JAGER: Right. So for the whole four or five weeks while she was on the farm, did they whites return every day and were they present at night? - for the full period. Did they sleep there very night?

MR VEYI: Yes, I can say so, but the person who did not sleep there every day was Sergeant Mong, but Coetzee and Pretorius, even if they leave during the day or in the morning, they used to come late, even it's about eleven, the time is about eleven, but they used to spend all the nights there.

ADV DE JAGER: For the full four/five weeks, or at least when you were there?

MR VEYI: Yes, during my presence I used to see them spending nights there. I don't know during my absence, but when I was there they would be there also.

ADV DE JAGER: So did Simelane ever sleep without foot-cuffs or handcuffs?

MR VEYI: She was always cuffed.

ADV DE JAGER: And you people ...(intervention)

MR VEYI: If the handcuffs were removed, the foot-cuffs would remain.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. So when did you take of the cuffs when they weren't there, only during daytime?

MR VEYI: Yes, we would remove them when they were not there.

ADV DE JAGER: And weren't you afraid they would come back and find that she's not cuffed?

MR VEYI: We knew that we would hear the car when they were coming and then we would put back the cuffs.

ADV DE JAGER: And at a stage you were told to tell her of the advantages that could come her way if she would join the police, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Who did that, who told her about that? Who was her spokesman?

MR VEYI: Sometimes it would be myself, sometimes I would interpret or Sergeant Mothiba and Lazarus would do the job.

ADV DE JAGER: What language did Sergeant Mothiba speak?

MR VEYI: He was a Sotho-speaking person.

ADV DE JAGER: So he couldn't speak directly to her in Zulu?

MR VEYI: He was able to speak Zulu.

ADV DE JAGER: Now why did you have to interpret for him?

MR VEYI: We would only interpret from Afrikaans into Zulu.

ADV DE JAGER: No, but when he spoke to her and he told her about the advantages, why should you interpret between the two of them?

MR VEYI: There would be an interpreter if Pretorius or Coetzee were there.

ADV DE JAGER: And if they weren't there, there wasn't an interpreter?

MR VEYI: There would be no interpreter.

ADV DE JAGER: Now didn't Mr Mothiba speak to her about the advantages in the police and she should rather co-operate and so on, then she would be treated better when the police weren't there, the white people?

MR VEYI: We would talk to her, all of us, telling her as to what to do and what were the advantages.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. And Sergeant Mothiba was the father figure, wasn't he? You addressed him as, what was it, Malume?

MR VEYI: Yes, he was older than us, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And was he a fatherly figure? - the old man.

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct, we used to respect him.

ADV DE JAGER: And how did he treat Ms Simelane?

MR VEYI: We were - he was treating her the same as we were treating her.

ADV DE JAGER: So if the whites weren't there he was treating her nicely?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you any soap there to wash with or any toiletries?

MR VEYI: No, we did not have that.

ADV DE JAGER: Did anybody have toiletries there, soap and...?

MR VEYI: We did not wash ourselves, we would only go and wash ourselves at home. The same used to apply with him.

ADV DE JAGER: So do you say Ms Simelane never washed during the whole period of four/five weeks?

MR VEYI: I can say that is so.

ADV DE JAGER: And you told us that she even soiled herself.

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And there was no washing thereafter?

MR VEYI: No, there was no time to wash. He would perhaps during their absence, if we were there she would try and clean herself. We used to do anything secretly. We used to, we tried to organise some water but we did not want the people to see us doing that.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, okay you tried to organise the water, did you manage to organise water?

MR VEYI: That was done secretly when the whites were not there.

ADV DE JAGER: So secretly you organised water and she was able to wash herself, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now can you give me one single reason why you denied all the time that she washed herself?

MR VEYI: What made me to say that is because it's something that was no allowed, we were doing it out of our own and we were doing it secretly.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, and did you secretly give her medicine?

MR VEYI: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Why not?

MR VEYI: I do not have a reason for that.

ADV DE JAGER: Because according to you she was in need of medicine.

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one other thing, what did she have to eat?

MR VEYI: There were takeaways that we would buy whenever we go outside. Sometimes we would buy food for her at the shop in Northum.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of food did you buy?

MR VEYI: Fish and chips and some bread.

CHAIRPERSON: And did she eat that?

MR VEYI: Yes, she did.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Lamey, re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Just on the last question, the question was asked of you; "Did she get food to eat?", what do you understand by food in this regard?

