Amnesty Hearings

JACOBUS PETRUS PAULUS ERASMUS: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (cont)

Mr Erasmus when you found out or heard that some of the members you have been working under have been implicated at the beginning when you received the first notice with regard to the amnesty application, what did you do? 

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I myself never received a notice. Some of the members who had already come to testify at this hearing had received notices, they contacted me, I enquired regarding the legal position of the police officers, I called them together after I had determined that we were entitled to legal representation, and I made an appointment with Mr Wagner. We made arrangements for these persons on State cost to be transported to Pretoria to speak to the attorney.

MR VISSER: Mr Erasmus you just explained that you had made arrangements for the members to go to Pretoria with their transport costs paid for by the State, did Mr Motsamai, was he also included among the members for whom you made arrangements?

MR ERASMUS: Yes Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Was anyone of you at that stage aware of the fact that Mr Motsamai had applied for amnesty before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai here alleged in his evidence that he had been tricked and as I understand his testimony, he alleged that he had thought that he was going to Pretoria in connection with his amnesty application. As far as your knowledge goes is there any truth in this allegation?

MR ERASMUS: No Chairperson. When the people came to my office before departure to Pretoria I stated very clearly to all of them that they were going in a group but that every individual, and I indeed asked Mr Wagner this as well, that every person must be in his office in privacy so that they could make statements, each individual out of their own free will.

MR VISSER: You were there, was every member individually and separately spoken to by Mr Wagner?

MR ERASMUS: Yes that is correct Your Honour. Before Mr Wagner spoke to us individually in his office he explained the legal position with regard to the legislation application for amnesty opposing statements etc with us as a group and after that we each went separately into his office.

ADV DE JAGER: Was any of the members unhappy with anything that you were told?

MR ERASMUS: No not as far as my knowledge goes.

MR VISSER: Okay you yourself made an affidavit and this affidavit we find on page 18 of Bundle B. Do you have a copy of that affidavit in front of you and do you affirm the truth and correctness of its contents?

MR ERASMUS: Yes Chair I do have that in front of me and I do confirm the truth.

MR VISSER: And in that affidavit you dealt briefly with the murder of Mr Venter. Were you at that stage aware of any other allegations against you?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair upon the making of this affidavit only the allegation of Mr Venter was what I had been implied in and that was all.

MR VISSER: Okay we will return to that. I would like you to tell the Committee about Mr NGO. We know by way of introduction that you were his handler when he was a police informant of the security branch here in Bloemfontein. Can you briefly start in 1983 when you met with him, sketch those circumstances to the Committee members and take us through the history of Mr Ngo?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I met Mr Ngo in the latter part of 1983; he had been recruited by one of my other colleagues, I think it was WO LD Koch, I'm not entirely certain. He was brought with another group of persons to the office. I beg you pardon, the word was not recruited, the people were brought to the office.

MR VISSER: I'm going to interrupt you just to bring in evidence where relevant. We heard testimony that Mr Morekile had arrested Mr Ngo - sorry I I'm confused with White Mohape Mr Chair, sorry for interrupting. Mr Erasmus will you continue.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair with a member, and I'm certain that it was LD Koch asked me if I could perhaps complete the man's history report and I did so. After that I entered into a discussion with him and I recruited him then as an informant.

MR VISSER: Sorry I was almost correct. Testimony had been led that Mr Mbanjane had arrested Mr Ngo. I'm sorry I've got to restate this; Mr Memani stated to one of the witnesses that Mr Mbanjane had arrested Mr Ngo and introduced him to you. Can you remember something like that?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair whether WO Mbanjane had arrested him, I'm not clear but I think it was a white person and I would say that it was LD Koch who introduced me to him.

MR VISSER: Okay will you continue then? Sorry for interrupting.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair he was one of the management or executive members of KOSAS, the student organisation which was active at the time and I handled him. In my absence, whether on other tasks or when I was on leave, Supt Terry Shaw handled him.

MR VISSER: So if we refer to the handlers of Mr Ngo we may accept in this committee that we are referring either to you or Mr Shaw and nobody else?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair some of the other members accompanied me during the paying out of the claims of informants but I handled him.

MR VISSER: Okay you may continue.

MR ERASMUS: This was 1983. In 1984 he was still an informant and initially my opinion was that it was in the end of '84 but my memory was refreshed here that the attack on him took place at the beginning of 1985; I wasn't in Bloemfontein personally, I received a telephone call on the farm of my parents when I was told of this attack. Sunday evening when I arrived in Bloemfontein I visited him at Mr Venter's home. I then also with friends of mine arranged, I took him to these friends of mine, the woman was a sister at the hospital and she cleaned his wounds.

MR VISSER: Mr Erasmus what was indeed - okay let me rephrase - do you have knowledge or can you remember that after he had been released from hospital, had been transported to Mr Venter's house by members of the security branch.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair he was definitely taken from the hospital to Mr Venter's home by members of the security branch but by whom, I can't remember, I don't know.

MR VISSER: You can't remember, okay so after he had been injured -let me rather rephrase, when did you become aware of the existence of Mr PD Venter, the deceased?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I normally met Mr Ngo outside Bloemfontein at Kwaggafontein and one afternoon he told me that on the next day I had to meet him in Rhino Kriel Street. What was strange to me was the fact that he said he just had something to do there and then he could meet me there. Since that point in time I met him there regularly in Rhino Kriel Street, I always stopped some distance away from the house and one evening to my surprise Mr Venter came out with him to me and he introduced Mr Venter to me. From that point onwards, many times through Mr Venter I quickly arranged emergency appointments with Mr Ngo.

MR VISSER: Was this Mr Venter an activist?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chair definitely not.

MR VISSER: Was he involved in trade unions or labour matters at the railways as far as your knowledge goes?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Could you tell whether a file on him existed at the Security Branch?

MR ERASMUS: No there was definitely not a file.

MR VISSER: It was alleged that Mr Venter was an informant of yours?

MR ERASMUS: No that is untrue Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo was seriously injured and at that stage you knew that he was with Mr Venter. Mr Ngo said that after he had been injured you indeed made the arrangements for him to go and stay with Mr Venter, a safe haven for him, to find that there. Is that true.

MR ERASMUS: No Chair I was with my parents on the farm, I definitely did not make the arrangements for him to be taken from hospital to Mr Venter's house, I found him there that sunday evening.

JUDGE WILSON: Can you give us some idea of how long before the injury it was when you met him at Venter's, Venter came out that night, how long was that before he was injured?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair that was quite some time, definitely not less than six months. It could have been, probably was by the middle of 1984 that this occurred.

MR ERASMUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, we know that Mr Ngo was transferred to a school in 1985. Did you have anything to do with those arrangements? And to which town's school was he transferred?

MR ERASMUS: I definitely accepted responsibility to this person, I made arrangements to depart to Bloemfontein and he departed to Ladybrand where he completed his schooling.

MR VISSER: And we are aware that it was in December 1985 that he completed his matric at Ladybrand.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Chair.

MR VISSER: During 1985 a trial also took place with regard to his injury.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I was not at the trial in the sense that I suspect that the trial took place while I was on officers' course.

MR VISSER: I don't wish to ask you questions about it but I just want to put the facts in chronological order for the committee.

Okay 1986, we'll continue with the chronological order. P27.2; if we look at that exhibit. On the 10th of February 1986, he was appointed as - we are referring to page 63 bundle B Mr Chair, he was appointed as a student constable.

MR ERASMUS: Yes that's correct Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Perhaps we don't understand clearly how you worked Mr Erasmus but will you please tell us?

Well it appears that on the later date, on the 11th of March 1986, page 65 of the same bundle, he was sworn in when he took the oath. Was it possible for a policeman to be appointed and then later take the oath.

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chair this is not correct. Upon attestation you are sworn in a member of the South African Police, the oath mentioned there.

MR VISSER: It's my conclusion that this is the official oath upon being allowed into the Security Branch for service, it's an oath of secrecy that is taken.

Okay that helps explain my own confusion.

Okay from 10 February 1986 Mr Ngo was then a student constable and he was attached and he was on attached service at the Security Branch. Now the oath referred to that is the oath of secrecy referred to on Exhibit B 27.4. I think it is logical but could you please tell us, if a person was employed in the Security Branch, this oath which he took, could you please tell us with reference there to exactly what it involved?

MR ERASMUS: The Act at that stage, or the law, yes it was the Official Secrets Act which was replaced by the Protection of Information Act applied. Then there was a special Force order...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Have you seen the document at B 65, it bears no relation to the Official Secrets Act, it bears Record of Service. Could somebody show the witness?

MR VISSER: Thank you for drawing our attention to that Mr Chairman, you're absolutely correct. I apologise for the oversight.

My you first statement you had then been corrected. It appears as if on Exhibit P 27.2 that although the writer alleges that he is a member from 10 February it is apparent from page 65 P27.4 that he was attested on 11 March 1986. It is not a material point Mr Chair, so I don't wish to spend too much time on this. If you could continue and ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: What I want to make clear is this is just the ordinary thing as a form filled in by everybody joining the South African Police, isn't it? It has nothing to do with the Security Police.

MR ERASMUS: No Chair this form definitely has nothing to do with the Security Branch.

Okay if you will then continue and complete what you were telling us.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair the special force order is a departmental order in which material is classified as confidential, secret and highly secret and the oath of secrecy is specifically related to classified documentation contents, that the contents may not be divulged.

MR VISSER: Is there legislation today which has the same, covers the same area and is related to sections of the South African Police Force?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair the special force order is still in force but the present New Police Act also contains a section which covers this area so that one is not allowed to divulge confidential information regarding the activities of the South African Police Service.

MR VISSER: Okay we also know that Mr Ngo on the 4th of July 1986 was taken up at the police station at Hammanskraal, one of the references Mr Chairman is page 66 of Bundle B. You will see an entry there from Ladybrand to SAP College Hammanskraal and the date 4 July 1986. There are also other references, I don't think it's in dispute.

Okay now after Mr Ngo in February 1986 became a policeman, where was he stationed?

MR ERASMUS: Honourable Chair he was placed on the staff of Batu, it was a service arrangement though for him to do service at the Security Branch in Bloemfontein.

MR VISSER: Okay can you tell us from which date? Well not that it's really relevant, it was sometime around February, if not in February.

MR ERASMUS: Well I'm not quite sure, but it was shortly after his formalities had been concluded and he had joined the police.

MR VISSER: Why did he come to the Security Branch, for what reason?

MR ERASMUS: He worked with the Black Section who were responsible for schools' unrest and he was most involved in recognising some of the suspects.

MR VISSER: How did you regard Mr Ngo as an informant and later on as an aid at the Security Branch. How did you regard him?

MR ERASMUS: He was a good informant. He was a good worker. He worked under supervision, I never had any problem with him, although when he was a student I did not work with him personally, I never had any complaint against him.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo applied for amnesty and he told us that he had committed the murder of Mr Venter. He told us that Mr Coetzee, you yourself and Mr Shaw, as he understood it, had him come from Pretoria where he alleges he was a member of the Security Branch to come and carry out this special assignment or operation in January/February 1989. What is your comment on this?

