CHAIRPERSON: It's Friday the 21st May 1999. We are continuing with the amnesty application of Coetzee and others in respect of the Simelane matter.

Mr Lamey you were still re-examining.

NIMROD VEYI: (s.u.o.)

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Veyi when we yesterday adjourned I was asking you some questions around the time when the lady Simelane was kept at Norwood. Can I ask you this, were you and Mr Selamolela or just explain, how did it work, what was your role at Norwood, you specifically, what did you have to do?

MR VEYI: In Norwood she was questioned, Nokuthula was asked questions so we were interpreting for her.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, I haven't heard anything, on which channel are we? Sorry, could the interpreter just repeat? I couldn't pick it up?

INTERPRETER: Nokuthula was asked questions in Norwood and they were interpreting for her.

MR LAMEY: Who did the interpretation?

MR VEYI: If I was there I would do that job.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Apart from the interpretation what other functions did you have there at Norwood?

MR VEYI: In Norwood it was when she was interrogated and tortured and then I took part in that.

MR LAMEY: No, I know that you said that but what was your, I would say, the reason why you had to go to Norwood, you and perhaps also the Black members?

MR VEYI: It is because she was arrested by our unit so we went there to guard her.

MR LAMEY: So your role was actually to guard her but during also the times that you were there she was interrogated and assaulted and you participated in that, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now on each occasion that you were at Norwood was Selamolela also there or were their times that you would be there with other Black members and Selamolela not there? How did it work?

MR VEYI: It was working like this, sometimes I would be with Selamolela and then sometimes I would be with someone else, we were changing shifts, maybe Selamolela with the other person, I would not be there and then I would take another person except Selamolela.

MR LAMEY: Can you more or less remember on each occasion that you were at Norwood, how many members of the unit in total including the White and the Black members were on average present during the interrogation?

MR VEYI: All those who have given testimony would be present except for Superintendent Williams, I don't remember him being there. The Black members, it would be myself, Sergeant Gadebe, Manuel, Strongman, Sefuti, Inspector Selamolela, Peter Lengene, those are the people that I still remember.

MR LAMEY: Ja look, what I want to specifically know is you said that Selamolela was not there on each occasion that you were there. Was the situation also that there was shifts and the members that were there on each shift differed from time to time?

MR VEYI: Yes I do agree with that, we were having shifts.

MR LAMEY: Now what I want to know is, on a particular shift when not everybody was there, I just want to know on average how many of the members, White and Black were on average present during a shift?

MR VEYI: There was no specific number of how many people should be there. I don't remember how it worked but there was no specific number.

MR LAMEY: Did the numbers differ on the shifts, would there sometimes be more than other times?

MR VEYI: Yes I can put it that way, for example, may I would be present together with Superintendent Pretorius. Maybe the following day I would not be there and then the people who were there might say that Pretorius was also there, it was working like that.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you remember whether Selamolela was at any stage present while you were there? You worked two shifts there as far as we know?

MR VEYI: The person that I still remember when I started going there, I went there with Sergeant Sefuti, I mentioned Selamolela's name because he was one of the members of the unit. If I still remember well I first went there with Sergeant Sefuti.

MR LAMEY: Alright Mr Veyi I want you now to listen carefully and also to - because it's important. I know that you're saying that you know about all the members of the unit or most of them were there during the time but is it so that you know that because it is also, it has come to your knowledge that the others were there as a result of the talking but not everybody was present on each occasion that you were at Norwood, who you saw physically with your eyes, with your own eyes?

MR VEYI: Yes I can put it that way.

MR LAMEY: Now if you think back and you try to visualise the situation with your own eyes each time that you were at Norwood, was Selamolela on - you said you were on two shifts, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Was he there on both the shifts or was he on one of the shifts or can't you say?

MR VEYI: I can't remember.

MR LAMEY: Now the assaults that took place while you were there at Norwood, did the assaults take place on each shift that you were there or how did it work?

MR VEYI: Yes when I was present she was assaulted.

MR LAMEY: Was she assaulted in your presence?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Who, if I may put it this way, who led the assaults, who initiated it, who started in on each occasion?

MR VEYI: We were following everything that was done by Superintendent Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: No, I'm asking who started the assaults, who initiated it?

MR VEYI: It was Superintendent Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: And are you saying then the other members then also followed and participated?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now you said in your evidence that, when you were asked questions, that Selamolela also participated in the assaults at Norwood. I want you to think carefully and you've just recently said that - sorry, I forgot now actually what you said, let me just rephrase the question. Can you picture in your mind with your eyes seeing Mr Selamolela participating in any assault when at any stage that you were at Norwood or are you speaking in general terms that Coetzee would lead the assault and the other members who were present also joined in and that is why you include Selamolela. In other words are you including Selamolela in a general assumption that everybody participated or can you remember or visualise him assaulting the lady clearly.

MR VEYI: I can say that I said that it was in general.

MR LAMEY: So you include him in general terms, you cannot really specifically say whether he did assault her in any way or not at Norwood, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: But Mr Lamey I've got this problem and I don't want to intervene, if that's the position how can we then accept that the other members took part who he mentioned if he is talking in general?

MR LAMEY: May I just ask perhaps a follow up question on this? At Norwood, if you think back are there any individual, right, you said you yourself participated in the assault and you assaulted, I can understand that because you can remember what you yourself did. Now on the other members, can you remember and visualise who of them when you were there assaulted her, that you can clearly remember?

MR VEYI: As I've already said I can't remember who I was with in a certain day but when she was assaulted in front of me or in my presence I can say that we were all taking part.

MR LAMEY: Now but is any individuals role in the assault apart from yourself that you could remember, seeing with your own eyes? That's now apart from yourself?

MR VEYI: Yes I've already said, I don't know how to explain this, when we were there with those people that were there even though I can't remember who I was with at a particular time or a specific time, we were all taking part in assaulting her.

MR LAMEY: Were there times during these shift sessions that she was not assaulted?

MR VEYI: Yes there was a time when she would be given a photo album to page through that photo album and then she would be given some time to rest for a little while.

MR LAMEY: Now just to come back here you say everybody participated but you can't mention any individual including Selamolela, you can't - you speak in general terms, in other words there was assaults by almost everybody but you don't ...(intervention).

MR VISSER: No, no, no, not almost everybody, by everybody. My learned friend is slanting the evidence, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, then it's my mistake if I expressed myself wrongly, I will then rephrase it.

You stated that she was assaulted by everybody, is that correct? In other words do I take it that by saying everybody, you talk about the group?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct. The people who were there when I was present, they were all assaulting her.

MR LAMEY: But do I understand you correctly, you cannot single out an individual and say he assaulted and that one assaulted and that one assaulted by calling them by their name?

MR VEYI: I'd like to make an example. If I still remember well when I started going to that place I went with Sergeant Sefuti. We would be there when she was interrogated. Superintendent Coetzee would be the one who was the leader of the team so when we were there everybody that was present would assault her.

ADV GCABASHE: Just help me here. So you recall you were there that first time Sefuti was there and now you're saying Coetzee was there? Can you recall going through that group who else may have been there? Are you able to do that?

MR VEYI: Sergeant Pretorius was also there and Manuel, but Manuel was one of those who was always there guarding and Strongman.

ADV GCABASHE: Now these people were definitely there that first time you went there, is this what you are saying?

MR VEYI: Yes and they took part in assaulting her.

MR LAMEY: And Selamolela? We're talking about the first time?

MR LAMEY: I'm saying that I only remember those that I've already mentioned. When I went there for the second time I can't remember who were there.

MR LAMEY: You say the second time you can't remember who was there with at all with you?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just get one other thing right? Are you saying that each time you were there and you participated in the assaults on Nokuthula Simelane, Coetzee and Pretorius or only Coetzee would be there or only Pretorius would be there in terms of the leading, can you just clarify that one and that's throughout the five weeks?

MR LAMEY: Talking about ...(inaudible)

ADV GCABASHE: No, no, that might be what you're talking about, that not what I'm talking about, in the five week period, just try and recall? I just want to know as the two senior officers, were they there each time or one might be there, one might not? Just give me an idea.

MR VEYI: It didn't happen in my presence that there would be only one of them present. Coetzee and Pretorius, I can say that they were like friends, they were always together.

MR LAMEY: Now if I can just come back before we go onto the Northern - in your statement, your first statement that you made, you had described in the previous paragraph, paragraph 4 on page 3 about the members who went with and that is now to the Carlton Centre as far as you know, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then immediately the following paragraph states

and you say further on, the next sentence, that:

Is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: In other words, the statement which you made to the Attorney General and which didn't make mention of the Norwood detention?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And is it correct that when this supplemented amnesty application of yours was prepared and during the course of preparation this aspect was discussed with you, is it correct, the question of Norwood?

MR VEYI: Yes it was discussed with me and then I thought about this when I was going to Pretoria for consultation.

MR LAMEY: But it was also discussed with you during consultation, is that correct? You were asked about whether, questions in these terms, whether you know if she was kept at Norwood, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And during the course of that you were also - it was also mentioned to you that what Mr Selamolela states in this regard is that correct and you'll be asked to comment on that?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And when that was discussed, did you come to some realisation or what was the position?

MR VEYI: When this was discussed I remembered that after she was arrested in Carlton Centre there was a place that she was taken to before being taken to Northern, she was taken to Norwood.

MR LAMEY: And when you remembered then is that when your application was supplemented as in the way it presents on page 4?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now I want to move over now to the situation at Northern. Here you also worked in shifts at the farm, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Let us talk about in this instance now of the shifts. Let us talk about the Black members. Each time that you were there, were you there with the same people or were you on different occasions with different Black members there?

MR VEYI: The people that I remember was Selamolela and sometimes I would not be with him, I would be with Sefuti.

MR LAMEY: And other black members?

MR VEYI: They were also changing shifts.

MR LAMEY: Now what I want to know is, at the time when you were at Northern on your stay there, I'm now talking about only the Black members, would you only be there with, on occasion with Selamolela or with Sefuti or were there also other Black members, on the different shifts. Was there only two people for instance or were there more than two on each occasion that you were there?

