Amnesty Hearings

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I believe that I am to address you today, Visser on record. Perhaps with you leave, just before we start, a few matters of housekeeping importance. Mr Chairman, we have foreshadowed that we will make available to you a list of incidents, politically related incidents which transpired in the Durban area, from approximately 1982 to 1993.

We are attempting Mr Chairman, to procure photocopies thereof, although without success at the moment. I am informed Mr Chairman, that there is a problem with the photocopy machine that is available to us here, but as soon as that becomes available Mr Chairman, we will certainly let you have that.

May we suggest Mr Chairman, that that Exhibit might be called Exhibit A, and its description will be a list of politically related incidents in Port Natal. We might have one copy, pardon me for a moment. We seem to have two here Mr Chairman, we have handed it to some of our learned friends. May I ask through the Chair, whether our learned friend, Mr Ngubane has received a copy of this. Have we given you a copy Mr Ngubane?

MR NGUBANE: No, not yet.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with your indulgence, might we hand one to you and your Commissioners at this stage, and one to Mr Ngubane, and as soon as they are ready, we will let you have them.

Two pages are still to be added to the front Mr Chair. One will have the legend Exhibit A, and the heading Politically Related Incidents, and the second page that is still missing from that bundle which you have before you, is an index which I have prepared Mr Chairman, with a summary of the number of incidents. That will be handed to you in due course.

Mr Chairman, we also are going to refer straight away to certain other documents, which have already been reproduced. The one is an affidavit by Mr Adrian Steven Rosslee, it is a handwritten affidavit Mr Chairman which I am informed, you have already before you.

It looks like this Mr Chairman. I think at this stage, there are two. The one is one of Mr Hugo's clients, and the other is, two handwritten affidavits.

CHAIRPERSON: One of Ramatala and one ...

MR VISSER: Yes, and the other is the Rosslee one, the one I wish to refer to Mr Chairman. Might that be marked Exhibit B then Mr Chairman. Is yours not stapled together?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR VISSER: I have a stapler here Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I am also informed that you have already been handed three psychiatric reports. The first is by Russel E. Matthews.

CHAIRPERSON: Robertse?

MR VISSER: And Potgieter, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will make that one bundle?

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman, I was going to suggest with respect, perhaps Matthews could be C1, Potgieter C2 and Robertse, C3, just taken at random Mr Chairman, for no particular reason in that order. Well, any order will do, but I suggest that Matthews, Potgieter and Robertse Mr Chairman, simply because it is alphabetical.

CHAIRPERSON: Robertse will be C3.

MR VISSER: Matthews is C1.

CHAIRPERSON: Potgieter C2.

MR VISSER: C2, and Robertse C3, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, and then with your leave, lastly, my learned friend, Mr Prior had kindly made available to us, an extract from the charge sheet of the Dudu Buthelezi case to which we will refer as the Ramlakan case, and that is a document which has the legend on the right hand top, Annexure G, and it says Acts Performed/Committed by Accused 7.

CHAIRPERSON: Accused 8.

MR VISSER: Oh, I see, I thought both of those Mr Chairman, can conveniently be grouped together as Exhibit D, unless there is a specific reason why my learned friend wishes to have them separated into two separate Exhibits.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand it is common cause that 7, is Mela?

MR VISSER: That is correct, that is how we were given to understand Mr Chairman. In fact, 8 is the gentleman by the name of Pumeso Nxiweni. Pumeso is in fact one of the deceased for whose death amnesty is sought in these proceedings.

We will refer to him as Pumeso Mr Chairman, because it falls easier on the tongue than Nxiweni.

Mr Chairman, the application before you this morning, is the application of Sergeant Adrian Steven Rosslee, who applies for amnesty for any unlawful act, omission or offence committed by him in respect of the abduction, the arrest, detention, assassination and the disposal of the body of one Sipho Stanley Bhila, on 22 February 1987 as well as for the unlawful possession of a firearm or firearms and ammunition utilised to assassinate Mr Bhila and for any other act, omission or offence in respect thereof, including any act, omission or offence perpetrated by him in regard to the above, after the event, including the cover up thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on with anything, can I go back and suggest that we have been given Ramatala's affidavit. It has been referred to, that we should call that Exhibit E.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And we have been given ...

MR VISSER: I must just make this one observation Mr Chairman, my Attorney has gone through this, it seems obscure what this is doing here. I am not sure whether Mr Prior wants to use it and for what purpose, but I am just wondering whether we should burden the record until we find out whether this ...

CHAIRPERSON: We can leave that out, but let's get Ramatala in.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There are so many papers.

MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman, that is in order. If my learned friend, Mr Prior wants to refer to the record of the evidence, well then obviously that can be handed in at that stage.

Mr Chairman, Mr Rosslee presents himself as a witness to be sworn in.

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the application you will find in the Bhila volume, called bundle 1 rather, at page 22 and following. If I may first of all Mr Chairman, draw your attention yet again, as you have become accustomed to, to paragraph 7(a) and (b) for the information of the two members of your panel, who have not previously heard how this came about.

Mr Chairman, to cut a very long story short, it came down to a misinterpretation on the reading of paragraph 7(a) and (b) and it is entirely not the fault of the applicants and you will recall Mr Chairman, that on many occasions we have applied for those two paragraphs to be amended as we do again today, for paragraph 7(a) to read National Party and for paragraph 7(b) to read supporter and that not applicable be struck out in both those subparagraphs, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That amendment is made to the application.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Mr Rosslee, you are the applicant in this matter, and it concerns the death of Mr Bhila. You have requested in your application, that the written submissions by the Foundation for Equality before the Law, which is presently and I might add Mr Chairman, for the first time fortunately, included in the papers before the Committee, in the Zandile bundles, volume 2, page 169, volume 2, pages 169 - 404.

CHAIRPERSON: I have assumed Mr Visser (indistinct)

MR VISSER: In due course Mr Chairman. In point of fact, as in the past Mr Chairman, you will find that because it relates really to background studies and so on, it is more conveniently dealt with in written argument and not in the evidence, so we won't burden you today over much, with reference thereto.

In this particular case of Mr Rosslee, I think there are two brief references, but we certainly won't labour the going through those documents with you during this hearing.

Secondly Mr Rosslee, if I may proceed, the written submissions which were handed in Gen Johannes Velder van der Merwe, to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is in Zandile, volume 1, page 126 - 156 and then there is a statement attached to the previous document, which I have referred to, a statement by previous Commissioners of Police and that is contained in Zandile, volume 1 pages 157 - 168.

Lastly, Mr Rosslee is it correct that you have been informed of certain evidence which was presented by ex-Minister of Law and Order, Mr Adrian Vlok and Gen Van der Merwe in the

COSATU House/Khotso House application for amnesty, and you find yourself in agreement and you make common cause generally with their evidence. Is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Will you please now Mr Rosslee, take over and inform the Committee, tell the Committee something about yourself, your personal background, etc.

MR ROSSLEE: I was born in 1960 in Pretoria, I was raised in a pretty conservative and disciplined household. I was raised with the understanding or the belief that the government of the day, which was then the National Party, was the party to support.

Prominent people in my childhood, through my schooling, etc, supported and grew that belief in me.

MR VISSER: Yes, when you refer to prominent people, what type of people do you refer to, who expressed opinions about the government policy of the day when you were growing up, what type of person are you referring to?

MR ROSSLEE: It would be obviously politicians that we had heard on radio and so forth, teachers, business people that we came into contact with.

MR VISSER: Even ministers of the church?

MR ROSSLEE: Ministers as well.

MR VISSER: Was it fashionable in those days when you grew up, post 1960 say to 1970, 1975, was it fashionable to criticise the government policy of separate development or apartheid?

MR ROSSLEE: I believe it was not fashionable to criticise that. I think the majority of the people, and certainly my belief at that time was that that was the policy to go with.

MR VISSER: As is manifested by the fact that election after election, the same party was voted in as the government, isn't that so?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You joined the police in 1978, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you have set out a summary at pages 22 and page 23, pages 22 and 23, of the Bhila volume 1, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And just to summarise it if I may, for purposes of saving time, you in fact had more than one force number, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You joined the police in January of the year 1978 and you were first stationed in the Uniform Branch from July 1978 and you did five tours of duty in South West Africa and two trips of duty on the RSA borders of the RSA and Botswana and the far Northern Transvaal, would that be correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: You were placed with the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal in their division of VIP bodyguards in 1980?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you first left the South African Police in 1981?

MR ROSSLEE: That is right.

MR VISSER: In 1981 - 1983, you did the two call ups in South West Africa?

MR ROSSLEE: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And in 1984, you got shot by an anti-tank missile, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: The vehicle I was driving in, got shot out.

MR VISSER: Well, got shot out, yes all right. I am sorry yes, I said you got shot, the vehicle got shot.

In 1986 you were recruited to Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And in May 1987, you resigned from the South African Police, would that be correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Would you please, if you would Mr Rosslee, just tell the Committee something about the influences upon you flowing from your duties and experiences as a policeman in the service of the South African Police.

MR ROSSLEE: During that time, the very strong influences on myself and I am sure a lot of other serving policemen to the political circumstances in the country at that stage, was the rioting and civil unrest that was rife then.

The many deaths, injuries and damage to property, attacks against the (indistinct), including police officers and police stations, were virtually everyday occurrences then.

MR VISSER: Were you personally exposed to situations and incidents of violence?

MR ROSSLEE: On many occasions Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you see people who had died as a result of attacks?

MR ROSSLEE: I had seen quite a lot of them.

MR VISSER: All right, yes, we won't go into the details of that Mr Rosslee, I know it is painful for you to recall. Would you please continue.

MR ROSSLEE: I think what probably had the biggest effect on me, was when the liberation forces started targeting civilians and at that stage, I was at the Security Branch, doing ANC/PAC investigations and came into very close contact with those victims, being either policemen or civilians that had been murdered, petrol bombed, shot or whatever.

During my experience in the bush, I was in various contacts, I've been in landmine explosions, also seen civilians blown up by landmines, I have been blown up by landmines and that had a very deep and lasting effect on me.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before we go on, could I interrupt here. Could I interrupt, could you indicate the rank you held at various times.

MR VISSER: Would you please do that Mr Rosslee?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, until approximately 1984 or 1985, I held the rank of Constable and then was promoted to the rank of Sergeant.

MR VISSER: That was your last increase in rank, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Rosslee, it is a matter of history now that your experiences through these years, in the South African Police caused you to suffer certain psychological effects.

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Can you just inform the Committee about that?

MR ROSSLEE: I have been under psychological treatment and diagnosed with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of experiences during my time in the South African Police.

MR VISSER: Have you received treatment for that?

MR ROSSLEE: I have been hospitalised and have received treatment Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Are you presently receiving treatment?

MR ROSSLEE: I am.

MR VISSER: Are there problems with your medical aid fund for payment of these treatments?

MR ROSSLEE: To a large degree, I haven't had medical aid since April last year.

MR VISSER: And do you have to fund your treatment on your own?

MR ROSSLEE: I do.

MR VISSER: There is a report placed before the Committee, marked Exhibit C1, of a certain Russel E. Matthews, who describes himself as a Clinical Phycologist and according to his report, it appears that you have been divorced for 11 years at the time when he saw you in January 1997?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Chair.

MR VISSER: And you have a son and a daughter, the daughter being the eldest of the two children who would now be around 14 and the son would now be around 12, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: My daughter is 15 and my son is 13.

MR VISSER: 13? In whose custody are they?

MR ROSSLEE: The children have been in my custody for I think it is about 10 or 11 years.

MR VISSER: All right, and Dr Matthews says at page 2, in paragraph 2.4.8 that you are intensely aware that there is something drastically wrong with you, because of certain things which you experienced, would that be correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Part of which was that you have nightmares?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: You make excessive use of alcohol and you have backflashes and relive certain incidents which he refers to as "sluipmoord insidente", but certain incidents from your past in which there was violence, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Chair.

MR VISSER: And other things. He describes you Mr Rosslee as a superior intelligent person who is extremely depressive at page 3, and he says in paragraph 3.2.5 and I quote "further it seems that the patient does not have a very high frustration level and he does not always, he cannot always control his feelings of aggression".

Would you say and you must take the punishment Mr Rosslee, would you say that that is a correct description of your condition?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I would say so.

MR VISSER: 3.2.7 the Doctor says on the Rorschach Test, the patient deliver responses which entails themes of war and death. Is that a theme that is foremost in your mind, and which you cannot rid yourself of?

MR ROSSLEE: It is something I would like to rid myself of, but I have not been able to Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And you compensate for this by, says the Doctor, by appearing self assured and we also know that you try to compensate for that by using alcohol in excess, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is right, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: I am not going to repeat the rest of Annexure C2 and C3, they speak for themselves. But as you say, you suffer from major depression which Dr Potgieter refers to, bottom of the page, and you are diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is right.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am not going to go through the rest. It speaks for itself. In effect, Mr Rosslee, is it fair to say that you have tried your best to remove, expunge from your memory, your experiences from the past?

MR ROSSLEE: I have tried Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And you may even have succeeded to some extent, but you are here today and you understand that you've got to make full disclosure, so painful as it might be, you are called upon to delve into your memory in order to place before this Committee the full relevant facts as you can remember it. So, that is your duty today, painful as it may be, that is what the Act requires of you.

Will you please Mr Rosslee, give the Committee some insight into how you experienced the political background to the incident for which you are applying for amnesty today.

MR ROSSLEE: I will. The political situation at the stage we are talking about when this incident occurred, was when the Security Branch and the Security Forces were being asked to do more and more in the conflict of the political struggle, which at that stage, I think most of us had regarded as being a war situation.

We had to fight and the feeling was we were fighting an undeclared war, we were fighting against terrorists and soldiers and being expected to act as policemen within the parameters of the law.

MR VISSER: On the other hand, the forces that you were fighting, were they also fighting according to rules?

MR ROSSLEE: Not from where we were standing, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes, is that all that you want to say?

MR VISSER: No, at that stage, Mr Chairman, the feeling was also that with their (indistinct) and support if you like that the liberation movements had at that stage, "everybody" was, if he was a patriot, he was a combatant.

Every black person at that stage, I suppose we regarded as being potentially MK cadres.

MR VISSER: In the words of the ANC, a worker by day and a soldier by night?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes, please continue.

MR ROSSLEE: It became apparent that we were losing grounding in the struggle, or it appeared that we were losing ground in the struggle, and that more and more pressure was being put on us to perform more, to do more, to curb the rising tide as it were.

MR VISSER: Yes. To use the old cliche, if I may to normalise the situation?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes, please continue.

MR ROSSLEE: The result was that I think myself and a lot of my colleagues, were acting more like soldiers than what we were policemen, because of the nature of the conflict we were in.

MR VISSER: Did you consider that that is what was expected from you, in effect was that what it boiled down to?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, it was my opinion that the only way we were going to curb what we were facing, was by fighting it.

MR VISSER: Please continue.

MR ROSSLEE: Our role changed as I perceived it, more from investigations and criminal matters to dealing with political matters.

The Security Branch, we were being exposed to all the political ideologies, etc, that we were made to study.

MR VISSER: Yes, the normal policeman being a person who should be there to prevent crime, investigate crime, and to take people to court to be prosecuted. In the case of ...

CHAIRPERSON: To protect the public from crime?

MR VISSER: I hope I didn't say anything different. I make the mistake of not listening to myself when I am talking Mr Chairman.

In any event, and here you found yourself, is that what you are saying, embroiled in a political struggle which is very different from normal policing duties?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman, especially in the light of the amount of time a lot of us spent in the bush and then coming back to what is referred to in those days, as Civvy Street.

MR VISSER: Did you find any difficulty in readapting after coming back from the bush as you put it, to normal Civvy Street, where rules and regulations applied and where you as policemen were expected to abide by the precise four corners of legal enactments and legal empowerment?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I believe the difficulty to a large degree lay in that the people or the forces we were fighting in the bush, were fundamentally the same people we were encountering on the streets in towns and cities when we came back, and we had to fight them with a different set of rules.

MR VISSER: Yes. Would you please continue?

MR ROSSLEE: I also believe that because we have the changing scenario on South Africa and pressure put on us to perform, that to a certain degree, I know I did, you believe that if we operated not strictly within the law, that it would not necessarily be condoned, but that it wouldn't be wrong in totality.

MR VISSER: A blind eye might be turned?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes. Is it your impression that Gen Erasmus, who gave evidence before an Amnesty Committee in Port Elizabeth, was correct when he said that he never reported higher up, because there would have been repercussions, but he got the distinct impression that even if people higher up knew, they wouldn't have said anything, because it would have suited them if they thought that unlawful conduct was in fact assisting in fighting the battle at the time?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I do believe that whoever it was, senior people of the Force, government, whoever, believed that it suited or the means justified the ends that there would have been a blind eye turned.

MR VISSER: Mr Adrian Vlok, on more than one occasion gave evidence, particularly in the COSATU House and the Khotso House amnesty application, that with hindsight he considers himself guilty of exerting pressure by making use of certain phrases and certain language whereby the impression could have been created with members of the Police, that they were expected to act illegally.

Is that really what you were referring to at this particular stage?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say so, because being exhorted to hunt the enemy, drive them out, whatever. To our mind at that stage there wasn't a lot of ways or many ways in which to interpret that.

MR VISSER: Yes, and also as far as the awarding of medals were concerned, where it now appears quite frequently, that medals were rewarded where in fact the actions that were taken, were in fact illegal and which again, would have instilled a bona fide belief with the members, did it not, that there was condonation of what they were doing, although it was illegal?

MR ROSSLEE: I believe so Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes. And Gen Van der Merwe gave evidence, perhaps you can just tell the Committee what he said and whether you agree with that.

MR ROSSLEE: My understanding is that Gen Van der Merwe said that we were practically being in a war situation, it was understandable that members of the Security Branch, that the distinction between what is legal and illegal, could become a very grey area, and he could understand our members who were involved in this political war, could well believe or have bona fide belief that if they did something illegal for the government, it fell within the parameters of our duties, because we were doing what was expected of us.

MR VISSER: Did you have that same ...

MR MALAN: Sorry, where - this quote, do you have a reference to that? I didn't find that specific quote in his statement.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, yes, I am afraid, we didn't want to burden the record with adding the record of the COSATU House/Khotso House, it comes from that amnesty application.

If you wish, we could make a printout of that page and give it to you.

MR MALAN: I will appreciate it if it is available.

MR VISSER: Yes certainly Mr chairman, we will do that.

I must say that there is a reference to the grey area also in the papers now before us, my Attorney is just looking for it, if he finds it, I will draw your attention to that reference Mr Chairman.

In paragraph 10(a) and (b) of your written application, at page 27 - 30 of the Bhila volume, you briefly stated general aspects of the political objective in regard to the particular act for which you apply for amnesty for.

