Amnesty Hearings

ADV PRIOR: We've resolved the issue on the following basis, there was no formal investigation report. There are however certain witnesses that have been contacted either telephonically or via intermediaries. Certain notes were made of those conversations. I have not yet corroborated any of the information in those notes with witnesses who apparently are arriving during the course of today and insofar as that may constitute an investigation report, I'll make those available to all the parties with the provision, with the reservation that they are simply notes, they have not yet been substantiated and there's no indication at this stage whether any of those persons who will be present here today will be called. Obviously that decision may change. Photocopies are being prepared and I will distribute them to all the parties during the course of the morning. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: In the event of the witnesses not being called, I take it they will remain confidential?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Visser on record, might I just make our position clear? It has never been the intention to ask any confidential notes of any consultations, that's not the point at all. The only point is simply this, that if witnesses are going to be called, we would hate to ask for the matter to stand down for us to prepare at that stage, we would like beforehand just to be prepared so that if a witness gives evidence, one can cross-examine him immediately, it's as simple as that.

If that is all Mr Chairman, may I then proceed? First of all Mr Chairman, you will find before you two bundles, copies of Exhibit A, we gave you one yesterday which I would ask you just to uplift to add the two covering pages to it. I'm not sure where it is floating around at the moment but I recall that we handed you one copy without the covering pages yesterday. If I could uplift that for a moment, I could add the two covering pages for you and then you would each have a copy, Mr Chairman. The problem which we have is that we don't seem to be able to have copies made with the facilities of the TRC here, but we have been able to recover some copies so that at least each of the Members of the Committee will have a copy. We won't address that document now, Mr Chairman, we will do so when Mr Botha appears before you as a witness.

If I may then continue with Mr Wasserman, Mr Chairman?

Mr Wasserman, you are still bound by your oath which you took yesterday to speak the truth, do you understand that?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (Continued) Mr Wasserman, you were present yesterday in the hall when Mr Rosslee gave evidence, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And did you listen to his evidence about how he saw experiences of policemen in the security branch during the years of the struggle, the political background and the influences which were exerted upon members of the security branch including pressures brought to bear, did you hear that evidence?

MR WASSERMAN: I heard that.

MR VISSER: And are you in agreement with that evidence?

MR WASSERMAN: I agree with that evidence Mr Chairman.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROUSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, Rossouw on record.

Mr Wasserman, just a couple of questions. When you arrived at the shooting range late the afternoon according to your evidence, you testified that you saw Mr Bosch there? That's correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct.

MR ROUSSOUW: Did you discuss with him what was to happen?

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: Did you see anybody or were you present in a discussion with anybody else who might have taken the lead in explaining what was to happen?

MR WASSERMAN: No.

MR ROUSSOUW: You weren't party to a discussion where for instance Mr Lembedi was told that he had to select the place where you were going to go?

MR WASSERMAN: No I wasn't.

MR ROUSSOUW: So as far as you were aware, from the time that you were present at the shooting range that no such discussion took place?

MR WASSERMAN: Not in my presence.

MR ROUSSOUW: Now in the vehicle on the way there did such a discussion take place?

MR WASSERMAN: No discussion like that.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understand it, you drove there in your own vehicle?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You stopped on the way and had a discussion with Major Taylor?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was in his vehicle?

MR WASSERMAN: He was in his vehicle, yes Mr Chairman.

MR ROUSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, maybe I should just clear that up. I was referring to the people all in the Combi when they left from the shooting range on the way to the location where the actual killing took place. Did any discussion in the Combi take place?

MR WASSERMAN: In regards to what subject?

MR ROUSSOUW: What was going to happen.

MR WASSERMAN: No, no discussions took place by them. We were not going to discuss in front of Mr Bhila anything.

MR ROUSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUSSOUW

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman, Van Schalkwyk for McCarter. Just a single question.

Do I understand your evidence correctly that the night in question or the day in question a person by the name of Aubrey Mogadi was never present?

MR WASSERMAN: He was never present, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman, Hugo on record.

Mr Wasserman, just one question, you heard I suppose that mention was made of a Honda vehicle that was hired and that was also used in the operation. Were you aware of this vehicle?

MR WASSERMAN: I wasn't, Mr Chairman.

MR HUGO: I've got not further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NGUBANE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Wasserman, you say that you participated in the conflict in Zimbabwe before you could come to South Africa, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And when you participated in that conflict you say it was a war situation, is that right?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And when in Zimbabwe did you participate in the killing of innocent people?

MR WASSERMAN: No I did not.

MR NGUBANE: Although it was a war situation you never participated in the killing of innocent people?

MR WASSERMAN: Not innocent people Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And unarmed people, you never?

MR WASSERMAN: Not unarmed.

MR NGUBANE: Did you participate in any act, criminal act, when you were in Zimbabwe?

MR WASSERMAN: No criminal acts.

MR NGUBANE: Your beliefs before you could come to South Africa, did you believe that you could kill in order to pursue a political motive?

MR WASSERMAN: The killing would have only been in - any killing is only justified in a war situation and I was bound by that ethic.

MR NGUBANE: But could you kill for pursuing a political belief in unjustified circumstances, like self defence?

MR WASSERMAN: I don't quite understand that fully.

MR NGUBANE: Well, would you kill a person who was opposed to your political belief in illegal circumstances, just to kill him, just to advance a political belief?

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And in South Africa was there a stage where you could kill a person in pursuit of a political belief?

MR WASSERMAN: Not as a political belief per se but in normalising a situation and descaling a war, yes.

MR NGUBANE: Now are you suggesting that you would kill in circumstances when it would be legal for you to do so?

MR WASSERMAN: To kill who when it's legally to kill?

MR NGUBANE: Pardon?

MR WASSERMAN: I don't understand the question. To kill when it's legally to kill? What do you mean by that?

MR NGUBANE: Are you - my question is, when you were in South Africa could you - was there a stage when you could kill in pursuit of a political motive knowing that in terms of the laws of the country it was illegal to kill a person?

MR NGUBANE: I'm sorry, I still don't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you heard it, he said when it was illegal to kill a person, not when it was legal. The question was, in South Africa would you, in furthering a political belief, kill a person when you knew it was illegal to do so?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, that would happen, yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You would?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes that would happen, yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: In furthering a political belief?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes.

MR NGUBANE: At what stage did you reach a point when you could kill in circumstances when it was illegal to do so in pursuance of a political belief?

MR WASSERMAN: It was the stage when the war status in Natal had reached so high that in our belief there was no other way but to kill the combatant concerned.

MR NGUBANE: Can you estimate in terms of years, round about which year?

MR WASSERMAN: I would say round about the year of the matter in question.

MR NGUBANE: And before this Bhila killing, did you kill a person in circumstances which were illegal but in pursuit of a political motive?

MR WASSERMAN: I believe there's an application here somewhere, I'm not sure if it was not just before this or just after but there is an amnesty application.

MR NGUBANE: Only one?

MR WASSERMAN: There is one application yes.

MR NGUBANE: Are you in a position to identify that application, it related to whom?

MR WASSERMAN: The one that I'm referring to is a shoot out in Durban at the N2 bridgeway but I'm not sure of the date right now but it should be available to the Committee.

MR NGUBANE: Well if you say a shoot out, were those people shooting you and you were shooting back at them?

MR WASSERMAN: We got in the shots first.

MR NGUBANE: Now ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: By that do you mean you shot them?

MR WASSERMAN: We shot first yes, but there was a hand grenade there but ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: They didn't shoot at you?

MR WASSERMAN: We were too quick Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: So your evidence is that before this Bhila killing, that was the only incident that you were involved in which occurred in circumstances that were illegal?

MR WASSERMAN: No there's many here, there's other applications here but I don't know the date of this one that I'm referring to, if this was before Bhila or if it was shortly after Bhila.

CHAIRPERSON: Is a copy of the complete application available?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Chairman I understand that it's with the couriers and should be here this morning.

MR VISSER: In order to be of some assistance Mr Chairman, I believe the witness is referring to what you have in

Exhibit A: at page 24. It's the so-called Quarry Road incident and it's dated the 9th August 1986. I believe that chronologically that took place prior to the Bhila incident and that's the only one that I've been able to find, just glancing through the papers right now.

MR WASSERMAN: Then that would be the one I'm referring to Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: The other incidents follow the Bhila incident, I believe the Bhila incident, as I have it Mr Chairman, is the second one. I incorrectly stated yesterday there were fifteen incidents for which this witness applies but there are eight but they all follow the Quarry Road incident at page 24.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you. Now sir, the matters, all the matters in respect of which you have applied for amnesty are the matters in which you had been threatened with prosecution?

MR WASSERMAN: No.

MR NGUBANE: You volunteered some other matters?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes that is correct Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: In this Bhila matter had you been threatened with prosecution?

MR WASSERMAN: In the Bhila matter I was cautioned by Holmes but no threats were made, it was a straight forward warning statement.