MR VEYI: I think it was more than two because sometimes we would be together and then we would have braais and then we would sleep there, all of us.

MR LAMEY: So the numbers differed on each and every occasion that you were there and also the particular persons, the individuals differed, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You say sometimes Selamolela would be there but other times you would not be there on your shift?

MR VEYI: Yes I said that sometimes he would be there, sometimes the whole unit would be there in Northern.

MR LAMEY: What I want to know is, were there also times that you were there perhaps with Sefuti on a particular shift that Selamolela would not be there, that he would be back at Protea, perhaps to come for the next shift?

MR VEYI: Yes, there were such times.

MR LAMEY: On the occasions that you drove or that you went to Northern, did you use your own vehicle on each occasion to relieve the others?

MR VEYI: Each and every shift, when other cars would come back there would be cars that were left there. When we would arrive there with our own car the people who were there would take their own car and come back with it.

MR LAMEY: Of the names you have mentioned, Sefuti and Selamolela, did you drive sometimes with Selamolela to the farm and other times with Sefuti in a car?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now I want to talk now about the interrogation sessions at Northern and during - and specifically also the assaults during those interrogation sessions. Can you recall during those sessions, also like I've asked you in Norwood about the Black members participations in the assaults, what I want to ask you specifically, can you remember what everyone did or what is the position?

MR VEYI: I would like to explain this. If a person is here our end, I was the one who was assaulting her and then some -one other person might hold the hand or the leg and then put that person down. So according to my own perception, that person is also taking part in assaulting.

MR LAMEY: Yes, so you would say the way that the different Black members was involved in the assault at Northern differed. One for instance would perhaps hold her during the sessions, others would perhaps dish out a slap or a kick in the process?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: But that is why you say also everybody participated in the assaults including Selamolela when he was there?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And by doing that you say everybody played some role in the assault is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: So if Mr Selamolela says during the times when he was at Northern he was used as an interpreter and he would hold her, that was his role during the assault. Are you in disagreement with that or what is your comment?

MR VEYI: I would agree with him.

MR LAMEY: The language of interrogation of Simelane, was she at all times interrogated in one language or did it differ?

MR VEYI: She was interrogated in Afrikaans.

MR LAMEY: Other languages? I'm talking about over the whole period, Norwood, Northern, I'm talking in general?

MR VEYI: It was only Afrikaans and then we would interpret to her in Zulu.

MR LAMEY: So if you talk about we, who are you talking about that would interpret in Zulu?

MR VEYI: It would be myself who interpreted, sometimes it would be Peter, sometimes it would be Sergeant Mathiba.

MR LAMEY: Let's just stop, Peter?

MR VEYI: Peter Lengene.

MR LAMEY: Peter Lengene. And Selamolela?

MR VEYI: He was also responsible for that, he was also interpreting.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I think I have gone through my re-examination, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Veyi, when you were having these braais on the farm, was there liquor there?

MR VEYI: I can't remember but I think there was no one drinking liquor amongst us but I can't remember well.

CHAIRPERSON: And other times, that's when you were not having braais, was there liquor present on the farm?

MR VEYI: If I still remember well I think they are not all of them they are not drinking liquor, there were no members who were drinking liquor. Even if they were drinking liquor they were not drinking it in Northum.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was no drinking on the farm so far as you remember?

MR VEYI: We would only drink cold drinks, not alcohol.

CHAIRPERSON: Not beers, just cold drinks?

MR VEYI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In the summertime, I heard it was summertime. I don't know that area so well but I think it was suggested by one of the witnesses that it's quite hot at that time of the year, September. So there was no beers there?

MR VEYI: As I've already said, most of the members are not people who were drinking alcohol, we were only drinking cold drinks.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay and just explain another thing to me which I'm not sure about. All of you seem to have been referring to this that Ms Simelane was soiling herself during this interrogation, now was that limited to a particular period or did it happen throughout her stay on the farm or what is the position with that?

MR VEYI: It was not all the time, it was happening sometimes.

CHAIRPERSON: But was it just at the beginning when you got to the farm or did this happen from time to time throughout the period or what?

MR VEYI: I can't remember it clearly but I think when I was present I think it happened twice.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the interrogation stop at one stage whilst she was on the farm or did it continue up to the time when you were last on the farm?

MR VEYI: It would continue and then it would stop, there was no specific time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but just talking about yourself, up to the last time that you were on the farm, I'm talking about that period now, during your stay did the interrogation stop completely at some point?

MR VEYI: I left the farm and it was still continuing when I left.

CHAIRPERSON: And was it under the same circumstances that you had explained to us that it would go with assaults, the interrogation?

MR VEYI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you Mr Veyi

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I omitted in re-examination to ask one aspect that is actually also of important. I just want to cover one aspect. I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, no it's fine Mr Lamey, go ahead.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Veyi you testified about this trip to Potchefstroom where you saw Coetzee in the car and you saw Nokuthula Simelane also in boot of the car. The person - can you remember clearly who the person was that was with you?

MR VEYI: If I still remember well I was with Selamolela.

MR LAMEY: Are you dead certain about that? Completely certain?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, really. Really Mr Chairman, this is not the kind of question you ask in re-examination or of your own witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think he's already also said if he can remember.

MR LAMEY: What I just want to clarify is exactly the phrase if I do remember. There's something that senses a sort of a qualification in - I just want to get exact clarity on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes well he doesn't seem to be giving us a definite answer on that one, committing himself and saying it was definitely Selamolela. He's qualifying in the sense of "if my memory serves me correctly", you know? That's what I understand him to say.

MR LAMEY: Yes that is my impression also but you know that's why I just wanted to follow up also with another question but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think Mr Visser is - we don't have a difficulty in understanding what he is trying to tell us.

MR LAMEY: Perhaps I might follow the question was then unnecessary. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, are you through now?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I have a word perhaps, with your leave? Chairman, a lot of issues have now arisen during cross-examination of my learned friend Mr van den Berg and the Panel as well and particularly in re-examination which have not been put to my witnesses and which they have not had an

opportunity of dealing with. It would appear to us Chairperson that we would have to ask to be allowed to cross-examine Mr Veyi again on the new issues that have arisen and we might depending on how that goes, we might have to require your leave later when we reconvene with this matter again to recall those witnesses on issues which they hadn't had an opportunity of giving you their evidence. At this stage there are a few issues, new issues which I can cover and hopefully it may be sufficient but we'll only know that when we've got the record but hopefully I might be able to deal and dispose with them now if it then appears from the record that there are other matters which I can deal with now, then I will just have to bring that up at a later stage, with your leave Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Of course if there is a material issue that had arisen, that impacts on your client's application, something material, I'm not talking about a peripheral matter that deals with credibility or anything along those lines. Of course if there is something material then we must consider, you know, allowing you an opportunity. But certainly insofar as putting further questions to him at this stage I'm going to allow you to do that so that we can see if we can't dispose of the issues then through that means.

MR VISSER: Yes I'm hoping that I'll be able to do that. Chairperson, just one matter with respect to you, it appears that credibility has become an issue in this hearing and therefore matters on credibility will be material, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, but certainly if I understand the position correctly, Mr Visser can only re-examine on questions arising from questions from the Committee and issues that were fresh arising from re-examination, I'm not so sure whether there has been any fresh issues arising from re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to allow him to raise them and you object if it's necessary to do so and we'll see. Mr Visser has given us the assurance that those are new matters, that's why I'm allowing him to deal with them. I think it's fair, you know we're not sitting strictly as a court of law here, you know, we're an administrative tribunal so you know we try to be fair to all the parties, within limits, you know because we're not constituted to exist forever but we're trying to do justice. Mr Visser?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Veyi, was Exhibit CC3 the newspaper article in the Sowetan which carried the information which you gave the reporter, did I understand you correctly?

MR LAMEY: Let me just have a moment?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Does that mean that what is stated in this newspaper article contains what you told the reporter?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct except for two or three lines, those that Mr Lamey quoted from that I didn't tell the reporter that we Black members assaulted her.

MR VISSER: Yes, well alright. I want to refer you to Exhibit CC3, the right hand column.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, on this very first question, unfortunately I must come in and ask my learned friend what has been testified to in re-examination new about this witness. The witness was ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: You handed it in.

MR LAMEY: No, I didn't hand it in.

CHAIRPERSON: Put your point, I'm listening to your argument?

MR LAMEY: No Mr Chairman, I didn't hand this exhibit in. I asked Mr Veyi exactly in re-examination on the very same paragraph that Mr Visser cross-examined him in re-examination. Now my learned friend had this article as part of his bundle, part of Exhibit T, he didn't take the opportunity in cross-examining Mr Veyi on the rest or remainder of the contents of that article, he now purports to do so. It's also ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: If I might assist Mr Chairperson, it's Exhibit T page 24.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Visser, what is the ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairperson, if my learned friend had just allowed me to go on he would have understood what the relevance is. First of all there was no mention made of food that was provided or not provided for Ms Simelane at all during the whole of the hearing until we came after my cross-examination. That's the first point.

The second point is, during evidence in re-examination you heard for the first time that apparently this dam's water was infested with fungus, that it was a drinking trough of sorts, Chairperson, and it is in that regard that I want to refer to this newspaper article. It's new evidence which we hadn't had an opportunity of dealing with. If my learned friend can just give me an opportunity, I will not do what he has done, Chairperson, I give you an undertaking. I know the rules of evidence.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman I must just come on the record here at this stage that there has also been fresh evidence in the applicants' evidence in re-examination and I would also like to reserve the same rights in future.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no of course.

MR LAMEY: I don't know what my learned friend refers to, I have not done what my learned friend has done, I don't know what he's referring to and I think it's an unnecessary comment really.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Visser, I think it's a fair comment but you want to deal with the questions of the food and the condition of the water in the dam? Now ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: I've no difficulty with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes of course. A part of the food issue arose as of new information, take-aways and things like that, rat-packs apparently arose in your client's evidence. The question of the damn water of course that is a new matter you might want to put something to the witness in that regard?

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

I just want to refer to the last column, to the sixth line and I want to read it to you Mr Veyi. You are quoted in the Sowetan as having said the following:

What does that mean?