Do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR ROSSLEE: I do Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: In point of fact, before I forget, do you confirm the whole of your written application form, apart from those issues relating to the facts of this incident, which we will address later, and which you will attempt to give an explanation for certain divergent evidence, which appears.

Apart from that, do you confirm the correctness of the balance of your affidavit?

MR ROSSLEE: I do Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am going to interrupt the leading of the evidence, because this is important. We are referring to page 165 of the Zandile bundle 1. In paragraph 26, you will find a paragraph in the statement by the Generals, so here it is not particularly Gen Van der Merwe speaking, but the contents of this, I would gladly read to you Mr Chairman, it says the nature of this conflict and violence, blurred the traditional distinction between combatants and non-combatants, between legitimate and illegitimate targets and more importantly, between acceptable and unacceptable methods.

They often occurred in a grey area between legitimate orders given, the interpretation of such orders in circumstances where secrecy and other factors made proper communication difficult or impossible. The requests which were not always properly expressed or formulated and a mixing of cultures of the various Security departments through the National Management System, which negatively effected the normal day to day functioning of the South African Police.

But we will find the other and let you have it Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: If I could just point out that this does not refer to illegal acts being their duties, which was what I referred to previously.

MR VISSER: Yes, I take your point Mr Chairman. Would you care to elaborate on the question of political objectives to what you have already stated in your application, at pages 27 - 30 Mr Rosslee?

MR ROSSLEE: I can only speak from my viewpoint and from what I have heard and seen from friends and colleagues of mine in the SAP.

I would like to say in the case, many of us served on the South African borders and outside the South African borders and South West Africa or Namibia and Angola, and I in particular, I think did seven tours of duty in the bush. I was subjected to counter-insurgency training, advanced training and also served and was subjected to or underwent further counter-insurgency training in South West Africa with the Koevoet Unit.

What it boils down to is myself and a lot of members in those days, were trained to think and act like soldiers.

MR VISSER: You have told us that when returning to Civvy Street as it were, you had certain problems to adapt. After you became transferred to ...

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Visser, may I just get some indication from the applicant, what does he mean by trained and act like soldiers. Could you just describe that for us?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, to my way of thinking when I became a policeman, I wasn't going to be hunting terrorists on a daily basis where they were using explosives, automatic weapons and that sort of thing against us.

My mind, when I became a policeman was, we are going to catch criminals, take them to courts of law, and they were going to be incarcerated. In this case, we were fighting a war.

MR MALAN: Was your understanding that you would fight it, indeed like is expected of a member of the Defence Force, like a soldier in other words, within a discipline and hierarchy and structure, that indeed rules existed, or are you using this in a metaphorical way, different to what is expected of a soldier?

MR ROSSLEE: Sorry Mr Chairman, I am not quite with the question there.

MR MALAN: Were you to act basically as a member of the Defence Force or are you saying more than that?

MR ROSSLEE: I believe that Mr Chairman, that we probably did more than that, because we were a specialised unit, and more was expected of us.

MR MALAN: What more? Could you please describe that. I am not sure how I should understand your evidence. If you say we were trained to act like soldiers, soldiers are also subject to rules, discipline, order.

MR ROSSLEE: I agree with you.

MR MALAN: What are you saying, are you saying only that?

MR ROSSLEE: Sir, I agree that yes, we had the discipline, we had the training, there were structures, etc, but the line between being a soldier and a war situation and being a policeman, are very different things in my mind.

MR MALAN: That I fully understand, I want to understand what you mean by being a soldier, that is effectively like any other member of the Defence Force or any special Task Unit, subject to their rules, subject to the discipline, subject to orders of higher officers?

MR ROSSLEE: I agree to that.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand, you are talking about soldiers in a war situation, not soldiers in peace?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct, that is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Just to elaborate perhaps on that Mr Rosslee, South West, the northern part of South West Africa, at the time of the operations of Koevoet, was it declared operational area, isn't that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And that would have been under the control of the Military?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you were required and ordered to work together with the Military in South West Africa, while you were a member of Koevoet?

MR ROSSLEE: There was a lot of cooperation, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: I am not suggesting for a moment that your duties were to perform operations together with the Army all the time, but it did happen?

MR ROSSLEE: It most definitely did.

MR VISSER: Yes, and those operations were basically or sometimes at least, seek and destroy operations?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. There would be attacks and you would follow or track the perpetrators down and if there was a fight, there would be people killed?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Is that what you are referring to when you talk about acting as a soldier?

MR ROSSLEE: Definitely.

MR VISSER: It is not as if you walked with your briefcase with a docket under your arm, into the bush?

MR ROSSLEE: Most definitely not.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, and thank you to the panel.

CHAIRPERSON: As I gather from other evidence we have heard about Koevoet operations, you fought against them, but one of your main objectives was to try to capture the terrorists to endeavour to turn them, so that you could use them later?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Thank you to you Mr Chairman. All right, you now are in the Security Branch Mr Rosslee, and you have already told the Committee, that you became more and more subjected to the political perspectives, which you were required to deal with, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You came into contact with different ideologies and different points of view of organisations and groupings?

MR ROSSLEE: That is right Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you have to, were you required to make studies of these different organisations and groupings and different ideologies?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, yes, within the Security Branch we went on courses where we were educated with regard to different political ideologies, etc.

MR VISSER: Well, I might be forgiven perhaps to say that you were brainwashed in a sense. You were given one perspective and one perspective only, from one angle, isn't that so?

MR ROSSLEE: Most certainly.

MR VISSER: Yes. And did you accept that as being a true and correct perspective?

MR ROSSLEE: I did.

MR VISSER: Yes. Please continue.

MR ROSSLEE: The exposure to dangers from supporters, cadres of the liberation movements, attacks, assassinations, attempts on policemen, attacks on policemen, murders of policemen, etc, had a very profound effect on me. They were colleagues of mine that were killed in the townships, while on duty, etc, while they were performing their duties.

MR VISSER: Yes, and I think you have dealt with your experiences, I am not going to revisit that Mr Rosslee.

All along, during the exercise and execution of your duties, was there also another sense of responsibility which dominated you?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say the overriding sense of responsibility would have been to the community or the citizens of the country at that stage, to protect them from as it became know, the "Red Danger" and what was happening in the country.

MR VISSER: Was it your realisation, your experience that you were able to do so effectively?

MR ROSSLEE: I believed that yes, we could fight the war.

MR VISSER: To protect the public effectively from attacks?

MR ROSSLEE: The worse it got, I think the more disillusioned we got about how effective we were in countering.

MR VISSER: Yes. Not to make bones about it, the police were just not able to adequately protect the public.

MR ROSSLEE: Correct.

MR VISSER: We saw bomb attacks, especially in the area Natal, not so, the Amanzimtoti bomb attack, etc, where people were killed and injured?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes.

MR VISSER: What effect did that have on you?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say it made me personally a lot more determined to do more, to be more effective in countering the threat.

MR VISSER: Yes. I think enough of that Mr Rosslee. If you are asked in cross-examination about anything, you are quite willing to delve deeper into the political background, etc. Perhaps we can come to the merits, to the facts of this particular case.

We know it took place some ten, eleven years ago and normally one's memory would fail. In your case, you have told the Committee that you have pointedly attempted to forget, but let's see how much you can remember.

We also know that there are certain, there is a certain divergence of evidence and we will try to deal with it as we go along. Can you from your own memory state what you remember, about the Bhila incident, starting with where it was first, it first came to be spoken about?

MR ROSSLEE: Right, I was at Vlakplaas at that stage, and we were busy with routine duties down in Durban, Port Natal. McCarter and myself were with Major Andy Taylor, when he asked us to eliminate Bhila.

MR VISSER: In your application, Mr Rosslee, as was pointed out yesterday by the Honourable Chairman, to me, the last paragraph at page 24 of the Bhila volume 1, your application stated in Durban, we were met by Mr L. Wasserman of the local Security Branch. He told us that two of the accused in the Amanzimtoti bomb blast criminal trial, had been acquitted, but was still continuing their subversive actions and that our task was to "arrest" them for purposes of elimination.

Then you go on that you assume that the orders came from higher up. Is that statement, well, is that paragraph entirely correct?

MR ROSSLEE: It is not Mr Chairman. Mr Wasserman was our normal liaison when we came down to Port Natal, and in normal matters, everyday matters, he would have briefed us on the situation in Port Natal, but that is obviously incorrect.

MR VISSER: Yes, but when you signed this affidavit, believing at the time that it was Mr Wasserman that gave the order, is that the reason why you assumed that the orders have come from higher up?

MR ROSSLEE: It would have been one of the reasons yes.

MR VISSER: And what would have been the reason for assuming that the order came from higher than Mr Wasserman?

MR ROSSLEE: Well, I find it difficult that someone like Mr Wasserman could make that decision in the light of the seriousness of the act that we were asked to commit.

MR VISSER: Yes. All right, now application also refers to the elimination of people who were involved in the Amanzimtoti bomb blast criminal trial. Do you remember that?

MR ROSSLEE: I remember that Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Then I must immediately interrupt your line of thinking, by taking you to Exhibit B. Exhibit B, purports to be an affidavit, signed by you, do you agree?

MR ROSSLEE: I agree Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And it was in fact signed by you?

MR ROSSLEE: That is right.

MR VISSER: Will you please tell the Committee first of all how it came about in April 1996, that you signed this. Mr Chairman, the date appears on the last page, page 7 of Annexure B, 12th of April, so it seems. Yes, it appears on two places Mr Chairman, 12th of April 1996.

How did it come about that you signed this affidavit?

MR ROSSLEE: Well, my brother contacted me and said that the Attorney General's Special Investigation Team was looking for me and that they could not find me, and gave me ...

MR VISSER: Just go a little slower, there is nothing to rush you, just go slower, yes.

MR ROSSLEE: And gave me a telephone number to call which was that of Captain Holmes.

MR VISSER: Captain Holmes? Yes, did you call him?

MR ROSSLEE: I called him and they asked me to come into the office because they had some questions to ask me about incidents.

MR VISSER: Yes. Did you go?

MR ROSSLEE: Under extreme stress, yes, I did Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: What transpired there?

MR ROSSLEE: I was confronted by Captain Holmes, I think it was Brigadier Human and one or two other people and I was confronted with the statement made by Steve Bosch, with regard to the Bhila incident.

MR VISSER: Was that the witness that gave evidence yesterday?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: How do you mean you were confronted with that?

MR ROSSLEE: I was confronted with that in the fashion that it was put in front of me and said, we already know what has happened, you might as well cooperate with us.

If you don't cooperate, we are going to arrest you.

MR VISSER: Arrest you for what?

MR ROSSLEE: For the murder of Bhila.

MR VISSER: I see. Was the contents of Mr Bosch's affidavit then conveyed to you?

MR ROSSLEE: In broad outlines, yes.

MR VISSER: Would that have been in what sense, in the sense that it would be read to you that Mr Bosch says this, what do you say about that?

MR ROSSLEE: Very much so. Captain Holmes would say Mr Bosch says X, Y and Z, what do you say about that.

MR VISSER: Yes, so indeed in your affidavit you dealt with issues even if it was merely to say I can't remember that, whatever the case may be, and we will come to that in a moment.

All right, from Annexure B it would appear that you were in Durban in 1987, between the 10th of February and the 27th of February, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: That is the third paragraph on page 1 Mr Chairman. I don't know whether your pages have been paginated, I hope they have. It is from page 1 - 7. I do apologise Mr Chairman.

The last paragraph, the second last paragraph states that this is a Section 204 affidavit and it says, this affidavit says, what I am going to point out later, might not be used against me as evidence in a court, for what that is worth.

Then at page 2, I wish to address your attention to. You were now clearly asked about Frank McCarter and Steve Bosch in the first paragraph, you deal with that, and then I want to come to the third paragraph where you say first of all that the group was sent by Major De Kock to go for that period which you referred to, to Natal.

We heard here yesterday from Exhibit D, that there will be evidence that Major De Kock was in fact on leave at the time, and this is supported, that is the second page Mr Chairman, second paragraph, in fact it is numbered paragraph 5 of Ramatala's evidence in E, I said D, it is E, Exhibit E. It is the second page, paragraph 5. He refers to the use of motorcars which to his mind, supports his statement that Mr De Kock was on leave, so first of all, let me ask you this, are you clear in your mind, and can you positively state that you were sent to Durban by De Kock?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot positively state that Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you simply assume that?

MR ROSSLEE: I assume that, because Mr De Kock would normally task us.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right. Al l right, now let's just go on.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, you obviously had experienced this before. Is the position that requests would be made to Major De Kock, was he then, from police officers elsewhere in the country, for assistance on routine matters and a group of you would be sent from Vlakplaas to the area to assist the officer in charge?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And whilst in that area, you would be responsible to the officer in charge of that area and report to him, and take instructions from him?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, with feedback to Major De Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: There was a feedback to Major De Kock, he was told what you were doing?

MR ROSSLEE: That is right.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Except that in this case, apparently Major De Kock says that he knew absolutely nothing about it, and which might be another point supporting the contention that he was on leave at the time.

In any event, you don't know what happened in this particular case as far as reporting to Major De Kock was concerned?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I have no direct knowledge of that.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MALAN: Sorry, may I just ask then, on what basis are you, do you say that you have knowledge that there was reporting back to Major De Kock.

MR ROSSLEE: I said from my previous experience with the units, working in different areas, I know that there were reports given back to Major De Kock on our activities, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Did you personally report to him?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I did not.

MR MALAN: So, how would you know that others did?

MR ROSSLEE: Because I would be with the person in charge of the unit, either when they were speaking to him telephonically or whatever the case may be.

MR MALAN: And in this instance, you have no recollection of any feedback?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman and Mr Malan. Just to go back to the question of the Chairman, there will be evidence later from other applicants in the other incidents, but is it your recollection that Major Andy Taylor at the time, was the Commanding Officer if you will, of the Terrorist Desk, Section? Let me repeat that, of the Anti-Terrorist Section - a tongue twister - in Durban?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Would he then have been the one to request a squad from Vlakplaas if he needed assistance in the monitoring and pointing out of suspected terrorists which may have infiltrated into the area?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And would he then have been the person from whom you would have, your squad or your squad leader would have taken his instructions?

MR ROSSLEE: That is also correct.

MR VISSER: Your previous evidence was that Mr Wasserman was the person who normally briefed you in that situation, on the facts, all right, now we understand.

Now, coming to the discussion which is at the bottom of page 2.

MR MALAN: Mr Visser, just before you proceed there, in the same paragraph which you have covered now, the second part of it, Mr Rosslee states from time to time we received instructions from Major Taylor. These instructions were discussed with Major De Kock beforehand, in order to gain his approval before we did any acts.

Can Mr Rosslee tell us if in this case, whether did Major De Kock while he was on leave, or whoever was acting in his place, was he contacted in order to get approval?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no recollection of getting approval from anybody on the farm for this specific incident Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Why did you then - I am sorry - would you then please explain why you said so in this affidavit, because it appears that you might be referring to this particular incident, rather than speaking generally, does it not?

MR ROSSLEE: It does appear that way Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, when I made this statement, I was under extreme pressure. I was also being led by Captain Holmes with regard to him asking me questions, I was speaking in English, he was taking the statement in Afrikaans and I am sure between the two of us, and my stress levels at that stage, it is quite possible that I assumed a lot of things.

MR MALAN: Excuse me Mr Rosslee, can you speak Afrikaans?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I can.

MR MALAN: Can you speak it fluently?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes.

MR MALAN: Because you say under oath that you made the statement in Afrikaans, so you were not speaking in English and he was writing in Afrikaans.

MR ROSSLEE: We both spoke both languages. We spoke English and Afrikaans, mixed.

MR MALAN: Did I not hear you say now that you spoke English and he wrote in Afrikaans?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, certainly.

MR MALAN: Why do you make a statement and you sign it under oath, that you made this statement in Afrikaans?

MR ROSSLEE: For me there is not a big difference between whether I speak Afrikaans or English, it was easier for him and that is it.

MR MALAN: Sorry, I was speaking Afrikaans now specifically just to test your Afrikaans, but are you saying that indeed the conversation was in Afrikaans, because that is what you said under oath?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, it was in both languages, because I speak English and Afrikaans, I mix them up all the time.

MR MALAN: Why did you then now, earlier say that you were talking in English, he was writing in Afrikaans?

MR ROSSLEE: Because most of the time, I would have been speaking English, because obviously when you are under stress and that, I go back to my home language.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: And staying with this paragraph just a moment longer, was your intention with the words that you spoke or that you spoke or that was written here, that were written here, to refer to this particular incident when you referred to "vooraf uitgeklaar", or was your intention to speak generally?

MR ROSSLEE: I was referring to generally, we would get clarification or the go ahead from Mr De Kock on anything we did in the field.

MR VISSER: Is that the reason why the plural is used, the instructions?

MR ROSSLEE: I should imagine so, yes Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right.

MR MALAN: Can I take it a bit further then, when you made this statement, were you under the impression that Major De Kock was indeed at Vlakplaas, so when you made the statement, you were also under the impression that this was cleared out with him beforehand, because you do not distinguish?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no recollection of him being on the farm, being on leave, or the statement, the actions applying here for, being cleared with him.

MR MALAN: Let me just follow the line of responsibility please. You said in your evidence which was led, that when you went to Natal, you fell under the command of Taylor?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: He would have given you the instructions?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And then you had to make sure that these instructions were carried out? These instructions, were they usually cleared out with Major De Kock beforehand?

MR ROSSLEE: Normally when I say it was professional courtesy ...

MR MALAN: Sorry, my apologies again for having spoken Afrikaans, but if you have no difficulty then you can continue to answer.

MR ROSSLEE: I think number one it was a professional courtesy to inform Major De Kock, what we were up to from the people who requested our presence wherever we were working.

MR MALAN: Mr Rosslee, are you saying it was a courtesy to De Kock, or did you have to clear the instructions as you said in your affidavit with Major De Kock, there is quite a difference is there not?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say a bit of both. Number one, getting approval from Major De Kock, that we were going to do something, and number two, keeping him in the picture as to what we were busy with down here, wherever we were.

MR MALAN: So if he was not in agreement with any of the instructions, he would have said to you no, or he would have confirmed it and only then did it become a real instruction, was that your understanding of the operations?

MR ROSSLEE: That was my understanding of how it would operate.

MR MALAN: So you did not have to comply with any order of Taylor, unless De Kock would have, or whoever was at that moment in charge at Vlakplaas, would have confirmed the order. Is that what you are saying?

MR ROSSLEE: My understanding is that I would have had confirmation from Vlakplaas, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, you were sent down regularly to do routine, what amounted to routine work, that was to oversee the askaris in their identification, in their surveillance of suspected terrorists?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the routine. Here you were being asked to do something completely different, that is to murder someone who had just been acquitted in court? It would have been very important, wouldn't it, to have checked that with the Commanding Officer at Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: I believe it would.