MR NGUBANE: And when you applied for amnesty in other matters had you been cautioned by Holmes?

MR WASSERMAN: Not in the other matters.

MR NGUBANE: Did you make your amnesty applications in other matters before you could make an application in the Bhila matter?

MR WASSERMAN: No, altogether.

MR NGUBANE: Now in terms of seniority, Taylor was your senior, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And did you at any stage plan with Mr Taylor the killing of Mr Bhila?

MR WASSERMAN: No I did not Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: At what stage did you know for the first time that Bhila had to be killed?

MR WASSERMAN: It was when we stopped, when I stopped behind Mr Taylor not far from the Railway Police shooting range.

MR NGUBANE: Had Mr Taylor at any stage indicated to you that he was not happy about the acquittal of Mr Bhila?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, none of us were happy with the acquittal of Mr Bhila, it was mentioned by us but that's where it stopped.

MR NGUBANE: And before the arrest now of Mr Bhila, could you kill for a political matter?

MR WASSERMAN: If I knew exactly who the man was, how dangerous he was considered to be, how well military trained he was, what his activities were, that is likely that that could have ...[indistinct] yes, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Did you participate in the investigation of the matter against Mr Bhila?

MR WASSERMAN: I did.

MR NGUBANE: And did you participate in his arrest?

MR WASSERMAN: I can't recall, I participated in many, many arrests over that period of time.

MR NGUBANE: If you participated in his investigations the probabilities are that you must have participated in his arrest, is that right?

MR WASSERMAN: That's not necessarily correct Mr Chairman, there was thirty or so personalities and I didn't arrest anywhere near half, so I am not certain about that.

MR NGUBANE: And before he could be arrested you knew who he was and where he resided, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct, yes.

MR NGUBANE: And you knew that he was a dangerous man, is that right?

MR WASSERMAN: I knew he was a well trained Umkhonto weSizwe cadre, yes.

MR NGUBANE: Now why didn't you kill him before he could be arrested?

MR WASSERMAN: Maybe I wasn't sent to arrest him.

MR NGUBANE: But you knew where ...[intervention]

MR WASSERMAN: It's not policy to kill somebody before you arrest them.

MR NGUBANE: You knew where he stayed, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: I and the other investigators possibly knew where he stayed.

MR NGUBANE: No, it's not possibly, you knew where he stayed, that's your evidence?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I knew where he stayed.

MR NGUBANE: And you knew who he was?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct.

MR NGUBANE: Right and now can you advance a better reason why you didn't kill before he could be arrested?

MR WASSERMAN: He was arrested and taken before the court.

MR NGUBANE: I'm asking you that because the suspicion I have is that you killed Bhila just because you were frustrated by the fact that he had been acquitted?

MR WASSERMAN: That's an incorrect impression to have, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And if you could kill for a political motive I put it to you that you had ample chance to kill him before he could be arrested?

MR WASSERMAN: I think I have already answered that question, have I not Mr Chairman?

MR NGUBANE: Now coming to Mhieza, did you work closely with him?

MR WASSERMAN: I did Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: How many black members were working with you in your unit, closely as Mhieza did?

MR WASSERMAN: I would say four to five, Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, I didn't get you, is to 4 to 5 or 45?

MR WASSERMAN: No, 4 to 5.

MR NGUBANE: As far you are aware where did Mr Mhieza reside?

MR WASSERMAN: I beg your pardon sir?

MR NGUBANE: Where did Mr Mhieza reside?

MR WASSERMAN: Why did Mr Mhieza reside?

MR NGUBANE: Where.

MR WASSERMAN: Where did Mr Mhieza reside?

MR NGUBANE: Yes.

MR WASSERMAN: In Umlazi.

MR NGUBANE: That's very close to Lamontville, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Close by yes.

MR NGUBANE: And Lembedi resided in Umbumbulu, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Umbumbulu I think was his tribal home, his rural home but I think he also had a residence in Umlazi.

MR NGUBANE: Well you say you think he had a residential home, you're not sure?

MR WASSERMAN: No.

MR NGUBANE: But what you are sure about is that he resided in Umbumbulu?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That was his tribal home. That is what you said isn't it?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes that's what I said, yes.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you. Thank you for that.

And as a person who worked closely with Mhieza, is it correct that he new Lamontville very well?

MR WASSERMAN: It's correct, we all knew Lamontville quite well.

MR NGUBANE: And the people from Vlakplaas, like Ramatala, didn't know Lamontville is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman I'm unable to comment on that, I don't know how many operational trips Ramatala did down here, he might have known the township, he might not have, I don't know the man.

MR NGUBANE: If Ramatala states that Mhieza pointed Bhila's house in Lamontville because he knew the place would you - what would be your comment?

MR WASSERMAN: I can't comment on that, I have no comment on that one at all.

MR NGUBANE: Can you deny categorically that Mr Mhieza did assist Ramatala in arresting ...[indistinct] Mr Bhila in Lamontville?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman I cannot deny that, I was not present.

MR NGUBANE: Yesterday I saw you when you gave evidence, you were reading from a certain document, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I had notes in front of me, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Do you still have those notes with you?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I do.

MR NGUBANE: Are you prepared to make those notes available?

MR VISSER: I would object to that Mr Chairman, they are consultation notes of ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The witness referred to them when he gave evidence, Mr Visser, I don't think your objection is well founded. These were not consultation notes, he has just said he referred to those notes while he gave evidence.

MR VISSER: With respect, Mr Chairman, they are notes made about instructions given and during consultation with counsel and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: And he elected to make use of them when he gave evidence. It was for you to make sure that he did not, Mr Visser, if you wished them to remain confidential.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, I have no objection to that Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Mr Chairman, with the leave of the Chairman and the Commissioners, may I have access to those notes?

CHAIRPERSON: The witness has just told you he has no objection to making them available to you, he's not being compelled to.

MR NGUBANE: Can I have a look at those notes please?

MR VISSER: I'm certain my learned friend is then going to make his consultation available to us as well, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you intend to look at all of them before you continue your cross-examination?

MR NGUBANE: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we all need sit and wait while you do so, we will take a short adjournment. If you will notify us when you are finished?

MR VISSER: There are 13 pages Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: (s.u.o.)

MR NGUBANE: (Continued) I thank the Members of the Committee for the indulgence.

Now Mr Wasserman, do you agree with me that the security branch of which you were a member was a very secretive organisation?

MR WASSERMAN: No necessarily Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Well, if you say not necessarily, do you mean that it was not or it was?

MR WASSERMAN: It was not necessarily secret, some of it's operations were clandestine and classified but we operated in the open so it is incorrect to say it was a secret organisation, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And let me put the question differently, is it correct that if you were involved in anything that was illegal, you were trained not to divulge any information at all?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And in fact it became a culture of the members of your branch to hide things that were illegal, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: Have you, as you sit there, overcome that culture?

MR WASSERMAN: I have.

MR NGUBANE: Did you undergo any rehabilitative treatment to overcome that culture or did you just overcome it on your own?

MR WASSERMAN: Can you outline what kind of treatment you are referring to?

MR NGUBANE: Pardon?

MR WASSERMAN: Can you outline to me what treatment you are referring to?

MR NGUBANE: Well, to overcome that culture. Were you trained in some form to get rid of the culture of being secretive of this ...[indistinct] thing?

MR WASSERMAN: No, no Mr Chairman. I would imagine time is one of the treatments.

MR NGUBANE: Okay. At page 44 of the bundle, Bhila bundle, paragraph 9(a)iv, you were asked about the nature and particulars of the incident and you didn't disclose anything about this incident, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And you said you'd do the necessary research?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct.

MR NGUBANE: What research did you have in mind?

MR WASSERMAN: Consultation with other parties at the time who had also applied for amnesty in terms of this Act.

MR NGUBANE: And subsequent to your completing this form did you submit anything written to the TRC on this incident?

MR WASSERMAN: On that I'm unable to recall, however I did attend two investigative hearings and I'm not sure whether this matter did come up in those or not but there was - I was with them twice and I'm not sure if Mr Bhila came up in that matter.

MR NGUBANE: But do you agree with me that in all probability if you had submitted something in writing it would be available here?

MR WASSERMAN: Oh, I didn't submit in writing but it was a verbal - two verbal sessions.

MR NGUBANE: Okay and did you think it necessary to submit something in writing to the TRC about this incident?

MR WASSERMAN: Well I knew I would be formally sitting in front of the TRC having to account at some stage.

MR NGUBANE: So you thought it was unnecessary to submit something in writing?

MR WASSERMAN: I was expecting as on the previous occasions either to be informed by legal counsel or to be notified by the TRC and then thirdly to formally appear as I am right now.

MR NGUBANE: You say in the paragraph I've quoted

"I will do the necessary research etc in an attempt to provide a full and detailed statement which will be provided at a later stage."

Is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct yes, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: When you mentioned a statement at that time did you have in your mind a written statement or a verbal statement?