MR LAMEY: Sorry, can I just get to the paragraph? I'm sorry, the witness is just struggling to find the ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: It's the only quotation in the last column.

ADV GCABASHE: The second column.

MR VISSER: The second column, oh.

MR VEYI: Can you please repeat your question?

MR VISSER: You refer you to a tap where you washed. You told this Committee that you never washed on the farm, you told the Committee that there wasn't water to wash except in the dam?

MR VEYI: Yes, there was no water except in the dam.

MR VISSER: So what is the tap that you're referring to?

MR VEYI: I've already said that this what be might the reporter wrote herself, for example ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: No Mr Veyi, I asked you before you started with -this article contains what you told the reporter you said yes except for the lines which Mr Lamey read. So this is what you said and you directly quoted, it's in quotation marks. These are your words. Are you saying you didn't tell her about a tap?

MR VEYI: Mr Lamey didn't ask anything about the tap. As I'm saying I would quote again, there is an article that Mr Visser showed me yesterday where he said that I resented White people, White members because of their higher ranks. I didn't say what is written here in this article, I don't know anything about it.

MR VISSER: Yes, it's an article that was handed in by Mr van den Berg and you confirmed that this was the article which carried the information you gave to the reporter of the Sowetan, Mr Veyi?

MR VEYI: When Mr Visser asked me about the article, I took this photo and when I said that I don't know about what is written here, I only know about the photo, maybe this is the story of the reporter that was making a follow up. I only know about this story in CC3.

MR VISSER: Is it correct that you took a reporter out to the farm at Northern?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: Was this Ms Chetty that you took to the farm?

MR VEYI: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: And did you show her around?

MR VEYI: She wanted to see the house that we were staying and then I showed her the house and then she wanted to see the main house and then I showed her the main house. She then went to the owners of the house and asked them questions. After that we came back.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Veyi. Now are you saying that there wasn't a tap and that this something that Ms Chetty herself wrote without you telling her. Is that what you're saying?

MR VEYI: I can't remember a tap there.

MR VISSER: But you were there for five weeks? Was there or wasn't there a tap?

MR VEYI: I can't remember it.

MR VISSER: Did you wash at a tap on the farm or not?

MR VEYI: We didn't wash there.

MR VISSER: Alright. You spoke about food, you were asked about food and you said that you had rat-packs and sometimes you would go to Northern to buy fish and chips. Do you remember that?

MR VEYI: Yes I remember that.

MR VISSER: Did you also have other food on the farm?

MR VEYI: We were provided with food. It was like we were camping there, the police who were camping they were using rat-packs. We didn't like them and then we would go to the shops and buy food for ourselves.

MR VISSER: Apart from that were you also provided with other food?

MR VEYI: We were buying food for ourselves if we needed it.

MR VISSER: Mr Veyi, what's the problem with answering the question? Were you also provided with other food, not the stuff that you bought or the rat-packs, other food? Let's cut it short, weren't braais held for you there on the farm?

MR VEYI: Yes we had a braai once.

MR VISSER: Once? I see. You didn't have braais on the farm, just one braai, you're quite sure of that?

MR VEYI: When I was there, there was only one braai.

MR VISSER: Alright, you see in that same Exhibit CC3 just the next sentence, you are quoted again and it says:

"'There is the place where we used to have braais' he said"

that's you,

"Where we used to have braais" Is that also wrong?

MR VEYI: This is also written wrongly.

MR VISSER: Yes. I put it to you that Coetzee and Pretorius did not sleep there every night, Mr Veyi. They had a job to do, the farm was approximately 300 kilometres from Johannesburg as you yourself said, that's a 600 kilometre round trip, there could be no way for them to go out there in the morning and come back, stay there at night, come back to Johannesburg, go back again every single day to sleep on the farm. I put it to you that that is not true.

would sleep outside because it was cold, they would sleep there.

MR VISSER: Yes, alright, if you prefer to answer the question that way, that's alright. You said that Mr Ross, the only person that you could remember was Mr Williams that wasn't present at the interrogations of Simelane at Norwood, is that what you said?

MR VEYI: I said in Norwood I can't remember well but Lieutenant Williams I can't remember him being there in Norwood.

MR VISSER: Yes and Mr Ross?

MR VEYI: Ross was always with us all the time. It is possible that he was there, it is also possible that he was not there, I would not dispute that because most of the time Sergeant Ross was doing administrative work.

MR VISSER: Yes. Chairperson, those are the only matters which I could pick up now. As I say we will inform you about the situation once we've had a look at the record, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Visser. Mr Lamey have you got anything else arising from the further cross-examination?

MR LAMEY: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Veyi, you are excused. Thank you.

MR VEYI: Thank you. Before stepping down, I would like to say to this Committee I apologise for taking part, for my taking part in the kidnapping of Nokuthula Simelane. Everything that happened, it didn't happen because I wanted it to happen, but it happened because of the instructions that I got from the people that I was working under.

To all the people that were assaulted or that were treated bad when I was working at the security branch and all the members of ANC, their families, I would like to apologise to them. I would like to tell them that I was forced by the situation or the circumstances of the time. It is why after the change in this country and then I heard that Simelane's family, they were still looking for their child, that is why I decided to come forward. I would like to say that I apologise. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'll take a short adjournment. We have to look at the matter of Mbali as well but we'll adjourn for a short while.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now the Simelane matter will have to stand down to grant us an opportunity to deal with another incident that we are, by the looks of things, able to dispose of very quickly. Mr van den Berg was there something that you wanted to bring to our attention?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes Mr Chairperson. I'd indicated in my cross-examination of Mr Coetzee that I had a discussion with Mr Molapo who is an investigator at the TRC. I had a brief discussion with him again yesterday during that adjournment which you granted me and he was supposed to meet with me this morning just to give me further and better details. The gist of it is that prior to Mr Lengene’s death, he was co-operating with Mr Molapo. He, Mr Lengene, had pointed out a site in the Rustenburg area where certain exhumations had been carried out and a grave containing 15 corpses had been exhumed. Initially Mr Molapo indicated to me that of the corpses, thirteen were male and two were female. It subsequently has transpired that of those 15, all 15 are male but that there are additional corpses buried in graves on that site. The information which Mr Lengene apparently gave to Mr Molapo was to the effect that Nokuthula Simelane was buried in one of those graves. The request from the family is that the remainder of those graves be exhumed.

I have also spoken with Captain Leask of the Attorney General's office and he has indicated that if female corpses were to be unearthed, his office would be prepared to do the necessary DNA tests if there was sufficient material left. I confirmed that with him again yesterday afternoon and in the circumstances I would request the TRC's assistance in pursuing those exhumations. I understand that Mr Molapo is ready and willing to do so but that he requires a direction to do so as it pleases this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, to the extent that it is necessary for the internal requirements of the Amnesty Committee and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we would recommend that the Amnesty Committee take the necessary steps to assist the family in dealing with the question of exhumation as requested by Mr van den Berg.

Now we're going to let this matter stand down as requested by Mr van den Berg. We're going to let this matter stand down for the moment and proceed with the incident concerning Mr Mbali. So we can stand down but you know we unfortunately have to ask you to be available, Mr Lamey and Mr van den Berg, before we can finally dispose of the matter. We're not quite sure how we're going to deal with the remainder of the evidence in this particular matter, so for the moment we're going to let it stand down until we are in a better position to deal with that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, might I enquire as to whether I might be excused, my offices are about twenty minutes from here and I will ensure that my cellphone is on and that I would return immediately that I be summonsed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes that is in order, I trust that there's also a convenient arrangement that we can make with you, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I'm from Pretoria but we do have an office here in Johannesburg, I'll also keep myself on but I may just stay just around here in the vicinity. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: But if you need to you could make arrangements perhaps with Ms Thabethe. So we'll excuse you on that basis.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think there were two applicants in the Mbali matter, is Messrs Schoon and Genis if I'm not mistaken.

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman, the first witness I will call General Genis. He will give his evidence in Afrikaans.

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chairman, before we proceed, we can't get hold of Mr Mbali. Can you please give me time to look for him. He was around here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes alright, will you please endeavour to get him here as quickly as you can? Well we'll stand down.

CHAIRPERSON: In the Mbali matter, it appears as if it would be more advisable to deal with the Simelane matter more definitely and clearly than we've done earlier. It doesn't look as if taking into account the time that is at our disposal today that we are going to be able to meaningfully deal with what remains to be heard, evidence to be heard in that particular matter so we are in any event going to have to postpone that matter. We are of the view that it might be in the best interests of everybody if we rather just do it immediately instead of letting the parties hang around.

We don't have a date, a date hasn't been arranged, it's not possible to do it right here and now, that will have to be done in conjunction with everybody including the panel who once we depart from here we will read into all sorts of different other matters and we will be distributed all over the country so it is going to be necessary to consider all of the programmes and see when we can reconvene this panel. We have all sorts of other constraints on us, our members are not available indefinitely so it's going to have to take some organisation. So the best that we can do in regard to the Simelane matter is to postpone it sine die and to leave our office and the parties to arrange a date that will be convenient and suitable to everybody's needs. So that matter will be postponed and then we will then finally excuse Mr Lamey and Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Genis?

GERT KOTZEE GENIS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Chair then we place before you a statement which we drew last night in order to attempt to assist for General Genis the next exhibit number appears to be Exhibit DD.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: And we would refer to that.

Mr Genis you are an applicant for amnesty before the current Honourable Committee and your amnesty application has to do with the events regarding the abduction and detention of Mr Herbert Mbali. Is that correct?

MR GENIS: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: Your amnesty application appears in bundle 1 from page 1 - 9, do you confirm the truth and correctness of the content of that application subject to an amendment which we will shortly make?

MR GENIS: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: You received a document which you've studied, it has been served before the Committee as Exhibit A, it is a document with the heading "General Background to Amnesty Applications". Have you studied that document?

MR GENIS: Yes.

MR VISSER: And did you find that that document is a precise explanation of your position with regard to the struggle of the past?

MR GENIS: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Now that document is a general document and it deals with aspects of the struggle of the past and matters or events which occurred from the beginning of the '80's, you would have surmised this?

MR GENIS: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: While this application that we are dealing with now has to do with an event that took place in 1972?