CHAIRPERSON: Because that is not what you had been sent there to do?

MR ROSSLEE: Because of the seriousness or the nature of the act, my belief is yes, it probably would have been cleared out, or should have been cleared with, should have.

CHAIRPERSON: It should have been cleared up?

MR ROSSLEE: It should have been cleared.

MR VISSER: All right, well, let us step off that paragraph then and go to the next. We come now to this discussion which is the point which we reached on your application form, before we went to Exhibit B.

You say in Exhibit B, you say there were discussions held with Mr Taylor and Lawrie Wasserman. The three of us, the three members from Vlakplaas that is, our three members of Vlakplaas, or us three members of Vlakplaas, McCarter, Bosch and yourself.

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct, we were the three members down at that stage.

MR VISSER: Yes. And at this meeting where you heard the order or the request, whatever you want to call it, concerning Mr Bhila, in your affidavit, Exhibit B you say the three members, white members to put it that way, from Vlakplaas were there, as well as Wasserman, together with Major Taylor. What do you say about that?

MR ROSSLEE: At the stage of making the statement, I believed that to be true. Obviously in hindsight and in consultation and listening to other evidence, that is not the fact and I recall that it was Major Taylor, McCarter and myself who were together.

MR VISSER: What you can positively give evidence to is the fact that you were there and you know McCarter was there, and you know Taylor was there?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes. Then in both Exhibit B as well as in your application form, you speak of two persons who had been acquitted. In fact, in Exhibit B you say two or three persons who had been acquitted.

What is your recollection today, do you still stand with two or is it one or is it two or three?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection is that at that briefing, we spoke about two people.

MR VISSER: Yes. McCarter seems to recall only one person, Bhila.

MR ROSSLEE: I can't speak for McCarter, Mr Chairperson, I recall speaking or hearing about two people.

MR VISSER: In this case, you are not prepared to make the concession that you might be wrong, because this is a vivid recollection of yours?

MR ROSSLEE: I remember very clearly speaking of two people.

MR VISSER: Yes. They were black men, these two people you say in your Exhibit B, do you recall that as well?

MR ROSSLEE: I remember that Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: I want you to cast your mind back to the time and tell the Committee as best you can remember, what exactly Taylor said.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember the exact words, but the gist of it was that these people had been acquitted for bombing incidents or a bomb incident, for some reason Amanzimtoti stayed with me, and that because of their previous history, training and the potential for them to get even more or further involved in the activities and the potential for further loss of life, bombings, etc, that they should be eliminated.

MR VISSER: Yes. You did not remember at the time when you signed your application form at page 24, or at the time that you signed your affidavit, Exhibit B the names of any of the two?

MR ROSSLEE: No, the first time I heard, or I recalled the name of the deceased, was when Captain Holmes brought it to my attention.

MR VISSER: All right. The question of what particular incident it was that they were acquitted of in court, appears also to be confusing to your mind. In your application you say it was the Amanzimtoti bomb and we know which one that is and in Exhibit B, page 3, you refer to a McGoo bomb. Is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman. I suppose when I made the statement, the 204 statement, that I either couldn't remember Amanzimtoti or which incident, and McGoo's having been also a very prominent bomb, that probably stuck in my mind.

MR VISSER: Yes, but what you do remember is that it was a prominent incident?

MR ROSSLEE: I do Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Major Taylor was referring to. Is that the gist of what you can remember was discussed at the time?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Whatever Mr Taylor told you, did it convince you to make common cause with the elimination of and we now know it was Mr Bhila, did it convince you to make common cause?

MR ROSSLEE: Based on what Major Taylor told us, I was convinced that we had to eliminate him or else further damage or acts of violence were going to be perpetrated.

MR VISSER: Were you personally aware of the security situation, the unrest situation in Natal at the time, 1987, what it was like?

MR ROSSLEE: I was. I was very aware of the fact that as McCarter referred to it yesterday, it was called Bombay, or the nickname was Bombay in those days, because of all the activities, explosions, etc taking place here then.

MR VISSER: There will be evidence later, Mr Rosslee about this from members of the unit of Port Natal who will give evidence before this Committee in more detail, but according to personal notes, personal record which was kept by Major Taylor, it appears that in 1987, there were 17 serious incidents of politically related violence. Would that accord with your recollection of the time?

MR ROSSLEE: I wouldn't be able to stipulate a number, but I know that there was a lot of activity going on in Port Natal at that stage.

MR VISSER: It was a hotspot?

MR ROSSLEE: It most definitely was, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: These discussions with Major Taylor, where did they take place?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection is that it took place in his office as C.R. Swart Square.

MR VISSER: Were any of the black members from Vlakplaas present when this discussion took place?

MR ROSSLEE: Not to my recollection Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: All right. Then you say in your amnesty application, page 25, the askaris were sent to the residence of one of the said suspects. Do you know that?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know that Mr Chairman. I do not recall being actively involved in the actual planning, the logistics of how the deceased was going to be kidnapped or taken away. I have no recollection of that.

MR VISSER: What were you told?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection is that Mr Bhila was going to be approached at home or somewhere, and he was going to be lured away from his home, under the pretext that the police or Security Branch was going to arrest him, and the askari or askaris who approached him, were there to take him out of the country for further training.

MR VISSER: For his own safety?

MR ROSSLEE: For his own safety, yes.

MR VISSER: And for further training, yes. And when you say he believed the story and accompanied them to a shooting range, you were not present there, this was a matter of deduction on your part, isn't that?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Let us come then to the actual morning of the abduction of Mr Bhila by asking you, were you personally present when he was either asked to get into a vehicle or transferred from one vehicle to another as far as you can remember?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember being present when the transfer or handover or whatever, took place.

MR VISSER: Yes. Your recollection is clear that firstly you were present yourself, on this particular day, the 22nd of February at the Winkelspruit pistol shooting range of the South African Railway Police?

MR ROSSLEE: I was present there, yes Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And you can remember that a person who we now know is Mr Bhila, was also present there?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: As to the sequence of arrivals, I don't want to confuse you about when Mr Bhila and so on arrived, but I just want to ask you this, did Mr Wasserman who will also come and give evidence directly after you, proceed to the shooting range in your company or what was the position?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection is that Major Taylor and Mr Wasserman arrived later the afternoon Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Can you remember more or less what time it was that you arrived at the pistol shooting range?

MR ROSSLEE: If I remember correctly, it was early in the morning, when I say early, it must have been about mid-morning probably, if I remember correctly.

MR VISSER: What time do you place on mid-morning?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say about nine, or ten o'clock.

MR VISSER: Nine, or ten o'clock. And what time would you say if you have to guess and reconstruct today, what time would you say that Taylor and Wasserman arrived?

MR ROSSLEE: It would be a guess from my side, but I would say probably in the region of after half past three.

MR VISSER: Yes, you refer to the fact that you and Bosch and McCarter as well as Wasserman, were - the sentence doesn't really make sense, it is the bottom of page 3, perhaps I should just read it, it says I, Bosch, McCarter, Wasserman and I cannot recall if Major Taylor arrived there later at an old club house that was situated at an old shooting range, where we were waiting for the kidnapped person.

That seems to suggest, does it not, that Wasserman was already there and maybe Taylor as well, waiting for the arrival of Mr Bhila. And if it is what this suggests, I am asking you, was that correct as far as you are now concerned, having had the benefit of listening to other people and having had the benefit of rethinking the whole incident?

MR ROSSLEE: Having had the benefit of having spoken to and heard other people's evidence, I can say that what is in that 204 statement, with regard to that paragraph, was not correct. I now remember Major Taylor and Mr Wasserman arriving later the afternoon.

MR VISSER: Yes. All right. Can I just go back then a step, because I jumped a step, go back to paragraph 2 of Exhibit B.

After this conversation, this discussion had taken place at C.R. Swart Square, you have already told us that you weren't part of the planning, but you were told what had happened, etc. You then go on to say if I recall correctly, Mike, which refers to Michael Lembede, Spyker, which refers to a person by the name of Spyker Mhieza, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And Wasserman were tasked with the kidnapping of the person, the abduction. Now, what do you say of this paragraph today, with your knowledge which you have now?

MR ROSSLEE: The knowledge I have today, the recollection I have today is that the only reason I could have thought that Mhieza was present at all in this, was that in general he and Lembede would work together with us when we were down in Port Natal.

Because they generally reported in to Mr Wasserman, I suppose the mental picture would have been that the three of them were involved with it. With hindsight, I know that one of the askaris actually did, or was tasked with approaching Mr Bhila.

MR VISSER: Yes, but you see this paragraph deals with the abduction, and what it says in plain language or plain Afrikaans language is that if you can remember correctly, Lembede, Mhieza and Wasserman were tasked to do the abduction.

MR ROSSLEE: In light of the evidence that has already been heard, and my own recollection, that is not correct.

MR VISSER: All right, we might return to that. Let's just go a little further, you then speak in Exhibit B, paragraph 2 the second part of it about the planning and you have already told us what that consisted of.

MR MALAN: I am sorry Mr Visser, if I can interrupt you. Sorry, I don't know why I am getting back to Afrikaans every time.

Why Mr Rosslee are you saying, that is not correct that Wasserman, Spyker and Michael was not tasked to organise the abduction?

MR ROSSLEE: There would be two reasons Mr Chairman. Number one is in consultation speaking to people, I remember that they weren't tasked to do that, and number two is, from an operational point of view, it would have been silly.

MR MALAN: Sorry, for interrupting you. How can you remember that something did not take place? Surely a memory goes as to something that indeed take place? You cannot remember something that did not take place, but continue, answer it again. I am just very much confused by such an answer.

MR ROSSLEE: All right, from an operational point of view, with them being stationed down in Port Natal, it would have been silly to use them to approach Mr Bhila for an operation of that kind in broad daylight.

MR MALAN: So that is simply based on a deduction on what would have been rational or "prudent"?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: But you have no specific other recollection?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I don't.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: But as I understand this passage and I have a difficulty with the handwriting, what it says is these three people were responsible for the planning but an askari was to go to the house, you said you did not know the askari's name, but he had afro hairstyle?

It was not saying that these three people were to go to the house and expose themselves? There was an askari and you described the askari's hairstyle if you read the second half of paragraph 2.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the reason why the evidence is being presented as I have, is if you read the first part of paragraph 2 in isolation, it certainly gives the impression that these were the people who made ...

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't made in isolation. It was made together. He said these three and then he - now he says he can say they didn't because as they were stationed in Natal, they wouldn't have been used.

If you read the whole document, they weren't going to be exposed. It is this other askari who was going to expose himself.

MR VISSER: I was just coming to that Mr Chairman, I don't think after your remarks that I need to go into it much further then.

MR MALAN: No sorry Mr Visser, this is important, because it also goes as to credibility. Mr Rosslee makes a statement under oath, in which he makes very specific statements as to the planning, the task for the abduction, then he continues to say who in fact were used by the planning team to do, to effect the abduction.

Now suddenly he tells us he can remember something that didn't take place. That is a major problem. If you could bring him back to the beginning of paragraph 2 and try to explain to us why that stands there, and furthermore why does he deny the correctness of that paragraph at this moment in time.

MR ROSSLEE: The reason I deny or question the veracity of that paragraph right now is just having thought through it, maybe or should I say that I have, I think that, or my supposition would be that Lembede or Spyker or Wasserman would be involved from the point of view that they were local, they knew where Bhila lived, etc. From that point of view, they would be involved, giving addresses, maybe pointing out a house or something like that.

But the actual abduction, no.

MR MALAN: Then Mr Rosslee, isn't it probable that what you said in that first section of paragraph 2 on page 3 of Exhibit B, is exactly correct in terms of how your memory served you when you made the statement?

There is nothing abnormal in this content?

MR ROSSLEE: I believe not, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Do you believe that it is not correct, or do you believe that it indeed may well be correct?

MR ROSSLEE: It may well be correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Well, the long and the short of it is that the distinction that is drawn between the abduction and the general planning as to how it would come about, would appear to be, would appear - well Mr Chairman, I don't want to lead the witness and certainly not on argument - perhaps I should put it differently.

In the first part of paragraph 2, you talk of the abduction per se, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: The next paragraph deals with the planning, as to how it would take place? Is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct sir.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Visser, my understanding is very different, that the first deals with the overall planning. Who was responsible for the abduction? The second goes as to what indeed was the content of the plan which is overarched by the first paragraph?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am very happy to accept that, but I thought you were going to tell me, but look at the word "ontvoering", and what do you make of that, and that is the reason why I am leading this evidence in the way I am Mr Chairman, I am trying to be of assistance.

All right, I think let's turn the page, we have dealt with paragraph 3, let's go over to the next page.

MR MALAN: May I just ask, the askari that you refer to Mr Rosslee, with the afro hairstyle, have you in the meantime been able to ascertain the name of the individual?

MR ROSSLEE: No idea Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Visser, in all your discussions in terms of this statement and also your application, you refer to two or three people, you specifically refer at least to two persons who had to be abducted and killed, that was part of the overall planning?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Will you at some stage deal with that still, is that the intention or do we deal with that now?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we can take it no further, he remembers two, he doesn't remember the names. The other persons remember one.

What can I tell you?

MR MALAN: Okay, may I then pursue that just for a moment? Can you recall any planning or implementation on a second individual?

MR ROSSLEE: None, whatsoever Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: You were never again further involved in any planning or implementation, except the killing of what now turns out to be Mr Bhila?

MR ROSSLEE: None whatsoever.

MR MALAN: But you would not be able to say that in their planning, they did not involve other persons to kill a second individual?

MR ROSSLEE: I wouldn't have any knowledge of that.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I might if I may be allowed the luxury of speculating a little bit, I may be of some assistance.

It is a fact that there were four persons that were discharged from the Ramlakan case. The one was Mr Bhila, then there was another person by the name of Mhlati I believe it was, I will get his name in a moment, but the other two are very important, the one was Zandile and the other was Pumeso.

So yes, Mr Chairman, Mr Malan is quite correct in his line of thinking, and you will hear later on during these hearings what happened to those two people.

Now, you say that Bhila, we are going to refer to him as Mr Bhila because we know it was Mr Bhila, was brought there by Michael Lembede and Spyker Mhieza. I am not going to repeat the argument about you remembering or not remembering about Spyker or being uncertain about it, I am just going to leave it, because you have dealt with it.

But then you say there was another person who you thought might have been Mr Letsatsi. Now, first of all, who was Mr Letsatsi?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Letsatsi was one of the members of Vlakplaas.

MR VISSER: And you thought when you signed Exhibit B, that Letsatsi was one of the persons who arrived there with Mr Bhila?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that letsatsi and the other askaris, doesn't he say?

MR VISSER: Oh yes.

MR ROSSLEE: And the other askaris.

MR VISSER: Oh yes, I am sorry, I am coming to that Mr Chairman. Well, let's go on to that immediately. The sentence then continues to say and the other askaris.

Now you see the picture which we have now is Mr Bhila arrives, he is not only accompanied by Michael Lembede and Spyker Mhieza, but also by Letsatsi and all the other askaris. First of all, how many other askaris can you recall, were there?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I don't recall how many there were on the team on that specific trip down to Port Natal.

MR VISSER: Yes. Two or three more apart from Letsatsi?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no idea.

MR VISSER: All right. Now, that is the scenario which the reader of paragraph 4 of Exhibit B, would be left with.

Do you have any explanation for these words appearing here?

MR ROSSLEE: Number one, on Lembede and Mhieza, once again, it was probably an assumption on my part that the two of them were together as they generally were when we worked with them.

With regard to Letsatsi and the other askaris, while I made the statement, Captain Holmes hauled out a bunch of S&T forms and said do you remember X, Y, Z being there, etc?

MR VISSER: Did he ask you about Letsatsi?

MR ROSSLEE: He asked me if Letsatsi was there, I said I remember Letsatsi. I can't remember if he and the other askaris were there.

MR VISSER: Yes, and that is precisely if you read the paragraph in the context and against the background of what you have just stated, this is exactly what this paragraph says.

He says I am not sure, but I think that Letsatsi was there. So this was really in reply to a question?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now, again, if you want to be very technical Mr Rosslee, you talk about Mr Bhila having been bound, shackled or handcuffed, cuffed, and one of the (indistinct). Can you remember precisely how, was it by his hands, by his feet, how was he cuffed, can you remember that?

MR ROSSLEE: I do not recall at the shooting range if his hands were cuffed or if he had leg irons on or - whereas I have a recollection of him being secured though.

MR VISSER: Yes, and then both in your application on page 25 as well as in Exhibit B paragraph 5, you speak of an interrogation of Mr Bhila. What do you say today as to that?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, in hindsight and in listening to other evidence, all I can say to that is that I probably superimposed another incident that I have applied for amnesty for, onto this with regard to the interrogation.

MR VISSER: Did the other incident which you refer to, also involve the death of a person?

MR ROSSLEE: It did Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: In that case, was there in fact an interrogation that took place?

MR ROSSLEE: There was Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Is that the best explanation you can give for why you think that there was an interrogation?

MR ROSSLEE: That is the only thing I can think of Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: If you - today Mr Rosslee, can you specifically remember that there was an interrogation or is that not position?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot today remember if Mr Bhila was interrogated.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you make the applications for amnesty in these two incidents, on the same form?

MR ROSSLEE: I believe so.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should get the form and see whether you refer to interrogation in respect of the other person as well.

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman. We thought of doing that, unfortunately my Attorney hasn't got that form here, but if you don't mind looking at my computer, I will show it to you on my laptop computer, because as it turned out last night, I searched and I found it Mr Chairman, I can assure you there was a reference to an interrogation of the other.

CHAIRPERSON: So there is interrogation in both cases?

MR VISSER: No, no, in that other matter, and he was superimposing what he thought ...

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't he in his amnesty application in this case say, there was an interrogation? Now he says there wasn't, he must have been confusing it with the other one, where he put there was an interrogation. So he doubled the interrogations in his application?

Now he can once again, exclude something that he was confused about before, the problem we have been facing all morning.

MR MALAN: May I pursue that too, because I really have difficulty with this line. What is very clear from Mr Rosslee's statement, both in his application and in his Section 204 statement, is his recollection of two persons who were the targets of assassinations, at least two, in one he says two or three, but two we go by the application.

Secondly, it is very clear that the individual was interrogated. Thirdly he remembers the reason, the purpose of the interrogation which concerned the second person in his mind, which was also targeted and he referred to some other information that we will get to later, Mr Visser.

Now you happen to have heard some of your fellow applicants on this incident, they deny interrogation. Suddenly now, you are quite happy to accept that you again are remembering that something did not take place. I am overstating it, but why would you switch? Is it simply to protect or assist your fellow applicants?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, it is very simple, where I am sitting today, I do not remember if Mr Bhila was interrogated or not.