MR WASSERMAN: It's much or a muchness, it would have been in all probability a written statement, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Alright. Now this document which I asked you to hand over - Mr Chairman I ask it to be handed in as Exhibit G? It doesn't have a date but it refers to November 1998. Can you recall when you perhaps drafted it?

CHAIRPERSON: Well did you draft it or was it drafted by your lawyers?

MR WASSERMAN: It was drafted by my counsel.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you very much, I'm indebted to the Chairperson.

And when did it come into your possession, can you recall?

MR WASSERMAN: At the time of this formally taking place, presumably - when did this start, Monday? On Sunday evening prior to the Monday kick-off here, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And you had consulted with Rosslee when the statement was prepared, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Rosslee was not there when I made the statement, when I was consulted over these notes.

MR NGUBANE: Well did you at any stage consult with Rosslee in preparation of this statement?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I did.

MR NGUBANE: When was that?

MR WASSERMAN: Possibly a week prior.

MR NGUBANE: You consulted with him individually or with his - in the presence of your legal representative?

MR WASSERMAN: In the presence.

MR NGUBANE: And you had all the papers relating to his amnesty application and your amnesty application, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Not all papers, I don't believe Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Did Rosslee during the consultation indicate to you that in his amnesty application he had stated that you gave him instructions to kill?

MR WASSERMAN: I beg your pardon, in Rosslee's amnesty application?

MR NGUBANE: Yes.

MR WASSERMAN: I didn't hear you Mr Ngubane, say that again?

MR NGUBANE: Right, did Rosslee indicate to you that in his amnesty papers he had said that you gave him instructions to kill?

MR WASSERMAN: I saw that yes.

MR NGUBANE: And did you tell him that that was wrong?

MR WASSERMAN: I pointed out that was wrong.

MR NGUBANE: And did you consult with any other applicant other than Rosslee regarding this incident prior to your coming to these hearings?

MR WASSERMAN: I did Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And did Rosslee point - well was it pointed out to you during the consultation that there was an allegation that Mhieza was present when this operation took place?

MR WASSERMAN: I didn't understand that clearly, please say that again?

MR NGUBANE: Okay, was it pointed out to you at any stage during the consultations that there were allegations that Mhieza was present when this consultation took place?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, that became evident.

MR NGUBANE: And did you tell Rosslee that that was incorrect, Mhieza was not there?

MR WASSERMAN: In my recollection I didn't think he was correct and I was correct.

MR NGUBANE: Now yesterday I gained the impression of the fact that you were positive that Mhieza was not there, now you say "according to my recollection I didn't think that Mhieza was not there."

MR VISSER: No, that's not what he said.

MR WASSERMAN: That's not correct.

MR VISSER: Just a moment. That's not what he said, he said he pointed out at the consultation that he thought he was correct and Rosslee was wrong, that's what he said Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you. Now what is your evidence, I want to get it clearly, I don't want to mislead you, was Mhieza there or he was not there?

MR WASSERMAN: Mhieza was not at the shooting range when I arrived at the shooting range.

MR NGUBANE: And you are positive about that?

MR WASSERMAN: I'm positive about that.

MR NGUBANE: Now let's look at Exhibit G paragraph 44 where you say

"I certainly to this day cannot remember was that Spyker was at anytime involved in this incident or that Bhila was ever interrogated at the pistol shooting range."

Those were your words, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: In this statement you say you cannot remember whether he was there or not?

MR WASSERMAN: That's on the notes, yes Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, really, with all due respect to my learned friend, he has now elicited an answer, a positive answer from the witness on a false statement made to him. With all due respect to my learned friend he should just read the words and not interpret them and place his own interpretation on the clear words as they stand there.

MR NGUBANE: Mr Chairman, I've just read what is contained in the statement.

MR MALAN: Mr Visser, I think the statement is badly drafted, if you read it you will find that it's confusing.

MR VISSER: But Mr Chairman, the problem here is this is not a statement and these were my consultation notes, that's the problem which we try to point out.

MR MALAN: Allow me then just to say that the consultation notes are confusing as drafted.

MR NGUBANE: Now let's turn to page 11 now at paragraph 40, the last line which starts with "we", you say

"We also had reliable information that after his (meaning Bhila) release from the Ramatala case, he continued with his terrorist activities."

Is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes that is here on the paper.

MR NGUBANE: And you can't attribute that to bad drafting, is that right?

MR WASSERMAN: Well they are only notes after all, it's

...[inaudible]

MR NGUBANE: ...[inaudible] that sentence - oh, sorry Mr Chairman, it's last but one sentence, I made a mistake there. Do you stand by what is contained there?

MR WASSERMAN: He definitely would have continued with military activity.

MR NGUBANE: No, no, no, my question is do you stand by what is contained in that sentence?

MR WASSERMAN: As I was informed, that is correct, yes.

MR NGUBANE: And within three days of his release your information was that he had been involved in terrorist activities?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I didn't necessarily have the only information appertaining to Mr Bhila's activities. If there was information on his activities which was not necessarily at hand to me, it could have been passed on by somebody else but I was informed by my officer commanding that he had reliable information that Bhila was to continue with his activities.

MR NGUBANE: He had reliable information that?

MR WASSERMAN: That Bhila was continuing with his activities.

MR NGUBANE: Were you told what those activities were?

MR WASSERMAN: I knew what his activities were.

MR NGUBANE: You were never told what they were?

MR WASSERMAN: It would have been the same as before?

MR NGUBANE: No, answer my question, you were never told about those activities?

MR WASSERMAN: I cannot recall exactly what the wording would have been told to me.

MR NGUBANE: And you cannot recall whether you were ever told what those activities were?

CHAIRPERSON: Had you been told in the past what they were?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were now told he was continuing with them by Major Taylor?

MR WASSERMAN: By Major Taylor, yes.

MR NGUBANE: Let's come to the actual killing of Mr Bhila. You say it was dark when he was killed?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And you indicated yesterday that you were standing at a distance of about ten paces from him?

CHAIRPERSON: Five to six paces.

MR NGUBANE: Five to six paces from him?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Alright, when the first shot was fired at him was he facing you?

MR WASSERMAN: No he was not.

MR NGUBANE: And was he facing the person that shot him?

MR WASSERMAN: No he was not.

MR NGUBANE: He was facing away from the person who was shooting him is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That's correct.

MR NGUBANE: Was there any moonlight on that particular day?

MR WASSERMAN: I can't recall, it was dark but there was a silhouette.

MR NGUBANE: You say he was shot in the head, did you manage to see where about in the head he was shot?

MR WASSERMAN: Not exactly.

MR NGUBANE: And did you examine him after he had been shot?

MR WASSERMAN: I did not Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And when at least a further shot was directed at him, you say it was also in the head or you don't know?

MR WASSERMAN: No it was also in the head.

MR NGUBANE: And he was lying down at that stage?

MR WASSERMAN: He was in the lying position yes.

MR NGUBANE: And you didn't participate - well except by being there in the scene, you didn't participate in the actual shooting?

MR WASSERMAN: I didn't participate at all in any of the shooting Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And you say you also didn't participate in the interrogation of Mr Bhila?

MR WASSERMAN: Not at all Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Tell me, can you think of any reason why Mr Taylor would call you to the scene, to Mr Bhila, if you were not going to do anything at all?

MR WASSERMAN: This is one occasion where I cannot - I have no reason why Mr Taylor called me.

MR NGUBANE: Now may I suggest to you that you were called specifically to participate in the interrogation of Mr Bhila and his assault?

MR WASSERMAN: That is totally incorrect Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: When you consulted with Rosslee did he at any stage tell you that according to his recollection you were present when Bhila was interrogated?

MR WASSERMAN: No, not at all Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: This area where Bhila was killed, did you recognise it at the time when you took Bhila to be killed?

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman, it was my first time ever to go there.

MR NGUBANE: And now you know how - well as you stand there, do you know the area now, the name of the area?

MR WASSERMAN: I know it in broad speaking terms as Umbumbulu area.

MR NGUBANE: And did anyone describe the area to you prior to the incident or after the incident?

MR WASSERMAN: No, not once Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Now let's look at the document Exhibit G again at page 13, paragraph 47. You say

"We followed directions given by Michael and drove off the tarmac road onto a dead road into an area where I knew that there to have been a lot of faction fighting going on at the time."

Is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And you stand by that?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I do.

MR NGUBANE: Did Major Taylor at any stage indicate to you how he had planned this operation, who were involved other than the people you have mentioned?

MR WASSERMAN: Major Taylor informed me that Bhila had been picked up as a result of him and the askaris and Vlakplaas members.

MR NGUBANE: Did you know about the presence of the Vlakplaas members and the askaris from that period?

MR WASSERMAN: He informed me of their presence Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Yes he informed you about their presence when he met you on the way to Bhila, is that correct? And prior to that?

MR WASSERMAN: Prior to that I knew that they were in Natal doing routine duties, yes.