MR VEYI: I'm talking about something that you eat.

MR LAMEY: Alright. You say that you, when the whites were not there you used to buy food for her at Northum, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Coetzee testified, perhaps also Pretorius, I can't remember, they made mention of "rat-packs" that was given to her. Do you know anything about that?

MR VEYI: Yes. She used to rat-packs but if you eat that for a long time, it's not very nice. It's not nice at all.

MR LAMEY: I just want to clarify this, when the question was asked about the food you did not mention the rat-pack. Do you draw a distinction about a rat-pack and the food that is referred to?

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, Chairperson, the mistake was coming from the side of interpreter. I interpreted them as takeaways. He did mention the rat-pack.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR LAMEY: I hear the English and the interpreter apparently says now that she's made a mistake, she interpreted it as takeaways, but he in fact said rat-packs.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's what I wanted to hear from you, whether you heard the explanation that the interpreter gave.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR LAMEY: Okay, so what you mean is, to sum it up, she was given rat-packs as food, but at the times when the white policemen were not there and you also used to buy additional food at ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: That's not what he said, Chairperson. When did he ever say it was only at times when the white people were not there? He didn't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just ask him, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Perhaps I made a wrong assumption, I thought that is what he said. I merely wanted to sum it up.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR LAMEY: At what times did you buy the food at Northum, the so-called takeaways?

MR VEYI: We would buy them when the whites were not there.

MR LAMEY: Alright. And at the times - did she get food in any form when the whites were there?

MR VEYI: She would eat those rat-packs.

MR LAMEY: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry to intervene. What is a rat-pack?

MR VEYI: It is a package of food in the box, soldiers' food in a box where you get a tin, tinned stuff, baked beans with biscuits in. The tin in the box with baked beans and biscuits and something called post toasties.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it a sort of a thing that you can, a provision that you can carry around with you and if you're on the move you can use it to eat, to feed yourself, like a soldier? I think you said "like a soldier".

MR VEYI: Yes, it was used by police and soldiers who were on border, who were performing border duties.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you this, Mr Veyi ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: So it was bully beef and post toasties and beans and biscuits and tinned mielies, that kind of thing?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Veyi, from my own experience in the army, a rat-pack was not a thing that the Force members were very fond of, what was the situation in your case?

MR VEYI: I said it's not a very nice package, more especially if you eat for a very long time.

MR LAMEY: Now at the times when you went away to buy takeaways, food at Northum, was it for your, did you also buy food for yourself and for Simelane, or did you give some of your food to Simelane, or did you only buy food for Simelane or what was the situation?

MR VEYI: We used to buy food for ourselves and we would buy something for her and eat, all of us.

MR LAMEY: Okay. You testified that at times during interrogation she was also thrown into the dam, is that correct? - or put into the dam by Radebe.

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Were the white police officers present during those stages?

MR VEYI: That was done per their instructions.

MR LAMEY: Now you also testified that she soiled herself during interrogation sessions, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now the stages when she was thrown into the dam, was the throwing into the dam connected with the fact that she soiled herself or wet herself, or was it not connected with that?

MR VEYI: Sometimes he would put ... into the dam without being soiled and that would take place as a result of being thrown into the dam. That used to be the case sometimes.

MR LAMEY: Do you say that as a result of the throwing into the dam she would soil, also soil herself? I don't really understand what you are saying there.

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: If she soiled herself during interrogation -well did it happen during interrogation that she soiled herself, but not at the stage when she was put into the dam?

MR VEYI: Yes, that used to happen also.

MR LAMEY: And when that happened was she put into the dam? - when she soiled herself.

MR VEYI: No.

MR LAMEY: So what you're saying is she was put into the dam at stages when it had nothing to do with the soiling of herself?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: But then she would sometimes perhaps soil her in the dam?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now you were asked questions by Mr Visser, and it was put to you that you resented the white policemen and he referred particularly to your white superiors in the police at that stage. What prompted you, what led you to make this statement or speak to the reporter of the Sowetan?

MR VEYI: I would like to rectify something first. This newspaper article that was shown to me, that was quoted, the one that he quoted, that I resented my superiors, I don't know where that comes from because it's not what I said in the report. I think he showed me the different newspaper.