MR MALAN: But at the time of your making the statement, Section 204 statement, your memory served you as to indeed an interrogation and also the purpose?

MR ROSSLEE: It may so have done, it would appear so, yes Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Now if you don't remember it today, on what basis can you even say that you have superimposed something else onto this incident?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, that is what I am saying. In my mind there might be some confusion between the two incidents on the interrogation aspect of it, there might have been when I made my 204 statement.

MR MALAN: Aren't you actually saying to us that if your fellow applicants, who deny any interrogation, were to be correct, then that may be an explanation for your believing interrogation of Bhila as your confusion of superimposing one incident on another?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I will repeat myself and say that today I do not remember any interrogation of Mr Bhila.

CHAIRPERSON: A moment ago you said you cannot remember if he was interrogated or not. Which is it?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't remember if he was interrogated.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't deny that he was interrogated today?

MR ROSSLEE: I can't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't remember, but two years you did remember, not only that he was interrogated, but what he was asked about?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no reply to that Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Thank you. Mr Visser, may I just pursue another line which I think all of your clients have tended often, and that is what would probably have happened. You often, you too Mr Rosslee, earlier referred to the probabilities of certain lines of development.

Do you think there would probably have been some interrogation if it related indeed also to a second target?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say if there was a second target that we needed information on, it is likely that he would have been interrogated.

MR MALAN: And even if you did not need information, would you not have spoken to him in all likelihood about confirming whatever information you had?

MR ROSSLEE: I should imagine there would have, in that scenario like that, we would have liked to have confirmed, yes.

MR MALAN: So, it seems very strange that Bhila would have been held from fairly early morning, through to dark, without anybody talking to him, asking him any questions?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no recollection of that, I cannot remember if it was done or not.

MR MALAN: No, I am asking you your opinion on whether that would have been par for the cause, or sort of normal, or would he have been interrogated, which is the more likely?

MR ROSSLEE: I am sure someone spoke to him during the course of the day Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: In terms of an interrogation? Asking questions?

MR ROSSLEE: Asking questions, yes.

MR MALAN: You are sure someone would have spoken to him?

MR ROSSLEE: I should imagine someone would have spoken to him Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Did you speak to him personally?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: But you were there?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I was there. I cannot remember speaking to him.

ADV SIGODI: If you did speak to him, would you remember?

MR ROSSLEE: There are things that I have forgotten from that time, I don't know.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it seems that we won't be able to finish with Exhibit B before the short adjournment. This might be a convenient time to take the short adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will take the short adjournment now.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. May I be allowed to interpose to rectify an incorrect statement, which I placed on record when I was speculating a little earlier on before the adjournment. That regards the people who were discharged from guilt in the Ramlakan case.

I was wrong Mr Chairman, Zandile Poshua Ndwandwe, to whom we refer as Zandile, as not an accused in that case. In fact there were three people that were either found not guilty or discharged. Accused 1 was Dudu Buthelezi, who was found not guilty at the end of the case. I am told by my learned friend, Mr Van Schalkwyk who incidentally turns out to have been the Prosecutor in that case, and Bhila and Pumeso were in fact discharged after the close of the State case.

MR MALAN: My information is that Zandile was a State witness, number 38 in that case, didn't give evidence? Bhila Poshua Ndwandwe, on the list page 77, of the indictment is listed as State witness 38, but she didn't give evidence, she wasn't called, probably refused.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we haven't been privy to a copy of that documentation, and perhaps it might be an idea for the completion of the record, if my learned friend would see his way clear, Mr Prior, to perhaps include that as an Exhibit as well as the judgement of Mr Justice Thirion.

Perhaps it might make something clear on the facts Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you want a copy of the judgement?

MR VISSER: Well, Mr Chairman, yes, having said that and having ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, unless there are very serious reasons, I don't see why the Committee should pay for a copy of the judgement. I say this because what we have been shown by Mr Prior, is the record up to the close of the State case, which is 2 549 pages.

If we then have the eight accused giving evidence, I can image the judgement would run into hundreds of pages.

MR VISSER: The judgement is available here Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: Perhaps if I may assist Mr Chairman, I've got the judgement here.

CHAIRPERSON: How long is it?

ADV PRIOR: It is two volumes, it is approximately 200 pages.

MR VISSER: I withdraw that suggestion Mr Chairman. I didn't want to make paper for you Mr Chairman, that wasn't the intention.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I will make available the list of State witnesses at the trial. I do apologise for the record that was put up. I don't know at what basis Mr Chaskalson has put, but the only relevant pages, the last one where Thirion J, discharges accused 7 and 8, and that was the sole purpose of putting that up.

The other information contained in that bundle, is really irrelevant for the purposes of this hearing. I do apologise for that.

MR VISSER: Yes, I understand Mr Chairman. If I may be permitted then to proceed with Mr Rosslee Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, carry on.

MR VISSER: Mr Rosslee, I want to leave the pistol shooting range,but before i do so, just one last aspect in regard to the pistol shooting range, and that appears from page 4 of Exhibit B, where reference is made in paragraph 6 in the following words, "ons het vleis gebraai en so teen sterk skemer het ek", etc. Is that something which you recall today independently, the fact that you prepared meat while at the pistol shooting range?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, to my recollection, we did braai meat there.

MR VISSER: Yes. All right. And then that sentence goes on to say and we are now going on to your departure from the pistol shooting range, that yourself, Steve Bosch, McCarter, Wasserman, Mike and Spyker and I take it also Mr Bhila, then got into a Husky bus and you departed.

I am not going to go into the Spyker issue again, but other than that, is the information in that paragraph correct?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And again in paragraph 7, you make the statement that you drove somewhere on directions given and you mentioned Spyker again, but you have already explained that, but on directions at least of Michael Lembede, not so?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You drove off along the South Coast road and then you turned off it seems, please stop me if I am wrong, into the inland, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you, Mr Rosslee, the family or relations of Mr Bhila has directed through their legal representative a request to the applicants, to assist if they can, in determining where the precise spot is that Mr Bhila's body was ejected over the cliff.

I want to ask you, do you think that you would be able to find that spot again?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I would be more than happy to assist the family in that matter. I have been down previously with the Attorney General's Investigation Team and was unable to find the spot.

MR VISSER: Did you in fact go out and search for the spot?

MR ROSSLEE: We did, we spent a number of days on the South Coast, looking for the spot.

MR VISSER: Just to complete that picture of how you drove, first of all it was at night, and it was dark?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you just turn off the South Coast road and travelled along the road onto which you turned off until you came to the spot or what was the position?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection is that we drove down on a tarred road, and at some point turned off, travelled on a dirt road and I can't remember how many times we turned off or deviated from that road again. But a number of dirt roads, and a couple of times we turned off roads.

MR VISSER: Yes. So you turned off a number of times, that is what you are saying?

MR ROSSLEE: That is right, yes.

MR VISSER: All right. Spyker Mhieza is very much alive Mr Chairman and I may tell you that he hasn't applied for amnesty.

He is not my client, but that is what I am informed. Mr Rosslee, let's move straight on to the spot where Mr Bhila was then assassinated.

You said in your application at page 25 in the second paragraph, that the area was recognised as an IFP stronghold, do you remember saying that?

MR ROSSLEE: I remember that.

MR VISSER: Was there any particular reason why you made that statement?

MR ROSSLEE: I just recall that during the planning or during discussion, while this elimination was being discussed, that it came out that we were going to go to this area, where there had been faction fighting and it was apparently an IFP stronghold.

MR VISSER: As far as you know, was that purposefully part of the plan as to how the remains of Mr Bhila had to be disposed of, him being an ANC activist?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot recall if that was the specific intention. I surmise that because of the area being sparsely populated, because of the faction fighting, that is why the area was chosen.

MR VISSER: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry. Who were present when it was discussed, or it was planned how Mr Bhila was going to be killed?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall who was present when the planning was done Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Did you discuss where you were going to dispose of the body?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection is that Lembede would take us to a place that was suitable for the disposal of Mr Bhila's body.

ADV SIGODI: Was there any particular reason or did Mr Lembede say why he would choose a particular place?

MR ROSSLEE: I think the idea Mr Chairman, behind Mr Lembede doing that was, his knowledge of the local area which we didn't have, coming from Pretoria.

ADV SIGODI: And was Mr McCarter present when that was being discussed?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Let me attempt to assist Adv Sigodi by trying to juggle your memory.

When was this planning, when did this planning take place? The part of the planning that you knew about, and where did it take place?

MR ROSSLEE: I was privy, or I recall being with Major Taylor and Mr McCarter when the order was given, and my recollection is that at the shooting range, Lembede was going to take us to a suitable spot.

MR VISSER: Yes, no we know that part, we know that the decision was that Lembede had to take you. I thick Commissioner Sigodi's question relates more to who were present at the time when the issue, if it was ever discussed, of disposing of the body in an IFP stronghold, was discussed, I think that is the question.

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot recall if there was a specific discussion about we are going to an IFP stronghold, to dispose of the body because the deceased was ANC orientated.

MR VISSER: Yes, but in any event, it makes sense to you that that would be the situation?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: All right, you said in your Exhibit B that for the purpose of the assassination of Mr Bhila, you took with you on that evening in question, two 6,35 pistols which is the same as .25 pistols, not so?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: According to Mr McCarter - sorry perhaps I should just continue and say that you also stated that you gave Mr McCarter one of those firearms. Is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: My statement, that is yes.

MR VISSER: I am just trying to find it. In any event, whether it is here or not, you told me that you in fact did give him one of the firearms?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes. And do you still today maintain that that was the position?

MR ROSSLEE: Having listened to Mr McCarter's evidence and going back in my mind to the procurement of these, it is possible that I did not give him a pistol at the scene, but that he in fact got it at Vlakplaas.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, my Attorney has found the reference, it is over the page, at page 6.

Perhaps we should just deal with that aspect straight away. You say in the second last paragraph, well, perhaps I should just start a little above that, I know one of the others also shot with the other 6.35 pistol, but I cannot remember who it was.

So what you are saying is that you remember somebody else shooting, but you can't remember that it was, who it was, therefore you cannot remember that it was McCarter. We now know it was Mr McCarter?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct, at that stage, I didn't, or I couldn't recall who had fired as well.

MR VISSER: Yes, and chronologically you made Annexure B, the affidavit prior to you completing your amnesty application form, isn't that so?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And at the time when you completed your amnesty application form, you also did not mention Mr McCarter, in fact you didn't even mention the fact that somebody else had also shot?

MR ROSSLEE: Well, that application was made under a lot of time pressure, and for whatever reason, I either forgot or omitted to put Mr - or state that someone else had shot there.

MR VISSER: Shot, yes all right. Okay, you arrived at this spot and we know that Mr Bhila is then escorted out of the kombi or the bus, the kombi bus, and taken to the edge of the cliff, is that more or less correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Reference is being made to the fact that his head was covered with a hood of some sort, made of material? You have heard that evidence?

MR ROSSLEE: I heard that.

MR VISSER: Does it accord with your recollection?

MR ROSSLEE: I do remember Mr Bhila's head being covered, yes Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: When was that cover placed over his head? Do you remember that?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't remember when his head was covered Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: When you eventually shot Mr Bhila in the head, was his head then covered, or was it not covered?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall if his head was covered at that point.

MR VISSER: All right. The two 6.35 pistols which you spoke about at page 5 of Exhibit B, had you required them on the day in question in order to effect this assassination?

MR ROSSLEE: Those weapons I had acquired quite a long time prior to the actual incident.

MR VISSER: You were not in legal possession of those firearms, were you?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I was not Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: What is the reason why you were in possession of those firearms?

MR ROSSLEE: The reason was very much in line with what Mr McCarter has stated, they were used as throw aways.

MR VISSER: What is a throw away?

MR ROSSLEE: It a deniable weapon. If something would happen and for some reason an informer/agent or something needed a weapon, that could be given to him, or in the case of someone being wrongfully shot, that weapon could be left with that person to make it appear as if they had been armed.

MR VISSER: Yes. That is what you mean by the phrase throw away?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: All right. Having stopped, I am sorry, perhaps I should just ask you this, was Mr Bhila handcuffed?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, Mr Bhila was handcuffed and I recall his hands were cuffed behind his back.

MR VISSER: All right. Having stopped, taken him out, escorted him, having escorted him to the edge of the cliff, in your own words tell the Committee what transpired?

MR ROSSLEE: I initially couldn't remember what happened then, but in consultation ...

MR VISSER: I am sorry, I didn't quite follow what you have just said, you naturally what?

MR ROSSLEE: I previously couldn't remember in what sequence the events took place, but subsequently learnt that Mr Bhila was made to sit or squad down at the edge of the cliff, whereafter Mr McCarter shot him in the head.

When he fell down, next to the edge of the cliff, I then shot him.

MR VISSER: If you just stop there for a moment. At page 6 you said the following in Exhibit B, in the middle of the page Mr Chairman. I think the man was made to lay down at the edge of this cliff. Why did you say that?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection of when I shot him, was that he was laying down.

MR VISSER: Yes, well we know that that must have been so in spite of what Mr Bosch says.

Is that the reason why your recollection is that he was made to lay down?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right. I don't know whether I asked you this, was he still handcuffed when you shot him?

MR ROSSLEE: He was still handcuffed as I recall.

MR VISSER: Were the handcuffs removed after you had shot him?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Mr Visser, may I just interrupt again. You led the earlier evidence when you asked him what happened, and Mr Rosslee responded that he couldn't remember, but in consultation he learnt that the man was made to sit. Sorry, I want to know whether he is giving secondhand evidence of his colleagues or is he giving evidence according to his memory?

Please, to please stick to the memory Mr Rosslee. Let me ask you, when you say in consultation you learnt, did that change your memory or do you simply accept the version of others?

MR ROSSLEE: I accept what I heard subsequently, supporting or adding to what I remembered.

MR MALAN: Was he made to sit down, or was he made to lay down?

MR ROSSLEE: I do not remember if he was sitting or laying, I do remember that when I shot him, he was laying down.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We have just been given a bundle, shall we call this Exhibit F.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the evidence which is now going to follow, is certainly going to cause a lot of anguish. Please if you feel that we should take an adjournment, would you please tell me. I don't want to cause more anguish than is strictly necessary Mr Chairman, but at the end of the day, we are going to have to lead this evidence any way.

Perhaps Mr Chairman, it might be an idea just for five minutes, if there could be some consolation, consoling, we might be able to proceed then. I certainly don't want to give the impression of being insensitive to the emotions of the people concerned. All right, get it behind us, all right Mr Chairman.

We will prefer to go on and get it behind us. By the time that Mr Bhila was laying on the ground, when you shot him, and I am asking you to speculate in the interest of full disclosure, do you believe that Mr Bhila was already dead or do you believe that he was still alive?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes. All right, now, in your affidavit in support of your application, you made the statement, I then shot the suspect plus minus seven times in the head. Would you care to explain that please in the light of Mr McCarter's evidence that according to his recollection, you shot him once? I am sorry and perhaps Mr Chairman, I may immediate tell you that Mr Wasserman who is present, will give evidence and perhaps it is relevant to put this now so that the witness can deal with it, that as far as his recollection goes, you might have shot him the second time, once or twice.

So, we've got McCarter saying once, Wasserman is going to say once or twice, and you are saying seven times. Will you please discuss that issue?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, when I put in this application, my recollection was that the pistol had jammed after the first shot and I had cocked it a number of times to clear the jam. My recollection was that the slide was locked back and I could only surmise or think at that stage that I had emptied the pistol by firing those shots.

MR VISSER: All right, let's just make this clear. Before you shot the first shot, you had the pistol and it had a magazine and it had rounds of ammunition in it?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: How many rounds of ammunition would that pistol take to fill the magazine?

MR ROSSLEE: Seven rounds would be standard.

MR VISSER: Yes. When you had finished, do you have an independent recollection how many rounds were left in the pistol?

MR ROSSLEE: I can remember clearly that the slide was locked back, in other words the pistol was empty.

MR VISSER: Was empty? How would the slide of a pistol for those who don't know firearms, be kicked back? By what impulse is it kicked back?

MR ROSSLEE: The last round would kick it back, and the magazine follow, it would come up and lock the slide open.

MR VISSER: Yes. Is it the recoil of the round of the ammunition that causes the action to move backwards?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes. And is that the best explanation that you can offer today as to why you mentioned seven rounds in your application?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, yes, as I said I can recall firing the first shot, wracking the slide, or cocking the slide a couple of times. I have no memory or cannot recall, firing a second shot.

I do recall the weapon being locked open Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right. Do you recall who threw the body of Mr Bhila over the cliff?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember who threw the body over the cliff.

MR MALAN: May I just interrupt again here, just getting back to your recollection of the pistol having jammed?

Share that with us again. You said it jammed and you had to cock it several times.

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct. I fired, as I recall, I fired a round, the pistol jammed and I cocked it a number of times to clear the jam.

MR MALAN: And kept on shooting?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall firing another shot after that. I recall the pistol being locked back, locked open afterwards.

MR MALAN: Did you then believe that you had fired all the shots, is that what you are telling us?

MR ROSSLEE: No. My assumption would be when the pistol was empty, I don't know how many shots I fired. I remembered firing one shot and I obviously ejected a number of rounds while trying to clear the jam Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Before going to this spot, did you check how many rounds of ammunition you had in your pistol?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember actually having checked the magazine, I just know that those pistols carry seven rounds in the magazine.

ADV SIGODI: So you never checked it when you left from the shooting range, you never checked your pistols?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember checking it.

MR MALAN: Would you ever have carried your pistol around without having it stocked to the full with the rounds of ammunition?

MR ROSSLEE: That would have been unlikely Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: You can continue.

MR VISSER: What was your state of mind during this experience? Were you cool and collected, calm?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say that in those circumstances, the emotions were running high. It is not an everyday situation, it is not a pleasant situation, under stress, under pressure.

MR VISSER: Mr Rosslee, it was obviously dark?

MR ROSSLEE: It was very dark Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Was it so dark that you could not observe what was going on if you stood close to people, well close to where Mr Bhila was shot or what was the position?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, as I recall it was very dark and you could see the outlines of the other people, but no detail.

MR VISSER: You thereafter got in the kombi and left?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And according to your Exhibit B it was on the way back, that you had a flat tyre?

MR ROSSLEE: That is the way I remembered it.

MR VISSER: Yes. You know today that there is a suggestion that you are wrong, and that you had the flat on the way there?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes, but that is the way that you remember it?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: May I just come back to this number of rounds. Mr Rosslee, you responded to a question of Mr Visser to whether you were calm, your state of mind. Your response was that in those circumstances, emotions were running high, that it is not a pleasant situation.