MR NGUBANE: Had you met them at C.L. Swart?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I had.

MR NGUBANE: And had you had a discussion with them of any sort, that is Rosslee and McCarter and Bosch?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I'd had discussions with them.

MR NGUBANE: Was it before the acquittal of Bhila or when was it?

MR WASSERMAN: It would have been from the date of their arrival, Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Was there a stage from when Bhila was acquitted from the day when Bhila was acquitted when you, Rosslee, McCarter and Bosch and Taylor sat in an office to discuss any operation of whatever kind?

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Did you discuss at any stage with the Vlakplaas people any operation other than the Bhila operation when they were in Durban during that period?

MR WASSERMAN: I must have done that, yes Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: And can you recall what operation you discussed?

MR WASSERMAN: No I can't Mr Chairman, I don't remember.

MR NGUBANE: But definitely it was not an operation to kill innocent people?

MR WASSERMAN: That is definite Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: May I just ask a question here, the "killing innocent people" remains confusing to me, just using it, what do you understand under innocent people on that question when you answer it? Was Bhila an innocent person or a guilty person in your mind?

MR WASSERMAN: I was wandering that myself before you asked that as well, Mr Chairman. However, no in my mind Mr Bhila was not an innocent person.

MR MALAN: He was not an innocent person?

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you. Flowing from that did you at any stage with these Vlakplaas people I have referred to, discussed the killing of any Umkhonto weSizwe cadre?

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NGUBANE

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, Prior for the Amnesty Committee.

At page 14 of the first Bhila bundle, the first bundle, at Bosch's application, he said:

"I went with Frank McCarter and Rosslee in a Ford Sierra, followed them till we got to the relevant suburb. It was still in the morning when we got to the relevant place.

We all know that it was this pistol shooting range. Can you think of any reason why Bosch would have that recollection when he made his amnesty application ...[inaudible]

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman I can't, there are a lot of suppositions I feel made in his statement as I've seen in evidence later.

ADV PRIOR: This wasn't the first time for you to meet Bosch during the operation to kill Bhila, I mean you'd come down to Port Natal on other occasions?

MR WASSERMAN: I hadn't met him, this was my first occasion to meet Steve Bosch, Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: He goes on to say

"Except for Laurie Wasserman there were also two members of the Durban Security Branch who was known to me as Warrant Spyker and Michael."

At the pistol club he links you being present with Michael Lembedi and Spyker Mhieza, is that a mistake on his part?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, that's a mistake on his part.

ADV PRIOR: At page 24 of the same bundle in respect of Mr Rosslee's application, he certainly when he conferred with his attorney round about that same year in '96 when he made this application, he said when he was in Durban he was met by you, Mr Wasserman of the local security branch and you told him, well them, that two of the accused, the Amanzimtoti bomb blast criminal trial had been acquitted, they were still continuing their subversive actions and that "our task was to arrest them for purposes of elimination." That seems to be a very clear statement, would you agree with that?

MR WASSERMAN: I disagree with that statement entirely.

ADV PRIOR: No, before we get onto that, it's a clear statement, he doesn't say well I think that happened or I may be mistaken, it's a clear statement of what he applies for?

MR WASSERMAN: It's a clear statement Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: Yes and that was made to his attorney. I understand the same attorney that you had?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct.

ADV PRIOR: In Exhibit G at page 12, paragraph 42, you said the following or the note was made of the following and obviously this was a note prepared for you by your counsel after you had consulted with them. You said

"Thereafter and particularly after becoming aware of the recollections of Rosslee, while preparing for the present Amnesty Hearing, I was reminded of the circumstances and facts relating to the incidents and the events became clearer in my mind."

Would that be an accurate note of the situation that?

MR WASSERMAN: It's reasonably accurate Mr Chairman, he did present some circumstances which enabled recollection to come back to me.

ADV PRIOR: Do you deny informing Rosslee and McCarter and/or Bosch as stated in Rosslee's application?

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't Rosslee denied that?

ADV PRIOR: He says he can't remember.

As he testified here yesterday he had no independent recollection of that occurring?

MR VISSER: No Mr Chairman, he conceded that he might be wrong because it was pointed out to him in his evidence in chief that it really is in contradiction with the first paragraph.

ADV PRIOR: Well with respect, it's on the record, it's in an affidavit in his amnesty application and whether he denies it, with respect Mr Chairman, yesterday his evidence in '96 in these affidavits stands and ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: I'm not objecting Mr Prior ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prior, what do you mean when you say his evidence in '96 stands when the man has on oath before us said something different? We have to evaluate the evidence. You can't say it stands.

ADV PRIOR: Yes I - sorry I agree with that, it's obviously at the end the day have to be evaluated as to it's veracity and reliability.

Well, when you consulted with Rosslee, was it at that stage that you made it clear that he was mistaken and you were correct that you had not informed them as set out in his amnesty application at page 24?

MR WASSERMAN: Well it is correct, I had not informed them.

ADV PRIOR: No, you had no recollection of that particular event, you were then confronted or you were informed that Rosslee had made the statement saying that you had in fact informed them of the two accused being acquitted, is that not correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That was in his statement, I read it.

ADV PRIOR: You read it and then you then what? Did you deny that or did you ...[intervention]

MR WASSERMAN: Of course I did Mr Chairman, it was incorrect.

ADV PRIOR: You never said I had no recollection of that?

MR WASSERMAN: No, I denied it.

ADV PRIOR: And similarly with the allegation that you were present during this interrogation of Bhila at the pistol club?

MR WASSERMAN: I denied that, it was incorrect.

ADV PRIOR: But you agree do you not, that the body was disposed of in an area which was an IFP stronghold?

MR WASSERMAN: Even that is not a hundred percent correct in my knowledge, it was an area riddled by faction fighting but I'm not - at that point in time there was no clear lines between IFP strongholds and ANC. One cannot actually go ahead and say that was an IFP area, that would be incorrect I feel, Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: So the idea was not to dispose of the body in an IFP area and obviously if the body was discovered everyone would assume that it was as a result of the - of faction fighting or something similar?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I didn't know the area. I wasn't given the story about it, I was told to accompany Mr Lembedi to an area that he knew.

ADV PRIOR: This Operation Butterfly, you were involved in the investigation rounding the events or the circumstances and following up on the arrests of various activists, is that correct, involved?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: Is the person Tami Zulu known to you?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: And Ralph Lawrence?

MR WASSERMAN: The late Ralph Lawrence.

ADV PRIOR: Both of them?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes they're both known to me.

ADV PRIOR: Where did the information come from regarding Operation Butterfly, was it those two persons? Was it those two persons Mr Wasserman?

MR WASSERMAN: I was handling neither of those two persons so I do not know.

ADV PRIOR: Are you saying you had no knowledge?

MR WASSERMAN: I had no knowledge of those two persons assisting me with information.

ADV PRIOR: According to your investigation, Bhila had only been implicated in the bombing of the Lamontville township office, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: And apart from receiving training internally, he would have been trained by one Dhlomo, according to the indictment and the summary of facts, he'd received training during I think May of the one year?

MR WASSERMAN: I'm waiting for the question?

ADV PRIOR: Well did you know that or ...[intervention]

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I was aware that he had been - he had received military training inside.

ADV PRIOR: Yes and that he had been in fact indicted in respect of his training but the acts that he was responsible for was the Lamontville blast where structural damage was caused but no loss of life?

MR WASSERMAN: I am aware of that yes.

ADV PRIOR: That was the only activity that he had been involved up until the stage of the trial, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is not strictly correct, I think that was correct enough for a legal indictment.

ADV PRIOR: Are you saying the police had more information, more evidence against Bhila but had not presented it to the Attorney General?

CHAIRPERSON: But there are other things mentioned in the indictment, Mr Prior. His participation in the decision to kill Gideon Sibiya, that he established DLB's for the use of equipment. These are offences, are they not?

ADV PRIOR: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So how can you say all - the only things they were aware of was the training in the Lamontville bombing?

ADV PRIOR: And his training, his military training.

CHAIRPERSON: Two episodes of training.

ADV PRIOR: I'm alive to that Mr Chairman, I simply wanted to distinguish that there was only one, in fact he was linked to one bomb blast.

MR WASSERMAN: He was linked to one bomb blast but other - there were other things in the indictment about the person Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: Could you not have dealt with Bhila in any other way, other than killing him, I mean could he have not been detained? Further detained, Section 29?

MR WASSERMAN: According to Major Taylor the decision had been made, his activities were continuing.

ADV PRIOR: So a decision had been made to eliminate him?

MR WASSERMAN: On the day Major Taylor told me he was to be eliminated.

ADV PRIOR: Did you get the impression that it was Taylor's decision or someone above or someone other than Taylor that had made that decision?

MR WASSERMAN: I can't comment on that decision.

ADV PRIOR: Well what was your impression? You said it had been decided?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, what would a Detective Sergeant have an impression, how does one get an impression that it's gone higher than the Major talking to you, there's no possible way that I could have made an impression that it went from somebody else?