JUDGE WILSON: You haven't told him what Coetzee, Shaw and he did. Ngo said he'd murdered Venter and he said Coetzee, Shaw and you, and then you said having come from Pretoria, you didn't say what they did.

MR VISSER: Let me make it clearer. There is a suggestion that one or all of you had Mr Ngo come here from Pretoria to carry out this special operation.

MR ERASMUS: It is a lie Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: And if it is alleged that one or more of you three gave him instructions to murder Mr Venter and to rob him what is your reaction to that?

MR ERASMUS: It is not the truth Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Mr Erasmus, you were not originally implicated in the matter of Mr White Mohape, page 23 of Bundle A. Pardon me, there is one important aspect which I wish to touch on before you continue. We know that Mr Venter was murdered on the 2nd or was it the 3rd, I think the 2nd of February 1999. Will you accept that?

MR ERASMUS: Yes Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo placed you in Bloemfontein the week of the murder, the last week of January here in Bloemfontein where you supposedly gave him instructions in this regard. What is your reaction to this, where were you at this stage?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I was on holiday leave at that stage, it was the last stage of my leave which I spent two weeks at Hartenbos.

MR VISSER: Just to make it clear, did you take the same period of leave every year?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair there was a policy at the office in this regard and I usually took my leave in February but this particular year I took my leave earlier because I had returned from detached service of more than two years.

MR VISSER: And it was also a fact that we have submitted to the Committee exhibits which confirmed that from 9 January 1989 until 10 February 1989, you were on leave.

Mr Chairman I have the exhibit in front of me but unfortunately we neglected to mark it. I believe it was P 26 Mr Chairman but it is the one that says. "Senior Superintendent na daar nie nader verklaar onder eed", and then there is an application for leave form attached to it.

JUDGE WILSON: P26.2.

MR ERASMUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: If we can then continue Mr Erasmus - well let me ask you this - is there anything with regard to the Venter murder which is important for you to mention here or can we close that issue?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I heard with shock of the murder of Mr Venter and when I heard that Mr Ngo had been arrested because of the murder I was very disappointed.

MR VISSER: Mr White Mohape, he had testified that you had often arrested him, is that true?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, Mr White Mohape was arrested on a number of occasions and detained, that is correct.

MR VISSER: He referred here to one occasion and I'm not sure whether we will be told later at which incident of the applicants this belongs, but were you on this occasion in a room where others were present, you told him to look out the window and that a black bag then was pulled over his head and then he was then assaulted with broomsticks. Do you know anything about such an incident?

MR ERASMUS: I don't know about such an incident Chair.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo says that you, that is you and let me just gain certainty, it's page 23 Mr Chair, he says you and Shaw were concerned that Mr White Mohape was repeatedly taken to court and that he was found not guilty every time and this gave rise with you and Shaw, was there anything like that?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chair I know that Mr Mohape on one occasion appeared in court. I don't know of any other occasion where he appeared in court and was found not guilty.

MR VISSER: Which appearance are you referring to?

MR ERASMUS: That was the alleged attack on Mr Ngo.

MR VISSER: This had nothing to do with the Security Branch?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: It was a crime that he was accused of there?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct and the detectives indeed investigated this.

MR VISSER: And Mr Ngo said that Mr White Mohape in 1986 was in detention and that you and/or Shaw then gave instructions that he should not be released during the mornings from the police cells but in the afternoons. Is there any truth in this?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman according to me, according to what I can remember.

MR VISSER: Yes you can say that, I just want to warn you that I'm going to ask you not to provide any information which you have read in the police dockets which is relevant here regarding this specific incident to disclose this to the Committee before the Committee has not decided what the status of that document is. In other words you say according to what can recollect, it was 1984 and not 1986.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct. I was not in charge of this detention and I could not make any arrangements, I did not make any arrangements that he had to be released a certain time.

MR VISSER: Did Mr Ngo testify that Mr Tswantse and Mamome apparently received instructions to go to the police station and to wait for White Mohape until he'd been released; then to follow him and at a convenient time to kidnap him and to assault him? Do you know of anything of this matter?

MR ERASMUS: I don't know.

MR VISSER: And Mr Ngo says that he and Mr Motsamai and Mr Nikihana later joined them...(intervention)

MR MEMANI: I have on a previous occasion point out that this statement is not correct. Although in the application it was stated that Motsamai is present, when the attorney testified he said Motsamai was not present.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman then that's something that my learned friend has to put in cross-examination, surely.

JUDGE WILSON: That is so.

MR MEMANI: No Mr Chairman it can't be because he is leading it as if it is evidence and it is not the evidence. The evidence is that Mr Motsomai was not there.

MR VISSER: With due respect Mr Chairman, Mr Ngo has given so many versions of so many issues, it cannot be expected from the witness or from me to lead him on all the conflicts in his evidence. I'm putting to the witness the statement as it is contained in his application as a platform. It is then for my learned friend to choose whichever version he wants to choose of his client and to put that to the witness.

JUDGE WILSON: Where is this in the application?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman if you look at page 24, at the foot of that page, you will see that he says that during the process of delay Lt Shaw instructed WO Tuametsi and Sgt Mamome to go to Hilton Police Station so that they can follow White after his release. When they get him in the right spot, White Mohape should be kidnapped and assaulted and when White was released - that was on his way back home - he was then kidnapped by WO Sobetsi Mamome next to Bloemfontein Prison and they controlled - what is said in his evidence Mr Chairman is they called them over the radio...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: So you are quoting from his evidence?

MR VISSER: No from his application, Motsamai, Nchiala and me, that's what I'm putting to this witness now Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Chairman as far as I'm concerned, the application has got the status of a status made prior to the beginning of the trial, and if a witness were to make a statement before the beginning of a trial and mention someone in that statement and comes to the court and says no, I mentioned this person but I made a mistake, you are not entitled then to put it that this witness is saying that this, okay what he statement, okay that you are not entitled to do.

JUDGE WILSON: He's entitled to say that the applicant in his application which was on oath, wasn't it, said the following. You can then correct it in cross-examination by saying, yes but when he came to give evidence he said this.

MR MEMANI: But Mr Chairman he...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: The fact that he gives evidence does not erase everything he has said before Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: But the manner in which Visser is putting it Mr Chairman, he's putting it as if it was the evidence that was led here, he's not saying...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: We all know he's just quoting from page 24.

MR MEMANI: As the Chair pleases. If only that could be kept in mind.

JUDGE WILSON: Perhaps you should.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. In any case and that Mr Mohape was taken into the veld and was seriously assaulted by these five persons I've mentioned. Do you know anything about that?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you make any arrangements or give any instructions that something like that should happen?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And we know that in 198 Mr Ngo was still at school.

MR ERASMUS: That is absolutely correct.

MR VISSER: Then Mr Ngo also applied for an incident on page 25, Capital Letter B in which he refers to the kidnapping of an IDF member which he initially refers to as Pape, he referred to him as JJ. Do you know anything about this?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: On page 27 of his application Mr Ngo also applied for assault and torture of comrades in Bloemfontein. This refers to a group, that is a group of 19 who were arrested in the Ladybrand district and were transferred from Ladybrand to Bloemfontein. Do you relate to which incident I'm referring to?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, I know to what incident you are referring to.

MR VISSER: Can you tell the Committee what you know about this incident?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman I know that such an incident had taken place. A group of people were arrested by the Defence Force. I had nothing to do with their detention or interrogation. At one stage during a weekend I did visit them as a service officer while they were being detained. I assume it was much later than that incident, that was while they were being detained as.

MR VISSER: What were your duties during that stage when you were a service officer and when you visited them in the prison where they were detained?

MR ERASMUS: I was still a member of the Security Branch at that stage. I was in a different branch of the Security Police. I was behind a desk and not operational.

MR VISSER: Who was your commanding officer at that stage?

MR ERASMUS: At that stage it was Lt Col Smit.

MR VISSER: You were not involved in the interrogation of these people in Fontein Street?

MR ERASMUS: No I was not involved in this.

MR VISSER: Were you present while those people were being interrogated?

MR ERASMUS: I was in the building yes but I did not visit them in their offices. I was busy in my office in the same office building.

MR VISSER: Mr Ngo on page 30, he says that you were one of the members who with Col - I'm sorry - that you were one of the members, who Col Coetzee and Stevenson gave instructions to that these comrades should be assaulted or tortured, what would you say about that?

MR ERASMUS: That is not true Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: What is the situation regarding Mr Stevenson?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman according to me he was transferred to Bloemfontein from Bethlehem, he came to Bloemfontein and I was under his command.

MR VISSER: While we are busy with this, during cross-examination, it was mentioned or suggested that when you people in Bloemfontein, the Security Branch, wanted to do something special, you got people from somewhere else to come and assist you. For example Mr Modakile from the Theft Unit to come and assist you in whatever way. Can you give us some information regarding this? Did these things happen?

MR ERASMUS: The only people that I know of who were not part of the security police who had to come and work here, were people who were involved with special investigation, for example the investigative team was part of the Security Branch at that stage. At the Security Branch a uniformed policeman was not easily used for this type of work. I worked in the Western Transvaal but I worked as a member of the Security Branch. I don't know of any such occasions as you're referring to.

MR VISSER: If it is then suggested that for example, you wanted to kidnap and assault Mr Mohape, that you would then get Security Branch members from other places because they would not know them, what would you say in connection with this?

MR ERASMUS: I don't know anything about this, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: On page 34 Mr Ngo refers to an incident where a group of 40 to 45 pupils from the KGAWO the high school at Botsabelo, they were arrested during a raid. We accept that it was in 1986 and we know that this group was taken to the Botsabelo Police Station where they were processed. Do you have any knowledge of this incident?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Were you involved in this incident?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And if Mr Ngo is then saying that you were personally and physically involved in the assault and torture of these people, what is your comment regarding that?

MR ERASMUS: He's not talking the truth Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Before we continue, Mr Motsamai told this Committee that he was a security policeman. He told us that he was a Security Branch member in Bloemfontein, is that correct. No he never was member of the security branch here.

MR VISSER: But it is so and you've already said that. We're not going to expand on this, but he did come and give assistance here in the sense that you've already referred to?

MR ERASMUS: Yes that is correct Mr Visser, he gave assistance.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us when he gave this assistance?

MR ERASMUS: You will remember that I've already provided that evidence. That is we accept that it's from February 1986 up to June. But let me lead this evidence.

MR VISSER: I can ask the witness himself. At any stage did he, after he attended the police college, did he temporarily or for a day or two, did he come and do some jobs in Bloemfontein?

MR ERASMUS: No he was stationed at Unit 19 only.

MR VISSER: Just to complete this point, after he joined the Security Branch after February as you've mentioned, did he leave Bloemfontein at a certain stage before he went to the police college?

MR ERASMUS: Yes Mr Chairman, I think he was transferred to Ladybrand just for a short while.