Why would your recollection then have been that you cleared the pistol, why would you have shot a person seven times, if it is not pleasant, and that in the head?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, as I said, I don't recall shooting Mr Bhila seven times in the head. I recall firing the first shot and then the weapon jamming.

MR MALAN: Yes, but you also recall your impression that you had emptied the pistol?

MR ROSSLEE: That the pistol was locked back, and open, yes.

MR MALAN: So in other words, you would have continued to fire and cleared your pistol of ammunition?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot say, because I cannot remember after firing the first shot, if I fired, after the jam, if I fired more rounds.

MR MALAN: Maybe you are not, maybe you are missing the point that I want to ask. I find it difficult that one can say I shot him seven times in the head, and at the same time say in a sense emotions were running high, but it was a job to be done, did not take any pleasure in it. Why seven shots?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know if I fired seven shots at him Mr Chairman, that is what I am trying to say.

MR MALAN: No, no, you ...

MR ROSSLEE: I understand what you are saying,, but I didn't say I am just going to empty the pistol into Mr Bhila's head Mr Chairman. There was no motive to fire seven shots into him at that stage. I recall firing the one, having it jammed, clearing it and at the end of it, the pistol being locked back and open.

CHAIRPERSON: But you said, how do you come to recollect many shots if you can remember in both your affidavits, you talk of more than one shot. Now you say you remember shooting him once, and then you pulled the pistol back to try to clear it. Why did you, if it is something you dislike doing, something that was so unpleasant, why did you exaggerate it by saying several shots?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection was that the pistol locked open and the assumption I made Mr Chairman, was that the pistol was empty. That is normally when the pistol locks open.

CHAIRPERSON: But you have told us that you, yourself, pulled the - cocked the pistol several times to clear it, not shooting?

MR ROSSLEE: That is right, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, why did you say in your original affidavit, Exhibit B, that you fired several times, various, I shot the person several times with the pistol in his head. In your application to us, you say seven times?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, as I say, I cannot recollect the exact amount of shots I fired. I do recall the pistol being open and my assumption was the pistol was empty, and those rounds that hadn't been cocked out while I was trying to clear the jam, had been fired.

MR MALAN: Mr Rosslee, still on this point. You did not give any indication about the pistol having jammed, that is an important situation. If you can remember the first shot, you can remember the pistol being cleared of all rounds of ammunition.

You get evidence here from other applicants, referring to a jam of the pistol. Are you not trying to accommodate them, do you really recall the jam, because when you responded to the Chair here, you didn't refer to the jam, you referred to the first shot and it being cleared.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I have no reason to lie here. One of the reasons I am being here, is to be open and honest. I am recalling what I remember from that incident.

MR MALAN: That is exactly the question, will you please tell us exactly what you really remember, no construction. Tell us what you remember.

MR ROSSLEE: I remember firing the first round into Mr Bhila, I remember getting a jam. I remember clearing or wracking the slide a number of times and I remember the slide being locked back and the pistol being empty.

MR MALAN: If you had indeed cocked it again, and it didn't produce another shot, what would have kicked back the slide? Does it not respond to the firing of a bullet?

MR ROSSLEE: What would have happened, standard operating procedure would be if a jam occurred, to cock the weapon once or twice.

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR ROSSLEE: All right.

MR MALAN: And shoot again, and the moment you pull the trigger, it would go forward.

MR ROSSLEE: The slide would operate if there wasn't another jam, yes.

MR MALAN: Exactly. So what would have produced at the end of this exercise a pistol in your hand, with the slide back?

MR ROSSLEE: The slide back? The magazine had to be empty Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Yes, but it will only go back on the basis of a firing.

MR ROSSLEE: Or if it is being cocked, yes.

MR MALAN: But you are saying you were trying to clear it, and shoot every time, that is your recollection?

MR ROSSLEE: No, not is not what I said Mr Chairman. I said I fired a shot, I tried to clear the jam and I remember, I don't remember firing a second or a third shot, and I remember the pistol being empty at the end of it. That is what I recall.

MR MALAN: So it might have had only a single bullet?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know. I don't recall.

MR MALAN: But when you now said what you do recall is firing the first shot, sliding it back, or cocking it again and remembering it being empty?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Do you remember a jam?

MR ROSSLEE: I do remember a jam, that is why I would have cocked it after the first shot Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: If it didn't cock itself?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Mr Rosslee, who told you to shoot Mr Bhila?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know if I was told to shoot Mr Bhila, Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Did you just shoot?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know if I was told, or if I did it purely because I knew we were there to eliminate Mr Bhila. I don't know if someone said to me shoot or fire or whatever.

ADV SIGODI: When you left the shooting range, did you know that you were one of the people who were going to shoot?

MR ROSSLEE: Well, I had a weapon in my possession, one of these throw away weapons, so yes, I must have known that I would probably be involved in the shooting.

CHAIRPERSON: You may have just pushed yourself forward and started shooting, without having been ordered to do so by anybody, is that what you are telling us?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Mr Rosslee, we have unfortunately before us only a reference to this specific application that we are hearing you, we have only an extract from your application before us.

I understand that there are also other incidents for which you have applied.

MR ROSSLEE: There is one other incident Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Does that incident relate to the shooting of any individual?

MR ROSSLEE: No Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Rosslee, at the bottom of the page, page 6, of Exhibit B, you refer to what happened eventually, to the two firearms that you referred to earlier and you say that you handed them in to the South African Police during the second amnesty for illegally or unauthorised firearms in terms of the then existing legislation in that regard, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: This happened when?

MR ROSSLEE: I think it was the second firearm amnesty that was held Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Do you remember the date?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall off hand.

MR VISSER: You say in Exhibit B, 1991/1992.

MR ROSSLEE: Well, that was possibly when it was then.

MR VISSER: What would normally happen to those firearms that are handed in in terms of amnesty?

MR ROSSLEE: Those firearms, my understanding is that those firearms would be destroyed. In instances people have applied for licences for weapons they hand in. I didn't.

MR VISSER: Mr McCarter gave evidence to say that it was himself and Mr Lembede, who threw the body over the cliff. MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Visser for interrupting, let me just got to this. Mr Rosslee, why did you retain those weapons long after you have left Vlakplaas and the employ of the South African Police, if it was stock issued to you by Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: That was not stock issued to us at Vlakplaas Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Where did you get those weapons from?

MR ROSSLEE: I procured those weapons because they were weapons that were going to be destroyed, at the Quartermaster's stores.

CHAIRPERSON: That were?

MR ROSSLEE: That had been confiscated and were to be destroyed.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was it that you got them?

MR ROSSLEE: From the old Quartermaster, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Where was that, at Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: No, Pretoria.

MR MALAN: And when was that?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall when that was, but it must have been prior to the incident with Mr Bhila, quite a while prior as I recall.

MR MALAN: How did you manage to get hold of that, why would it be given to you?

MR ROSSLEE: The weapons were to be destroyed, and I had a contact, since deceased, who worked there.

MR MALAN: Who was that contact?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall the person's name, it was a Lieutenant that worked in the section where they destroyed those firearms.

MR MALAN: Why would Mr McCarter have given evidence that these were given to you at Vlakplaas, at least given to him at Vlakplaas, that he didn't get it from you?

MR ROSSLEE: My explanation would be that I brought them from Quartermaster's and they were dished out at Vlakplaas.

MR MALAN: By whom?

MR ROSSLEE: I wouldn't, I can't recall who handed them out. Some might - Mr De Kock might have given some out, I don't know.

MR MALAN: So, did you not get those pistols for your own use, but for the use of Vlakplaas generally, did it go into the arsenal of Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection is that a number of members got some of those weapons, Mr Chairman. I don't know if there were left, that were kept in the armoury, or what happened to them.

MR MALAN: How many weapons did you procure from this since deceased Lieutenant?

MR ROSSLEE: I would have to guess and say in the region of 12 or 14, something like that.

MR MALAN: Did he know that you were working at Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: He did.

MR MALAN: Did he know what purpose you wanted it for?

MR ROSSLEE: He knew they were going to be used as throw away weapons, yes Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Is it possible to find out what the name of that Lieutenant was? If he was a contact, a person that you did know at that time, surely somehow you would be able to get to his name again.

MR ROSSLEE: I could possibly make enquiries.

CHAIRPERSON: Why were you interested in getting throw away weapons? You have told us as I recollect your evidence, that throw away weapons were used if you shot someone who was unarmed, to leave it on the body to make it look as if he had been armed?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you anticipating that you would be shooting unarmed men and needed throw away weapons?

MR ROSSLEE: No Mr Chairman, it was a case of see why, cover your arse.

CHAIRPERSON: Hm?

MR ROSSLEE: It was an preventative measure, not a preventative measure, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, preventative of what, shooting unarmed men, that is one of the examples of the two examples you gave us?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct. In circumstances and I am sure any Police Force in the world has seen it, innocent people or bystanders sometimes get shot.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were planning to protect yourself against being found out if you shot innocent people?

MR ROSSLEE: If it so happened, yes Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Mr Rosslee, you are giving this evidence as if it is par for the cause for all members of the Force?

MR ROSSLEE: Not at all Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: So why did you procure these weapons?

MR ROSSLEE: Exactly the reason I stated Mr Chairman, they were procured as throw away weapons.

MR MALAN: But why would you do that and not another member of the Force?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know.

MR MALAN: Did you have any intention or expectation of shooting people illegally?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I didn't Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But as a Sergeant, you thought you should provide them to the other members of Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: There was an opportunity as I recall, to get these weapons Mr Chairman. I got them and handed them out for whatever use anybody was going to use them. My purpose for having them, was as a throw away weapon.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and that is what alarms me that members of the Police Force should be anticipating that they would need weapons for the purposes you have told us, that you should think necessary to arm yourself with two of them, and provide them for other members at Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, the circumstances then were a lot different from what they are now, and we travelled in dangerous places in those times, and anything could have happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but if it was dangerous, the people would be armed and you would be entitled to use your weapons. The throw away weapon you have told us, was where you shot an unarmed person.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, that was one of the eventualities that it could be used for, yes.

MR MALAN: Give us another Mr Rosslee.

MR ROSSLEE: One of the others I stated was we would have agents or informers and those weapons would sometimes be given to them, when they infiltrated purely as a backup or a last ditch weapon.

MR MALAN: Yes, but that is not as a throw away then, that was for a specific purpose.

MR ROSSLEE: That would be for a specific purpose.

MR MALAN: That is where you wouldn't otherwise be able to legally acquire a weapon and you think that you needed to protect an informer or an agent.

MR ROSSLEE: That would be so, yes.

MR MALAN: Or provide him with some protection?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Give us another example of what you would need a throw away weapon for.

MR ROSSLEE: Another reason for having one of those weapons would be to plant it on somebody, to implicate somebody.

MR MALAN: Are you saying to us that you went into the Police Force, to act indiscriminately whether it was legal or illegal?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I think my evidence from the beginning has been that I definitely didn't go into the Force to act illegally.

MR MALAN: So at some stage, that became quite acceptable to you?

MR ROSSLEE: No, it was not acceptable, but considering what has happening at that time, I was protecting myself.

MR MALAN: And others?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes.

MR MALAN: You referred now when you were responding to these last rounds of questions, to the two weapons, but you earlier said that you procured some 12 or more weapons?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: What would they have been for?

MR ROSSLEE: As I said, I handed them out. Either gave them to someone at Vlakplaas that handed them out, I might have given some of them to some ex-colleagues at Vlakplaas for whatever use they saw fir.

MR MALAN: Was there any central arsenal to which you contributed those weapons and deposited it there?

MR ROSSLEE: Not that I can recall.

MR MALAN: So you simply got 12 weapons and you dished them out to whoever of your colleagues would have use of them?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: What were you telling them when you were handing them these weapons?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall what I said to them.

MR MALAN: Just walked up to someone and said pal, here is a weapon, a throw away or use it for an informer or whatever?

MR ROSSLEE: Like I said, I don't remember what I said to them.

MR MALAN: And you did that on your own, without authority from any of your senior officers?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I arranged for those weapons on my own.

MR MALAN: Did they know, your senior officers, that you were going about this way?

MR ROSSLEE: I should imagine someone knew. If a number of people at Vlakplaas had weapons like that, someone must have known about that. I cannot for certain say that they had knowledge.

MR MALAN: Mr Rosslee, was it acceptable at Vlakplaas that anyone and everyone could do his own thing? Because clearly in this instance, this is what you have been doing with the weapons?

MR ROSSLEE: No, it wasn't acceptable Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: So you were acting outside of orders and certainly not with the consent at that stage, or authority given to you by your superiors?

MR ROSSLEE: As I recall, no, I didn't get authority or no one consented to that.

MR MALAN: If this was the practice, why would you have assumed orders to have been there and authority whenever actions were ordered?

MR ROSSLEE: As I said earlier Mr Chairman, I know for a fact that on previous occasions, feedback and authority for actions were asked from Vlakplaas, so I assumed that.

MR MALAN: But you didn't ask any authority on these weapons and you did not give any feedback. You simply dished them out?

MR ROSSLEE: That is my recollection Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Now how does that tally with the disciplined approach of orders and feedback that you talk about in general terms?

MR ROSSLEE: It doesn't tally.

MR MALAN: Any explanation for that?

MR ROSSLEE: None whatsoever Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Rosslee, when these unauthorised weapons were required, can you remember who the Commanding Officer at Vlakplaas was?

MR ROSSLEE: At that time it was Major De Kock.

MR VISSER: Was he unaware of the possession of these firearms by you and other members?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember if he was aware of us being in possession of them, or not.

MR VISSER: Because Mr McCarter seems to recall that they were handed out at Vlakplaas and I think and I don't want to say, lay words in his mouth, but I seem to recall that he said it was handed out by Mr Eugene de Kock. Would that be incorrect?

MR ROSSLEE: It is not inconceivable.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is completely contrary to what this witness has said.

MR VISSER: That is what I am putting to him now Mr Chairman, that that is indeed, that is an opposition to the evidence that he has just given. What do you say, are you correct or is Mr McCarter correct?

MR ROSSLEE: If Mr McCarter says that he received the weapon from Mr De Kock, I would have to concede that point. I know that I acquired the weapons, I took them to Vlakplaas and I handed them out to some people. I don't know if there were weapons left that got handed out to other people or what happened.

MR VISSER: Yes.

MR MALAN: Mr Rosslee, why if you have a recollection that you handed him the pistol, and he says something else that he got it from De Kock, why must you concede that he is correct?

MR ROSSLEE: I do not, in my statement I said that I had handed him the pistol.

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR ROSSLEE: All right, I cannot now sitting here say that I can recollect giving him the pistol.

MR MALAN: But why must you concede the correctness of his evidence, that is my question?

MR ROSSLEE: I am just saying that in likelihood my remembering bringing the weapons to Vlakplaas, it is very possible that Mr De Kock had given him a weapon there.

MR MALAN: Isn't it possible that McCarter was lying to us?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: You made a statement on oath, saying you handed the weapons to him.

MR ROSSLEE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you now say it might be that I was wrong? How could you make a statement on oath like that? You didn't say you weren't sure, you said you did it?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, right now where I am sitting here, I cannot remember handing that firearm to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I may be wrong in what I am going to say right now Mr Chairman, I am checking it, but I seem to recall Mr Chairman, that the evidence that Mr Rosslee gave to you, that he gave one of the firearms to McCarter was told to me in consultation, and doesn't appear from the documents, but I may be wrong.

I think that that is where it comes from Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: He also says it in the statement.

MR VISSER: I have been looking for it Mr Chairman, and I couldn't find it.

MR MALAN: We will check on that.

MR VISSER: On page 6, where he says I think one of the others shot with the other pistol. By inference means that it was one of the two pistols that he refers to and this is why we covered that in consultation, and that is why I placed that evidence before you, so that you can be aware of that Mr Chairman.

He doesn't specifically say anywhere, that he gave the other firearm to McCarter.

MR MALAN: He says it on page 5 in the middle, for these purposes I had two 6.35 pistols which I have already had for a long time.

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman, reading that together with what is on page 6, the inference is irresistible that one of the two was given to the other person, but that is why we consulted with the witness and we placed it in the interest of full disclosure, before you.

CHAIRPERSON: And later given back to him?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he goes straight on to say that the two pistols were then ...

MR VISSER: You are absolutely correct Mr Chairman, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There is only one inference one could draw from Exhibit B.

MR VISSER: That is the point I am trying to make Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, we have no further evidence to lead from this witness, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROUSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, Rossouw on record. Mr Rosslee, you have testified that you have not recollection that you were present when Mr Bhila was transferred from one group of people, to another, the so-called interception, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: At that time, can you remember whom you were travelling with?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I can't Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: You won't be able to say whether you travelled with Mr McCarter and Mr Bosch?

MR ROSSLEE: I wouldn't be able to.

MR ROUSSOUW: In another vehicle perhaps?

MR ROSSLEE: No idea.

MR ROUSSOUW: I am trying to find out, because you have heard that Mr Bosch's evidence was that he also can't remember that aspect.

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct. I just - I don't remember meeting another vehicle or being with when Mr Bhila was picked up or handed over or anything like that. I don't remember any aspect of that.

MR ROUSSOUW: Can you recall whether you arrived at the shooting range with Mr Bhila or did he arrive at a later stage?

MR ROSSLEE: Right now, if my recollection is correct, Mr Bhila arrived later.

MR ROUSSOUW: So it is possible that there were more than one vehicle, that people were travelling in different vehicles?

MR ROSSLEE: That is possible.

MR ROUSSOUW: Now, I would like to have you assistance in trying to establish why you similar to Mr Bosch, had the recollection that both Mr Lembede and Mr Mhieza was present throughout the operation. I have heard your explanation that you have also made the inference because they were working together, closely together in Natal, and that is why you have also linked them in your affidavit, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct, and that is the only explanation I have at this stage Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: Yesterday you have heard Mr Bosch was also cross-examined on this point, and he also gave the same testimony that these two people worked closely together and that might be a reason, but he also stated that in his mind, his recollection, his independent recollection, was that they were both present.

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot say the same now Mr Chairman, I cannot clearly recollect that Mhieza was there.

MR ROUSSOUW: What do you mean by saying you cannot clearly recollect that Mhieza was?

MR ROSSLEE: I do not remember as I am sitting here now, that Mhieza was present there.

MR ROUSSOUW: All right. Let me then ask you about the - when your statement was taken down, Exhibit B, by Mr Holmes, you have testified that you were confronted please help me, I might be wrong, I am not sure about this, you were confronted with the statement of Mr Bosch. Was that your testimony?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR ROUSSOUW: Were you shown Mr Bosch's statement, the written statement?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, it was held out in front of me and said, we've already got a statement from Mr Bosch.

MR ROUSSOUW: Were you shown the paragraphs in it?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember actually reading the statement, no.