MR GENIS: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: Just briefly, in 1972 was there already at that stage a sign that the revolutionary struggle within the country was under way or perhaps you could just answer that question at first?

MR GENIS: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And were there already acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks during the early '70's?

MR GENIS: Yes.

MR VISSER: Perhaps for the sake of background this matter joins the matter surrounding the person by the name of Mr Mumbaris, M-U-M-B-A-R-I-S, is that correct?

MR GENIS: Yes.

MR VISSER: And in the booklet written by General Stadler "The Other Side of the Story", on page 29, he discusses what he refers to as the Mumbaris fiasco and before that he has given a summary of the development of the struggle, is that correct?

MR GENIS: Yes.

MR VISSER: This matter was brought to your attention yesterday evening, the Ntuli Detachment of 1967 is referred to and then he takes it through to Mumbaris in 1972 and it is clear according to this booklet and I want to ask you whether or not this is also your information with regard to that stage, that at that stage there were already infiltrations for the purposes of acts of terrorism in the Republic?

MR GENIS: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Genis, in your application paragraph 7 you have stated not applicable with regard to questions a(i) and a(ii). What is the situation, were you a supporter of any political party during 1972?

MR GENIS: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Which party?

MR GENIS: The National Party.

MR VISSER: Very well. If we may go to page 2 paragraph 1, in your amnesty form itself there was no summary or explanation of your career with the police and we thought it advisable to give a summary of this to the Committee should they wish to refer to it. However apparently, you have told me this morning that something was omitted which should have been included and you mentioned this to me yesterday evening. What was that?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, I'm referring to paragraph 3 marked paragraphs 1 to 11, paragraph 10 - "Johannesburg" must be replaced by "Cape Town". Paragraph 11 must read "1983 - 1985, Johannesburg". And then an additional paragraph 12 - "1985 -1986 SAP Headquarters Pretoria".

MR VISSER: Very well and those amendments you then confirm that that was your career as an officer with the police. Then from paragraph 2, could you please inform the Committee regarding your involvement in this matter?

MR GENIS: During 1972 I was the Divisional Commander of the Security Branch in the Orange Free State and I was stationed in Bloemfontein. From security surveys I was aware in 1972 that one Alexander Mumbaris and his wife were arrested at the Koopfontein Hek Border Post between the R.S.A. and the Botswana border, that subsequent investigations had brought to light that Mumbaris would infiltrate a group of 26 specially trained MK members to the R.S.A. with the objective of establishing a revolutionary climate in the R.S.A. and committing acts of terrorism, that most of the group had been arrested with the exception of Martin Tembisele Hani, Herbert Mbali and Lambert Moloi, that the latter mentioned three MK members had succeeded in escaping to Lesotho where the Lesotho Government had given them asylum, that they'd continued with their planning in Lesotho for acts of terrorism which they wished to commit in the R.S.A.

MR VISSER: Just a moment. Mr Genis, what are you referring to when you speak of security surveys. Could you please tell the Committee what those were?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, at Pretoria head office I compiled a weekly document during which all the security trends were sketched, all the events of the past week and this document would then be circulated to all security branches in secrecy.

MR VISSER: Very well, will you continue with paragraph 6?

MR GENIS: The abovementioned persons consequently held a serious threat and danger for the government of South Africa and played an important role in the struggle of the ANC/SACP to topple the government of the R.S.A. with violence.

Herbert Mbali, with respect Chairperson, I was informed that this person objects to the alias and for convenience I will not bring that into the evidence.

MR VISSER: But at that stage he was known to you as MK Lenny Boy?

MR GENIS: Yes he was known as the Advocate has just referred to him.

MR VISSER: But you can just refer to him as Herbert Mbali. What would you like to say about him?

MR GENIS: Herbert Mbali received military training in East Bloc countries and was a prominent MK figure.

Major General Piet Kruger who in that stage as far as I can remember was in command of the security branch of the R.S.A. as a brigadier and has since passed away, gave me and order to attempt everything to lure Mbali to the R.S.A. I understood that I was to attempt firstly to get hold of Mbali in a legal manner. The point at which it was decided to abduct Mbali never was discussed seeing as that decision was taken by an informer in Lesotho as it will emerge after this. I conveyed the order to attempt to lure Mbali from Lesotho to my staff officer, the former or now deceased Major Vorster who was a Captain at that stage. He apparently recruited an informer in Lesotho who was a member of the Lesotho police to attempt to lure Mbali to the R.S.A. The informer was offered a considerable reward should he succeed. According to what I later heard from Major Vorster, the attempts by the informer to lure Mbali to the R.S.A. were futile. Apparently the informer then took the decision on his own to abduct Mbali. I was informed that the informer persuaded one of his colleagues to help him to arrest Mbali. They cuffed Mbali and the informer went with him through the Maseru Bridge border post to the R.S.A. after which he contacted Vorster and handed Mbali over to him. After that Vorster contacted me and told me what had happened. I contacted head office and conveyed the news that Mbali was in the custody of the security branch Orange Free State.

MR VISSER: You also reported to General Kruger how it happened or how it came to be that Mbali ended up in your custody?

MR GENIS: No, not in particular at that stage. I told Brigadier Kruger that we had the person regarding who the order was about.

MR VISSER: Very well.

MR GENIS: Major General Kruger gave the order that I should transport Mbali to Parys where members of head office would take over. The objective was to interrogate Mbali and to prosecute him. Major Vorster and I transferred Mbali to Parys by vehicle where members of head office took over. I can recall that Captain Trevor Baker was one of those persons.

MR VISSER: Can you recall who the others were?

MR GENIS: Later I was informed that it was Captain Schoon and I've now forgotten the name of the other officer. In between, the colleague of the informer who had assisted him with the arrest of Mbali became suspicious and reported the matter. The investigation which was conducted by the Lesotho Police brought the abduction of Mbali to light. The Lesotho Government immediately protested against the R.S.A. government and the R.S.A. government decided that Mbali should be given back to the Lesotho Government. He was returned uninjured to the Lesotho Government.

The acts and omissions which I committed, I committed not for my own gain but in the execution of my official duties as well as within the execution of an order given by General Piet Kruger. I regarded this as part of the opposition to the struggle. My conduct was aimed against the support of the ANC/SACP Alliance and I believed that my actions fell within the scope of my service as a policeman and in the execution of my express or sworn duties.

I request, with respect, that amnesty be granted to me for my acts and omissions in this regard.

MR VISSER: If you then look at page 2, what that would involve then would be abduction or human theft. It is so when Vorster told you that Mbali had been abducted, you didn't send him back, you took him to Parys and there associated yourself with the abduction?

MR GENIS: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: And you then also asked for any illegal or illegitimate detention or deprivation of freedom, possible obstruction of justice, defeating the ends of justice because you did not disclose the facts. Then there was also the border legislation and regulations and which you disobeyed as well as conspiracy and aiding and abetting as well as accessory with regard to any of the abovementioned?

MR GENIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Visser. Ms Thabethe?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Chair, I would like to put it on record that besides the fact that I'm evidence leader I'm assisting Mr Mbali in this application.

Mr Genis, I just want to find out, before you actually knew that Mr Herbert Mbali was in Lesotho, did you before that make attempts to look for him within the country? Did you know about him before he went to Lesotho?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, I only heard about Mbali after he had arrived in Lesotho. However, I did know about the existence of the Mumbaris group but I didn't know of which individual members the group consisted.

MS THABETHE: Why I'm asking you this, it's because Mr Mbali has instructed me that there were attempts before he left the country or when he left the country there were attempts that were made to look for him in South Africa and his family was approached and harassed in the process. Would you know anything about this?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, I cannot comment on that, I was not involved in any such action, I know nothing of that.

MS THABETHE: So I guess it would be correct for me to say you wouldn't know also of an incident where when they were looking for him one of his relatives got killed in the process? Would it be correct for me to say you don't know anything about that as well?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, I know nothing of that.

MS THABETHE: Now you say when Mr Mbali was abducted from Lesotho, he was taken first to Orange Free State and then to Parys. For what reason was he taken there for?

MR GENIS: I received the order from General Kruger that I was to take him to Parys.

MS THABETHE: Whereabouts in Parys did you take him, did you take him to a police station or a safe house, whereabouts in Parys did you take him?

MR GENIS: I took him to the police station where he was handed over.

MS THABETHE: After he was handed over do you know anything as to what happened? I mean besides the fact that there was an outcry from Lesotho that he should be brought back. Were you involved in him being taken back to Lesotho?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, I never again saw him before this morning. I was not involved in his handing over.

MR GENIS: Mr Chair, before I stop my cross-examination can I just get further instructions?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Thanks.

Thank you Mr Chair, I'm indebted to you.

Mr Genis, you say in your statement that Mr Mbali was delivered unharmed, he was not injured. I think it's in paragraph 18 if I'm not mistaken. My instructions are to ask you how would you know this if you were not involved in the whole process of him being taken back and in the process of abduction?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, when Mbali was delivered to me that Sunday morning he had no visible injuries. Afterwards I was informed that when he was delivered back to the Lesotho Government two or three days later, he was medically examined at Maseru by the District Physician of Ladybrand, I think it was a Dr Brand, the examination was conducted upon the insistence of the South African Government. I was also informed that the examination was undertaken by a doctor of his own choice. Whether or not this doctor was appointed by Lesotho is unknown to me. However, I was informed that he had no injuries.

MS THABETHE: Well Mr Genis, I'm asking you this because my instructions are that when Mr Mbali was abducted he says he was beaten up at some point he was even strangled. Would you know anything about this?

MR GENIS: I know nothing of that, not in my presence and not in my office and also not on the way to Parys. It wasn't necessary to do that.

MS THABETHE: My further instructions, Mr Genis, are that when Mr Mbali was brought back to Lesotho he says his doctor examined him and there was clear evidence of assaults because there were marks on his body. Would you know anything about this?

MR GENIS: I know nothing of that.

MS THABETHE: Would you deny it though?

MR GENIS: I cannot comment on that Chairperson because I wasn't there and I didn't see him.

MS THABETHE: Well my instructions are that his doctor did examine him and he found marks on him.