CHAIRPERSON: If he said to you "we have decided" it would create an impression that it went somewhere else? It's perfectly easy for it to create an impression. I think you're being a little evasive there. It depends on how Major Taylor told you?

MR WASSERMAN: He said he had made.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Wasserman, I agree with to a certain extent what you say in paragraph 39 of Exhibit G. I don't quite understand how you - why you were involved at all because on your version that you've given this Committee you seem to have done absolutely nothing to assist in killing Bhila other than being present?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman, one will see in further applications things are different, however this one is as outlined.

ADV PRIOR: Was this a training run?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: A training run of what?

ADV PRIOR: Well of things to come?

MR WASSERMAN: Definitely not, Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: You see, I also have difficulty why Rosslee and McCarter would have been asked to kill Bhila, it could have been done by any member of the Durban branch, the Durban office? Would you agree?

MR WASSERMAN: One can suppose so but it never happened like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand from that, that you dispute that they were asked to kill Bhila?

ADV PRIOR: No not at all but what I want to suggest to this witness that his lack of activity on the day doesn't make sense, in fact what Rosslee had stated in his amnesty application, you would be, certainly have been involved at the level of interrogating Bhila at the pistol club?

MR WASSERMAN: That's incorrect, Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: And if Rosslee is also correct when he says the information was there were two people acquitted and both had to be arrested and eliminated, certainly one would have expected Bhila to be questioned where the other person was, Nxiweni?

MR WASSERMAN: We knew where Nxiweni was.

ADV PRIOR: So why wasn't he eliminated at the same time?

MR WASSERMAN: It's not my decision Mr Chairman, I have no idea to that, I can't answer that one.

ADV PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRIOR

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Just one question if I may Mr Chairman? I think you did give evidence in your evidence in chief to say that Bhila was as far as your information went, acting together in concert with Kubezo is it or am I mistaken?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes.

MR VISSER: They were in the same unit?

MR WASSERMAN: They were in the same unit yes, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

I'm sorry, I might be mistaken here, do you refer to Zondo? I'm asking you because my memory fails. You were saying that Mr Bhila was in a unit together with someone else, who was that other person you referred to?

CHAIRPERSON: You asked him the name Kubeza?

MR VISSER: I said so now Mr Chairman but I'm thinking that I might be mistaken, I think I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well the applicant agreed with you.

MR VISSER: Where did Mr Zondo fit in as far Bhila was concerned, was there any connection between them?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, same based unit as well Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: I see were the three of them in the same unit as far as your information went?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, plus others as well sir.

MR VISSER: Yes. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

ADV SIGODI: You say that Mr Bhila got - did you know personally that Mr Bhila got the training from Duduzi Sithole?

MR WASSERMAN: Did I know personally?

ADV SIGODI: Yes.

MR WASSERMAN: No I did not.

ADV SIGODI: And were you part of the - I mean from your evidence I understand that you were part of the team that was investigating Mr Bhila?

MR WASSERMAN: And others, yes.

ADV SIGODI: And others. I just want to get some information on Mr Bhila. Do you know how many people were there in his unit?

MR WASSERMAN: Not offhand, no.

ADV SIGODI: But did you know them at that time that you were investigating him, did you know how many people were there in his unit?

MR WASSERMAN: Well I knew - there's a lot of names that were arising in the investigation. I knew most of the names, yes.

ADV SIGODI: And did you know what rank he held - Mr Bhila?

MR WASSERMAN: No, not specifically, no.

ADV SIGODI: Did you know who was the head of that unit?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I did Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Who was it?

MR WASSERMAN: The overall commander was Ramlakan.

ADV SIGODI: Pardon?

MR WASSERMAN: Ramlakan.

ADV SIGODI: Ramlakan. Did you - were you part of the team that investigated the Amanzimtoti bombing?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Did you personally have information as to the presence of Mr Bhila in the Amanzimtoti bombing? Did you personally know that he was there or was it a mere suspicion that he was there?

MR WASSERMAN: He was involved in the unit that did perform that bombing incident, yes Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: But do you know that he personally took the bomb to Amanzimtoti or did you not know that?

MR WASSERMAN: I did not know that.

ADV SIGODI: But you just knew that he was part of that unit that was responsible for the bombing?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: The other thing that I want to find out is after he was discharged at the close of the State's case, did you know what information the police had to present to the State that allowed the case against him to be withdrawn at the end of the State's case? Did you have enough information for him to be charged in connection with the Amanzimtoti bombing as part of the investigating team?

MR WASSERMAN: I don't quite understand, Advocate?

ADV SIGODI: What I want to find out is the information that you gave to the Attorney General as part of the investigating team did it link him directly to the Amanzimtoti bombing or did it not, as far as you can remember?

MR WASSERMAN: I can't recall, I was not actually working on that docket itself. I was in the field, I don't know that fine a detail of the indictment and where it would have led involving Mr Bhila, Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Now the place that was chosen to eliminate him - in fact just let me rephrase this, the point I'm getting to is your political objective. When you chose to kill him at that place at Umbumbulu, did you - what message did you want to send out to the public, did you have any message that you wanted to send out to the public or did you want to kill him just to eliminate him from society so that nobody knows where he is or whatever happened to him. Was that the intention?

MR WASSERMAN: There was no message intended for the public whatsoever, Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: In other words you wanted this killing to be done in such a way that nobody would ever know about it, nobody would ever know what happened to him?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct at the time, that is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: How would this have helped the mere disappearance of a person, how would it have helped to reduce the incidents of bombing because there were other people in other units who would have remained continuing to do what Mr Bhila was doing? How would his disappearance have helped to lower the spate of bombings that was going on at the time in your mind?

MR WASSERMAN: Well, he himself was a bomber, he used limpet mines, he had shown he used limpet mines, so by not being present he would not be there to do it.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your intention it was just to eliminate him to stop him doing what you thought he had been doing?

MR WASSERMAN: It was to stop his activities Mr Chairman, his military activities.

CHAIRPERSON: And did that mean that you had now embarked on a policy that where you couldn't arrest and charge people you were going to eliminate them?

MR WASSERMAN: No, that does not, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why was Bhila specifically selected?

MR WASSERMAN: I wasn't present at the decision however I concurred that Mr Bhila was a dangerous man and the decision was then taken. It was the only way to possibly stop this bombing campaign that had so devastated Durban just prior to that.

ADV SIGODI: But isn't that because - didn't you kill him because you were frustrated by the fact that he couldn't be convicted in the ordinary court?

MR WASSERMAN: No definitely not, that's very incorrect Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: How would his killing have stopped other people from bombing if nobody knew what had ever happened to him?

MR WASSERMAN: If it didn't stop other people or did would have been another story but it stopped him continuing the bombing that he was doing.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it fairly clear though, or I would have thought it was, that his comrades would have known of his disappearance and would have assumed that he'd been eliminated by the police or the intelligence organisations, security organisations?

MR WASSERMAN: Not necessarily Mr Chairman, he could have disappeared out of the country for further training and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and the comrades would know that?

MR WASSERMAN: At a much later stage, the communication line was a little extended and confusion could have reigned before that supposition could have been made by them.

MR MALAN: Mr Wasserman, may I just take this last question again to get it clear in my mind? Your purpose or objective in eliminating Mr Bhila if I heard you correctly was simply to prevent him from ever bombing again? You haven't advanced - you didn't agree with any of the other possible reasons suggested to you, I just wanted to get clarity in my mind as to why he was eliminated?

MR WASSERMAN: He was to us a committed, well-trained Umkhonto weSize soldier who had already proved his military worth, he was a fighter, he was a danger and the decision was taken by my commander for his elimination. I don't know what else to say in that regard.

MR MALAN: Yes but there was no message to be sent, it wouldn't have led to a reduction necessarily in bombings, in terms of your responses, I'm referring to your answers and you said that he would never be able to bomb again. I think those were more or less your words and that was the objective and result?

MR WASSERMAN: Well Mr Chairman, the Chair had asked me why specifically him and that was my answer to that portion of the question.

CHAIRPERSON: But on the evidence you've been giving in respect of Bhila you said you don't know if he took the bomb there, you don't know if he was part of the unit so the military work that you had now say he had proved was merely that he was member of a unit of which we are told there were many members which had committed a bombing. Why pick on him?

MR WASSERMAN: That's not quite correct, Mr Chairman. He take the bomb to the Lamontville offices.

CHAIRPERSON: You said a few minutes ago you don't know if he took the bomb there?

MR WASSERMAN: No, that was the Amanzimtoti bomb Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, Amanzimtoti. So you knew he had taken one bomb?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I was aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was all? And you knew other people had done similar things?

MR WASSERMAN: I knew of other people yes.

MR MALAN: The question still in my mind is, he was killed because he was dangerous and could have or would have continued with his activities or did?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct, sir.