MR LAMEY: Ja, initially Mr Visser showed you page 17 of Exhibit T. That is a report dated the 22nd of May 1997, was that report made as a result, well was that the report which was made, which you made to the Sowetan, which was published in the Sowetan, dated the 22nd of May 1997?

MR VEYI: No, I know nothing about that report, the one that he had.

MR LAMEY: Now I just want to bring you back. What caused you to report, to speak to the reporter of the Sowetan and to report what you know about the missing lady? What caused you to do that, why did you do it?

MR VEYI: After reading the article, the newspaper article something came to my mind. I remember that I know what happened and my conscience was bothering me and that made me to go to the newspaper.

MR LAMEY: Now the article that you have read, we have articles before us, could you point out the article which placed a burden on your conscience and which led you to speak to the reporter?

MR VEYI: It is the one that is referred to as CC1.

MR LAMEY: It's called:

... with the photograph of Simelane, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now before you were asked by Mr Visser about what you have purportedly stated to this reporter, Sharon Chetty, in the report published on Monday, February the 6th, which is marked Exhibit CC3, did you have an opportunity to look at that carefully before the questions were asked?

MR VEYI: Will you please repeat your question, it's not clear to me.

MR LAMEY: When Mr Visser asked you questions he quoted from the report published in the Sowetan, Monday, February 1996 and he put it to you that you have said that to the reporter, prior to this question coming up during cross-examination, did you have prior to that a careful look at the contents of that report in the newspaper?

MR VEYI: No, I did not get that opportunity.

MR LAMEY: Now I want to get back to this aspect which Mr Visser has pointed out. The report states here:

Let us just stop there. Is it correct that you preferred not to be named at that stage?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now further reports said:

Is that the totality of what you told her? In other words, that the black members merely guarded her - will you refer now, the report doesn't specify Norwood or Northum, it's general.

Is that the totality of the involvement of the members of the unit, that you conveyed to her there?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Okay. So what you her at that time when she says that the black members of the unit guarded Simelane, while the white members tortured her, you say that is, you told her that, but that is not correct. Do I understand you correctly?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: What is the correct version?

MR VEYI: Something that I did not mention here is this. Even us black officials we did play a role when she was being guarded. That is what I told the Committee here. That is what I did not mention initially.

MR LAMEY: So you didn't explain the participation of the black members in the assault to the reporter, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, I did not mention anything about the role that we played.

MR LAMEY: Now at that stage why did you not mention it to her?

MR VEYI: I do not have a reason.

MR LAMEY: Do you say you have not reason? But there must have been a reason in your mind. Can you just explain what your thinking was at that stage?

MR VEYI: There was no reason.

MR LAMEY: What was your rank at the stage of the abduction of Nokuthula Simelane?

MR VEYI: I was a Constable.

MR LAMEY: And at the stage when you, in 1995, when you made this report to the reporter of the Sowetan, what was your rank then?

MR VEYI: I was still a Constable.

MR LAMEY: Were you still a Constable?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: When did you become a Sergeant?

MR VEYI: In September 1995.

MR LAMEY: Now if you say you had no reason why you said that to her, do I take it that it was not a result of resentment to the white members that you said that? You know that when you referred only to the white members involved in the torture and not the black members.

MR VEYI: No, that is not correct.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, Mr Lamey, I missed the question. I heard the answer but I actually missed the question.

MR LAMEY: Let me just repeat that. You said, at the time when you made the statement to the Sowetan, that while the white members tortured her, and you said only the black members guarded her and you did not make mention of the involvement in the assaults and so on of the black members, you said that you can't think of a reason why you told her that. But my question is, did you specifically mention the involvement of the white members, relating to the torture, because of resentment against the white members?

MR VEYI: No, that is not true.

MR LAMEY: Now you were also asked about your involvement in the Lengene incident, who was abducted. Did I understand your evidence correctly that you, the kidnapping part you were not involved in?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is what I said.

MR LAMEY: At what stage, where was Lengene or where was he at the time when you - let me ask you this first, what was your involvement during his, after he was abducted?

MR VEYI: I only interfered when we were recruiting him, as we wanted him to be a member of the Police Force.

MR LAMEY: Was it during the stage when the recruitment exercise was applied?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now where was he at that stage? - that is now Lengene.

MR VEYI: He was in Rustenburg with Superintendent Coetzee's in-laws. Sometimes he would be in Klipspruit West.

MR LAMEY: Were you also at Rustenburg?