MR GENIS: I don't know about that Chairperson. Might I just add Chairperson that we received no complaints with regard to that from either Mbali or the Lesotho Government insofar as possible assault is concerned.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Genis, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just enquiring Ms Thabethe, have you got any instructions as to who was responsible for the assaults on Mr Mbali?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I did ask him about it, he says he doesn't know the names of the people who actually carried out the assault, all he remembers is that from Maseru he was taken to Parys and from Parys he was taken to Bloemfontein and he was assaulted when he arrived at Parys but I didn't want to put it to the witness because the witness had testified earlier on that he never saw him after he had handed him over to Parys.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no it might be - I'm going to put it to the witness. Do you say that Mr Mbali was assaulted in South Africa?

MS THABETHE: Yes Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give me his movements again? He was taken in Maseru and then transported to?

MS THABETHE: To Parys.

CHAIRPERSON: To Parys and then to Bloemfontein you said?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

MR GENIS: It was first Bloemfontein.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, can you just make sure?

MR VISSER: Perhaps I can assist Mr Mbali to recall. What happened he was abducted from Lesotho, taken to the Maseru Bridge to Bloemfontein, then to Parys, then to Pretoria.

MS THABETHE: Well - sorry.

MR VISSER: Then to a little place called Platjan P-L-A-T-J-A-N. Then you'll hear Brigadier Schoon give evidence about that. Then back to Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just trying to catch up with you. So it's Maseru, Bloemfontein?

MR VISSER: Bloemfontein, Parys.

CHAIRPERSON: Parys?

MR VISSER: Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Pretoria?

MR VISSER: Platjan.

CHAIRPERSON: Platjan?

MR VISSER: Back to Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Pretoria?

MR VISSER: And then to Lesotho, we don't know exactly how, it may have gone to Bloemfontein, it may have gone to Maseru, we don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VISSER: But then back to Lesotho.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the handing back?

MR VISSER: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: That was the handing back?

MR VISSER: That was the handing back, yes. But my witnesses weren't involved in that.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MS THABETHE: My instructions are that he says from Maseru he was taken to Parys and then from Parys to Bloemfontein but he says because he was blindfolded he wouldn't comment about the fact that whether he was taken back to Bloemfontein but he says he was taken from Maseru to Parys and then to Bloemfontein. He might have been taken back to Parys, he cannot comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright and then I just want to, before I deal with it, just clarify, he was assaulted, was it in Parys? Alright I wait for you.

MS THABETHE: He says he was assaulted in Maseru, he was assaulted in Parys, he was assaulted in Bloemfontein but he wasn't assaulted in Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume he doesn't know the identity of the assailants?

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, I'm just taking instructions quickly?

Thank you Mr Chair, I'm indebted to you and my learned colleague. My instructions, Mr Chair, are that from Maseru he was abducted by a guy named Peter Bolofo, B-0-L-O-F-O, and another person in a Lesotho uniform, Lesotho Police uniform. He was also carrying a firearm and apparently there were six policemen altogether and then he says he fought back but they beat him up and because the other uniformed police was carrying a firearm, that had to drag him but he was beaten up there as well.

In Orange Free State and Parys or in Parys he said the same people who had assaulted him in Maseru also assaulted him in Parys and in Bloemfontein he said that he wouldn't know, he wouldn't be able to identify who was beating him up because they kept on changing, taking turns I guess.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Thabethe.

Mr Genis, I would like if it is possible for you to comment regarding some of the allegations put by Mr Mbali. He alleges firstly that he was assaulted on South African territory. What do you have to say about that?

MR GENIS: I don't know about that, Chairperson, and definitely not in my office in Bloemfontein. That is the only stage at which I had anything to do with him and definitely not between Bloemfontein and Parys.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to understand you correctly, your offices were in Bloemfontein at that stage?

MR GENIS: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you take him into custody at Bloemfontein at your offices?

MR GENIS: Yes he was brought to my office by Major Vorster.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you not notice any injuries on him?

MR GENIS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And Vorster and who else brought him to your office there in Bloemfontein? Were those the people who had abducted him in Maseru or not?

MR GENIS: No, they were not present, I heard afterwards that the informer had been a Lesotho Policeman who had been assisted by another policeman so it is correct according to Mr Mbali's evidence that Lesotho policemen were involved in his abduction.

CHAIRPERSON: So if I understand you correctly, and that is also what Mr Visser has just told us, he was brought directly from Lesotho to you in Bloemfontein?

MR GENIS: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And for how long did he remain with you in Bloemfontein?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, I would say approximately an hour to two hours or three hours. It was early on a Sunday morning. We spent a bit of time, we didn't realise or couldn't have known when the party from Pretoria would arrive at Parys.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was not assaulted there?

MR GENIS: No, Chairperson. If I might assist the Committee, he alleges that he was blindfolded. Yes that is correct, when he arrived at my office he was bound with handcuffs and he was blindfolded. I had the cuffs removed, I lifted the blindfold and we had coffee together because you can't have a cup of coffee with cuffed hands.

CHAIRPERSON: So was he in your company all the time?

MR GENIS: Yes he was in my company until we went to drop him off in Parys later that morning.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that in Bloemfontein, he says that in Bloemfontein that he was assaulted but he cannot identify his assailants. What is your commentary regarding that?

MR GENIS: Chairperson at no stage in my presence was he assaulted by any person.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was in your company all the time and he was not assaulted while he was in Bloemfontein?

MR GENIS: No Chairperson. We were on such an amiable level that I could offer him a cup of coffee.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was his mood like? He had been abducted from Maseru, was he relatively affable or did you struggle to obtain co-operation from him?

MR GENIS: By nature of the situation he was upset, Chairperson, however we could communicate freely.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you took him to Parys and left him in the custody of some of your colleagues there?

MR GENIS: Yes, I left him in the custody of those three colleagues.

CHAIRPERSON: And that would be where Mr Schoon becomes involved?

MR GENIS: Yes, Schoon, Baker and a third officer.

CHAIRPERSON: And for how long were you present in Parys?

MR GENIS: If I recall the incident, I wasn't there for a long time, ten minutes perhaps where we chatted colloquially among one another. It was clear that the party who had taken him over was in a hurry.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he assaulted there while you were in Parys?

MR GENIS: No Chairperson, the doors stood wide open.

CHAIRPERSON: And you didn't see him again after that?

MR GENIS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also didn't come to hear of how much longer he had remained in South Africa and so forth?

MR GENIS: Later, I was informed that it was two to three days at the very most so it was a relatively short period of time.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that you offered this informer a considerable reward?

MR GENIS: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you offer him quite a sum of money?

MR GENIS: Yes I cannot recall the exact amount any more but I would like to assist the Committee. This informer who was a member of the Lesotho Police had to get out of his country.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that afterwards?

MR GENIS: That very same morning still and after we had returned from Parys, on actually the Monday, the next day I saw him. He requested political asylum because he feared for his life in Lesotho.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to him?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, I don't know whether or not he received asylum but he definitely obtained residency.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you pay him?

MR GENIS: Yes, we were responsible for his maintenance, we provided accommodation and necessities for quite some time.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you also give him the reward?

MR GENIS: Yes I assume so, I can't recall the exact amount any more.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you foresee that something like this could happen that if you offer this guy a lot of money he would do something irresponsible?

MR GENIS: Initially we said that the idea was to lure him and to arrest him in R.S.A. territory because we knew what international implications such a cross-border incident would have. We had dealt with this kind of thing before. However, Pretoria became impatient later on and they contacted me telephonically various times to ask when they were going to get Mbali. My viewpoint to General Kruger was that they had to be patient, that this wasn't the sort of thing that could be done overnight and I suspect that Major Vorster who liaised with the informer could possibly also have brought the urgency to his attention. Why Pretoria wanted him so urgently is still unknown to me today. I don't know what they wanted to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Thus, did you foresee that this sort of thing could happen, that they would seize him ultimately?

MR GENIS: Yes Chairperson. Might I just say that it would have been much easier and swifter if we had undertaken or conducted the so called seizure action ourselves but we guarded against that. However, we still realised that it could not be excluded to bring him in by means of violence.

CHAIRPERSON: And that during the process he could be assaulted or injured?

MR GENIS: Yes Chairperson, abduction is not a voluntary action and if a measure of violence were to emanate from that, it would seem to me that injury would be normal or a normal occurrence.

CHAIRPERSON: If he was assaulted in the R.S.A. can you think why it would have taken place in South Africa?

MR GENIS: No Chairperson, these events are shocking to me as I've heard them this morning. We were not that interested or involved in the events, Pretoria wanted him and it would appear senseless to me for us simply to assault him, I did not question him regarding his political affiliations, that was not my task, I didn't see it as that. I left that up to Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: And you never heard subsequently that there was talk of his being beaten by the South African Police?

MR GENIS: No, never. On the contrary, I never had the opportunity to discuss this with the Pretoria men.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you at any stage tell Mr Kruger it was actually an abduction because you say that first discussion was for you to tell him that you actually had the man?

MR GENIS: Yes at a later stage I told him that we had abducted him by means of an informer.

MR GENIS: And what was Kruger's reaction?

MR GENIS: I cannot recall what his reaction was because on the Monday when the abduction came to light Pretoria and Lesotho were in contact with each other on diplomatic level.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall whether Mr Kruger had approved it and said it's okay that you abducted him, it's acceptable?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, I thought that General Kruger after having given his order had left it up to my discretion regarding how we were to obtain Mr Mbali. He was eager for us to get him but as he became more impatient he still didn't tell us go and seize the man.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it would appear to me that he was delivered back and it didn't seem as if the South African authorities approved of the abduction?

MR GENIS: No, I don't believe so and that is why at a very early stage they gave the order for him to be returned.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you seen the medical report written by Dr Brand?

MR GENIS: I haven't seen it. I assume that the officers in Pretoria who were present during the delivery would have taken the certificate back to Pretoria. That is my inference.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that was actually the South African authorities who insisted upon the medical examination?

MR GENIS: Yes, the District Physician of Ladybrand as well as a doctor from the other party

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, do you know whether Mr Mbali was given any reward or remuneration?