MR MALAN: He could have been charged if you had knowledge of continuation of activities, is that not so?

MR WASSERMAN: That is so, sir.

MR MALAN: So why did you decide not to charge him?

MR WASSERMAN: It wasn't my decision sir, to charge him or not.

MR MALAN: No, but you agreed with the decision of Taylor that he had to be taken out, that was your evidence?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: Why did you not ask Taylor "should we not charge him?"

MR WASSERMAN: I can't really answer that, I cannot answer you there.

MR MALAN: Is it not so that there was no indication that he had continued with any activities, that he was simply killed because he was acquitted and if you had evidence that he should have been convicted but you couldn't lead that evidence because you would be exposing informers or witnesses were intimidated or whatever? Isn't that the real reason?

MR WASSERMAN: No, I wouldn't say he was eliminated merely because he walked away from a court room, I feel that that would be an incorrect thing to say.

MR MALAN: No, no, let us assume then for the moment that he was that dangerous person, with the whole record, his historical record of involvement that you are holding up to us, let's assume that for the moment. Wasn't that exactly the reason why he was killed? Because he was acquitted and he had this track record, he should have been convicted?

MR WASSERMAN: He was killed because he was going to continue with his activities.

MR MALAN: You said that you and this was read to you, we also had reliable information that after his release indeed did continue with his activities and you told us under cross-examination that that was what Taylor told you, that he indeed did continue with his activities?

MR WASSERMAN: That's what Taylor told me, yes sir.

MR MALAN: Now on that score, if I take you back to page 42, Bhila bundle, if you could just refer to that? That's Taylor's application and unfortunately, we have only his statement under oath. Taylor said

"Bhila was acquitted"

That's 3.3 on page 42. Taylor says in his application:

"Bhila was acquitted because we had information, although he was acquitted, we had information of a nature which could not be used in evidence."

Do you read that?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I do sir.

MR MALAN: Then 3.4 he says"

"I realised that Bhila would not stop."

Not "was continuing" - "would not stop"

And 3.5:

"I thereupon requested certain parties for Bhila to be killed."

MR WASSERMAN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Now does this accord with your evidence of Taylor's communication to you?

MR WASSERMAN: I feel it does.

MR MALAN: Didn't you just tell us that Taylor told you that he had to be eliminated because he was indeed active again in terrorist activities, that he did not stop? I mean this was held up to you, the notes that you referred to and surely as was pointed out, they're simply the notes of your counsel as he drafted them. He might have made a mistake but it was put to you and you confirmed that specific part, that Taylor indeed told you that he was still active?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, that's what I was informed Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Why did Taylor not disclose that in his application?

MR WASSERMAN: I have no idea why Taylor did not disclose it sir, I have no idea.

MR MALAN: Don't you think that should have been a crucial part of it as far as Taylor is concerned because otherwise we have to read it as blunt as it stands here "he was acquitted".

We knew he wouldn't stop so we couldn't stop him through a conviction and therefore we would eliminate him?

MR WASSERMAN: It does look like that Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: If you would stay with Taylor's application, that's page 42. 3.6 he says

"I was not present when Bhila was killed."

Now surely he wasn't present in terms of all the evidence here, he was the only one staying behind at the shooting range according to all evidence.

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, Major Taylor wasn't present when Mr Bhila was killed.

MR MALAN: But he was present at the shooting range when the others left to kill Mr Bhila?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Taylor - yes when I left.

MR MALAN: He stayed behind?

MR WASSERMAN: He was behind yes.

MR MALAN: And when you returned he was still there and there was a report to him?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes.

MR MALAN: So - but he was the only one staying behind on the evidence of the applicants? Everybody else and I put that question to you yesterday, everybody else went into the Combi but Taylor stayed behind?

MR WASSERMAN: I have no idea about the other people Mr Chairman, I didn't know the Vlakplaas people down at that stage or they left shortly after, I have no idea.

MR MALAN: But the Vlakplaas people went with you in the Combi, I'm not talking askaris, I'm talking the three members that you were talking about. Let's talk about the white members. He was the only white member staying behind?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes to my knowledge he was.

MR MALAN: If you read paragraph 3.6, well if you read his whole affidavit there's not indication at all that he was involved at the shooting range, at the interception, simply that he put out a request and it was complied with.

"I have heard"

he says in 3.6

"That others were involved and that he was killed."

If he was indeed at the shooting range would he have not have said "I have knowledge that they were involved because I sent them, I stayed behind when they went out, I gave instructions for them."?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I was not with Mr Taylor when he made this affidavit, I have no - I cannot comment on what was going on then.

MR MALAN: Alright. The day at the shooting range, I still have not the slightest idea of what possibly could have been discussed or talked about in conversation because we have no information as to any topic discussed in the whole of the time that you were present at the shooting range. Can you recall any discussion, any topic discussed?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I only arrived late at the shooting range in the first instance so I'm unable to state

...[inaudible]

MR MALAN: ...[inaudible] You only went out to kill him after dark. You drove in the dark and then that was the general ...[inaudible]

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: So you must have been there for at least three hours at that time of year?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct.

MR MALAN: Nothing discussed during those three hours, nothing talked about?

MR WASSERMAN: It's a long time ago, we must have discussed numerous topics, I suppose activities in Durban, other activities but we never certainly discussed anything about Mr Bhila.

MR MALAN: You discussed all the other activities but not Bhila who is the centre of attention at that moment?

MR WASSERMAN: No sir.

MR MALAN: You also gave evidence that you had knowledge about the whereabouts of Mr Ngewene and knew where he was?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct sir.

MR MALAN: Where was he at that stage?

MR WASSERMAN: He was ninety percent of the time at Alan Taylor residence and also in the Transkei, he would disappear down to the Transkei in between and return.

MR MALAN: But you also had knowledge about the whereabouts of Mr Bhila, you knew where he stayed?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct sir.

MR MALAN: On questions ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you go on. He had been in detention for how long?

MR WASSERMAN: I'm under correction your Chair, but I would imagine a year plus, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And what you're talking about is what happened before he was taken into detention?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What you would have been interested in this day, on this day is where he had been for the last three days and only the last three days. Did you know?

MR WASSERMAN: No I didn't know that, not myself, not personally.

MR MALAN: You responded under cross-examination by Mr Ngubane to a question saying that you were trained not to divulge any information on illegal actions. Is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Actually on all actions.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we adjourn now? We'll take the adjournment now.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: (s.u.o.)

MR MALAN: Mr Wasserman on your application in the second bundle, it's part of the same application on page well not the second bundle, the first - what did we refer to it as? Zandile bundle, on page 123 and take it this is part of your same application, it's unfortunately given to us in bits and pieces in the different bundles and we don't have the full application with us yet. At the bottom in paragraph 7 you say that you were

"involved in the foundation and the maintenance and the expansion of certain operational structures."

Can you tell us what this is about? What structures are you talking about?

LAWRIE WASSERMAN: May I put these earphones on and have it translated for me properly, sir?

MR MALAN: Sorry?

MR WASSERMAN: May I have it translated into English properly?

MR MALAN: Well you wrote it in Afrikaans but ask your lawyer to translate for you. Should I try and do it? Alright listen, I'll read it again and then you can listen to the translation.

"In order to solve this kind of problem I was involved in the foundation, maintenance and expansion of certain operational structures"

What structures are you referring to?

MR WASSERMAN: I'm sorry Mr Chairman, my set wasn't working but it's fine now, could you just start at the very beginning?

CHAIRPERSON: Could you start again?

MR MALAN: I'll read it again.

"In order to solve these kind of problems I was involved in the foundation, maintenance and expansion of certain operational structures."

What structures are you referring to?

MR WASSERMAN: I need that whole sentence to be read out.

MR MALAN: Alright, I'll just continue

"operational structures of which both covert and overt operations were launched."

I'll read it again:

"these are now the structures from where both overt and covert operations were launched."

MR WASSERMAN: And the question is sir, what do I understand by that?

MR MALAN: What structures are you referring to?

MR WASSERMAN: There were covert operations in order to achieve the objectives of our operational tasks.

MR MALAN: No, that we accept but here you make a different statement. You are saying that you were involved with the setting up of structures, operational structures or involved in the establishment, the maintenance and the expansion or development of certain operational structures. We're not talking activities or actions.

MR WASSERMAN: Oh okay, sir.

MR MALAN: Or programmes, we're talking about structures. One would assume that would be a kind of a body that was set up?

MR WASSERMAN: I understand now sir, I'm sorry about that I had problems with the headphones and now I understand the question. Yes I was involved in the establishment, that was the restructuring of our sections and our units in our methods and forms.

MR MALAN: In which way, was that an internal restructuring of your unit, methods and forms?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes it was.

MR MALAN: You were involved?

MR WASSERMAN: I was a member of the unit.

MR MALAN: No, no, that's not what you're saying here, you are saying that you were actively involved, I'm using the actively because that's what it's saying. You were involved

"I was involved with the foundation of certain operational structures"

What structures are you talking about?