MR ERASMUS: I want to refer you to an exhibit which was referred to you yesterday during evidence and this is a document on page 63. If I remember correctly on page 63 of bundle B there is a letter, I'm not going to repeat everything because you've mentioned this yesterday, it is a letter the 18th of June 1986 page 63, and that is document which has your name. I only have one copy unfortunately. Mr Stander you have this document in front of you. My learned friend Mr Stander will give you his copy. Can you just have a look at this document, I'm not going to waste time reading through all of it? I've taken note of it's contents. Please explain to us the style used in your correspondence. What do the words mean, is this something you've written and what does this enquiry mean Lt Erasmus?

MR ERASMUS: That refers to the person who has person knowledge of the enquiries and all enquiries should be addressed to him regarding this matter.

MR VISSER: Could we then make the inference here that you were instrumental in the request of a transfer for Mr Ngo to Ladybrand? If you look at the following page, page 64, it's not easy to read, but this is a letter dated the 19th of June, 1986 and it appears that it is a letter from the Divisional Commissioner. To whom was this addressed?

MR ERASMUS: It was addressed to the commanding officer and also to the district commander at Ladybrand.

MR VISSER: And what is the content of this letter?

MR ERASMUS: First of all it says that this student, referring to Mr Ngo had to undergo training until the 4th of July and he had to be transferred to Ladybrand.

MR VISSER: And then secondly he said he had to leave for Ladybrand immediately, there's a code attached there. What does that refer to?

MR ERASMUS: That is the payment point number.

MR VISSER: And the third paragraph says this is not regarded as a transfer, therefore transfer must not be reported according to the SAP. What do these words mean?

MR ERASMUS: The SAP 172 is a form used by the police to indicate any changes in the personal circumstances of any staff member and it's reported to head office by this form, and this means that the point where his salary is paid is changed and the area commissioners are involved here regarding correspondence. A 172 transfer entails a lot of administrative work and it is my conclusion to prevent this, all these administrative arrangements that he should be transferred.

MR VISSER: For this month in Ladysmith you're not going into all this administrative work.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And this was the instruction from the office of the Divisional Commander?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Do you see anything sinister in this?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Motsamai, and I'm going to lead you through all of these, Mr Chairman because at a certain stage Mr Motsamai said during evidence that in all these instances he did receive instructions.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Visser are you still busy with Mr Ngo, have we finished his matter because you're referring to Mr Motsamai now?

MR VISSER: I'm busy with Mr Motsamai now Mr Chairman. Mr Motsamai applied in 14 paragraphs from page 146 to 148 from Bundle A. Firstly he refers on page 146 to a murder in Melk Street in Botsabelo and today we know that this refers to the murder on George Mutsi. Do you have any knowledge of this matter?

MR ERASMUS: Last year during - I've heard about this for the first time.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything to do with this murder?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Either as a person who gave instructions or participated in any way?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Secondly the second paragraph refers to the arson regarding the house of Winnie Mandela in Brandfort. We know Mr Erasmus from registers presented as exhibits before the Committee that Mrs Mandela's house as well as her clinic were attacked during two occasions in 1985. Did you have anything to do with this or did you give instructions regarding this, that this should be done?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Do you have knowledge of any member of the Security Branch being involved in this matter.

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 3 reference is made to a petrol bomb attack on a house of a member of Umkhonte we Sizwe, namely Bobby Mbotsa. Mr Motsamai qualified this by saying that this was the house where Mr Mbotsa's parents lived in Mpinda street in Botsabelo. Did you give any instructions in this regard that this offence should be committed.

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Then in paragraph 4 on page 146 he referred to an attack by means of petrol bombs on the house of a businessman with the name of Nikos in Plaatje Street in Botsabelo. Is there anything you can tell us about this.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you give any instructions or did you participate in this attack?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Paragraph 5 reference is made by Mr Motsamai to the setting alight of a motor vehicle belonging to Jannie Mohape. Did you give instructions in this regard or did you participate in any other way in this incident?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: On page 147, Mr Motsamai alleges that he, Mamome, Lathale, Miningwa attacked with petrol bombs the house of Sidney Mosongwana. Do you have any knowledge of this incident?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you give any instructions in this regard? Did you participate in this incident?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Paragraph 7 on page 147, Mr Motsamai said that he and Mr Mamome arranged it in such a way that members of the uniformed branch, Mr Sydney Msuswana's youngest brother referred to as Mathews, had to be shot by the uniformed branch. Do you have any knowledge of this?

MR ERASMUS: I know that such an incident had taken place and Mathews Msuswana was shot by the police.

MR VISSER: There was a civil case arising from this matter.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, as far as I know the police had lost the civil case and they had to pay certain moneys. The police had to pay damages.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything to do with this incident? by means of instructions or anything else?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Paragraph 8 on page 147, Mr Motsamai says that he applies for amnesty for an incident during which he and Mr Mamome and Mr Ngo were involved in a petrol bomb attack on the house of Sydney Mzuzwana, that was in the Xhosa sections in Rocklands, Bloemfontein or in the previous Xhosa section. Do you have any knowledge of this incident?

MR ERASMUS: No nothing in detail. Regarding this incident, many of these types of incidents of houses being set alight took place, I don't know of this specific incident.

MR VISSER: How often were houses set alight during '85/'86 in the townships?

MR ERASMUS: Various houses were burned to the ground during that time. In my capacity as an officer we received report-backs during the management meetings every morning, that's why I knew about these incidents.

MR VISSER: I don't know whether I've already asked you this, did you receive any instructions regarding these incidents?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 9 Mr Motsamai applied for amnesty for an incident where he says that he and Mamome used petrol bombs to attack a motor vehicle belonging to a female teacher Thabang. Now Mr Mamome said that that should read Thabata. Do you know a person by the name of Thabata?

MR ERASMUS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: What do you know of this person? Who was this person.

MR ERASMUS: That was a person who at a certain stage she was also suspected by the Security Police. I never had anything to do him but the name was well-known to me. He was a man.

MR VISSER: Did you give any instructions or had anything to do with any assault by means of petrol bombs on his motor vehicle?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 10 Mr Motsamai said that he, Mamome, Morakile, Muchehala, Litsheo and Lesale, used petrol bombs to attack the house of a teacher Velasa. Do you know anything about this incident?

MR ERASMUS: I don't know anything about it.

MR VISSER: Did you anyhow give instructions or participated in this incident?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And on page 147 paragraph 11, Mr Motsamai said that other houses of political activists in Mangahoem were attacked by means of petrol bombs by him and Mamome and he says, he refers to two incidents, the one was the house belonging to Khuze and Sekgopi Malepo. Do you know anything about the arson of the houses belonging to these people?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything to do with this?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: On page 148 of Bundle A paragraph 12 Mr Motsamai says that he, Mangome, Sesedinyana and Morakile used petrol bombs to attack the home of a priest in Botsabelo. Do you know of such an incident that occurred?

MR ERASMUS: No I don't have any personal knowledge of that.

MR VISSER: If it had occurred did you have anything to do with it by way of instructions given or whatever?

MR ERASMUS: No honourable Chair.

MR VISSER: Paragraph 13 on page 148 Mr Motsamai refers to the fact that he was involved in assaults and torturing of detainees or arrested political activists and he states that these assaults and torturings took place at the offices of the Internal Safety Unit on the 5th floor of the building in Fontein Street Bloemfontein. If I try to tie this up with an incident of which we are aware, we return to the incident of the Group of 19 of Bloemfontein. Are you aware, were there any complaints or allegations that you are aware of that Mr Motsamai assaulted members of that group?

MR ERASMUS: No I'm not aware of any complaints Mr Chair. MR VISSER: If Mr Motsamai had assaulted people during that incident and you had heard about this, what would have happened?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman I'm not sure about that. General Chris Smit was the Divisional Commander at that stage, I think so, but he called us in on numerous occasions and told us that if we lifted a hand against anybody we would stand alone. That was clearly his instruction and as officer I would have had to take steps if anything like that had been brought to my attention.

MR VISSER: And would you indeed have taken steps like this, although Mr Motsamai had previously worked in your section under you?

MR ERASMUS: Yes that is correct Mr Chairman. There was still discipline, and officers who addressed junior officers regarding transgressions, the normal steps taken, people were charged in terms of Departmental regulations.

MR VISSER: Let us return to the incidents and complete them first. Did you have anything to do with whatever Mr Motsamai refers to here by giving instructions that anybody had to be assaulted in Fontein Street Building?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman, I had nothing to do with that.

MR VISSER: Then in paragraph 14 on page ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry before you go on, did the Internal Security Unit have it's own offices?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman the Security Branch office is situated in the Police Admin building, the 4th and the 1st floors.

JUDGE WILSON: But wasn't there a unit, the Internal Security Unit?

MR ERASMUS: I have no knowledge of such a unit.

MR VISSER: Paragraph 14 Mr Motsamai says that he, Mamome Mtyhala, Lesave, Miningwa and Ramaso were involved in an attempted murder on Oupa Makobalu and it was later explained in testimony that it took place during an arrest of Oupa Makobalu. Did you give any instructions in this regard?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: In brief then Mr Erasmus, as far as all allegations of illegal or unlawful actions which are attributed to you, what is your reaction?

MR ERASMUS: I deny it completely.

MR VISSER: Then Mr Erasmus there were certain victims who came to testify here. I wish to refer you to a few names and then you should please tell the Committee what you know about them. Mr Olifant, Shadrech Olifant also referred to as China.

MR ERASMUS: I know there was file on him, I don't know whether I had anything personally to do with him.

MR VISSER: Oupa Makobalu, let's turn to him, he says that you were one of the persons as far as he can remember who participated in his torture. This is stated in his affidavit. Do you know Oupa Makobalu?

MR ERASMUS: I do know Mr Makobalu Chair.

MR VISSER: And what is your reaction to his allegation in his affidavit?

MR ERASMUS: I dispute it.

MR VISSER: Doreen Lekeklale also said in her affidavit that she had been tortured and your name was also mentioned in that regard as one of her torturers, what do you say to that?

MR ERASMUS: I dispute that as well.

MR VISSER: Mathew Msuswana in his affidavit...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know her?

MR VISSER: Do you know Doreen Lekeklale?

MR ERASMUS: Honourable Chair, the surname was familiar to me but I can't place the person, it was pointed out to me here at the Commission whom she was.

MR VISSER: We are now with Mathew Msuswana, he made the same allegation against you, you already said you know him, that was the person who had been shot.

MR ERASMUS: Yes that's correct sir, I know him.

MR VISSER: Did you assault him?

MR ERASMUS: No Chair.

MR VISSER: A person with the name of Baba Kuzela filed an affidavit but did not testify and in his affidavit he made a similar allegation of torture against you. What is your reaction to that.

MR ERASMUS: I deny that.

MR VISSER: Do you know him?

MR ERASMUS: I know him Chair or know it would be difficult for me to point him out but I did meet the man if I can put it like that.

MR VISSER: Very briefly then, as far as the testimony of victims is concerned, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that there were three witnesses, Kusane Jwayi, then Tande Jacobs and Annie Pelane who all indicated if I am correct, that you in some or other way assaulted them? If there are such allegations, what is your reaction?