MR GENIS: As far as I know, I never heard about him ever again so I don't know anything. This morning in this hall is the first time I have seen him again since then.

CHAIRPERSON: And you never again got hold of him, there was no other way for you to contact him?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, with respect, my interest ended at that point.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't really have any personal or jurisdictional interest in him, it was more like a favour you did for another jurisdiction?

MR GENIS: I must say Chairperson, the allegations that he makes are actually aimed against the system, the system which I represented. They cannot directly be aimed against me, it wasn't our case that had to be investigated, he wasn't a suspect for the Bloemfontein or the Free State area.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Genis.

ADV DE JAGER: Was any departmental or other action taken against you because you abducted him?

MR GENIS: No Chairperson.

MR GENIS: Were you ever chastised for it?

MR GENIS: No Chairperson. Let me just say that the then Commissioner contacted me and expressed his dissatisfaction to me with regard to the incident. It then appeared that there had been a short between the Pretoria and Bloemfontein offices, I requested for them to come together so that they could clear up the matter because no steps were ever taken against me, I was never chastised for it either.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Genis, the dissatisfaction that was expressed by Pretoria, that related to the manner in which Mbali had been abducted, what did it relate to?

MR GENIS: Chairperson, such a cross-border matter as I have mentioned earlier always creates problems and the Commissioner was concerned about the detrimental influence that the incident could have on the South African Government. However, as I have said, at that stage he didn't know what the situation was.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Just a moment, I don't think there is anything. Just one thing.

It is not alleged by Mr Mbali but just to state this unequivocally, you say that you personally never lifted a finger against Mr Mbali?

MR GENIS: No Chairperson, on the contrary I gave him coffee.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Genis, you are excused.

NAME: WILLEM FREDERICH SCHOON

MR VISSER: Brigadier Schoon, Chairperson, the other document placed before you with reference to our list of exhibits would be Exhibit C7, that's the one, yes C7. It was drawn last night but we anticipated that we were going to do so with fair certainty and that's why we placed it on your list of exhibits before.

WILLEM FREDERICH SCHOON: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Schoon, you have given evidence on numerous occasions, I'm not going to go through the entire story with you again. You have already testified before this exact Committee and you request that that evidence also be considered with regard to your evidence given today?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Your application in this regard appears on page 10 - 14 of bundle 1, that is what my note is, however I'm not sure whether that is correct. Yes, indeed, thank you. And the application has to do with Mr Mbali, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: Now could you please inform the Committee from paragraph 2 on page 3 with regard to your involvement in this matter?

MR SCHOON: Yes. During 1972 one Alexander Mumbaris and his wife were arrested at the Koopfontein Hek Border Post between the R.S.A. and Botswana borders. Subsequent investigations revealed that Mumbaris wanted to infiltrate a group of 26 MK members who were specially selected, highly trained persons, to the R.S.A. The boat in which they travelled went ashore at Mogadishu which meant that the members of the group then had to infiltrate South Africa overland. It also came to light that various of these MK members had already entered the country in small groups of twos and threes.

Mumbaris and his wife were responsible for these infiltrations through Botswana and Swaziland. With the co-operation of Mumbaris, most of these insurgents were apprehended and were detained in terms of Section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Due to the scope of the investigation and the involvement of various divisions, it was decided at head office that the investigation would be co-ordinated at Pretoria and that Major Roelf van Rensburg and I had to prepare the police dossier for court. The investigation was run from within the old Compol Building.

MR VISSER: Can I just interrupt you there for a moment?

Is this because of your involvement in the investigation that you learnt the facts about which you are giving evidence today?

MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: And is it also correct that various hearings followed as a result of these investigations which were conducted by you and Mr van Rensburg?

MR SCHOON: No, there was only one hearing.

MR VISSER: Just one?

MR SCHOON: Yes, during which four persons were prosecuted.

MR VISSER: Then just another aspect for a cross-reference. In relation to this exact same group with regard to the amnesty application of the two PAC members who served their applications before this Committee?

MR SCHOON: No, it was two ANC members.

MR VISSER: ANC members, I beg your pardon. Not PAC but ANC.

MR SCHOON: It's the one that was killed in a skirmish near Zeerust.

MR VISSER: Yes and the other was then going to be eliminated according to an order that was given?

MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: Please proceed with paragraph 7?

MR SCHOON: The abovementioned ANC terrorist whose correct name I could not recall earlier but I now know as Herbert Mbali, MK Lenny Boy, was abducted at the end of 1972 from Lesotho and delivered to the security branch in Bloemfontein. he was one of the group of 26 members of the special group of MKs to which has already been referred to in this document.

Major General Piet Kruger who has since passed away gave me the order to take Mbali to - or to take over Mbali in Parys. Captain Struwebaker and Hannes Moloi accompanied me. When we were in Parys we took over from General Genis and Captain Vorster and took Mbali to Pretoria. I reported to General Kruger and he then ordered that we take Mbali to Platjan border post and then wait there for further orders.

MR VISSER: What was you rank in 1972?

MR SCHOON: I was then a junior Major.

MR VISSER: Very well.

MR SCHOON: According to the best of my recollection, matters went as follows. Mbali was abducted on a Saturday night. On the next Sunday he was handed over to me and other members at Parys, that same day we went to Pietersburg or Louis Trichardt where we spent the night.

MR VISSER: Did you go to Pretoria first?

MR SCHOON: Yes, we first went to Pretoria and reported to General Kruger after which we left for Pietersburg and Louis Trichardt. On that Monday we stayed over in Platjan. On the Tuesday we received an order from the security head office to bring Mbali back to Pretoria. Late that afternoon we arrived in Pretoria. Mbali was delivered to Colonel C F Zietsman and he and the then Lieutenant Colonel Jan du Preez who has since become a Brigadier and retired, took him back to Lesotho by aeroplane.

MR VISSER: What was Colonel Zietsman’s position in security branch?

MR SCHOON: If I recall correctly, Colonel Zietsman was in command of the investigative unit. He was then flown back to Lesotho where according to what I was told he was handed back to the Lesotho authorities. I was also informed that the Lesotho Government made serious objection against the abduction. That is all that I had to do with the incident, no person was killed or injured. I was thoroughly aware that Mbali was abducted illegally from Lesotho when I dealt with him while he was in the R.S.A. and I associated myself with that.

Furthermore, I committed defeating the ends of justice by not reporting the matter and I also did not compile any report about it later on. I committed these acts or omissions in the execution of an order on behalf of or with the approval of the South African Police and the former government and also in promotion and protection of the National Party's interests. The acts and omissions which I committed I did not commit for my own gain but in the execution of my official duties as well as in execution of an order given by General Piet Kruger. I acted as a member of the opposition to the struggle. My action or conduct was aimed against the supporter of the ANC/SACP Alliance and I believed that my acts fell within the scope of my service as a policeman and within the execution of my express or sworn authority. I request respectfully that amnesty be granted to me for my acts or omissions in this relation.

MR VISSER: And you have given a summary of those acts or omissions on page 2. Brigadier, there is an allegation that Mr Mbali may have been assaulted. Do you know anything about that, about any assault conducted against Mr Mbali while he was in your custody or possession?

MR SCHOON: No, he was never assaulted in my presence and according to the best of my knowledge for the entire period of time after which I took him from Parys he was not assaulted.

MR VISSER: Was he blindfolded when you transported him from Parys?

MR SCHOON: No, he was not blindfolded.

MR VISSER: Was he bound?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall. I know that he arrived there with his hands cuffed. However, not one of us three, that would be me, Baker or Moloi had cuffs, I don't know if we borrowed cuffs from anybody or whether we took him uncuffed to Pretoria.

MR VISSER: Did you at that stage receive any orders to interrogate Mr Mbali?

MR SCHOON: Only after I arrived back in Pretoria.

MR VISSER: Yes and what was your order?

MR SCHOON: The order was for us to take him to Platjan until he was going to be interrogated. That was where we were to wait for further orders.

MR VISSER: In Exhibit N Chairperson, Platjan is there at the top near the Mashatu Game Reserve. There's a small place there next to the Limpopo River. Is Platjan a border post?

MR SCHOON: Yes, between the R.S.A. and Botswana.

MR VISSER: Now you are speaking of an obstruction of justice here for which you are requesting amnesty. Why did you have to take him to Platjan?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I believed that we had to keep him away from the authorities in case of any application being brought against us.

MR VISSER: So it was an attempt to obstruct justice?

MR SCHOON: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: And did your commanders expect such an order because he was abducted?

MR SCHOON: Yes I believe that they expected it because during that stage of our countries history it happened often that such applications were directed at the court.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Ms Thabethe?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.

Mr Schoon, you say your role in this incident starts from when you collected Mr Mbali from Parys, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Now would you deny the fact that Mr Mbali was assaulted in Parys?

MR SCHOON: I have no knowledge of that, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: But you wouldn't deny so?

MR SCHOON: I can't deny it Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Okay. There's just one issue that I've been instructed to raise with you, Mr Schoon. It arises from what you said, on page 13 of bundle 1, at number 9.4, it's page 13 where you refer to the above ANC terrorist whose correct name you can't remember. You also said the same thing in your statement at paragraph 7. Now my question that I've been instructed to ask you is, do you still see or do you still regard Mr Mbali as an ANC terrorist?

MR SCHOON: No Chairperson, not at this stage. Circumstances have changed totally.

MS THABETHE: I don't know whether I missed the part where you say you transported him from Parys to that small farm or that small place, I can't remember it's name, who you were with?

MR SCHOON: Baker and Moloi accompanied me Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, I have no further questions thank you.

Oh, sorry Mr Chair, sorry. I do have further questions.

In paragraph 11 of your statement, you've mentioned the fact that Brigadier Jan du Preez took Mr Mbali to Lesotho by flight, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson. Colonel Zietsman and at that stage Jan du Preez was a Lieutenant Colonel and not a Brigadier.

MS THABETHE: Well my instructions, Mr Schoon, are that it's a Mr Johannes van der Merwe who took Mr Mbali to Lesotho by flight. What is your comment to that?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, no, I later heard that later General van der Merwe, that he was present at the delivery of the Maseru border post. I heard that this delivery took place there and not inside Lesotho itself.