MR WASSERMAN: I think it's word that in English I wouldn't have used it.

MR MALAN: Now what would you have used?

MR WASSERMAN: I was involved in the creation of new methods, new tactics, new ways of countering the military problem that was ahead of us.

MR MALAN: Can you tell us something about that? New methods, new ways?

MR WASSERMAN: Well the creation of informer networks across the borders.

MR MALAN: Yes?

MR WASSERMAN: That was my principle involvement in the restructuring of our operational ethos Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: If you read what is immediately preceding this paragraph 7 on page 123, you are referring to the general threat, the revolutionary onslaught, paragraph 3, that you were against this kind of philosophy. Page 4, that you believed that your actions were justifiable. Paragraph 5, you refer to the no go areas internally. Paragraph 6 that you saw it as your task to prevent the execution of such attacks and then suddenly in 7 you refer to certain structures that were founded. You're not referring to any cross border operations here, you're referring to the internal threat, security threat as you perceived it. If I put it to you that every applicant in the second bundle makes exactly the same statement in their paragraph 7 with the exception of one, which is Mr Vorster, where he says in that paragraph, not that he was involved but that he had knowledge of certain structures, of these structures. What structures are you referring to, Mr Wasserman?

MR WASSERMAN: As I've already said this must be the structures within the security branch that were formed, the remodelling of my unit, it must have been that structure. I was not part of any other structure.

MR MALAN: If you say it must have been then it seems that you're not owning this paragraph, that you simply try to interpret what someone else wrote on your behalf?

MR WASSERMAN: This is rather the legal side rather than mine.

MR MALAN: But Mr Wasserman, did you not read your application before you gave it over?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes I did.

MR MALAN: So when you read this paragraph did it not make any impression on you? You're talking about structures that were suddenly founded because of the threat?

MR WASSERMAN: I took it to be as I've explained to the Commission that that would have sufficed.

MR MALAN: You're not talking - if you continue with this paragraph - you're not talking only of - I don't know whether I have to read it to you or whether I shouldn't necessarily pursue it. But let me read it to, I continuing

"These operations included the gathering of information as well as actions which were launched in order to obtain such information on both a pro-active and a reactive way."

But you refer to operations here, not to structures.

"These type of actions"

and it continues with the actions but you don't speak any more of structures. If I put it to you that - and this was my first impression when I read all of this - it seems to me that there's some kind of disclosure here about an internal structure which would have done things which did not fall within the framework of the law but which was managed within the unit. I say this is my impression and I'd like to have an explanation for this, an explanation that makes sense.

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman, there was no internal, no structure as such that was set up with positions and ranks and things like that, we were a unit, we were the MK counter-intelligence unit.

MR MALAN: Was there not some kind of arrangement that when people were to be taken out as in the case of Bhila that such a decision would be made on a need to know basis or a prior agreed circle of people privileged to information and participation in such decisions?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes a decision as serious as that would not be a readily available decision to everybody on the security branch at all.

MR MALAN: But Mr Taylor did inform you?

MR WASSERMAN: He did sir.

MR MALAN: Did he need your acquiesence in terms of the implementation according to the structures and procedures set up in the structures?

MR WASSERMAN: No sir. To my knowledge there was no such structure as you are outlining to me right now.

MR MALAN: So Taylor would have taken that decision on his own and he had the authority to take it on his own in your understanding?

MR WASSERMAN: In my understanding, that's correct.

MR MALAN: So he could take decisions and you had to follow the orders?

MR WASSERMAN: That's correct sir.

MR MALAN: If he decided that Bhila had to be taken out, he could have done so within the branch?

MR WASSERMAN: I think that was correct to say that yes.

MR MALAN: That's how you understood it?

MR WASSERMAN: I do sir.

MR MALAN: And he would not necessarily have to seek any clearance above then, is that not what the structures are referring to, that's my question?

MR WASSERMAN: I don't know what went on above Major Taylor's ranks.

MR MALAN: Were you involved in any discussions with him earlier about taking out people and that he would have had the authority to make such decisions?

MR WASSERMAN: No sir, we never discussed or he never discussed with his subordinates what his mandates were and what his authorities would be, that was never coming down to the Sergeant's level.

MR MALAN: So you have no other explanation for your having put this paragraph in the application?

MR WASSERMAN: No the paragraph is, it's there, it exists, I see it. I don't fully understand it the way I understood it.

MR MALAN: You see it leaves the impression especially because it comes from all the other applicants and the person who claims not to have been involved, claims knowledge of the existence of such structures, that's Mr Vorster.

MR WASSERMAN: Maybe he can outline what structures are being referred to here.

MR MALAN: Well I guess that goes for every applicant. You see you need to make full disclosure and if you do make a statement, you need to be able to substantiate that to us. Alright, let me just say to you that, I want to go back on my tracks to pursue the question that I put to you immediately before we took the tea break. The one about your having been trained not to divulge information on the legal actions and I think your last response was that that statement was valid for all actions. You were not to divulge information on any action.

MR WASSERMAN: No, in terms of the Official Secrets Act, what was ever classified, was classified and non-divulgible.

MR MALAN: Yes but certainly in terms the Official Secrets Act illegal activities are not classified?

MR WASSERMAN: Well then I mean if we weren't going to talk about legal actions Mr Chair, we wouldn't have spoken about illegal ones.

MR MALAN: Now the question was put to you whether you were trained not to divulge any information on illegal actions and you answered that in the positive?

MR WASSERMAN: Well it's the culture of any intelligence service. I've never undergone any formal training, I wouldn't know how people are trained not to divulge things.

MR MALAN: I thought that you would be giving us more information linking this to this paragraph 7 on page 123 that I have read out to you and the question is really was there not a structure or were there no structures within your unit busying themselves indeed with illegal actions and that within the frame of those structures and those involved in the structures that you were trained not to divulge information on illegal actions, that's really the question.

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman, I was totally unaware of such a structure, totally unaware of such a structure.

MR MALAN: So you have no explanation really for why you refer to structures?

MR WASSERMAN: No, in fact this is an English/Afrikaans mistake somehow, mix up here sir and I apologise to the Commission for that but there is nothing like that.

MR MALAN: It really cannot be an English/Afrikaans mistake, it cannot simply be a mistake of having, of your not having understood it but in all the others and most of the other applicants are Afrikaans speaking, clearly, in exactly the same words, making exactly the same statement but you had no knowledge of such structures that they refer to?

MR WASSERMAN: Definitely to my working knowledge there was no such structure, sir.

MR MALAN: Because most of the others were your seniors in any event. Is it possible that such structures did exist, that there was some kind of a conspiracy within the unit, did you have any such notion at any stage that decisions were made about illegal actions of which you were not part of?

MR WASSERMAN: Decisions were certainly made but I would have said it was ....[intervention]

MR MALAN: Illegal activities?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct but I would have said it was done by the rank structures.

MR MALAN: In other words Taylor and others?

MR WASSERMAN: By the rank structure, correct sir.

MR MALAN: Within the unit?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes sir.

MR MALAN: And then one last question, no I needn't ask this question of you at this stage, we can perhaps leave that for the second part of the application. Thank you.

MR WASSERMAN: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: How many people were there in your unit?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman I would imagine 12 or so, possibly more, we had two legs.

CHAIRPERSON: And the commanding officer of the unit was Major Taylor?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was under him? By that I mean who was the next ranking?

MR WASSERMAN: It would have been Colonel Botha.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he would surely have been above Major Taylor?

MR WASSERMAN: No but this - I'm talking about the last of their ranks of course, I was referring to their last ranks.

CHAIRPERSON: The rank at the time?

MR WASSERMAN: It would have been Major Botha.

CHAIRPERSON: Who?

MR WASSERMAN: Major Botha. There was Lieutenant du Preez, there were Warrant Officers Lembedi and Mhieza.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I don't think you know all the rest.

MR WASSERMAN: I was a sergeant.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you had three officers in the unit?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you've been asked about the place where the shooting took place and I gather it's the first time you'd been there, you can't now tell us where it was. Can you give us an estimate of how long it took to drive there from the shooting range?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, the best part of an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that include the time that you spent changing the wheel or is it an hour's driving time?

MR WASSERMAN: No, I would say an hour's driving time, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And an hour back?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And some minutes changing the wheel and some minutes shooting the deceased?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And all this time Major Taylor remained sitting back at the shooting range, as far as you know, by himself?

MR WASSERMAN: As far as I know he was there when I came back, he might have left and done other things, I'm not aware of that, but he was there to meet us or to meet me on return.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was that? Why should he want to be there to meet you?

MR WASSERMAN: No he was - he would have wanted to know the result, he would have wanted to know the position.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely he could have asked you to phone him?

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman, this kind of thing was to be discussed with my mouth only.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what were you going to discuss, surely all you had to say everything went well?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, that's all and that was the end of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I can't see why you can't say that on the telephone?