MR ERASMUS: I deny that Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: As far as the interrogation of female detainees is concerned in 1986, I wish to ask you whether you are aware of any relevant regulations in that regard?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chair with regard to interrogation there was the general regulation that it had not to be done by one person only but that at least two people had to participate, but no distinction had been drawn between male and female detainees in that instruction.

MR VISSER: And in as far as searching was concerned, were there any regulations in that regard?

MR ERASMUS: Well the Criminal Act applied there that a female could only be searched by a female.

MR VISSER: Did this position receive attention at a later stage and if so what happened then? This is now the position with regard to the interrogation of female detainees.

MR ERASMUS: As far as I am aware it is expected that where possible, a female is interrogated, a female had to be present.

MR VISSER: Was that a regulation, an order or what was that, what was the status of this?

MR ERASMUS: To my knowledge it was just an instruction from Head Office, it was not contained in a regulation, just an instruction.

MR VISSER: This building in Fontein Street, we often heard reference to Violence Street, will you please place this in perspective for us. What was Violence Street?

MR ERASMUS: Honourable Chair, there was a sticker on the 5th Floor on one of the passage walls close to the entrance. It was a sticker on which was written Violence Street.

MR VISSER: What was the colour of the sticker?

MR ERASMUS: I think it was red with a white background, if I'm not mistaken.

MR VISSER: And what was it doing there?

MR ERASMUS: I don't know who put it up there Mr Chairman but it was up there for quite some time, nobody removed it.

MR VISSER: Did you regard this as a sticker which had to convey a serious message?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman, admission was limited to the Security Branch offices. We had a trellis work with a gate in the office right next to this sticker. It was a fairly large office, there were various posters, T-shirts with various slogans exhibited in that office.

MR VISSER: So what are you saying, should the Committee attach particular meaning to the fact that there was a sticker with the words violence street on this?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman I personally didn't attach any special value to it. It is understandable that other people may attach other values but for me as an officer at that stage it did not bother.

MR VISSER: If you found it repulsive would you have done anything about it?

MR ERASMUS: Yes affirmative sir.

MR VISSER: Did you yourself if you wished to refer to that area in that building, refer to it as Violence Street?

MR ERASMUS: No sir we referred to the Fourth and the Fifth Floors.

MR VISSER: There's a bit of a lack of clarity in what happened in 1990 as regards the occupation by the Security Branch of that building. Can you tell us what happened?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair before 1990 the Free State was one of the few provinces or divisions at that stage which later became regions where the command structure sat with the operational structure and consequently in 1990 the administrative and the command components and the operational components were separated. What was then known as the Security Branch Regional Office and the Security Branch Bloemfontein Branch Office and the branch office during that year was moved out of that building and the administrative component remained. As a matter of fact on the second floor where today even we have the provincial component.

MR VISSER: On which floor is that?

MR ERASMUS: I think today it's on the second floor.

MR VISSER: Mr Erasmus you tried to make arrangements for the Committee to do an investigation in loco, should they prefer to do so. Where to did this one component move, the operational component?

MR ERASMUS: They moved to another area in Fontein Street, it's a building approximately 30 metres away. It was the old Education Centre building and the branch office moved there and it's still there to this day.

MR VISSER: So it was still in Fontein Street?

MR ERASMUS: Yes the entrance is there as a matter of fact. There are two entrances, one is from Fontein Street, the other from St Andrews.

MR VISSER: You made attempts to arrange for the Committee to do an inspection.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Thus far you have not been successful?

MR ERASMUS: No Chair/

MR VISSER: Could you tell me what the problem is for the Committee to enter a building?

MR ERASMUS: Honourable I've been informed that when the Committee wished to visit a building, in respect of that building there are certain limited access areas in terms of an agreement between Mr Mofamadi and Mr Tutu that there had to be a formal application and that a decision would then be taken in this regard. This is what I was told on Monday.

MR VISSER: That's the end of the matter. If Bishop Tutu addresses a request then Mr Mofamadi will say yes or no, unfortunately we couldn't take it any further than that. We can tell you that we tried but we can't take it any further.

This is then the evidence in chief of this witness, thank you Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Erasmus you already testified that Mr Ngo, from the time that he was transferred from Bloemfontein to Pretoria never did any work for the Bloemfontein Security Branch. From the time that he was transferred until the day when you heard that he had been arrested for the murder of Mr Venter did you have any non-official contact with him?

MR ERASMUS: Yes I had Mr Chair, I think on two or three occasions I came across him in Pretoria where I was involved in a court case.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did he on one of those occasions discuss the murder of Mr Venter with you?

MR ERASMUS: No sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chair, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STANDER: Mr Erasmus, George Musi, was he an activist at the stage just before he was murdered?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I heard the name George Musi time at the Commission, I don't know the man I don't know any background of him.

MR STANDER: So you wouldn't be able to tell us whether he had any file at the Security Branch?

MR ERASMUS: Not according to my knowledge Mr Chair.

MR STANDER: Evidence has been led that this person apparently created a safe haven for some of the persons who were sometimes looked for at that stage. I don't know if you have any knowledge of it. If it was known would you say it was of importance for purposes of investigation of the security branch if he had provided a safe haven for people who were looked for because of their political activities?

MR ERASMUS: Yes I would indeed believe there would have been a file on him.

MR STANDER: And you agree that were this the case that he had provided safe havens for people, it would be in the interests of the Security Branch possibly but not to murder but to take him out of the way?

MR ERASMUS: I don't agree with the statement Chair.

MR STANDER: Please tell me, Mathews Msuswana, the person who was shot with the stopper gun, was he a particularly active activist?

MR ERASMUS: He was reasonably active or let me rather put it this way, he was one of the well-known activists Mr Chair.

MR STANDER: Am I correct if I say he was continually monitored?

MR ERASMUS: Yes that is indeed so.

MR STANDER: Is it also so that he was arrested on numerous occasions in terms of security legislation?

MR ERASMUS: I can't say on numerous occasions, I don't have personal knowledge, but he is a person who would have fallen in a category in terms of Section 50 and security regulation detentions.

MR STANDER: Do you know whether he was detained in terms of these emergency measures?

MR ERASMUS: Personally I don't have any knowledge, I con only speculate.

MR STANDER: Well while we have referred to the person, I understand that he was very active when activists were buried, inter alia. He always played a very prominent role in arranging the people attending the funeral. Do you agree with that?

MR ERASMUS: I don't have any knowledge of that Mr Chair.

MR STANDER: I have been instructed that on more than one occasion he had so-called T-shirts printed to show the sympathy of his, or the group's to reflect that at these funerals.

MR ERASMUS: Yes T-shirts were printed and distributed. That is indeed so but the fact that he was responsible for these arrangements, I personally don't know.

MR STANDER: I was also instructed that while in detention at Grootvlei Prison he was informed by you personally that he had to stop this printing of T-shirts because there were so many of the so-called activists that died that he would no longer have money, or words to that effect?

MR ERASMUS: No Chair I don't have any knowledge.

MR STANDER: Can you please tell me, Mr Makubalo, was he known to you?

MR ERASMUS: Yes Chair.

MR STANDER: Am I correct if I say he was also a leader of the Group of 19, or let me put it this way, that he was identified as a leader of the group of 19 arrested at the Lesotho Border?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I was not involved with them but I was informed that, and I think he was also charged at one stage due to this incident.

MR STANDER: It is indeed so.

MR ERASMUS: Yes then I would absolutely grant that he was identified as a leading figure.

MR STANDER: Also China Olifant?

MR ERASMUS: Yes this name is also known to me.

MR STANDER: He was apparently also charged.

MR ERASMUS: Yes I don't know exactly who were charged.

MR STANDER: Mr Erasmus, at this stage when the Group of 19 and I'm referring to 6th April 1986 were arrested, what role did you play at the Security Branch?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I was a desk officer at Mr Chris Smit's and it concerned the ANC's activities overseas which involved lots of correspondence between the various divisions and sections and head office which I was involved in.

MR STANDER: Your office was situated on the fourth floor?

MR ERASMUS: Yes that's correct.

MR STANDER: For a large part of this sitting you were in attendance and I'm sure that you heard when some of these victims testified here.

MR ERASMUS: Yes that is correct Mr Chair.

MR STANDER: Can you remember that they testified to the effect that they sometimes shouted while they were being assaulted?

MR ERASMUS: I heard the testimony.

MR STANDER: What is your - let me rather rephrase, I take it that you don't agree with their version, is that correct?

MR ERASMUS: Yes Chair. It's not an enclosed building. Sound travels quite well. The divisional commanders were there, the chaplain was there on the third floor. It is strange to me that this shouting would have taken place but nobody complained, nobody said a single word about this until this was now brought to the attention of the Commission here.

MR STANDER: You also agree that not one these victims had any reason whatsoever falsely to incriminate anybody?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I think a few people would like to get at me.

MR STANDER: Do you know why?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair since 1981, I have been a member of the Security Branch. At one stage I also applied the emergency measures and administered them. I visited many of these people in the jails where they were detained. There were many criminal cases against the PAC and the ANC. The AWB which I investigated, I'm definitely not very popular with many people.

MR STANDER: I can understand when you refer to yourself but there are numerous other police officers or their subordinates mentioned in the same breath by these victims or some of these victims, would you say that the same conclusion could be drawn also with regard to them?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair, we are the people who were working on ground level, we were daily in the townships, we were familiar to the people.

MR STANDER: Tell me, Thami Makubalo the younger brother of Mr Oupa Makubalo, do you know whether he was also a member of the same group of 19 who were interrogated on the day?

MR ERASMUS: No I don't know Mr Chair.

MR STANDER: Well I have been instructed specifically to state to you that you indeed assaulted this person on this particular occasion when this group of 19 were interrogated there.

MR ERASMUS: I deny that Mr Chairman.

MR STANDER: Do you know on how many consecutive days this group of 19 was interrogated?

MR ERASMUS: No Chair, I don't know but that they were at the offices, I know, that is indeed true. The reason why I say I specifically remember visiting them I can give to the Commission.

MR STANDER: You may continue.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair I was officer on duty and my wife to whom I wasn't married at that stage was in my service group and when I went to visit these people I met her parents for the first time and that's why I remember this specifically.

MR STANDER: I also wish to put it to you that Doreen Lekeklane, Kusani Jwai, Thandi Jacobs and Ms Pahlane, had all been assaulted by you?

MR ERASMUS: I deny that Chair.

JUDGE WILSON: Who was the first of those three names?

MR STANDER: Kusani Jwai, I can spell the name for you. As it pleases you. It seems to me there's a problem, I mentioned four names, I don't know whether you got the impression that I only referred to three, I'm not referring to my previous questions, I have referred to Kusani Jwai, on person, Thandi Jacobs, a second one ...... do you have it like that.

JUDGE WILSON: I didn't have Doreen.

MR STANDER: As it pleases you. Mr Erasmus, please tell me, this document that you say which was a directive from Head Office, that the female should be questioned in the presence of female police officers, would it be possible to obtain a copy of this directive?