MS THABETHE: I'm not sure whether I'm hearing correctly, you're saying you heard that he was there but you have no knowledge of whether he actually flew with Mr Mbali, would I be correct to say so?

MR SCHOON: I have no knowledge of that, Chairperson. I cannot comment.

MS THABETHE: Thanks Mr Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe.

Was Mr Mbali handed to Mr Genis by you in Parys?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And from there was he in your presence?

MR SCHOON: Except at Louis Trichardt, there we left him in the police cells at night, Chairperson, otherwise he was constantly in my presence.

CHAIRPERSON: So if he was assaulted in Parys then you would have been aware of that?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, if he showed any signs and if he had complained to me I would have but he did not complain.

CHAIRPERSON: But I mean it was not possible if he was assaulted, it was not possible this would have happened when you were not there because he was continuously in your presence?

MR SCHOON: No Chairperson, not at Parys, afterwards, after he was handed over to me he was not assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see him arrive there at Parys?

MR SCHOON: No Chairperson, when we arrived there I think it was - General Genis was already there.

CHAIRPERSON: So you found him there?

MR SCHOON: Yes I found him there.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he still blindfolded?

MR SCHOON: Yes he was in the car in the garage at the police station.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he blindfolded?

MR SCHOON: Not as far as I know Chairperson. It was quite a while ago, I cannot recall exactly how these things took place.

CHAIRPERSON: But if I heard you correctly you said he was blindfolded, he was brought blindfolded into Parys.

MR SCHOON: No Chairperson, I think that is what the previous applicant said.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know whether he was blindfolded when he arrived at Parys?

MR SCHOON: I don't know of that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So he may have been assaulted before you arrived at Parys?

MR SCHOON: That's possible Chairperson but from there onwards he could not have been assaulted, not in my presence he was definitely not assaulted in my presence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you question him?

MR SCHOON: Yes Chairperson. Captain Baker could speak Xhosa, he did the questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he cooperate?

MR SCHOON: Yes he gave his co-operation and what he told us concurred with what we had already known.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was not necessary to assault him to get his co-operation for the interrogation?

MR SCHOON: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you regard him as a trained ANC MK person?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, he was regarded as a highly trained member because he was one of a handful who were chosen to perform specific tasks here.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he regarded as dangerous?

MR SCHOON: At that stage I would have regarded him as dangerous, yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you receive any instruction as to how to approach the interrogation of this person?

MR SCHOON: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: They did not tell you how to go to work with him?

MR SCHOON: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Thank you Mr Schoon. Any other questions?

ADV DE JAGER: General Kruger, what was his function, he was the chief of what?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I'm not sure. He was the newly appointed chief of security or he was in the process of becoming that at that stage, Chairperson, but he was already a Brigadier at that stage and that stage that was the command post of security.

ADV DE JAGER: And who was the Commissioner?

MR SCHOON: I'm not entirely sure Chairperson, but I think it was General Gert Prinsloo.

ADV DE JAGER: The Commissioner, did he ever contact you or do you know that he protested against this action?

MR SCHOON: I have no knowledge thereof Chairperson. He never contacted me and no other officer contacted me and reprimanded me.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't receive any awards for these actions, any medals or anything?

MR SCHOON: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: None Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser.

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes ma'am?

MS THABETHE: Can I ask for your indulgence and my learned colleague's indulgence? There's a question that came up from your questioning that I would like to put to the applicant if it's okay?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes go ahead.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Thanks.

Mr Schoon, you have testified that Mr Mbali slept in a police cell. Is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Well my instructions, Mr Schoon, is that he actually slept in a car, handcuffed, in a garage with two police officials. What is your comment to that, is that possible?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, at Louis Trichardt, Mr Baker and I and Moloi arranged that they had to book him in at the police station and if they did it then I cannot oppose that. It is possible that it may have happened, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: He has also indicated to me when you spoke about that guy who spoke Xhosa that it's the guy who actually assaulted him. What is your comment to that as well?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I have no knowledge of that.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: But why would Baker and Moloi, were you the senior?

MR SCHOON: Yes I was the senior, Chairperson.

MR SCHOON: Would they have disregarded your instruction and not have locked the man up in a police cells and have left him in the car?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, I told them to arrange his accommodation for the night and they might have understood that they had to do it in another manner instead of booking him into the cells.

CHAIRPERSON: But this is what you ordered them, you told them book him into the police cells?

MR SCHOON: I said that they must arrange for his accommodation for the evening.

CHAIRPERSON: At the police cells?

MR SCHOON: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So it seemed that they had disregarded your instruction?

MR SCHOON: It would seem so Chairperson because at Platjan he was booked into the police cells.

MR VISSER: Perhaps Mr Chairman, Ms Thabethe could just ascertain what night they are talking about because it seems that he was brought out on the Saturday night or the Sunday morning and the Sunday night they slept somewhere and the Monday night he slept, so there were two nights. There may be something in that, I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you see on his instructions to Ms Thabethe he seems to dispute the allegation that he slept in a police cell.

MR VISSER: Yes but he also slept in police cells at Platjan you see so he slept in police cells according to Mr Schoon's recollection at Louis Trichardt as well as Platjan.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I had thought I heard Mr Schoon saying that in Louis Trichardt he overnighted in the police cells.

MR VISSER: But at Platjan also, Chairperson. And there's another night, that is Saturday night, we don't know what time he arrived in Bloemfontein. It might be that is where he slept in the car. There are three nights we're talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll hear whether Ms Thabethe’s got any other instructions but it seems to be that Mr Mbali was responding to the allegation that he overnighted in the police cell in Louis Trichardt.

MS THABETHE: It appears that this was the first night he's talking about. There were two nights, so he's talking about the first night.

MR VISSER: That would be Louis Trichardt.

CHAIRPERSON: So that's when he slept in the car?

MS THABETHE: Yes Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't seem as if there's misunderstanding, it would seem that your order was disobeyed?

MR SCHOON: I cannot explain that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Baker and Moloi did not tell you anything in that regard, give you an explanation?

MR SCHOON: No, they did not report this to me, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbali says it was the person who spoke Xhosa who assaulted him.

MR SCHOON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It seemed it was Baker?

MR SCHOON: I don't know anything thereof, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Baker deceased?

MR SCHOON: No Chairperson, he is still alive.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Thank you Mr Schoon.

MR VISSER: We have no further witnesses to lead, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Schoon, you are excused, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair I would like your guidance here because Mr Mbali is not opposing the applications of Mr Genis and Mr Schoon. At the same time I have put his version to them so I don't know whether it's necessary for me to lead him on what I've put to the applicants regarding the ...(indistinct) not opposing the application.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, if I may from my side, Mr Mbali has not implicated either of my two witnesses in the assault. It doesn't even seem indirectly. So from that point of view it's not necessary for him to give evidence unless you feel that there is an implication which I didn't think there was.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Thabethe, it doesn't seem as if there's a real dispute between Mr Mbali and these two persons before us at this stage.

MS THABETHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The testimony on I assume the assaults wouldn't really take the matter much further?

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Testimony on things like the assaults wouldn't take the matter much further, I don't know if there's anything else in particular that Mr Mbali wanted to say?

MS THABETHE: No Mr Chair, from this incident there's nothing arising except that I mean he is worried about his uncle who was killed but I don't think it has anything to do with this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no then it doesn't seem as if there would be anything substantial that he would be able to add.

Mr Visser, have you got any submissions?

MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairperson, with respect, this is an application which I submit you will consider very favourably. Chairperson, the ANC as we all know declared it's peoples war on the 16th December 1961. We know that very soon thereafter the so called M Plan was put in operation and that was the step between passive resistance and active resistance. We know that very soon thereafter in 1963 it led to the Rivonia Trial with all it's implications and thereafter this country saw a spate of increased sabotage and terrorist attacks all over the country.

Lesotho, as we have pointed out in our original heads of argument and in the evidence presented to you by way of annexure A, formed a very important part in the struggle of the ANC/SACP Alliance. We know for example that the late Mr Chris Hani operated in Lesotho and with great effect, if one listened to the amnesty applications of General Erasmus and others regarding the amnesty applications which took place in the Eastern Cape regarding matters such as Mr Goniwe, Mr Mtimkhulu, Mr Topsy Mdaba etc.

Chairperson, the point that I'm making is that although the amnesty applications which normally come before you all took place or most of them took place in the early '80s and onwards, one must not think for a moment that the same circumstances were not already present in 1972 when this incident took place. These two witnesses, these two applicants, Mr Chairman, took orders from a senior commander. You heard the very frank evidence of General Genis who said that he understood the order to be first of all and first and foremost to be carried out in a lawful manner and that's what he attempted to do and that's the instructions that he gave to Vorster. Vorster saw fit to attempt to lure Mr Mbali out of Lesotho through an informer. The informer at one point in time decided that he was going to take the bull by the horns so to speak and he abducted him together with another one of his colleagues.

Mr Mbali talks of six people. Now the two applicants before you now can shed no light on that and clearly if it happened, we certainly can't deny it. We would say that, with respect, it's very unlikely because if the Lesotho policeman who was the informer knew that what he was doing was unlawful, it's hardly likely that he would have drawn in a lot of people while he was committing his act of abduction. But be that as it may it takes the matter no further.

ADV DE JAGER: But according to suggestion, even the policemen acting with him if they were only two were under the impression that it was arrest for some criminal offence? So the other five could have been of the same opinion, he might have ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Yes, from that point of view. I was just throwing the ideas around but the point which I'm submitting to you is that it really doesn't matter one way or the other to the present application for amnesty whether they were two or whether they were six. Mr Genis told you and we submit, Chairperson, that there's nothing in the evidence of these witnesses that is inherently improbable or that would cause you to consider their evidence with caution. He told you that he received Mr Mbali, they had coffee, he had the mask and his cuffs remove and that nothing happened to him. Certainly Mr Mbali does not point any finger directly at either of these two applicants, Chairperson and therefore we ask you to accept that they are truthful and they are factually correct when they say that neither them nor anyone else in their presence assaulted Mr Mbali.