MR VEYI: Yes, I used to go there.

MR LAMEY: Were you at Klipspruit?

MR VEYI: Yes, I would visit Klipspruit. There was a safe-house there.

MR LAMEY: This place in Rustenburg, what place was that?

MR VEYI: That was Mr Superintendent wife's home. Mr Superintendent - Mr Coetzee's wife's home.

MR LAMEY: Was that - did you regard that as, what you call a safe-house?

MR VEYI: No, that was not a safe-house, it was just a place because sometimes Coetzee, if he was leaving, if he wanted to go to his in-laws and work from there he would take people with him because he was working all the time. He was always working.

MR LAMEY: Now the place at Klipspruit, what was that? - when he was recruited or interrogated there?

MR VEYI: It was a safe-house where we used to - it was a safe-house where the informers, informants used to be interviewed.

MR LAMEY: What is a safe-house?

MR VEYI: If you work with an informant, he or she must not be seen by people. There should be a house that is secluded or a house that would be used secretly so that their identities could not be revealed.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I just want to point out that in the statement of Lengene, for what it may be worth, there is reference made to Rustenburg, and then in paragraph 34 thereof, page 339, there's also reference made that he was taken to a certain house, driven to a certain house in Klipspruit West.

MR VISSER: Well will my learned friend just tell you whether he thinks it was before or after he had been recruited, Chairperson. Let's get the correct facts on record.

MR LAMEY: Well perhaps Mr Veyi could comment on that. When he was taken to Klipspruit, how far was the development in this interrogation and recruitment process?

MR VEYI: It was still in process when he was taken to Klipspruit.

MR LAMEY: By that time was he already recruited? In other words, already turned or not yet?

MR VEYI: We were still busy with the process.

MR LAMEY: Are you saying that it did not happen yet?

MR VEYI: Yes, it was not yet over, we were still busy with it. We were not trusting him yet. Sometimes he would be on leg-irons.

MR LAMEY: Now in paragraph 36, Lengene stated that he was, after that, after being at Klipspruit ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: This last answer:

So did you already recruit him, but you wanted to keep an eye on him, you were not trusting him, or why did you add "we were not trusting him yet"?

MR VEYI: We were still busy with the process of recruiting him. You won't just trust a person completely during that process. That is why I said so.

MR LAMEY: Perhaps I should ask you this, at that stage at Klipspruit was there positive signs about his recruitment, from his side? In other words, that is was different from the situation at Rustenburg.

MR VEYI: There were positive signs that he will change and he eventually changed and we could trust him.

MR LAMEY: Okay. When did he eventually change and when was the situation that you could trust him?

MR VEYI: After he had changed he used to be in the company of one person and if you happen to be with him, you even monitor his behaviour and you would even detect from what he says, whether he can escape or not and then you would go back to Coetzee and give a report. At some stage he would be sent, he would be given a mandate alone and then he would come back alone.

MR LAMEY: Ja, but what I want to ask specifically, that situation at the stage, when it reached the stage that he could be trusted, was that still while he was at Klipspruit or was he then somewhere else?

MR VEYI: He was in Klipspruit.

MR LAMEY: So when he was taken to Klipspruit he hadn't reached that stage, but during the time at Klipspruit the recruitment of him improved, is that what you're saying?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then in paragraph 36 he has stated that he was also taken to Benoni, do you know of that? Do you know anything about that?

MR VEYI: I do not remember anything about Benoni.

MR LAMEY: I want to take you back to the situation at Norwood. Perhaps I should just ask you in general, and I'm referring now to the situation at Norwood as well as at Northum. Let me rather leave that, I'll bring you back to Norwood. When you were - you testified that the first time that you got to Norwood was - in examination by the Commissioner Gcabashe, three days after the Saturday, in other words the third day after the Saturday that she was abducted you got to Norwood first, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: So that would be the Tuesday?

MR VEYI: I think that is so.

MR LAMEY: Okay. How long - did you stay there at Norwood, when you were there, continuously, in other words, the whole day or did you also come and go from there?

MR VEYI: I would spend a night there and I would go and spend two nights there and leave perhaps on the third day and we would change shifts.

MR LAMEY: How many nights in total did you spend at Norwood? Can you remember?

MR VEYI: I'm not certain about that, but I can say that maybe I spent four nights there.

MR LAMEY: When you spent nights there, did you only spend nights there or were you there also during daytime?