MR ERASMUS: I'm going to look for it Mr Chairman, but this was something which only happened lately. At that stage there were few women who were part of the police service. It was a practical directive as far as I know, in only came at a later stage but I will try to find it.

MR STANDER: Do you know if it came from local head office or did it come from Pretoria?

MR ERASMUS: I assume that it comes from Pretoria.

MR STANDER: If you say that it only came out lately, can you give us any date perhaps. If you can't I will accept it like that.

MR ERASMUS: It was definitely in the '90's. As far as I know it was not earlier than that.

MR STANDER: But you will try to obtain that document please, thank you. Regarding the so-called Violent Street, Mr Erasmus am I right in saying that you were one of the senior police officers there associated with the Security Branch?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman, at that time I was a lieutenant, a junior officer. In '86 I was a lieutenant. In 1985 I only became an officer.

MR STANDER: Do you agree that the sticker on a white background with red on it and stuck to a wall in a passage indicating it was Violent Street did not convey a good message for anybody who had access to the 5th floor of the Security Branch?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman in the first place I did not read it as an indication that that passage was Violent Street; there was something else written underneath, Violent Street was prominent, there was something else written there, I can't mention that now.

MR STANDER: Why I'm asking this question, we all know that members of the public continuously were questioned on the 5th Floor.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR STANDER: People who could possibly come there for the first time saw that sticker on the wall and somebody who did not know the circumstances as you've alleged these circumstances were, would get a wrong impression. If I understood you correctly it was very pertinent instructions from the top that nobody should be assaulted in that building? Mr Erasmus we would therefore assume that the officer in command would see to it that a sticker with such a distorted message should be taken away.

MR ERASMUS: I was not a senior officer. I did not see that as a skewed message.

MR STANDER: I want to put it in the last place that assault and tortures took place continuously at the Security Branch.

MR ERASMUS: I deny it. I know that there were charges against my colleagues; these cases were investigated, they were taken to court, some of them were charged and these cases appeared in court. These allegations that there were assaults on a big scale, I deny that.

MR STANDER: I said that that would be one of my last questions but I've forgotten about Mr Mohape. He was a well-known activist during the 1984's.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR STANDER: Were you involved during instances where he was questioned?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman Mr Mohape was questioned very rarely, he was detained, what we wanted to know we did know regarding him.

MR STANDER: Do you think that he had any reason to implicate you?

MR ERASMUS: I was responsible for various detentions of Mr Mohape. I don't know how he feels about me.

MR STANDER: You were also present in the Commission when he said he has no feelings of hate against anybody, he just hates what was done to him.

MR ERASMUS: I heard about it, I was not present personally.

MR STANDER: I want to put it to you that he has no feelings of hate against you and does not wish to implicate you falsely.

MR DE JAGER: It did not seem as if he was very friendly against Mr Visser. The impression I gained as a member of this Committee was that he did not like Mr Visser very much and of that of that which Mr Visser represents.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman that could be the inference. I don't want to comment on that. I just wish to say.

MR ERASMUS: I don't know what Mr Mohape feels about me but he is falsely implicating me or accusing me, that is true.

MR STANDER: When these interrogations were done in Fontein Street, was there sometimes more than one person in a room?

MR ERASMUS: Yes there were various offices shared by field workers. I and two other officers shared for example one office because there was a problem with office accommodation.

MR STANDER: At this stage when Mr White Mohape was questioned there at Fontein Street when he was apparently assaulted and when Mr Motsamai said he was present, can you remember that such and incident did take place?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman. The question or the issue that I would ask a person to look out of the window did not happen. If something like that had happened I would have remembered.

MR STANDER: I want to put it to you that that incident did take place according to Mr Mohape.

MR ERASMUS: I deny it.

MR STANDER: I've said previously that was the last matter. I just want to ask one more thing. Did it sometimes happen that members of the Security Police executed an operation; in other words the police activities?

MR ERASMUS: There were various coordinated activities or operations. For example people who were arrested preventative actions, there were many bomb explosions in Bloemfontein, there were a lot of special services being rendered.

MR STANDER: And you say not at any such instance you were involved?

MR ERASMUS: No the laws were enforced. There were unlawful activities and then those people were prosecuted, I was at one stage where civil claims were instituted.

MR STANDER: Do you want to refer to which instances this happened?

MR ERASMUS: This was in 1985. For example, under instructions form Head Office based with reference to the Umanzimtholti bomb attack that certain houses had to be searched.

I was in charge of an operation in Brandfort where Mr Mushlane's house's door was kicked out. I arrested a person there who according to my judgement prevented me from executing my duties. A civil claim was instituted and the court found that it was an unlawful action.

MR STANDER: So there were unlawful actions sometimes?

MR ERASMUS: Yes it did happen but it was not that everything had to be hidden. There were many remedies in this regard, people appeared in court, civil claims were instituted, this was not something which happened every day.

MR STANDER: And if other people of the police service testified here that they were never part of any unlawful activities do you really thing that we have any grounds to believe these people?

MR ERASMUS: I don't know in which context, is it in regard with the allegations made against them? I deny these allegations made here.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BE MR STANDER

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Memani.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEMANI: Mr Erasmus, you've told us that on the occasion when Mr Ngo killed Mr Venter you were on leave.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: You said that you were at what is the name of town that you mentioned?

MR ERASMUS: Hartenbos.

MR MEMANI: Hartenbos, do you have relatives there?

MR ERASMUS: My mother's brother has a beach cottage there and I rented that from them Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: The address of the cottage?

MR ERASMUS: I don't have the street number, it is in ThabaNchu Street in Hartenbos.

MR MEMANI: Was this an emergency? Was there any emergency?

MR ERASMUS: I don't understand what you mean.

MR MEMANI: Did you decide to take your leave because there was an emergency?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman I just took my annual leave. I and my wife and we got married in the midst of this trial and we went to the coast and we spent our holidays there. It was the usual holiday.

MR MEMANI: You didn't have children at that stage did you?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus, I'd like to refer you Bundle D 60. According to - do you have the document in Bundle D 50 it's an application for leave form?

MR ERASMUS: Yes I have the sworn oath.

JUDGE WILSON: B 50 do you say?

MR MEMANI: B 60.

JUDGE WILSON: B?

MR MEMANI: Yes My Lord. I'm told that you've got B 60 on your right hand side, bundle B.

MR ERASMUS: I have it in front of me

MR MEMANI: And is it your application for leave?

MR ERASMUS: It was Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: I want you to have a look at paragraph 5. It says that your address during leave would be Brandewynkuil Vosburg.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it a different address from the one you've given us?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman Brandewynkuil is my parent's address, when my holiday started we went to them. From there we left for the coast. Two days we spent at the Bakke at Mosselbay and then we went for a further 10 to 12 days to my uncle's house. From there we returned to my parents house, we went to my parents in law in Aliwal North and eventually we came back to Lorelei 3 in Bloemfontein where I lived.

MR MEMANI: You see it's surprising that we are not told all these things during cross-examination.

JUDGE WILSON: That's precisely what we are being told during cross-examination.

MR MEMANI: Well during the cross-examination of Ngo.

JUDGE WILSON: Are you seriously suggesting that this should have been put to Mr Ngo, that he went to stay with his parents, after a few days he drove down to Mosselbay.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman we did hear at some stage that he was going to say that he was at a particular place and the place was mentioned by its name and I do not recall what the name that was mentioned is. But now he's mentioning five places, if I'm not mistaken. But one place was mentioned before, that is my point.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman for the largest part of my holiday we spent at Hartenbos.

MR MEMANI: And had you planned that you spend most of your time at Hartenbos?

MR ERASMUS: Initially not Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: What made you decide, when did you decide that you are going to spend most of your time at Hartenbos?

MR ERASMUS: We were on holiday, my uncle, after he met us at Mosselbay made his house available to us at no cost and we stayed till at the last stage of my leave.

MR MEMANI: I put it to you that this application for leave was part of the plan to murder Mr Venter.

MR ERASMUS: This is absurd Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: I put it to you that this application was meant to create a false alibi for you.

MR ERASMUS: That is not correct Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now have a look at B 61. If you look at the column which says 'Number of days', it is the third column from the left. Do you see that column?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, I have the document in front of me.

MR MEMANI: According to that column it is the longest period of leave that you took at once, can you see that?

MR ERASMUS: That is so yes.

MR MEMANI: And if you look at B 60, you only applied for leave on the 9th of December 1988.

MR ERASMUS: The 8th of December 1988 I signed the document, the application for leave.

MR MEMANI: And it was approved on the 14th of December 1988.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: That was just about three weeks before the murder of Mr Venter.

MR ERASMUS: That is so yes.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it unusual for people to take long leave and go on holiday...(intervention)

MR DE JAGER: It's about six weeks before the murder. Isn't it about six weeks before the murder when it was approved because the murder was as far as I could recollect on the 2nd of February and if it's been approved on the 14th of December, it leaves two weeks in December and four weeks at least in January.

MR MEMANI: That is indeed so Mr Chairman. And this application was made only six weeks before you went on leave?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct yes.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it rather unusual that you would have applied for leave so soon to the date of your leave?

MR ERASMUS: There is nothing strange about this. Usually at the beginning of the year a tentative list is drawn up of the intended holidays of the various members during school holidays. The actual leave would only be approved on the day you go on holiday. There is no reason why application should be made long before hand. Usually a month beforehand is required for processing.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus, on what date did you leave for Hartenfontein?

MR ERASMUS: Do you mean Hartenbos?

MR MEMANI: Hartenbos yes.

MR ERASMUS: I can't remember the specific day, I know we first went to the farm and afterwards we went to the coast. I can't remember the specific date.

MR MEMANI: On what day did you leave for the coast?

MR ERASMUS: I can't remember the specific day.

MR MEMANI: On what date did you come back from the coast?

MR ERASMUS: Well I think it was about two or three days before the end of my leave. That would have been around about the 7th or the 8th.

MR MEMANI: And on what date did you come back to Bloemfontein?

MR ERASMUS: We came back to Bloemfontein a day or two before I started work again; on the 10th, possibly the Friday and I possibly started on that Monday and I accept that we probably arrived here on the Saturday or the Sunday. It would have been after the 10th then, possibly the 11th or the 12th that we arrived in Bloemfontein.

MR MEMANI: What made you recall that you came back just a day or two before you started working?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman we were married. We had no children and we expanded our leave as far as possible and just before we came to Bloemfontein to start our work we visited my parents in law in Aliwal North. I remember that.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus, you don't recall when you left Bloemfontein, you don't recall when you left for the coast and all the things that you are telling us now, were not put to us or put to Mr Ngo or any of the other witnesses while your version was being put to them.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman from Bloemfontein I went to the farm, I went to the coast, I went to Aliwal North and I returned to Bloemfontein. The specific dates of each departure, I can't remember those in detail, but the fact is I was not in Bloemfontein when this incident occurred.

MR MEMANI: What I also find interesting is that you had your home address, isn't it? Isn't King Edward Road your home address?