MR ROUSSOUW: Was it a written statement or a typed statement?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't remember.

MR ROUSSOUW: You see, why I am asking, I am trying to find out you know, the sequence in which the Investigating Unit of the Attorney General, went about its business, because and in all fairness to you, I am not sure and I don't have an instruction at this point, whether there was another statement or an earlier statement, but in bundle 1 Bhila, you will see an extract from a statement that Mr Bosch made to the Attorney General.

You will find that on pages 8 - 10, this is the typed statement, which I assume would be a typed version of a written statement, but it is dated on page 10, 18 November 1996, whereas your statement is dated April 1996, 12 April 1996, that is some seven months earlier.

MR ROSSLEE: I have no explanation for that. I just know that I was shown a statement by Mr Bosch, or allegedly by Mr Bosch at that time.

MR ROUSSOUW: There is no other explanation that you can give, I am trying to find out because it seems to me that in that respect your versions, were identical.

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know. Like I say, I was shown - or what was shown to me was a statement, apparently a statement by Mr Bosch and they said they've got this statement, I need to cooperate, whatever.

MR ROUSSOUW: Well, let me ask you this, did Mr Holmes or anybody else perhaps put to you that this is what Mr Bosch said, not showed you a statement, but put it to you?

MR ROSSLEE: I was shown a statement, one was held in front of me or held out, shown to me, and during the time that my statement was taken, there were things put to me that Mr Bosch says X, Y, Z, do you agree, do you disagree, whatever.

MR ROUSSOUW: Thank you. Then you have testified that - let's first go to the shooting range, you said that your recollection is that you did hold a braai there?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR ROUSSOUW: You have heard the testimony and I am just putting it to you that Mr Bosch testified that he can't remember on a question what arrangements were made for lunch, he said he cannot remember, he thinks that somebody went to buy some cold drinks. Can you remember that?

MR ROSSLEE: I remember that statement of his, yes.

MR ROUSSOUW: Do you remember that somebody left to buy cold drinks?

MR ROSSLEE: Not specifically, no.

MR ROUSSOUW: Who made the arrangements to have a braai there?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember.

MR ROUSSOUW: We know now that Mr Bosch, you have also confirmed that Mr Bosch was not present when the instruction came or the request from Mr Taylor, that is correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR ROUSSOUW: Thereafter, can you remember a discussion that you were part of, where a planning took place, specifically where Mr Bhila would be shot, who would do the shooting, what weapons would be used?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot specifically remember that discussion, or a discussion like that taking place.

MR ROUSSOUW: Would you agree with me that it would be likely that if such a discussion did take place, you would be present?

MR ROSSLEE: I would have to say yes, Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: You see Mr Bosch's testimony is that he can't remember such a discussion.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I think it is just unlikely that being a member of the team, he wouldn't be privy to a discussion like that. I don't specifically remember a discussion like that, but if he is part of the team, I would say if there was a discussion like that, he would have been privy to that.

MR ROUSSOUW: Is it also not true that Mr Bosch was and his testimony was yesterday, that he was not working in this area. He doesn't know, and he can't give a reason why he was specifically brought into this operation.

MR ROSSLEE: It is quite correct, Mr Bosch didn't work down here as often as Mr McCarter and I did. I don't have an explanation for him being down here at that specific time.

MR ROUSSOUW: Did you have a discussion with him, not in a group, personally? Did you have a discussion with him about the planned operation?

MR ROSSLEE: Not that I can recall Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: So you didn't inform him at any time that Mr bila was going to be shot?

MR ROSSLEE: I said I cannot recall if I did or if I did not. I just have no recollection of speaking to him about that.

MR ROUSSOUW: Are you then saying it is possible you might have spoken to him about that?

MR ROSSLEE: It is possible I might have spoken to him about it, I don't remember doing it.

MR ROUSSOUW: At the time when you were waiting at the shooting range, what were you doing there the whole day?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no idea, I cannot remember what we did there the whole day bar me remembering that we had a braai.

MR ROUSSOUW: Mr Bosch said that you did nothing but wait. Would you agree with that?

MR ROSSLEE: I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know, I cannot remember what else happened there that day.

MR ROUSSOUW: Were there at the shooting range, apart from Mr Bosch, Mr Wasserman, Mr Taylor who apparently arrived at a later stage, and Mr McCarter and Mr Lembede, and of course Mr Bhila, were there any other people present that you can recall?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't remember if there were some of the askaris there or if there were other people present at that time.

MR ROUSSOUW: Is it possible that there might have been other people present there?

MR ROSSLEE: There may have been other people present, yes.

MR ROUSSOUW: Would a discussion about a planned assassination take place in the presence of such people, would you involve askaris in such a plan?

MR ROSSLEE: My assumption would be that it would be spoken about in private, to one side or in one of the vehicles or something, and not in front of them.

MR ROUSSOUW: Yes. You would like to handle this operation on a need to know basis?

MR ROSSLEE: Correct.

MR ROUSSOUW: It is possible that as Mr Bosch testified, that such a discussion did not, or he can't recall that such a discussion took place at the shooting range?

MR ROSSLEE: It is possible, because I don't remember a discussion like that either.

MR ROUSSOUW: Now, on the way, when you left there, on the way to the area where the assassination took place, was there any discussion in the kombi?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember any discussion going on in the kombi.

MR ROUSSOUW: You see Mr Bosch testified that you drove in silence?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember.

MR ROUSSOUW: Would you not agree that you would not, well, it is unlikely that you would sit in the company of a person, discussing how you are going to kill him?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say it is unlikely we would have done that, yes.

MR ROUSSOUW: Yes. Now, when you got out of the vehicle and you moved towards the edge of the cliff, you said that - you were asked about whether Mr Bhila was made to sit down or lay down. Am I correct in recalling your testimony that you can't remember whether he was made to sit down or lay down, but at the time when you shot him, he was laying down?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: So you won't be able to dispute Mr Bosch's testimony that he was made to sit down initially?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I can't. I recall him laying down when I shot him.

MR ROUSSOUW: Can you remember a discussion between Mr McCarter and Mr Bosch afterwards, after the incident where the details and reasons for this operation, was furnished to Mr Bosch?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I don't remember a discussion like that Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: At the time when you were at the shooting range, can you recall anybody mentioning that to any of the people there, not only Mr Bosch, but to the other people you are saying might also have been there, mentioning to them that the person that is being held captive there, is an ANC terrorist?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no recollection of that.

MR ROUSSOUW: And then lastly, Mr Rosslee, you said that you can't give an indication as to whether Mr Bhila, at the time that he was kept at the shooting range, was handcuffed or whether he had foot shackles?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct, I cannot specifically remember, but taking the circumstances, I am sure he must have been secured in some way.

MR ROUSSOUW: So you won't be able to dispute the testimony of Mr Bosch that he was, he had foot shackles?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I can't dispute that.

MR ROUSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUSSOUW

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman, Van Schalkwyk for McCarter and others.

Mr Rosslee, during the course of your evidence in chief, you referred extensively to Exhibit B, the statement you have made to Holmes, and my learned colleague has just put to you that this statement was made on the 12th of April 1996.

Just to put it in context, was that before you actually applied for amnesty?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The amnesty application was filed, if you will bear with me Mr Chairman, just thereafter if I am not mistaken, the next day, the 13th?

MR ROSSLEE: December of 1996.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: 13th of December, sorry.

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did Holmes consult you on his own, or was there anyone else present at the time?

MR ROSSLEE: As I remember, Brigadier Human was present, Captain Holmes and another Investigator. But when the statement was being taken, if I remember correctly, it was just Captain Holmes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was the idea that you were to make a statement so that you could be used as a witness so to speak?

MR ROSSLEE: Well, that was what was told to me, with regards to the 204, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you all along under the impression that you would have been a witness in a criminal matter?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did the Investigator of the Attorney General's office, Holmes or anyone at any particular stage, advise you to apply for amnesty?

MR ROSSLEE: No one Mr Chairman.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And at the time that you made the amnesty application, did you have a copy of this particular statement, Exhibit B with you?

MR ROSSLEE: None whatsoever, I only received this statement I think it was a week ago, when I was in consultation with senior counsel.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As far as your recollection of the events are concerned, would it be correct to say that the only aide-mémoire assistance you really have is this statement, Exhibit B and your application?

MR ROSSLEE: That would be correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: There are no notes that you have made, no entry in any pocket book, any register, nothing of that sort of course?

MR ROSSLEE: Nothing that I have.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You have or it has been supplied on your behalf, three reports from clinical psychologists and psychiatrists, Exhibit C1 - C3. I do not intend to go into detail with that, but may I just ask you have you at any particular point experienced loss of memory, either short term or long term, one would refer to it as memory gaps?

MR ROSSLEE: Blackouts, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And do you experience in everyday life, that there are some of the things in the past, maybe the recent past or the distant past, that you cannot remember on any particular occasion?

MR ROSSLEE: I do have memory lapses about events, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Incidentally at the time when you made the statement to Holmes and others, were you under treatment at that particular point in time?

MR ROSSLEE: I can't remember.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You made it on the 12th of April 1996.

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall, I don't think I was having treatment at that stage yet.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now, if we may just deal then with two of my other clients, Mr Ngadi and Mr Mhieza, you have not mentioned either in Exhibit B or in your application or in your evidence here in chief or in cross-examination thus far, the presence of any person by the name of Aubrey Ngadi. May I just ask you, did you know a person by the name of Aubrey Ngadi?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall his name.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And as far as you recall, he was not present on this particular incident?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot put him there, no.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Right. You had sight of the S&T form being referred to here.

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And do you agree with me that there is no S&T form for any Aubrey Ngadi?

MR ROSSLEE: I would have to take your word for that, because I don't recall whose names were on those S&T forms.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: All right. I am going to suggest to you that in so far as had been mentioned, albeit on the side line by Mr Bosch, that there was a Sergeant Aubrey Ngadi, my instructions are that he was certainly not involved in this at all. He was not there?

MR ROSSLEE: I would have to concede to that, I don't remember the name and I don't remember him being at the scene.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did Holmes, when you made Exhibit B at any stage suggest to you who else were present on the day in question?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, as we went along in the statement, as I recall he would say was X or was Y there or who else was there, whatever.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And how did the name Spyker Mhieza come up for the first time, was it something that you had mentioned out of your own, or was it something that was suggested to you?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot recall how it came up the first time. It might have been just from the general discussion about us operating in Durban.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: By that token, could it have been that Holmes have mentioned Spyker Mhieza?

MR ROSSLEE: It is possible, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: All right. As you think back here today, do I understand your evidence correctly that there is a vagueness in your memory as to as you sit here today, as to whether or not Mhieza could have been present?

MR ROSSLEE: Most definitely.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: My instructions from Mhieza is that he was not present and he did not take any part.

MR ROSSLEE: It is quite possible.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: All right. Now let us just deal with the reporting back. You would remember that you were asked about the whole system of reporting back, whether it be in general or in this specific case, instance.

Let's deal with it in general. Was it your experience that a reporting back was done between your Commanding Officers at Vlakplaas and the Commanding Officers of the Units to which you would be called to render assistance, ie in Port Natal division, there would have been report back between Taylor and De Kock?

MR ROSSLEE: At that level, yes. I believe there would have been report back there, but from more and likely than from the Vlakplaas people on the ground, the Head of the Unit operating in a division, would give feedback.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: All right, you were not one of those?

MR ROSSLEE: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Would it certainly accord with your experience of how things worked, the line of command or the chain of command that the Officer, the local guy who had enlisted your assistance, that he would have to report back also to your Commander at Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I would have to concede that there would be contact at that level, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Right.

MR MALAN: I know, please Mr Rosslee, don't concede. Your question was, what is your knowledge?

MR ROSSLEE: My knowledge is there was contact at that level Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: You made it quite clear that the local Unit going down to Natal, would have had to give feedback, to report to the Commander at Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: As far as your response to the question about Captain Taylor reporting to De Kock, you say it not to emphatically, you simply say there would have been but you have no knowledge of such feedback?

MR ROSSLEE: I know there was contact there. If it was specific feedback or reporting back, that I cannot stipulate.

MR MALAN: No, but clearly there was contact in the sense that the request would have come to Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSLEE: Definitely.

MR MALAN: But as to the activities of the Unit coming down, why do you say that there would have been a report back of the Unit's activities by Taylor to Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: That is not what I said Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: You see, I just wanted to get clarity in my mind on that because I think that is where the question led to.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Malan, with respect not, I asked on a general level simply. You confirm that it was your evidence that in this particular case, you don't know anything about it?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes, right. It was simply put on that level sir.

Right, as far as the discussions were concerned, and you would remember that you were asked as to the names of the two people that were mentioned, involved in the trial, do I have your evidence correct, that you can't specifically remember the names that was mentioned?

MR ROSSLEE: I couldn't remember the names until Captain Holmes, or the name, the deceased's name, until Captain Holmes actually showed me or told me what his name was.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you confirm that you in any event, neither yourself nor McCarter were ever involved as far as you know, in any matter regarding Pumeso (indistinct)?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no knowledge of that name.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Right, I would like to discuss with you the form of the order. You would remember that yesterday with McCarter, the whole aspect of the order was discussed, whether it was a request or an order or a command as in the normal sense of a military command.

Would you care to elaborate as to what sort of form the order took in this particular case and maybe in general. Let's start with this particular case.

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection is that Major Taylor requested, after giving us the background to Mr Bhila, requested us to eliminate him.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Right. How did you perceive this request, as what? Was it simply a request that you could deny or that you could decline to?

MR ROSSLEE: Well, given the background that he had given us, and the type of person Major Taylor was, well respected and everything else, I wouldn't have declined it.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you, yourself, and I know you can't speak for McCarter, but from what you observed, did you regard that request as an order?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I did.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you regard yourself to be bound by that?

MR ROSSLEE: Most definitely.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now, if the Commission will bear with me for a moment.

MR MALAN: If you are not pursuing that, let me ask the question again, because I asked it earlier.

Earlier you gave evidence that such orders had to be cleared with Vlakplaas command, so why would you obey and implement a request which you perceived to be an order that you believe you were definitely bound by it, without referring it to Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: The only answer I can give to that is if Major Taylor was issuing that order to us, it had been cleared already. I wouldn't be privy to that.

MR MALAN: No please Mr Rosslee, that wasn't your evidence earlier. You said if you would have had any orders from the local branch where you were on routine duties, you had to clear that and would have cleared that with the command at Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSLEE: If I remember correctly Mr Chairman, I said that standard operating procedures would have been that it had to be cleared.

MR MALAN: Exactly, standard operating procedures. Now, why do you say if that was not done, without those procedures, why would you have believed yourself to be bound by the order simply of Taylor without confirmation at the level of Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: Number one is, I might not have been privy at that stage.

MR MALAN: No, that is not the question, the question relates only to whether you were compelled to implement at the level of Taylor giving the order or not?

MR ROSSLEE: It is very simple Mr Chairman, he is an Officer and I was obeying an order.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may interrupt you, just a moment please. Mr Chairman, may I interrupt, I don't often do this, but in this case with all due respect, the question is not based on the evidence.

The evidence of Mr Rosslee is quite explicit, in reply to questions by Mr Malan that normal procedure would have been that there would have been prior authorization. That is the point.

He now says Mr Chairman, that I regarded the request as an order. He is now asked but how could you have regarded it as an order if there wasn't confirmation. Confirmation would have been prior to that Mr Chairman, and that is in line with his evidence and that is the only issue which I want to put straight.

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection is that they would check back with Vlakplaas if they were given orders down here.

MR VISSER: Yes, later.

MR MALAN: The evidence was at that stage very specific Mr Visser, and we can get back to the record if we have to, but we can leave it at the moment, I just want to put to you that my understanding at the time was very clearly, an order of this nature, given by Taylor, had to be cleared, and I am using these words, because this was my question, by Vlakplaas, at the level of Vlakplaas, before implementation.

MR VISSER: That is the point I am trying to make, so we are in agreement Mr Chairman, yes, that is precisely the point.

It was prior, so putting to this witness that he would not have executed the order unless he knew that thereafter, before he executed the order, there would have been authorization Mr Chairman, maybe unfair to him, that is the only point I am making. He was saying that, and remember he wasn't the leader of the squad, McCarter was.

The question, if anything should be, why didn't you make sure that McCarter didn't get instructions. Perhaps that may be a fair question.

MR MALAN: I don't want to ask whether he would make sure or not. The question was, Mr Rosslee's evidence or response to the question here was, that when Andy Taylor requested them to eliminate Bhila, that was an order, immediately, to which he was bound.

MR VISSER: I follow Mr Chairman, and that is fair enough.

MR MALAN: Now, my follow up is would you not only have been bound once the order of Taylor had been cleared at the level of Vlakplaas, that is the question?

MR ROSSLEE: I considered myself bound Mr Chairman, because number one, Major Taylor was a senior officer giving us the order, that is number one.

Number two is, I have no doubt that it would have been cleared or referred back to Vlakplaas.

MR MALAN: By McCarter or by Taylor?

MR ROSSLEE: Either one of the two.

MR MALAN: Well, if it is Taylor, I mean there is no check if Taylor would have cleared it at the level of Vlakplaas, so really it is the Unit that had to confirm the order at Vlakplaas, that is how I understood the evidence earlier?

MR ROSSLEE: That is in most cases, on a day to day basis, it would be the Section Commander of Vlakplaas on the ground, that would go back.

MR MALAN: Exactly, and then before implementation you get this request, you are present when the request is made or the order is given. Did you ever ask McCarter did you clear this at Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't remember Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: You don't remember having asked him that?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I don't.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew quite clearly didn't you, that this order was an illegal order? It was an order to murder somebody?

MR ROSSLEE: We understood that elimination, yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And you didn't bother to check with Taylor if he had cleared it?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I hadn't Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: And if I understand you correctly, this was the only incident where you were involved in the illegal killing or assassination of an activist at that level?

MR VISSER: No Mr Chairman, that is not what he said. The question was whether he shot a person in the other incident and he said no, he didn't.

MR MALAN: All right, sorry.

MR VISSER: There was another application for amnesty which in fact an elimination was ...

MR MALAN: I understood that answer incorrectly, thank you for showing me.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: May I proceed Mr Chairman. Mr Rosslee, let us just ask one or two more questions about this order. You can't say whether there was any communication obviously between Taylor and Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I cannot.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Taylor did not mention to you as far as your recollection goes, that he had cleared this with Vlakplaas specifically?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall him saying anything about that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Perhaps we must just put the whole matter in context again. The Unit of which Major Taylor as he then was, down here, was the Commanding Officer, was that C-Section of the Security Branch?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is that exactly the same section as Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: Similar anti-terrorist section, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Also referred to as C-Section?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Would Major Taylor then have been a senior officer in the same section as you people were?