MR VEYI: If you arrive there during the day you wait and you spend the night there and you wake up there the following day.

MR LAMEY: Were you there - during the time that you were there, were you there 24 hours out of 24 hours of the day?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now, and the white policemen?

MR VEYI: Yes, they would be there for the whole day and go away and come back late in the evening because they were staying there.

MR LAMEY: Who also stayed at those quarters, if you talk about them or "they"?

MR VEYI: If I remember very well in those quarters, Block A and Block B, Coetzee was staying at another block and Pretorius was at the other block and even Pretorius was there. I think even Ross was staying there, if my memory serves me well. It was a place that was occupied by police.

MR LAMEY: Now the - during the interrogation sessions and the assaults during those interrogation sessions, did that happen at day, during day time or night time or both?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have been sitting here very patiently, listening to my learned fried starting a whole new case in re-examination, because that's what it boils down to. My learned friend is entitled, if this were a court of law, to deal with matters of clarification arising out of that which was asked of his witness by either the judge or other people. We know this is not a court of law and we know that we're here to try and establish the truth, but at some stage or other there's got to be some semblance of discipline, Chairperson.

I already find myself in a situation here where I'm now going to have to start asking you to recall my witnesses, to deal with matters which have not been raised, which we hadn't been aware of, which were never put to your witnesses. And Chairman, I don't want to restrict my learned friend unnecessarily, but there is a limit. My learned can't just now start leading evidence-in-chief afresh while he's in re-examination. And I would submit to you, Chairperson, he's exceeding the bound of what is reasonably permissible by way of re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I'm not exactly clear. My learned friend's objection in very general terms. I don't know whether he's objecting to my questioning about the Norwood aspect only or whether he refers to the other aspects as well.

MR VISSER: It's a general objection and it's just getting to the point now where it's becoming absurd. "Who lived in the flats?", etc., etc.

CHAIRPERSON: That's common cause, Mr Visser. In fact Coetzee and your people already told us who lived there, so it's really just, it's common cause. So I don't know where ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Can I just take ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Now the Norwood flats issue was part of what you cross-examined on and I assume that Mr Lamey is dealing with that.

MR LAMEY: Well my learned friend has said it's in general. What he's in fact saying to the Committee is, I am exceeding the bounds of re-examination in total, from the outset. Now if I need to take the time, I can take the Committee back step by step on each and every aspect which I started on re-examination. I started with the dam - well I mentioned the dam incident. That was clearly arising from questioning from the Committee. I also went further with the newspaper report. I went -I mean it is clear, I know that I, on this particular aspect about Norwood, it goes a bit slow at this stage, but I really want to get at an aspect which is important but also to clarify aspects regarding my position. And I must get to that and I must be very clear about this.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what I assumed.

ADV DE JAGER: But is it really of importance whether they stayed in Block A or Block B at Norwood? Could that assist us in coming to a finding in this thing?

MR LAMEY: That was perhaps a side issue that came unnecessarily in, Mr Chairman, but what I'm really aiming at is to get clarity on what really transpired at Norwood, as far as this witness is concerned, the involvement of other members etc., and it also ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand, I know exactly what you're saying and that's what I thought you were getting at. Unfortunately your client did refer to things which are already on the record, Block A and Block B. We know exactly where the people lived. So go ahead, please just ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: I see it's 4 o'clock.

MR VISSER: It's 4 o'clock. Can we be excused, unfortunately I've had to made certain arrangements and we had to assume that we could leave at 4 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume you still have some way to go, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: I'll have to unfortunately clarify certain aspects. It's for various reasons important.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. No, you must deal with the matter as you're instructed to. Now we're going to adjourn at this stage, but we have another matter on the role and that's the Mbali matter, where an interested party and the applicant, one of the applicants had to travel over some distance and had to go to some expense in order to attend.

This particular matter that we're hearing now is taking much, much longer than we had anticipated. We had worked on the assumption that we would be able to deal with the Mbali matter. We intend to do that in fact. We have one of the applicants who came up from Cape Town, we've got an interested party who came from Umtata.

We would like to deal with that matter tomorrow, as soon as it's convenient to do so. We have been informed that it is something that we in all likelihood would be able to dispose of in the course of the day tomorrow, and we would like to accommodate those parties in regard to that particular matter.

We will adjourn at this stage and we'll reconvene at 09H30 tomorrow morning.