MR ERASMUS: That was my home address at that stage.

MR MEMANI: And I find it interesting that you included it as an address where you could be contacted during the holidays, your leave.

MR ERASMUS: I don't see anything strange regarding that.

MR MEMANI: I put it to you that you put that date there because you knew that you were not going to be away from your home for the entire period of your leave. That for a substantial period of time, or for some material time, you would be available at your home address.

MR ERASMUS: That is not true Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: And that is why Mr Ngo saw you at Fontein on the day when he was instructed to go and kill Mr Venter.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Ngo is not telling the truth Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now if you look at page B 61, on the first entry the last column is signed by a certain colonel, who is that colonel?

MR ERASMUS: This application is kept by the divisional commander, not by the security branch office; the officers who signed here were officers attached to the divisional commissioner's office. I don't know who they were.

MR MEMANI: And if you skip the second signature and look at the rest of the signatures you can see that the next four signatures are signed by a certain major.

MR ERASMUS: That is so Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: And another part is signed by a brigadier and later on a major again signs and lastly a brigadier signed. But if you look at the second one, the second signature, one can't make out the signature, it doesn't match any other signature and nor does one see any rank there.

MR ERASMUS: Well I don't know who signed there.

MR MEMANI: But I'm sure that as a person who was working there you would have known the people who would have signed these things as entered.

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman there were many officers involved at the divisional commander's office, they were involved with the administrative functions. This leave form was completed at the Security Branch but the divisional commander had to approve that and the processing of that and all those records were kept at the Divisional Commander's office.

MR VISSER: To be of assistance to my learned friend, if he turns back to page 60 Mr Chairman and he looks at the signature and the rank in paragraph 9 where it talks about approved, perhaps he should just compare that signature to the one at page 61 Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: It appears to be the same.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus, I want to refer you to the letter dated 7 November '85, I think it's P 62; now this is a letter dealing with the employment history of Ngo, it says application for employment, M Ngo in Afrikaans.

MR ERASMUS: I have the document in front of me.

MR MEMANI: I read the letter earlier on and I tried to choose a paragraph that I could read to you but I was unable to do so. If members of the Committee could bear with me I'll read the letter to you. It says that

'abovementioned person was brought under attention of this office. He in 1984 started attending KOSAS meetings. He approached this office and after in depth discussions were held with him he renounced all KOSAS activities and pledged his full cooperation with this office. He provided us with valuable information and kept us up to date with everything happening in the township. He was accused of being an informer of the South African Police. He provided satisfactory evidence against Mohape in court'

Now do you have any knowledge of this letter?

MR ERASMUS: I know that Mr Ngo was brought under the attention of the office that he was assaulted by means of knife stabbings. I did not write this letter.

MR MEMANI: Let me say to you that what I want you to comment on particularly is that you must be aware of the fact that your office regarded the evidence which Ngo had given about Mohape as satisfactory.

MR ERASMUS: Well according to this document, yes.

MR MEMANI: And you must have known about that didn't you?

MR ERASMUS: No I did not write this letter. I was not involved in this court case, I was not present there.

MR MEMANI: In 1982 they were convicted on counts of assault and had to spend an unspecified number of days suspended for three years. The complaints arose from problems he had with a certain scholar who he hit with his hand.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman I'm aware that he had a previous criminal record, that was a problem when he was appointed. I know it was assault but the details I can't remember. These particulars mentioned here I would agree that these particulars could be correct.

MR MEMANI: 'Ngo did this because he did not know any better. He is at present in matric and according to his principal he should complete it successfully. His application is strongly recommended'.

MR ERASMUS: I see that Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Mr Erasmus we are told that you were the chief handler of Mr Ngo isn't it?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: This fact ought to be known to you more than to anyone else in the office.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman I was his handler regarding operational work, this is personnel administration. I know these facts.

MR MEMANI: And if you look at the top of the letter on the left hand side, the reference is Lt Shaw isn't it?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: So Shaw must be the person who drafted the letter in fact.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct yes.

MR MEMANI: And yesterday you heard him deny that he had anything to do with the employment of Ngo isn't it?

MR ERASMUS: I don't know whether he denied that Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus I want to refer you to B 63, the first paragraph. In that letter you are the reference, can you see that?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And in the first paragraph you say that this member was employed on the 10th of February 1986 by the force and in fact he joined the force on the 10th of February 1986 and since then has been part of the personnel strength of Batu. You then say that this office had an arrangement with the district commander to employ him temporarily.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now I do not understand then your evidence in chief to the effect that he was not employed by Security Branch.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman Mr Ngo was never a permanent member of the Security Police, he was there in a temporary position.

MR MEMANI: But a member of the Security Police he was, isn't it.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman the Security Branch members were members of the South African Police Force at that stage. The Security Branch was a component of the South African Police, just like the Stock Theft Unit. Mr Ngo was never...(intervention)

MR MEMANI: Before you go further Mr Erasmus let me bring...(intervention)

MR VISSER: But Mr Chairman with respect let him allow the witness to give his answer, it is in respect of a question ...(intervention)

MR MEMANI: Proceed Mr Erasmus.

MR ERASMUS: He was not on the staff records of the Security Branch, he temporarily worked there.

JUDGE WILSON: Before we go on, did you put to him - I just want to check my notes - that Mr Shaw denied having anything to do with the employment of Ngo?

MR MEMANI: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: My note is immediately after the adjournment that Mr Shaw said, "I together with Erasmus arranged for employment of Ngo despite the fact hat he had a criminal record".

MR MEMANI: I think Mr Chair I might have been referring to the denial that he had something to do with the application forms and so on. In that case in any event what I put to the witness cannot stand.

JUDGE WILSON: No you must be careful about what you put to witnesses Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now Mr Erasmus, you say in the first paragraph that he joined with the force. When you refer to the force I am sure that you mean the South African Police.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman, this was just a way of writing and the force implies the South African Police force.

MR MEMANI: I understood you a few moments ago to be saying that he was not a member of the force and therefore could not be a member of the Security Branch.

MR ERASMUS: That is not correct, everybody were members of the South African Police Force, few people were part of certain units but all of them were policemen.

MR MEMANI: Now what did you mean when you said that he was employed by this office on a temporary basis?

MR ERASMUS: His services were used there temporarily, he worked there temporarily.

MR MEMANI: And do you agree that Ngo was a member of the Security Branch albeit temporarily?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman he was never a member of the Security Branch. In order to become a member of the Security Branch, security selection had to be gone through, clearance had to be issued, an interview with an officer had to take place, numerous forms had to be completed that had to submitted to Security Head Office and then it would be confirmed only.

MR MEMANI: But then Mr Erasmus, he was known to you, he was your informer, then he gave you important information. All these things were known to you.

MR ERASMUS: Yes that is true, he was known to me, he was a good informant.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it true that you regarded him as temporary staff because he had not undergone the processes just referred to.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman these steps were prescribed by Head Office, I was a lieutenant at that stage, I wouldn't dare. Mr Chair Mr Ngo was not a member of the Security Branch or on it's staff.

MR MEMANI: But yesterday you also read a letter to Mr Shaw wherein your office was supporting - no no, I think he was applying for adjustment of his salary, in fact from a certain date.

MR ERASMUS: I remember that testimony Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: And we were told that he had in fact never worked at Batu Police Station.

MR ERASMUS: I am not sure whether he worked there for a few days, I don't know.

MR MEMANI: During his employment in your office, isn't it correct that he performed duties related to Security Branch only?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman as far as my knowledge goes, in the mornings, he together with the rest of the staff reported to the office and worked with the people and in the afternoon left when they left again.

MR MEMANI: Mr Erasmus what I'm saying to you, isn't it correct that he performed duties relating to Security Branch only?

MR ERASMUS: I did not work with him directly but that his work basically was security work oriented is indeed so. That was the primary task of the members who worked with him.

MR VISSER: I hate to interrupt my learned friend, but we have been adrift for two and a half hours, is it possible that we could take a break please Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Right we'll take a short adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JACOBUS PETRUS PAULUS ERASMUS: (s.u.o.)

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman I'd like to say something to the Committee.

MR BRINK: Mr Chair as a matter of housekeeping, my colleague Mr Stander told me that a Mr Ntamo who is on of the Group of 19, who attended the hearings in Bloemfontein when this matter was heard last year had arrived today, he hasn't got legal aid and he's unable to pay Mr Stander's fee, and I indicated subject to what the Committee says, I would be prepared to lead him. My problem is that he's only come today, the reason being apparently, he had to apply for leave from his employers in Zastron and that is why he's here. I don't know whether the Committee will permit him to give evidence....(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Well have you had a chance to consult with him?

MR BRINK: I have not had a chance to consult with him.

JUDGE WILSON: Perhaps you should Mr Brink and then consider whether anything he's going to say will take the matter any further.

MR BRINK: I will do that.

JUDGE WILSON: If he's going to repeat what the other witnesses who were present have already said, that I think can be done very briefly, he can merely confirm, I don't think anybody would insist, we can have the same story and the same cross-examination.

MR STANDER: Mr Chairman The same thing applies to a Mr Baba Kuzella, you'll remember in Bundle 2 that I've handed in to you, he was mentioned on page 21 and 22 of the bundle in his affidavit. I haven't seen him though but I believe from my clients that he's also here. I haven't talked to him, I don't know the reason why he didn't attend this hearing for the last two weeks, I think the same applies as far as he is concerned. Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Visser you would have no objection to that would you?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I would be happy to leave it in your hands and in your discretion.

JUDGE WILSON: It seems to me that we have had the version of the victims, it's been put before us and a repetition, if we had something new or different to contribute, it's a different matter, if they're merely going to say the same they can merely say I confirm what the others have said.

MR VISSER: The only contribution which I would to make Mr Chairman is as you know, a number of these victims have given evidence here to matters entirely unrelated to the incidents for which amnesty is made and perhaps if my learned friend Mr Brink can ascertain whether they can contribute towards the incidents for which application for amnesty is made, that would be very helpful because otherwise we might waste time.

JUDGE WILSON: I think it's just the one incident, is that the 19?

MR BRINK: I understand so Mr Chairman, ja.

MR DE JAGER: This shouldn't be seen as a precedent for another forty victims to turn up now at this late stage and say they want to give evidence now, because I think they had the opportunity, we were busy almost two months with this case, and we should finish it some time or other.

MR STANDER: We've noted your direction thank you Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: While we're at it Mr Chairman, while we've got a break in the proceedings, may I be allowed to mention one other man whose name is Thulo and he is mentioned at page 35 of Bundle B by Mr Ngo. It's the third name from the bottom in the handwritten page 35 - I'm sorry Bundle A. During the adjournment we asked my learned friend Mr Memani and his attorney whether in order to cut short the proceedings, Mr Ngo could be asked whether this is the gentleman who is present here today to whom he refers ag page 35. The answer to that is no he isn't and I'm merely placing this on record Mr Chairman to tell you this is the only Thulo we know about, the gentleman is here and we would like on that basis for him to be excused.