Chairperson, what clearly happened here was that Mr Mbali was packed away somewhere in the Northern Transvaal at Platjan in order to evade his detection should an application for an habeus corpus order be brought and clearly in that regard at least Mr Schoon committed knowingly, associated himself at least to commit an act of obstructing the ends of justice.

Chairperson, the fact is that Mr Schoon, both Mr Schoon and Genis associated themselves with the fact of keeping Mr Mbali in spite of the knowledge that they knew that he had been abducted and for that reason we have asked, Chairperson, for abduction, man stealing, for amnesty for that. Clearly his detention if the case of Ebrahim Ebrahim is taken as authority, was unlawful throughout during his stay in the R.S.A. and of course his freedom was taken away from him. Also, none of these two witnesses report that, or brought the matter out in the open and therefore - I'm not quite sure what the English is for "dwarsboming" I thought that was defeating the ends of justice but there's a slight difference between "regsvereideling" and "dwarsboming".

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you must explain that because I also have some difficulty in understanding how it is obstructing the ends of justice. Was there a judicial process in place at the time that they were evading or that they were obstructing?

MR VISSER: No there wasn't but they assumed that there was going to be and that is why he was taken to Platjan.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't that deal with possibly their duty to report a crime, isn't that the offence they were sort of committing?

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, I would submit both in order to be safe because Mr Schoon fairly and frankly told you that he knew, he knew that the reason why the man was taken to Platjan was not for a lawful reason, it was basically for a sinister reason. Sinister reason being that he would not be able to be found if an application is brought to court and that, Chairperson, we submit certainly has a tinge of unlawfulness about it. From that point of view we do draw the distinction between defeating the ends of justice and "dwarsboming van die gereg". It's technical, it's technical Chairperson but obstructing the course of justice, defeating the ends - perhaps obstructing the course of justice, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there ever an order to abduct Mr Mbali?

MR VISSER: No Chairperson, but what is very clear is that the head office wanted Mr Mbali very badly and once General Genis had him in his possession, he was ordered to bring him up and hand him over to the men from Pretoria and Brigadier Schoon has told you that there's no question that head office knew that he was in fact abducted.

CHAIRPERSON: Well they handed him back, they didn't hold onto him.

MR VISSER: Yes but that's only for one reason, let's face facts, Chairperson, if the story hadn't broken in Lesotho I think it's fair to say Mr Mbali wouldn't have been handed back. Ebrahim Ebrahim wasn't handed back.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that is exactly the point, I mean there was no reason why they couldn't hold onto him if they really wanted to have him abducted. He's wanted here and he's part of a cell that we are charging, so we're not handing him back to Lesotho, you know which in terms of our politics, what sort of leverages that Lesotho had over South Africa at that time?

MR VISSER: Well this kind of thing has always given rise to tension Chairperson and it certainly didn't do the old regime any good when there were incidents that became known. We know with the Pillay matter the same thing happened. Pillay was abducted and the moment Swaziland learnt about that there was a furore and the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to go and please explain and the Commissioner of Police had to go down there etc.

Chairperson, but Mr Genis was frank enough to tell you this. He said he considered first to follow the legal option but the illegal option was clearly left open. As he said to you in his evidence he was told what to do, not how to do it and if you follow the amnesty hearings you will often hear security members, police members, tell you exactly that. They were told what to do not how to do it.

ADV DE JAGER: It's on his evidence he never ordered an abduction.

MR VISSER: He was ordered to get Mbali out of Lesotho, Chairperson. Certainly that must be considered wide enough if he couldn't lure him out to go and take him out.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja but he didn't decide or he didn't give any order for an abduction, according to the evidence. I don't say whether it's correct but they brought him out and thereafter he condoned it at least.

MR VISSER: That's precisely why we asked for amnesty. On the facts before you he never took that decision. That decision was taken by the informer in Lesotho but once he had Mbali he kept him and that is where he committed the offence. If he had given him back of course there wouldn't have been an offence.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) sufficient for him to condone it where the authorities handed him back, I mean the authorities don't seem to have condoned the abduction, it seems only Genis and Schoon and others.

MR VISSER: And Kruger?

CHAIRPERSON: Well Genis says he doesn't know what Kruger said?

MR VISSER: No, no, he says he didn't tell Kruger later?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but he didn't tell us that Kruger said it's fine, you hang on to him, he says he didn't know what Kruger said and now we know that the man was handed back?

MR VISSER: Yes but Chairperson, with great respect, he was handed back for one reason only and that much I'm asking you to infer from as a necessary inference and that was because the other person in Lesotho blew the whistle?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, if the authorities here had authorised an abduction, it wouldn't have mattered to them whether anybody blew the whistle, they wanted the man abducted and they would have had him here and they would have held on to him. But wasn't it because an abduction was never authorised, not even by Genis and them, it was a windfall to have this man in South Africa but even they were uncomfortable with this thing. Is that not why the authorities said whoa, we never wanted him under those circumstances, he's got to go back?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, if you look at the history and if you look at other cases of abduction, only because, we submit, only because they were found out that the authorities - the authorities could never have then turned around and said "no, no, no, we're going to keep Mr Mbali". Of course they would say "no, no, no, my security force members didn't act correctly and we'll" - of course they will deny it, but as Mr de Jager pointed out nobody ever came back to them and said "you naughty boys, what did you do, why did you do that?"

CHAIRPERSON: That is not very hard to understand but what happened in Ebrahim's matter, just remind me, I'm not sure?

...(inaudible) hold onto him and then the Ebrahim people had to go to court, a court case to charge him.

MR VISSER: Yes they wanted to him and there was an application for his release and the court said if you abduct a man from a foreign country you can't bring him before my court and say he's here and I have jurisdiction over him, I don't have jurisdiction over him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then, so in that case they were prepared to stick to the abduction?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And they tried their best to have the man here, they didn't give him back.

ADV DE JAGER: But wasn't it in the Ebrahim case that there was a dispute, the police said he was arrested within South Africa not in Swaziland?

MR VISSER: It's far more complicated than we've just been discussing here, you're absolutely correct, there was a dispute about that and I believe that, I haven't read the Ebrahim case lately but I think the Judge departed from the point of view that he wasn't arrested lawfully within the Republic of South Africa but he was in fact abducted if I'm not - I may be ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: The other one was the Pillay one, Joe Pillay, he was in fact abducted and kept here for fourteen days or almost a month and then returned later.

MR VISSER: Yes that is correct but there wasn't a court case about him. In that case there was also a protest note and immediately when the protest note came he was sent back.

Chairperson, with respect, we submit to you that even if you say, even if the argument is there was no order and you therefore acted on your own when you decided to hold onto him, we say that in that event still amnesty should be granted for the simple reason that this was the milieu in which the applicants worked, they were there to protect the interests of the government, they knew that Mr Mbali was a very important cog in the wheel and that head office wanted him urgently and seriously and that is why Mr Genis said, he thought that what he was doing, he was doing within his authority and what he did he did as a policeman and from that point of view Chairperson, even if you come to the conclusion that Mr Genis made the decision on his own which we say you can't really make but if you do then we say Chairperson that in the circumstances of the pressures which he experienced at the time and he told you about that, that he acted in a way for which amnesty can be granted by you at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't he saying that he really had nothing to do with this thing, he was just receiving this man so he seems to just have been sort of a conduit really, he didn't form a sort of independent position on this thing, they brought the man to him, he is here, they're looking for him, they want him in Parys, he takes him there and that's it, he's finished with the man?

MR VISSER: But Chairperson, that's the case and that is why I say you can never find that Genis made the decision on condoning or whatever of the - of ratification of it, he was a cog in the wheel and he was acting on instructions from the top. That is our case Chairperson, yes, but even on the alternative we say it matters not and Chairperson, I don't really have anything further to add unless you want to hear me on anything further. We would ask you to grant the amnesty as prayed for, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any reason for us to be no satisfied that he was assaulted and does it really come into this matter?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it has nothing to do with this matter, if Mbali implicated either of the two witnesses, of the two applicants, then of course the question of full disclosure would have become relevant.

ADV DE JAGER: But they're not asking for assault so if it's proved that they assaulted him then they could be prosecuted.

MR VISSER: Absolutely and in fact that is really the best argument for their credibility which I can put forward, is that if there was any question about them having assaulted them, they would obviously have asked for amnesty for that and they don't. In fact they stick to their guns, they say they didn't and they know nothing about an assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Visser. Ms Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair I have no submissions based on the fact that Mr Mbali is not opposing the applications of Mr Genis and Mr Schoon unless of course Mr Chair wants me to address you on something?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have you got any submissions on why Mr Mbali was returned to Lesotho by the South African authorities? Was it because they were concerned about being embarrassed or was it because they never really wanted him to be abducted because they never authorised an abduction in the first place? If you have any submissions?

MS THABETHE: It would appear, Mr Chair, that besides the reasons furnished by the applicants it's because there was an outcry for him to be brought back to Lesotho and that's the reason why he was brought back.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) who the Minister of Foreign Affairs was at that stage? You're not sure? Oh, alright.

MS THABETHE: I can't be of much assistance Mr Chair, I was still very young then, I don't have ......(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We won't hold that against you Ms Thabethe.

Yes, I also assume you wouldn't have any further submissions, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: No thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that concludes this particular matter and we've had the business that we had in this session, we will as with the rest of the incidents that we've heard, we will notify the parties once the decision is available, in this matter as well.

Yes, well that concludes this session, it just remains for us to extend a special word of thanks to those who assisted the Committee in making it possible to have the session.

There is normally a lot of effort and hard work that goes into putting together a hearing like this and we are always grateful to those people, those many, many people who make it possible to do that, those who make their facilities available to us, those who look after the security of the proceedings, all our staff members who exert themselves to make this kind of proceeding possible.

In this particular instance I then ask from the side of the panel to extend a special word of thanks to the caterers who had looked after us over these three weeks, I think they're called Mkwenkwezi Caterers, a special word of thanks to them.

Of course to the legal representatives who assisted us and Ms Thabethe, thank you very much and to the members of the public who had come out to participate in the proceedings because it's a very important aspect of these proceedings, it is important for the members of the public to show an interest in these proceedings and then finally to my colleagues on the panel with me for their assistance. We will adjourn.