MR ROSSLEE: Work in the same desk, most definitely.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: All right. In so far as there had been suggestions that, or evidence might be forthcoming, that Mr De Kock was on that particular point in time, on leave, would you tell us who the second in command was of Vlakplaas at that stage?

MR ROSSLEE: I can't recall who the 2-IC was at that specific stage.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay. You were asked about the questioning at the old shooting range. If I may just ask you a few questions about that.

Is it your recollection that there was not an interrogation?

MR ROSSLEE: As I said earlier, I cannot remember where I am sitting here now, that the deceased was interrogated.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thinking back, this particular location, did that have facilities for interrogation where one could do proper questioning?

MR ROSSLEE: As I recall, the one side was open, open fencing. I don't know.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But there was certainly no formal questioning session, notes taken, that sort of thing?

MR ROSSLEE: Not that I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that these people used formal questioning sessions?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I will get to that Mr Chairman. You are aware of the fact that at the time, there was a thing such as a Section 29 questioning in terms of the Internal Security Act?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I am.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes, just answer. I want to ask you this, on this level, would there have been any purpose to have questioned a man because he has already gone through the whole Section 29 procedure, the formal questioning, the interrogation leading to the trial, etc?

MR ROSSLEE: I doubt that there would have been very much point in interrogating him again.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK

CHAIRPERSON: But the questioning that you referred to, was finding out the address of his friend, wasn't it, no formal interrogation at all?

MR ROSSLEE: That is what my recollection was when I made the statement Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, I see it is about one o'clock, may I start?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it will be fair to start you for two minutes. We will take the adjournment now till two o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Mr Rosslee, you were only at Vlakplaas for approximately a year, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: I think it was just short of a year.

MR HUGO: And would you say that you became au fait with the rules and the regulations and the structures that were in place pertaining to the reporting back and the receiving of requests of various divisions all over the country, to Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say I had a general working knowledge of it, yes.

MR HUGO: Now, let's just get it clear, as far as Mr De Kock's knowledge is pertaining to this particular incident, is concerned. Is it your evidence that Mr De Kock didn't know about this incident, as far as you can recall?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection when I made the statement Mr Chairman, was that we had been tasked to come down to Port Natal, by Mr De Kock. In the light of the other evidence that Mr De Kock was on leave, I would have to concede that that was the point, he in fact didn't know about that.

MR HUGO: Yes, Mr De Kock says that he didn't give the instructions for the group to travel down to Durban and he confirms in fact, that he was on leave.

MR ROSSLEE: Sure.

MR HUGO: Is it also true then that when you received the instruction from Major Taylor, I think as he was at the time, that you didn't, you personally didn't liaise with Mr De Kock whether he was on leave or not, to get his approval?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And is it also then your evidence that you did not report to Mr De Kock after the incident?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And I think you must have heard yesterday when I put it to Mr McCarter that this particular operation, was carried out without the knowledge of Mr De Kock and he wasn't even notified of this operation after it had been finalised and carried out?

MR ROSSLEE: In the light of the evidence that has been led, I would accept that.

MR HUGO: Now, as far as the reporting structures are concerned, let me just put it to you that your perception of how that were used, is not correct. Mr De Kock says and we have had various other amnesty applications that dealt with this particular issue, that the arrangement was that whenever a Unit for instance from Cape Town or Durban, needed the services of the askaris or a Vlakplaas contingent, that they would not contact Mr De Kock directly, but that Mr De Kock's Section Head at that particular point in time, I think his rank at the time was Brigadier Schoon, would then be contacted and be told that the services of Vlakplaas are needed. He would then in turn liaise with Mr De Kock and Mr De Kock would then arrange for Vlakplaas members to be sent down to wherever.

Have you been aware of that?

MR ROSSLEE: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what did you say, yes?

MR ROSSLEE: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No?

MR HUGO: And the arrangement was further that whenever something cropped up whilst members of Vlakplaas were under the command of say for instance Mr Taylor, that Mr Taylor would take a decision here, locally, in conjunction with his Officer Commanding and that his Officer Commanding would most probably liaise with Brigadier Schoon, and they would then approve the operation.

Were you ever told by Mr Taylor that he had tried to contact Mr De Kock prior to the occurrence?

MR ROSSLEE: Not to my recollection, no Mr Chairman, no.

MR HUGO: Then there is just one other aspect, we have been able to contact Mr De Kock, we had some logistical difficulty in getting instructions from him, but he says pertaining to the weapons, that he wasn't aware of the fact that you had them and you never told him about the fact that they were used in an operation or that they were in your possession?

MR ROSSLEE: Like I said earlier, I wasn't aware if he knew or didn't know about the existence of the weapons, and I personally didn't report back to him about the use of those weapons.

MR HUGO: And, just finally, when Mr De Kock says that he had only been informed about this incident by the Attorney General approximately a year ago, would that accord with your experience and your knowledge in the sense that you didn't tell him about this?

MR ROSSLEE: Definitely. As I said, I didn't give him any feedback on the operation.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NGUBANE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Rosslee, most of what I wanted to cover with you, has been covered by the avid questioning of the members of the Commission, but I would like to pose a few questions to you.

Coming to what I can call your political indoctrination, you say that you believed that every black person, was a potential MK member, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And all MK members, according to you, were terrorists, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: MK members, yes.

MR NGUBANE: So your belief was that every black man was a potential terrorist?

MR ROSSLEE: Potentially yes, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Old women, young women and black children, were all potential terrorists?

MR ROSSLEE: You said just now any black man, potential terrorists, I would say within what would be regarded as the right ages, yes. Not all women, all children.

MR NGUBANE: Would you regard that as a political belief or racism, simple racism?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say based on what was occurring then, it was a political belief Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Coming to Captain Holmes, you say he pressured you to make a statement, is that your evidence?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And the only way he pressured you was to put in front of you, the statement of Mr Bosch and then ask you questions and write them down, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: No, that is not correct Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: What other pressure did he exert on you?

MR ROSSLEE: Pressure of being arrested and incarcerated for the murder of Mr Bhila if I didn't cooperate with him.

MR NGUBANE: And in the same breath, he told you that if you made a statement, you would turn a State witness?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: Did that relieve you?

MR ROSSLEE: It was my only way out at that stage Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Pardon?

MR ROSSLEE: It was my only way out of the predicament at that stage.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, that promise that you would be made a State witness, did it relieve you?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, like I said, it was my only way out at that stage.

MR NGUBANE: And that promise was made before a statement could be taken to you?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes.

MR NGUBANE: So when you wrote the statement, you were relieved, you were no longer pressured?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't think the stress goes away Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And in Mr Bosch's statement, did you read anything where Mr Bosch said that he could point out the place where the body of Bhila was?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, as I said, I don't recall and I don't think that I read Mr Bosch's statement, that it was shown to me.

MR NGUBANE: Were you ever asked, or was it ever put to you that Mr Bosch had indicated that he could point out the body?

MR ROSSLEE: Not to my recollection Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: But in your statement, you say that you could - you thought at that time, that you could point out where the body was, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: Sorry Mr Chairman, could I just get a reference, a page number?

MR NGUBANE: It is page 7, paragraph 2. You said possibly you could point out the place.

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct, I did say that in my statement, and I went with the Attorney General's Investigators to the South Coast in an attempt to do that.

MR NGUBANE: Yes. Is it your evidence that at that time, you believed that you could point out the place?

MR ROSSLEE: I believed at that time, as I do now, that there were cliffs and due to that, I would be able to point out the place. I was proven wrong when I came down with the Attorney General's people.

MR NGUBANE: And when you went to that place, where Mr Bhila was killed, did you carry a torch or something in order for you to see that place?

MR ROSSLEE: I do not remember there being any torches.

MR NGUBANE: Were you directed by either Mr Lembede or Mr Mhieza to that place?

MR ROSSLEE: As I had said in my earlier evidence, I believe whoever the member was who was with us, he took us there, so he wouldn't have given us directions.

MR NGUBANE: Did you gain the impression that whoever pointed out that place, he knew that place very well?

MR ROSSLEE: Well, he obviously knew the area, or must have known the area.

MR NGUBANE: Did you not enquire whether it was safe to carry this dirty operation at that place?

MR ROSSLEE: Sorry, I didn't quite hear that.

MR NGUBANE: Did you ever enquire whether it was safe to kill someone at that place?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I just went on the assumption that being local, a person would know a suitable place.

MR NGUBANE: You didn't even ask whether some other people had been killed and thrown at that cliff?

MR ROSSLEE: No.

MR NGUBANE: Now, let's come to Mhieza now. I want you to come out clear, was Mhieza involved in this operation, was he there or you can't recall whether he was there? You can't state as a fact whether he was there, or he was not there?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot now remember if Mhieza was present during that operation.

MR NGUBANE: But if someone were to say that Mhieza was present, you wouldn't deny that?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't remember him being there, if somebody else remembers him being there, it will be my word against his and vice versa.

MR NGUBANE: No, no, it can't be your word against his, you say you can't remember. My question is if someone were to positively say that Mhieza was there, because you can't recall, you won't be in a position to deny that?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I won't be able to deny that.

MR NGUBANE: At the shooting range, that is at the risk of using a misnomer, where you waited for Bhila to be transported, did you see Bhila coming there?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot as I am sitting here, remember Bhila arriving.

MR NGUBANE: But do you remember when Bhila was there?

MR ROSSLEE: He was there during the day, yes.

MR NGUBANE: Was he injured?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall.

MR NGUBANE: Was he naked?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no recollection if he was dressed or naked Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: What of him do you remember as you were there?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't remember anything of him Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: When he was shot at the cliff, was he shot on his foot, on his head or on his body?

MR ROSSLEE: He was shot in the head Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: You remember that?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I do.

MR NGUBANE: But you say you can't recall whether he was interrogated or not?

MR ROSSLEE: That is right.

MR NGUBANE: At the shooting range?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection was that I cannot remember.

MR NGUBANE: When the statement of Mr Bosch was read to you by Captain Holmes, can you recall whether it did state that Mr Bhila was interrogated at the shooting range?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't remember what Mr Bosch said in his statement, about that.

MR NGUBANE: What you put in your statement, Exhibit B, that he was interrogated, can you account for that, whether it was out of your own volition?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot, as I said earlier, the only explanation I have for that is that I have probably superimposed the other application, amnesty application with this one, because from evidence, there apparently wasn't.

MR NGUBANE: You were saying that you had evidence yesterday, and is it your evidence that you consulted with your co-applicants after the evidence was led yesterday?

MR ROSSLEE: We spoke, yes.

MR NGUBANE: And did you discuss about the interrogation?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't believe we spoke about the interrogation.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, can you tell us briefly what you consulted on?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say we spoke about the proceedings yesterday, and how they went Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, what in particular that you can remember about the proceedings yesterday?

MR ROSSLEE: We spoke about McCarter going first and it being difficult to go first and what we remembered in broad terms, about the application, what happened.

I don't specifically remember us talking about the interrogation.

MR NGUBANE: There was a specific request made to you yesterday, about the whereabouts of the body, didn't that concern you?

MR ROSSLEE: In what regard Mr Chairman?

MR NGUBANE: Concern you to such an extent that you consulted extensively on that, trying to relocate the place in the interest of the family?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, we most definitely spoke about, amongst ourselves as to the fact that could any of us remember of possibly find where Mr Bhila's body was disposed of and the conclusion of that was, I don't think anyone of us can remember where it was or go to the exact place again.

MR NGUBANE: I take it it was not of primary concern to you? Is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: Well, coming as a request from the family, it was of concern to us and hence we spoke about it.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, I used the word primary concern, it was not of primary concern to you?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, my primary concern is giving the right evidence here and getting through this hearing.

MR NGUBANE: Yes. By implication, are you telling me that it was of no primary concern to you, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, either it is of concern to me, or it is not of concern to me. It was of concern, because it was a request from the family.

MR NGUBANE: Mr Rosslee, a theory has been advanced to me by the families, that maybe that place where Bhila was killed, was a killing field and you are hiding that place, because you know that more can be unearthed. What are your comments to that?

MR ROSSLEE: I find that strange Mr Chairman, in that I have only applied, or I have applied for two incidents, of which only one was in Port Natal.

I have been down here, and I have thought about it, I couldn't find that place, I have no further knowledge of if that place was used as a killing field as you say, or for any other reason.

MR NGUBANE: The other incident, other than this one, were you also threatened with prosecution in that one?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I was.

MR NGUBANE: So you only talk about matters where you have been threatened with prosecution?

MR ROSSLEE: No, my application is for two incidents and only two incidents, and on both occasions I was threatened with prosecution, there weren't other incidents.

MR NGUBANE: And did you know of any other incidents where other people were involved, where innocent people were killed at Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: I had no knowledge of the doings of other teams and the specifics with what they were busy with when they were away Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Now, at Vlakplaas,you spent a period of about a year, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And during that period, were you only involved in legitimate operations, legitimate in the sense that you didn't kill innocent people, everything was legal?

MR ROSSLEE: Bar the incident that we are currently busy with, all the other operations that we, or the times that we went out and worked in the field, were legitimate operations, routine operations.

MR NGUBANE: And in spite of your innocence, you carried this throw away guns with you?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I did Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Was it the first time that you carried these throw away guns with you, when you had these pistols in your possession?

MR ROSSLEE: No Mr Chairman, they were - I had a bag with equipment in the car, and they would just be with wherever we went.

MR NGUBANE: Had you given anyone other than the gentleman who made the application here, Mr McCarter, did you give anyone other than Mr McCarter any of these throw away weapons at any stage?

MR ROSSLEE: As I said earlier Mr Chairman, I handed some of those weapons to some of my ex-colleagues at Vlakplaas. I don't recall specifically who took or who got or if there were any that were left over that went into the armoury, or what the case was with them.

MR NGUBANE: You didn't give those throw away guns for a specific purpose of a cover up after these people had killed innocent people?

MR ROSSLEE: I am sorry, I am not with you, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: When you gave the other people the throw away weapons, did you give them these weapons for a specific purpose of covering up after they had killed innocent people?

MR ROSSLEE: Not specifically. As I said in my evidence, that was the purpose I used them for, why I had them with me. I don't know for what purpose the other people carried those weapons.

MR NGUBANE: But, did you give them as a result of their request or you volunteered?

MR ROSSLEE: Well, I had them and I asked who wanted. They were available and whoever wanted, took.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you Mr Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NGUBANE

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you correctly to say that you didn't know of the doings of any other teams at Vlakplaas?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, for instance if I was in a team working in Port Natal, I wouldn't know what the other teams would be busy with on the ground, wherever they were working, be it Eastern Transvaal or the Cape or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: And you never discussed it with one another?

MR ROSSLEE: I personally, for instance in this matter, to my knowledge, I have never discussed it with anyone else at Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: So you knew of nobody at Vlakplaas who killed people?

MR ROSSLEE: I knew of incidents where people had been killed, where terrorists had been shot, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you discover this?

MR ROSSLEE: We have been told, because they were operations that were in the press and prior to that happening, or either they were in the press before the teams came back, or we heard about it from the team.

CHAIRPERSON: And you decided then that you could distribute these guns as throw away weapons?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I didn't decide then to do that. The weapons were available, I had them and I asked if someone wanted them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you obtained them illegally?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: They should have been destroyed, somebody else was not doing his duty properly, a Lieutenant whose name you said you would try to discover?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Rosslee, what strikes me throughout your testimony here today is the fact that this was your first killing of an unarmed person, and yet you remember very little of the circumstances and I am not talking of the finer detail.

When you got the request cum order from Taylor, you set it out in your amnesty application, page 24, that he had told you two of the accused in the Amanzimtoti bomb blast criminal trial had been acquitted, but that they were still continuing their subversive actions and that your task was to arrest them for purposes of elimination.

That was your, that was the basis or part of your amnesty application as of December 1996. Is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

ADV PRIOR: Did you fill this form out, did you make that statement yourself or were you assisted by your legal representative?

MR ROSSLEE: My legal counsel was with me when I made that as I recall.

ADV PRIOR: And obviously you weren't under stress then, you were relaxed, you were possibly in his chambers or in his office. You never had anyone pressurising you to recall what had occurred all those years ago, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: No, it isn't. This application as I recall and I can ask my legal counsel, was done the night before the amnesties closed.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, there was a sense of urgency in that you had to get your application in before the cut off date?

MR ROSSLEE: True.

ADV PRIOR: But apart from feeling pressurised or coerced or under some form of compulsion, there was nothing of that, you were with your own Attorney of your own choice and you were recalling the events as you remembered them, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct, I do, yes.

ADV PRIOR: Would you agree with me then that we can place some reliance then on the accuracy of what you said two years ago, rather than what you say today, because today you don't say much, you basically can't recall much of what happened?

MR ROSSLEE: I should imagine yes, we could.

ADV PRIOR: All right. On that basis then, we know that Bhila and Nxiweni had been discharged at the end of the State case, and that was roughly on the 18th of February 1987. That is common cause, I think you will also agree with that?

MR ROSSLEE: I have heard that, yes.

ADV PRIOR: And about three days later Bhila was then abducted at Lamontville, near the Kentucky. As a result of an operation involving your Unit, Ramatala posed as a UDF man or an ANC man and we understand that someone was taken out of prison, Bhila was then lured, he was intercepted and then taken into McCarter's custody, your custody, Bosch, later Wasserman and Taylor and Lembede and possibly Mhieza, held at the pistol club?

MR ROSSLEE: That is, yes.

ADV PRIOR: Now, you also recall in your amnesty application, when you were in a fairly relaxed mood, that he was interrogated and later on, when you shot him, you said the handcuffs were removed and he was thrown over the cliff, so you remember that he was cuffed. At the shooting range, I should imagine, he was also cuffed?

MR ROSSLEE: Under the circumstances, I should imagine, he would have been.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, in the same manner?

MR ROSSLEE: At the shooting range I cannot recall if he was cuffed in front, hands in front or his legs or whatever, but I should imagine he was restraint.

ADV PRIOR: My understanding of your evidence, especially Exhibit B your statement to Holmes, read with your amnesty application, that the purpose of taking Bhila to this remote area where the public really wasn't around, is that correct, that wasn't a place frequented by the public?

MR ROSSLEE: No, it wasn't.

ADV PRIOR: Was basically to find out where Nxiweni was because your instruction from Taylor was to take the other man out, to take both of them out?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot recall, I recall that there was, two people were spoken about.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, and both had to be eliminated?

MR ROSSLEE: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: On the basis that Bhila was one, Nxiweni must have been the other?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall the name.

ADV PRIOR: Okay. I also want to suggest to you that your interrogation of Bhila would not have been a mild form of questioning, it would have been robust.

MR ROSSLEE: I should imagine if the interrogation took place, yes, it would have been.