JUDGE WILSON: Perhaps we should get a little bit more about him. Where was he from? You say Constable Thulo.

MR VISSER: Yes he was stationed in 1986 in Ladybrand together with Safatsa, that is the gentleman who is mentioned at page 27, it's in the second paragraph in the middle of the page precisely in the middle of the page 27 together with a Constable Jantjie, the three of them were stationed at Ladybrand. Now it is in that sense that they have been implicated by Mr Ngo.

JUDGE WILSON: Well this man Thulo is only implicated at page 35. That is correct and he was stationed at that time at Ladybrand.

MR VISSER: That is correct. It is indeed. He informs me that he never worked at Botsabelo and it couldn't be...(intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: Well I don't think we want too many admissions, if this is to be by consent we can ask Mr Memani to admit that this Constable Thulo was in 1986 stationed in Ladybrand.

MR VISSER: And that he is not the person...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: And that he is not the person referred to in the application at page 35.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman my instructions are that this is a person unknown to our client.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR MEMANI: Our client knows a Constable Thulo other than this person.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes. But you concede that this person was what he says he was, a constable stationed at Ladybrand in 1986?

MR MEMANI: I have no difficulty with that.

JUDGE WILSON: No no we're limited to that.

MR MEMANI: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And that he was not - you client says this in not the Constable Thulo whom he knows, whom he says was there.

MR MEMANI: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Right.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: That will be recorded. Perhaps I should repeat that it is admitted by both Mr Visser and Mr Memani that the person who has presented himself here today as Constable Thulo was in 1986 stationed at Ladybrand and furthermore that Mr Ngo says that this is not the Constable Thulo whom he had identified as having been present at Botsabelo on the occasion of the assaults there which are refereed to at page 35 of his application for amnesty.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-QUESTIONING BY MR MEMANI: (cont)

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus, is there a law which prohibits the employment of people in the South African Police who have previous records?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman there is no legislation to this effect but there are prescripts in this regard or instructions with regard to employment, certain requirements that have to be met.

MR MEMANI: And the cases like Ngo's case are very rare indeed isn't it?

MR ERASMUS: I don't exactly understand the question of what is intended.

MR MEMANI: Cases with people with previous convictions are employed are very rare indeed.

MR ERASMUS: As a rule yes that is true Mr Chair.

MR MEMANI: And was knowing that Mr Ngo had previously conducted himself unlawfully you nevertheless employed him and condoned the unlawful conduct that he had been convicted of.

JUDGE WILSON: Who do you say you nevertheless, the police nevertheless employed him and condoned?

MR MEMANI: Well Mr Erasmus My Lord, he was the person who makes the recommendation that he must be employed.

JUDGE WILSON: I thought it was Mr Shaw who in the letter you read to us.

MR MEMANI: That is correct My Lord but Mr Erasmus is the person with an intimate relationship with Mr Ngo, he is the person who I believe would most probably have conveyed most of the information about Ngo to all other policemen.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman that I had been part of such a recommendation I would not deny. It is a recommendation which was made, the divisional commissioner and the head office make the final decision regarding employment.

MR MEMANI: And isn't it correct that Ngo was transferred to Ladybrand, it was because he was involved in a shooting incident.

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman, not to my knowledge. At that stage there was a threat to his life.

MR MEMANI: From whom was there a threat?

MR ERASMUS: I specifically received the information that from the ranks of KOSAS, the black youth, there was a threat to his life which arose Mr Chair.

MR MEMANI: Well I think we heard that there had been a threat to his life when he was taken to Mr Venter's. He didn't join the South African Police and joined Security Branch and for a while he worked in Bloemfontein.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: And it seems that you are not able to tell us what specific threat you are referring to.

MR ERASMUS: Well on of the writers referred to a necklace murder which would be committed against Mr Ngo, that was the threat.

MR MEMANI: And do you know what had prompted that?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman, not specifically, but the point that the man was an informant and became a policeman placed him in a threatened position continually. But if my memory serves me right, at that stage there was planning to murder this man by means of the necklace method. We received information we had to do something about this.

MR VISSER: That is also what is stated in the letter on page 63 of Bundle B.

MR ERASMUS: That is indeed so honourable Chair.

MR MEMANI: Now you heard the evidence of Ngo. Ngo told us that he was involved in a shooting incident. As a result of that shooting incident he was transferred to Ladybrand.

MR ERASMUS: That he was involved in a shooting incident I cannot deny I just can't remember this specific incident. That's not the reason why he was transferred to Ladybrand Mr Chair.

MR MEMANI: And the information contained at paragraph 4 was not correct.

MR ERASMUS: No it is indeed an erroneous statement Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: That information was intended to conceal the true reason for his transfer from here to Ladybrand.

MR ERASMUS: That is not the truth Chair.

MR MEMANI: Now you told us that Mr Ngo, that there was an oath of secrecy that people took, isn't it?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now before I get to that I think I should have concluded the last question by putting it to you that this was another instance of you condoning unlawful conduct on the part of Ngo.

MR ERASMUS: That is not true Honourable Chair.

MR MEMANI: It is perhaps part of the reason why it was not deemed necessary to transfer him - let me say it was for that reason that it was that letter is not being regard as a transfer.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chair that is incorrect. The divisional commissioner signed the letter I think. Yes the then divisional commissioner signed it, that was his task. I told you what administration was involved in the transfer.

MR VISSER: Yes we remember your reply in this regard Mr Erasmus.

MR MEMANI: Mr Erasmus the reason why the SAP 172 form was not completed was because it would have involved explaining the transfer of Mr Ngo.

MR ERASMUS: That is incorrect Chair.

MR MEMANI: You avoided doing that because it was because it was because of unlawful conduct on the part of Ngo.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Memani if that is so, why couldn't they give the same reason as they gave here although it's untrue? Why couldn't they repeat the untruth in the SAP 172. That would already have it on record.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman you'll have to repeat I'm afraid, I can't hear you.

MR DE JAGER: They've already put on record that he's being transferred because of a so-called threat, if it's a so-called threat. If that was an untruth and they've already stated that, why shouldn't they repeat this misleading statement also in the SAP 172? If they really want to mislead people.

MR MEMANI: It might have been oversight, I don't know, I can't answer for them. Now Mr Erasmus if it was not because you wanted to conceal the true reason for the transfer of Mr Ngo, I am sure you would have said that an SAP 172 would be completed in due course.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman, we also have this letter which is sent from the Divisional Commissioner's office and the instruction contained therein signed personally according to my impression, which was signed by him as something emanating from their office and having nothing to do with the Security Branch. I made no input there, I had no argument in this regard, that was not my decision that it didn't have to be reported by SAP 172.

MR MEMANI: You see I can't believe you because you were the person primarily responsible for the employment of Ngo at Security Branch. I can't believe that when the time came to transfer him no discussion would have been entered into with you about the transfer.

MR ERASMUS: Honourable Chair after Mr Nelson Ngo had joined the South African Police he served under the Divisional Commissioner's command, the direct supervision was with the Security Branch. But staff matters was the function of the Divisional Commissioner and I deny the allegations against me.

MR MEMANI: You know if one looks at B 63, it is signed by the, is it Divisional Commander?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR MEMANI: But however you are the reference, isn't it?

MR ERASMUS: That's indeed so.

MR MEMANI: And that would therefore mean that you are were the actual writer of the letter.

MR ERASMUS: Not in all instances. In most instances yes, and this letter I would have written definitely.

MR MEMANI: And the Divisional Commander who had nothing to do with Ngo, did not work with Ngo, would not be in a position to make those decisions about Ngo.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman we worked in an orderly office where an office head was responsible, that is why he signed it because he associated him with the contents.

MR DE JAGER: In the letter which you wrote did you request that an SAP 172 not be completed?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR DE JAGER: Now the next letter in which it is stated that it shouldn't be completed, who wrote that letter?

MR ERASMUS: The enquiry is marked Lt Bester and the letter is from the Divisional Commissioner.

MR DE JAGER: From your side in the letter which you wrote or verbally did you ever refer to the SAP 172?

MR ERASMUS: No Honourable Chair.

MR MEMANI: You may have misunderstood me Mr Chairman, what I'm saying is that you must have known about this letter. Now Mr...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Why on earth, this is an entirely technical matter, why should he know about it, he knew that they wanted to transfer him to Ladybrand. Why on earth must he know about the Divisional Commissioner deciding that an SAP 172 should be filled in?

MR MEMANI: Well Mr Chairman you must see the question in the light of my instructions that Mr Erasmus was the chief handler of Mr Ngo and that Mr Ngo left Bloemfontein for Ladybrand because he had been involved in a shooting incident and that resulted in him being transferred and the theory that I'm pursuing is that Mr Erasmus, as the chief handler of Ngo, should have known about this incident...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: And further I'm disagreeing entirely, having had some knowledge of how administrative functions are performed that he would have been told about something technical, as technical as this and he has said he has not and I think that's the end of the matter Mr Memani.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman I have different views on the matter but I'll proceed Mr Chairman. Now Mr Erasmus, who is this Bester who was the reference in this matter?

MR ERASMUS: He is an officer attached to the Divisional Commissioner's office at the time.

MR MEMANI: And who was he?

MR ERASMUS: He was one of his staff members Honourable Chair.

MR MEMANI: Mr Erasmus do you know this Lt Bester?

MR ERASMUS: I know him, I think at this stage he has retired in Pretoria.

MR VISSER: Is it not the Bester who testified here?

MR ERASMUS: No definitely not Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus if you condoned Mr Ngo's unlawful activities, for what reason should we believe that you would not condone an unlawful torture of people at Fountains?

MR ERASMUS: Honourable Chair, I condoned nothing of Mr Ngo's.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus, we've heard in other applications that there came a time during the 80's when the police realised that legal methods were not sufficient to deal with the unrest situation in the country and they therefore had to resort to unconventional means in order to deal with the political situation at the time.

MR ERASMUS: I heard that over the media yes.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it the case that Security Branch Bloemfontein also experienced the same difficulty with activists?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chair.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it in fact the effect of Motsomai's evidence when he testifies about George Mutsi who he says he was a courier and always remained at home and the police could not hold him and connect him to any activity, although they had information that he was a courier?

MR ERASMUS: I cannot comment on that Mr Chairman because I didn't know Mr George Mutsi.

MR MEMANI: Doesn't that tie up with the evidence which was given that soon after the arrest of people who had been attempting to flee the country to go to Lesotho, Mr George Mutsi was killed.

MR ERASMUS: I don't agree Mr Chairman, I don't have personal of that which is now being put to me.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it so that Mr Motsamai also testified about an activist whom they could not corner because he used to walk on feet, he did not have a car and frustrated Security Branch, and it was decided therefore that he would be attacked.

MR ERASMUS: I have no knowledge of that sir.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus, I want us to attempt to focus on Mr Venter. You told us that Mr Ngo was an informer.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: And initially you used to meet him near Kwaggafontein.

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR MEMANI: And isn't it so that he was living in a room which was being paid for by Security Branch?

MR ERASMUS: That is not the truth, Chair.