ADV PRIOR: We have heard evidence in other hearings, of the manner in which terrorists were interrogated, brutal sometimes, even savage fashion, ice up the anus and electric shocks, etc, etc. We have heard evidence like that. I am not suggesting it happened like that, I am saying it wasn't a courteous question and answer session?

MR ROSSLEE: No, it wouldn't have been.

ADV PRIOR: And throughout he would have been restrained, he would have been handcuffed, presumably with his hands behind his back?

MR ROSSLEE: As I said, he would have been restrained, I don't know how.

ADV PRIOR: He would have been so restrained from the early morning or from part of the morning, till almost sunset, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: I imagine he was restrained all the time, yes.

ADV PRIOR: And I should imagine too he wasn't shown any courtesy or any favours, he wasn't given anything to drink or to eat?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't remember if he was given anything to eat or drink.

ADV PRIOR: Because you were going to execute him later, that was clear, so you wouldn't be showing him any courtesy, would you?

MR ROSSLEE: As I said, I don't recall any courtesy being shown to him.

ADV PRIOR: It was suggested or put to you by Mr Ngubane on behalf of the family, possibly whether he was naked when he was shot. You say you have no recollection?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no recollection what he was wearing.

ADV PRIOR: Wasn't it part of the operation that you would take steps to prevent the body being identified, or identified quickly? In other words, so that it couldn't be traced back in any way to your Unit or to the police?

MR ROSSLEE: To my way of thinking, where we were was pretty isolated, and sparsely populated, so that wouldn't have happened any way Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: There will be evidence in the other events, for example in the Poshua Ndwandwe matter, when her body was exhumed or the skeletal remains, there was no indication of any clothing, in other words, there was a strong indication that she was naked when she was buried?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I ...

ADV PRIOR: I am just putting it to you at the level, pitching at the level that in order to minimise the risk of the deceased being identified at an early stage, you would have probably stripped the body?

MR ROSSLEE: Possibly. I have no recollection of stripping the body.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Rosslee, have you discussed the facts of the Bhila killing with Mr Wasserman at any stage up until now?

MR ROSSLEE: About, I think it was a week ago, in consultation, we spoke about it.

ADV PRIOR: Let me ask you this question, did he ask you to assist him in remembering what had happened?

MR ROSSLEE: I think it was more a case of trying to assist me in what happened Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: Well, I ask you that because at page 44 of the first bundle, that is the Bhila bundle, and I refer to the extract of Mr Wasserman's amnesty application, under 9(a)(iv) as to the nature and particulars of the elimination of Sipho Stanley Bhila, he said the nature and particulars of this incident are not immediately recalled to mind. I will do the necessary search etc, and attempt to provide a full and detailed statement which will be provided at a later stage.

Are you suggesting that he actually assisted you to remember what happened and not the other way around?

MR ROSSLEE: Between the two of us, we were trying to put the pieces together Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: Would your decision to have carried out Taylor's order, have been different if you had been told that Bhila had placed a limpet mine at the Lamontville town offices, had it gone off, causing structural damage but no loss of life?

MR ROSSLEE: I believe one of the major reasons that I agreed to do this, or indeed carried this act out, was based on what I was told and the potential, what Mr Bhila was potentially going to carry on with.

I don't know, it is a difficult question to ask now, in today's climate.

ADV PRIOR: All right. The fact that he was linked or what the information was, he was linked with the Amanzimtoti bomb on your allegation that Taylor told you that.

MR ROSSLEE: That is the way I understood it.

ADV PRIOR: Your version that Taylor told you that. Did that, the fact that people were killed, white people were killed, shoppers were killed, children, did that have any bearing on your decision to go along and eliminate Bhila?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say it contributed to it. That, the information that I received at that point about that, his probable future activities, most definitely had an impact.

ADV PRIOR: This being your first killing of an unarmed person, we heard evidence that you and McCarter worked closely together, you were part of the same Unit?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

ADV PRIOR: Did you speak to McCarter about Taylor's request/order?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall having discussed it with him. I don't remember, in all probability between the two of us, we would have discussed the logistics if you like.

ADV PRIOR: I mean it was something that you hadn't done before. You see, why I am asking you this, I mean Mr Wasserman was available, Taylor's own Unit, why did he have to ask you?

MR ROSSLEE: I would say number one, he would have needed one of the askaris or at least one of them, to do the approach.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, no, I am talking about the killing.

MR ROSSLEE: I have no idea.

ADV PRIOR: Once Bhila was in your clutches, it made no difference who did the killing?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no idea why Major Taylor asked us to do it.

ADV PRIOR: Why didn't you say, well, get one of your own Unit to do it?

MR ROSSLEE: A Sergeant saying that to a Major, number one isn't done, and I respected Major Taylor.

ADV PRIOR: McCarter said yesterday if I recall correctly, he said well, if he had refused, nothing really could have been done about that. He may have been sidelined.

MR ROSSLEE: And I would agree with that.

ADV PRIOR: Is it correct that you wanted to kill Bhila out of your own, it didn't take the order, it didn't take, because the way you put it, it was a request.

ADV PRIOR: Out of the blue, (indistinct), would you kill Bhila, take Bhila out?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I didn't know about Mr Bhila until this request was put to us.

ADV PRIOR: The impression I got was that it was almost like an enquiry, Taylor was telling you about these people that had been acquitted and almost, when you say request, would you mind taking care of these people, it certainly wasn't a definite order in the sense that if you don't carry out the order, you would, there would be disciplinary action taken against you. It was certainly not pitched at that level?

MR ROSSLEE: To me, a request from Major Taylor and a direct order, would be virtually the same thing.

MR MALAN: May I just ask on this point again, a question, I have asked it earlier, under cross-examination by Mr Prior now, you again said that you agreed to eliminate him, and now later, you volunteered request.

Why didn't you say then your wish is your command? You are using language which is not cast in any military terms or any terms of an instruction, an order, something that you had to obey.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, to me as I have said, a request by a senior officer was the same thing as an order. They asked me to do something, you do it.

MR MALAN: He wasn't asking you to do something, he was asking you whether you would do it. Otherwise you would not agree, that is really the question.

Why do you say I agreed?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, excuse me, but I think we are getting into semantics here, and I don't get the point of the question.

MR MALAN: You see, if there is a request and you construct the request as an order, you would simply carry on and do it.

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You wouldn't agree or disagree?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I agreed to carry out the request.

MR MALAN: Is that your understanding if there is an order, you have to agree to carry out the order, or do you just carry out?

MR ROSSLEE: I most definitely can agree to carry out the order, or not carry it out Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Is that what you are trying to say to us?

ADV PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman. This "braaivleis" that you recall, it would seem to my mind that certainly you won't simply spend the whole day at a shooting range, without making provision for lunch and there is nothing sinister, I don't know, attached to having a "braaivleis" in the open, whilst you were waiting for further instructions or waiting for dark.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, as I said, my recollection is that we had a braai there the afternoon, and that was it.

ADV PRIOR: And normally with a braai, a few beers are consumed, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: Contrary to popular belief, Mr Chairman, I don't believe any alcohol was consumed on that specific day.

ADV PRIOR: Normally, generally when policemen are in the bush, spending some time there and a "braaivleis" is prepared, there is normally beers or alcohol, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: I normally drank beer when I am braaiing, yes.

ADV PRIOR: Yes. Can you think of any reason why Bosch steered well clear of that question? I put it to him and he said no, his recollection is that someone bought cold drink.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, as I said, I have no idea. My recollection is that we did braai.

ADV PRIOR: Bosch struck me yesterday as a frightened or nervous person. Is he generally like that?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I haven't seen Mr Bosch for 10 or 11 years.

ADV PRIOR: He said he was the official photographer cum video man at Vlakplaas and he didn't know why he was on this operation.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I very rarely worked with Mr Bosch, so I don't know what he did.

ADV PRIOR: What did he do on your recall, was he just basically sitting around there? Did he assist you in the interrogation, did he assist in taking Bhila out of the vehicle, what is your recall?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot remember him vividly doing anything.

ADV PRIOR: McCarter also had no recollection of an interrogation, questioning?

MR ROSSLEE: As I said, sitting here today, having heard the evidence, I don't know.

ADV PRIOR: All right, tell me these two pistols, these Baby Brownings, or .25 calibre, aren't those the type of weapons you use for almost for killing people, I mean for close up work?

MR ROSSLEE: I suppose the calibre and the size would lend itself to close up.

ADV PRIOR: You wouldn't use your 9 mm to shoot someone in the head from the sort of range that you were from Bhila?

MR ROSSLEE: I suppose any weapon could have been used at close range.

ADV PRIOR: So why didn't you use your 9 mm, your standard issue?

MR ROSSLEE: As I said in my main evidence, it was a throw away, it was a deniable weapon. If I needed to get rid of it, that is it.

ADV PRIOR: All right, tell me, in your amnesty application, when you made this statement to your legal representative, you were quite clear that you shot Bhila in the head, plus minus seven times? Let's just take it step by step.

You were clear when you made it, December 1996?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection when I made the statement Mr Chairman, was that at the end of that, the slide was open and the assumption I made was, that yes, the magazine was empty.

ADV PRIOR: Surely, you were recounting what you remembered and you remembered when you made the statement in your amnesty application, that you had shot at least seven times, more or less seven times, you had shot into the head of Bhila, or the person that you were shooting?

You never told your Attorney at that stage, that the gun had jammed and you had cleared the gun or your recollection was that you had cleared the gun, is that correct?

MR ROSSLEE: No, it is not correct Mr Chairman. As I remember, as I said earlier, firing a shot, having the weapon jam, cocking it a number of times, and then the next thing I remember is that the weapon was empty.

I don't remember how many shots I fired. I recall the first shot I fired.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is not what you said in your affidavit that you made to your lawyer.

MR ROSSLEE: I understand that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: In your affidavit you said I then shot the suspect plus or minus seven times, in the head.

MR ROSSLEE: I understand that. What I am saying is it might have been semantics, it might have been anything. My recollection is firing one shot, cocking the weapon a number of times, and the weapon at the end of the next thing that I can remember, is the weapon being locked back and open.

CHAIRPERSON: If you told your lawyer that, why didn't he write it down? Why did you swear to something different?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no explanation for that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The only explanation I can possibly accept is that you did not tell your lawyer that, because he was writing down an affidavit. He wouldn't have written down his own version which contradicted what you said?

MR ROSSLEE: Very possibly, I just don't see the point of having come here to tell the truth and open up, and lie about something like that of which I am implicated any way.

MR MALAN: Mr Rosslee, I am not sure whether you heard Mr Prior's question correctly. He asked whether you had any recollection telling your lawyer, when you made this affidavit, about the pistol jamming?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I don't recall telling him that.

MR MALAN: All right, I think that was the question.

MR ROSSLEE: Okay.

ADV PRIOR: Well, isn't the simple truth that now, in Committee before the public, you have difficulty reconciling what you did with actually shooting Bhila at least seven times, well about seven times in the head.

It certainly seems more grave than simply on your version, well, at least once?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman ...

ADV PRIOR: It goes to your intention, what you wanted to do?

MR ROSSLEE: My intention Mr Chairman, right there was to eliminate Mr Bhila.

ADV PRIOR: Well, why did you shoot him in the head?

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, if we didn't shoot him in the head with a small calibre like that, we probably would have had to shot him more times. But the point I am trying to make is I recall the jam and purely by clearing the jam, there is no way I could have fired those seven shots.

ADV PRIOR: I am going to suggest to you that this jam of the vehicle is a fabrication that you have thought up recently.

CHAIRPERSON: Jam of the vehicle Mr Prior?

ADV PRIOR: Jam of the firearm, did I say vehicle, I apologise.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, that will be speculation on your part. My recollection is firing a shot, having a jam and that is it.

ADV PRIOR: Look, you have been taken through this, I don't want to argue and argue, but when you say it is my speculation, it is what you told your Attorney and what you told Captain Holmes, that you shot several shots into Bhila's head.

Mr Rosslee, that is taken from your own words?

MR ROSSLEE: Fair enough Mr Chairman, I don't recall how many shots I fired. I recall the first one, the jam and the weapon being locked back.

ADV PRIOR: I am also going to suggest to you that in fact is the case, that you shot several rounds into his head, the situation couldn't have been that traumatic for you as you have let us believe.

MR ROSSLEE: Why not Mr Chairman?

ADV PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSLEE

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR VISSER: None thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER

ADV SIGODI: Mr Rosslee, when Mr Bhila was abducted from his home, he was taken because he was going to be taken out of the country and with a view, I mean the askaris, the story is that the askaris told him that he was going to be taken out of the country for his own safety and for further training.

Did he have any clothing with him when he was at the shooting range?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't recall if he had any additional clothing with him Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: So you wouldn't know what happened to whatever parcels he may have had?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no idea Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: The brown bag that was put on his head, when he was taken to the scene of the killing, do you know where it came from?

MR ROSSLEE: I didn't know it was a brown bag.

ADV SIGODI: The packet or whatever it was that was put on him?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no idea where that bag came from.

ADV SIGODI: You mentioned that you and Mr Wasserman, you discussed this matter and in your own words you said between the two of us we tried to put the pieces together. The problem I am having with that is, is what you are telling a reconstruction or is it what actually happened and how much really can we put to what you are telling us today?

MR ROSSLEE: What I am telling here today is as I recall the events to the best of my knowledge.

ADV SIGODI: With the assistance of Mr Wasserman and the two of you trying to put the pieces together?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I disagree with that Mr Chairman, because I still maintain, we still have differences. For instance on the flat tyre, I maintain it was on the way back from the scene, other witnesses maintain it was on the way to the scene.

I maintain there was a braai, they maintain there wasn't a braai.

ADV SIGODI: Just on that score, after you had done this, on your way back, did you discuss this incident with the other members in the motor vehicle?

MR ROSSLEE: To my recollection, we didn't speak about it.

ADV SIGODI: What were you talking about?

MR ROSSLEE: I have no idea.

ADV SIGODI: Is it normal for people to commit such an act and not to talk about it afterwards, even when the person that they have killed is no longer there?

MR ROSSLEE: I wouldn't know what normal is in those circumstances Mr Chairman, but I don't recall if we spoke, and if we did, what we spoke about.

ADV SIGODI: And afterwards, did you perhaps read in the newspapers or hear that somebody had been shot and his body was thrown over a cliff? Did anything like that concerning this incident, come up in the newspapers?

MR ROSSLEE: I heard nothing about it until the Attorney General's Investigation Team contacted me.

ADV SIGODI: Why did they contact you, how did they link you to that?

MR ROSSLEE: My understanding was that as I said, they had had a statement from Mr Bosch and they traced me, and that was it.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Mr Rosslee, can you recall the date that you were called to Captain Taylor, or was he Major Taylor then, to his office when you and McCarter discussed with him, and he told you about the acquittal?

MR ROSSLEE: No, I cannot remember the date Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Can you remember the date when Bhila was killed?

MR ROSSLEE: From the statements, I recall the date from the statements and consultation, yes.

MR MALAN: What date do you have as your date?

MR ROSSLEE: Let me just see here. If I remember correctly it was the 22nd or something, I can't find it here now.

MR MALAN: The 22nd of February 1996?

CHAIRPERSON: No, 1986.

MR MALAN: Sorry, 1986 did I say 1996.

MR ROSSLEE: 1987.

MR MALAN: 1987, 1987. Can you recall anything more that was told you by Taylor when he called you into his office as to why Bhila and the other were acquitted?

MR ROSSLEE: I can't remember why they were, or if we were told why they were acquitted, the reason why they were acquitted Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: He simply said they were acquitted and what did he say more about their activities?

MR ROSSLEE: My recollection is that they were scared of Mr Bhila and the other person, of carrying on with terrorist activities in the Port Natal area.

MR MALAN: So they had no evidence that they were already carrying on, they were just fearful of them?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot recall if they already had evidence, or if it was - my understanding as I recall now, was that they were going to continue with the activities.

MR MALAN: In other words you understood it at the time that the Court acquitted them incorrectly, and they had to be dealt with?

MR ROSSLEE: To stop their future activities, yes.

MR MALAN: For the sake of justice and prevention of whatever?

MR ROSSLEE: That is right.

MR MALAN: The Court should have found them guilty in other words?

MR ROSSLEE: I cannot speculate on that, I just know that they were acquitted.

MR MALAN: Okay. Now, can you remember the date of that discussion?

MR ROSSLEE: No. No Mr chairman.

MR MALAN: If I put it to you that the acquittal in terms of the judgement of what is the Judge's name, Thirion, that the acquittal after the closure of the State's case was on the 18th of February, that would have been somewhere during the day, can you remember the time of day that that discussion took place in Taylor's office?

MR ROSSLEE: No clue Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Something tells me it was somewhere in the morning, by some evidence, would that be possible?

MR ROSSLEE: It is possible, I don't know.

MR MALAN: But it wasn't on the same day, it was probably at least, earlier on the next day, on the 19th?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know.

MR MALAN: Or later, but it must have been before the 21?

MR ROSSLEE: In all likelihood, yes.

MR MALAN: So what I am looking at is, for some reason Taylor made an immediate decision after the acquittal that he had to be removed.

There was no opportunity for Bhila or Nxiweni to prove themselves one way or another?

MR ROSSLEE: I should imagine Mr Chairman. I didn't have a history on Mr Bhila or the other person.

MR MALAN: But you can't recall that he mentioned to you when they were acquitted?

MR ROSSLEE: No, off hand I can't remember that at all.

MR MALAN: And according to evidence again, it seems as if they had to be, the address had to be found out, in other words Bhila be located, lured away and taken out, assassinated?

MR ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And all of that from the discussion to the killing of Bhila, took probably from the morning of the 19th, to the 22nd, that is over a period of three to four days, most?

MR ROSSLEE: I should imagine so, yes.

MR MALAN: So that also means that Taylor must have followed, he must have been there or had someone there who reported to them. He probably would have had knowledge already because no evidence were led and that was the reason for the acquittal, that they would have been acquitted after the closure of the State's case?

MR ROSSLEE: I don't know Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: You see, why I am asking this is you went down on the 10th and you returned on the 27th, that is five days after the killing. You can't remember any discussion about this high profile case at that time, where this Unit had a specific interest?

MR ROSSLEE: Are you referring to which case?

MR MALAN: The Buthelezi and others.

MR ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I wasn't involved with that. Not in the investigation, not in the court case. I don't recall the names even, of the people who were involved in that.

MR MALAN: Surely you weren't involved, but I mean to them, to the Unit, for the Unit, that was a priority, it was an important case?

MR ROSSLEE: To the local Unit, I imagine it was a very important case.

MR MALAN: You can't recall that they ever discussed it during your presence down there?

MR ROSSLEE: I am sure they must have spoken about the case, I just don't recall it.

MR MALAN: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, if this witness may be excused, may I call Mr Wasserman.

WITNESS EXCUSED