MR MEMANI: Well isn't it so - did you hear Mr Mohape testify?

MR ERASMUS: Honourable Chair, to my knowledge no accommodation was paid for by the Security Branch for Mr Ngo.

MR MEMANI: I said to you did you hear the Mr Mohape testify?

MR ERASMUS: I heard Mr Mohape refer to a room occupied by Mr Ngo at a certain stage, yes I heard that.

MR MEMANI: Did you also hear him say that it surprised them that he could afford these things because - I think there's something wrong with the system, there's some cutting, I don't know whether everybody experiences that problem. - I'll proceed Mr Chair. Now did you hear him say that it surprised them that Mr Ngo could afford things because he came from a poor family.

MR ERASMUS: I heard it Honourable Chair.

MR MEMANI: And at the time Mr Ngo was a student.

MR ERASMUS: That's correct, he was a student at that stage.

MR MEMANI: Wasn't it in the interest of Security Branch that Mr Ngo should remain living in the township so that he should be able to gather information about black students?

MR ERASMUS: Honourable Chair, most of his activities took place during office hours or shortly afterwards, therefor it was not essential for the informant to live in the black township.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it so that many of the meetings took place at night as well?

MR ERASMUS: There were indeed meetings which took place during the night.

MR MEMANI: Isn't it so that most of those meetings which took place at night were executive meetings?

MR ERASMUS: Many of them involved management and then I had to ask him to attend those meetings. Mr Ngo whom I'd ask yes.

MR MEMANI: And Ngo was a member of the executive?

MR ERASMUS: Yes that's correct Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: At the time when he started living with Mr Venter did you ask him why he had left the township?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman as far as I can remember, it's not only what I remember, it's a fact. I do not have any knowledge of any accommodation or room Mr Ngo had in the township. I met him and according to me he lived initially in Daggafontein and later with Mr Venter. I don't know about the house or the room he had in a black township, he never mentioned that to me.

MR MEMANI: The question I was asking was when Ngo left the township to go and live with Mr Venter, did you ask him why he had left the township to go and live with Mr Venter?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman according to me he never left the township to go and live with Mr Venter, but he left from Kwaggafontein. His accommodation with Mr Venter suited me because it was easy to get hold of him.

JUDGE WILSON: Is Kwaggafontein not a township?

MR ERASMUS: No this is on the western side of Bloemfontein. It's more a plot area. It's on the Petrusburg road.

MR MEMANI: Did Ngo at any stage while you knew him to live in the township?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: But why would Ngo and Mohape lie about Ngo living in the township?

MR ERASMUS: Honourable Chairman I do not know that Mr Ngo had a room there. He never told me about that. It may be that he had a room there but I don't know about it. He never mentioned it to me and this is news to me.

MR MEMANI: Subject to correction, my recollection of that evidence was that Mr Ngo originated from Kwaggafontein but hired a room in the township.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman according to me he initially lived with his parents in Kwaggafontein. Before that I don't know.

MR MEMANI: But surely if Mr Mohape knew him as a person living in the township at a certain stage and he went to confiscate a certain document in the township then, you must have known about it that he was living in the township.

MR ERASMUS: I did not know that Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: But already at that stage he was your informer.

MR ERASMUS: It is so.

MR MEMANI: Are you saying that the Committee should believe that you did not know where your informer lived?

MR ERASMUS: Honourable Chairman, I've told the Committee that Mr Ngo lived with Mr Venter. He first lived at Kwaggafontein and then with Mr Venter. I don't know at which time he lived in the township.

MR MEMANI: Now I will go on with the next question, if Mr Erasmus you could do us the favour of switching it off when you're going to cough, we'll be happier. Now Mr Erasmus, when Mr Ngo left Kwaggafontein to go an live with Mr Venter, did you ask him why he went to live with Mr Venter? That is now on your version.

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman, I can't think that I specifically asked him about this but he explained to me that he was working at Mr Venter's, he worked in the house, he worked in the garden, and Me Venter gave him a room and that's where he stayed. That suited me very well.

MR MEMANI: Now when I asked you...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Memani I'm a little bit lost, I'm not sure which area of the matter of dispute you are dealing with here, I just want to know so I should not be left behind.

MR MEMANI: Mr Chairman we are dealing specifically with the evidence that Mr Erasmus arranged for Mr Ngo to be taken to Mr Venter's house and that Mr Erasmus knew Mr Venter.

JUDGE NGOEPE: If this issue of Kwaggafontein and the plot and this sort of thing, are they all about that aspect?

MR MEMANI: I'm sorry Mr Chairman I - you said Kwaggafontein and what?

JUDGE NGOEPE: I was trying to find out whether for the past five minutes this aspect that we are to deal with because there can be a way of putting your question to Mr Erasmus to clear this up. Is the issue that the witness had arranged accommodation for Mr Ngo to be accommodated with Mr Venter?

MR MEMANI: It's one of the issues Mr Chairman that generally he knew Mr Venter.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is it so that you at some point you arranged accommodation for Mr Ngo with Mr Venter?

MR ERASMUS: No Honourable Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You said that you knew Mr Venter at some stage.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman, after Mr Ngo introduced me to Mr Venter, when he was already there, I met him there at Mr Venter's.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What would you say to a suggestion that after Ngo experienced I think an attack or something, Security Branch arranged accommodation for him with Mr Venter?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman that he was taken to Mr Venter after his attack by the Security Branch, I believe this happened, I was not personally here at that time but the point is Mr Ngo stayed there.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Already before he was attacked he was already living there with Mr Venter?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And was it arranged by the Security Branch?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman, I met Mr Venter after Mr Ngo introduced me to Mr Venter and then Mr Ngo told me that he was living there. It was long before this incident.

MR MEMANI: Now I want to ask you about another aspect, the relationship between you and Mr Ngo. Is it correct that the reason why you recommended the employment of Mr Ngo despite the fact that he had previous conviction, is it because you trusted him or believed that he was a capable person?

MR ERASMUS: Yes I believed he was a capable person and he was rejected by his community and that was caused by the police action and I tried to attempt to create a career for him so that he could do something with his life. I trusted him, I trusted him sincerely.

MR MEMANI: And did you trust in him ever cease to exist?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman after the attack or the murder on Mr Venter, I was very disappointed, I could not believe that he was arrested for that murder. But afterwards I couldn't help but believe in that.

MR MEMANI: You ceased trusting him once you believed that he had been arrested in connection with the murder.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus, when Ngo started living with Mr Venter, did you make enquiries with Mr Venter?

MR ERASMUS: No Mr Chairman, I met him he invited me into his house. At later stages he presented me with coffee, we drank some coffee and he told me he was working at the railways. I made no enquirers regarding this man.

MR MEMANI: I think we are hearing it for the first time that Mr Venter was with the railways.

MR ERASMUS: The record is full of that evidence Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: That Mr Venter worked for the railways.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Erasmus, to go back to Mr Venter. Did Mr Venter ever tell you that Mr Ngo worked with him in the garden and worked for his mother in the garden?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman, he did work in the garden for Mr Venter; he was washing dishes one evening when I came there, he also worked in the house. The question regarding his mother, I did not know about that, that he also worked for her.

MR MEMANI: Now we look at the record later, but it is not my recollection that it was ever admitted that Mr Venter actually worked for the railways. Now let us proceed. Did you find anything else about Mr Venter?

MR ERASMUS: I made no enquiries concerning Mr Venter, he was an ordinary member of the Community, nobody outstanding or extraordinary.

MR MEMANI: But were you not curious to know with what sort of person or person of what background your informer was living?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman there was nothing strange about Mr Venter, he was an ordinary railway clerk.

MR MEMANI: No I'm not suggesting that there was anything strange about him, but purely as a matter of enabling you to work well and properly with your informer, didn't you want to know the background or have some information about the person who is now accommodating your informer?

What if he was a member of MK or APLA, Mr Venter?

MR ERASMUS: Regarding that I initially did not tell Mr Venter the truth, I told him that my relationship with Mr Ngo was related to drug smuggling or dagga smuggling at schools and we required information regarding that. I never told him the real reason for working with Mr Ngo.

MR MEMANI: Does that mean you didn't quite trust him?

MR ERASMUS: Well I had to explain my presence there, why I met him there and that's how I explained that. I don't know whether Mr Venter ever knew what the real reason was why I came to see Mr Ngo.

MR MEMANI: Did you ask Mr Ngo as to why he went to live with Mr Venter?

MR ERASMUS: He explained to me Mr Chairman that he was working in the garden in his free time and that Mr Venter gave him accommodation there, offered him accommodation and that's why he was staying there.

JUDGE WILSON: Is that all he told you about the relationship?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Didn't you say something rather more in your affidavit? Paragraph 3.3 of your affidavit.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman, that inference I drew after the court case.

MR MEMANI: Did you know that Ngo apart, Mr Venter lived alone in that house?

MR ERASMUS: Yes I knew that.

MR MEMANI: Was it a big house?

MR ERASMUS: Yes it was an ordinary house for that residential area with three bedrooms, two bathrooms, two garages. It was quite a big house.

MR MEMANI: Mr Venter wasn't exactly a very young person.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct yes.

MR MEMANI: You didn't wonder why is this man living alone in such a big house and then go and live there - but what sort of person is he?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman I often wondered about that, that is correct; but my interest was to meet Mr Ngo there. I had no direct interest in Mr Venter and that is why I'm saying that the conclusion I came to in my statement was after the trial. Many things became clear then. At that stage I wondered about many things.

MR MEMANI: Now Mr Erasmus do you want us to believe that an employer would have been happy to hear that his employee, his gardener was actually a drug smuggler and continue to employ him?

JUDGE WILSON: I don't think that that was said, what I understood Mr Erasmus was that he was investigating drug smuggling. That's, wasn't it what you put in that Mr Ngo was assisting you.

MR ERASMUS: Yes Mr Ngo had to obtain information among the school children.

MR MEMANI: Now I might have misheard you then, then Mr Erasmus, according to you that you still know about Mr Venter himself.

MR ERASMUS: I did not give so much attention to Mr Venter, I wasn't interested in him. He gave accommodation to my informer and I was happy about that. I did not visit Mr Venter's house everyday. I count the times I visited his house on my two hands.

MR MEMANI: Now it also surprises me that it has taken so long for you to tell this Committee the pretext under which you met Mr Venter.

MR ERASMUS: I met mr Venter after Mr Ngo had introduced him to me.

MR MEMANI: I want to take you back to your affidavit. It's page 19 My Lord. There you say that you became aware that Ngo was regularly visiting Mr Venter.

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: And it does not say that you became aware that he was living there.

MR ERASMUS: It does not appear there Mr Chairman.

MR MEMANI: No furthermore you say that it appeared as though he setting tasks but it later appeared that he was apparently having a homosexual relationship with Mr Venter.

MR ERASMUS: As I've said to the Committee, I drew that conclusion after the court case.

MR MEMANI: You then proceed and tell us about Ngo up to the time when he joined the security force and then at paragraph 3.7 you tell us that you became aware that Mr Venter was murdered and that Ngo ...