MR WASSERMAN: It just wasn't done, the instructions were "you come back, report to me physically and we'll break after that."

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry Chairperson. And when you reported back to him did you give him details as to how you killed Mr Bhila?

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Did you say you shot him?

MR WASSERMAN: No Mr Chairman.

ADV SIGODI: Who gave the report?

MR WASSERMAN: I beg your pardon?

ADV SIGODI: Who gave the report to Major Taylor, who actually told him about what happened at Umbumbulu?

MR WASSERMAN: Well I gave a report to him, I don't know if anybody else in the bus also spoke.

ADV SIGODI: And Mr Makata, did he give any report to him?

MR WASSERMAN: I don't know if he did.

ADV SIGODI: You gave the report to Major Taylor?

MR WASSERMAN: I spoke to Major Taylor, I don't know if the other people spoke to Major Taylor but I informed him of the report.

ADV SIGODI: Was it just the two of you or were there other people present?

MR WASSERMAN: Which two?

ADV SIGODI: Was it just the two of you and Major Taylor or were there other people present?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, there was just Major Taylor and I spoke about it with each other.

ADV SIGODI: What happened to the other people?

MR WASSERMAN: I think they were still at their vehicles getting into their vehicles. I don't know what they were doing.

ADV SIGODI: So can you remember your words, did you say everything went well? He didn't ask for details as to who shot and where and all that detail?

MR WASSERMAN: No.

ADV SIGODI: Thanks.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, might I be allowed arising from some of the questions put just to ask this witness in clarification of something? Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Wasserman you knew Major Taylor well, did you not?

MR WASSERMAN: I did Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: He died, I believe, approximately a year ago?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct sir.

MR VISSER: What was his condition, his mental condition if I may put it that way, prior to his death for example in 1996 as far as you personally are aware?

MR WASSERMAN: No by that stage his health was remarkably deteriorating, cancer was all over his body and his memory was very badly effected.

MR VISSER: His memory was badly effected. Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

May the witness then be excused? Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman I don't know what the rest of the procedure is, I think I should hand back to Mr Prior.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

ADV PRIOR: Is that the evidence from the applicants on the Bhila incident?

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman. If I may say it's the only evidence that we are going to present on behalf of the persons for who we appear.

WITNESS EXCUSED

ADV PRIOR: I then call or ask leave to call Mr Ramatala.

MR VISSER: My attorney reminds me I should have made it clear that Mr Botha's evidence of course will obviously become relevant to Bhila's case in general as well. Thank you Mr Chairman and then there's Mr Taylor's application, I don't know whether that's going to be dealt with now or later?

ADV PRIOR: Possibly we can hear from Mr Nel regarding the Taylor application?

MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I'm not quite sure how and what the procedure regarding Mr Taylor's application would be. I don't know if the Chair could assist me, we have never dealt with an application of a deceased person before. Perhaps Mr Prior can assist?

CHAIRPERSON: The decision as to whether we give a ruling can wait for the moment. Are you going to call any other evidence in support of Mr Taylor's application?

MR NEL: No Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: May I then proceed with Mr Ramatala? Please come forward Mr Ramatala.

ERNEST RAMATALA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ramatala, we're glad to have you here today and you are here to talk about or tell the Committee about what you know about the events surrounding the abduction or kidnapping of Mr Bhila during February of 1987.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we do that can we have your full names, Mr Ramatala?

MR RAMATALA: My name is Ernest.

ADV PRIOR: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, I thought he read that out. Now, if you could just give a bit of background to yourself, before 1987 and up till 1987 were you in the employ of the security police stationed at Pretoria?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: And were you a member of Vlakplaas?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: Now is it correct that, it seems to be common cause that on the 10th February 1987 a unit from Vlakplaas was sent down to Port Natal, that is Durban Port Natal.

MR RAMATALA: That is correct.

ADV PRIOR: Under the command of Mr Frank McCarter?

MR RAMATALA: And Andrew Letate.

ADV PRIOR: And with that group was also, we've heard, evidence Mr Bosch, Mr Rosslee and certain other members of Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: Can you remember who the other persons were other than the persons I've now mentioned?

MR RAMATALA: It myself, Letate, Pekkie Gadebe, Malaleka, Nobela, Tulo, Aaron Mtengo and another one by the name of Shakes Malaleka.

ADV PRIOR: Alright.

MR RAMATALA: There were two Malalekas.

ADV PRIOR: What part of your contingent were there two Malalekas?

MR RAMATALA: Definitely, another one is the one who has been released from prison, he's the one that I was with him to Mr Bhila's place.

ADV PRIOR: Alright, we'll get to that. We've heard evidence that this unit was sent down on routine work in the Port Natal area and at some stage an instruction was given to make contact with Mr Bhila in Lamontville, is that correct?

MR RAMATALA: That is correct.

ADV PRIOR: Tell the Committee in your own words what you recall, what you remember about that evidence, about that event?

MR RAMATALA: I recall when Mr Makata and Mr Letate briefed us that "gentlemen, there's somebody who has been released from prison that we must go and make an arrest." So he was telling the whole group, then from there he said you, Ernest

and Nobela and Shakes, I must go and show you that place.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, what happened then?

MR RAMATALA: So we went to Lamontville, myself, Letsatse, Gadebe, Spyker Mhieza and Nobela to Bhila's place.

ADV PRIOR: And was that in Lamontville?

MR RAMATALA: In Lamontville.

ADV PRIOR: What was shown to you there?

MR RAMATALA: We were going to be shown the house of Mr Bhila.

ADV PRIOR: Were you shown the house?

MR RAMATALA: We would drive driving with the Combi, towards this area, can be the third house from this one.

ADV PRIOR: And who did that?

MR RAMATALA: Mhieza.

ADV PRIOR: Yes continue?

MR RAMATALA: Then from there, when on the way I asked him so that we can prepare ourselves, is he a terrorist? They said no, he might have a crash course. So ...[intervention]

ADV PRIOR: Sorry, I don't follow that, you said you asked whether he was a terrorist?

MR RAMATALA: Or not so that we can go to that place knowing exactly what type of person that was, is he going to fight or is he going to suspect us. We were trying to prepare ourselves mentally and ...[indistinct] when we were approaching them.

ADV PRIOR: And you said something about a crash course, who said that?

MR RAMATALA: It's Spyker Mhieza said that no, he might have some crash course.

ADV PRIOR: Well did you get the impression from Mhieza that he was a terrorist or a dangerous person?

MR RAMATALA: No, Mhieza was putting it to us that he is not a dangerous person to us.

ADV PRIOR: Yes please continue?

MR RAMATALA: Now then from there they drop us somewhere, we went to find the place.

ADV PRIOR: Was there any plan how you were to approach Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: The plan was we must tell him that we are the people from UDF, we want to do some further - we are going to tell him something further concerning the UDF, further instruction from UDF.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, what was the next thing that happened?

MR RAMATALA: So we managed to get inside.

ADV PRIOR: Who was all with you when you got inside?

MR RAMATALA: That time it was myself, Nobela and this Shakes Malaleka.

ADV PRIOR: And when you say you got inside was that at the home of Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: At the home of Bhila.

ADV PRIOR: Did you find him there?

MR RAMATALA: We found him there.

ADV PRIOR: Yes continue please?

MR RAMATALA: So we talked to him. He himself arranged for a day or two, somewhere there, that he will come and meet us somewhere at Kentucky.

ADV PRIOR: So you spoke to Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: We spoke to Bhila and said "my friend, we are comrades from UDF, we are coming to you, we have been sent to discuss further things with you but we want a safe place."

ADV PRIOR: And the Kentucky was nominated?

MR RAMATALA: He's the one really he said that "I think Kentucky will be a safe place for us."

ADV PRIOR: Is that the Kentucky in Lamontville?

MR RAMATALA: At Lamontville

ADV PRIOR: And when was the arrangement to meet him?

MR RAMATALA: It can be a day or two after that first meeting.

ADV PRIOR: Alright take the Committee through the sequence as you remember it?

MR RAMATALA: Then from there we go back to the Combi and report to the Combi.

ADV PRIOR: Who did you report to?

MR RAMATALA: To Letsatse and Mhieza and Gadebe.

ADV PRIOR: Yes?

MR RAMATALA: Now we go back to C. R. Swart.

ADV PRIOR: To what place there, was it any particular office?

MR RAMATALA: Well we used not to go to the security branch, we used to stay where we slept because only Letsatse and these three went to the office.

ADV PRIOR: You say you never used to go to the offices, why not?

MR RAMATALA: They used to say that it's very much important if only the seniors, they are the ones that can know information and details.

ADV PRIOR: So you went to another place within C. R. Swart Square?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

ADV PRIOR: And what was the next thing that happened?

MR RAMATALA: Now we wait for them now again to what is the arrangement, now it was to get the car.

ADV PRIOR: So did anyone come back to you and discuss about the car?

MR RAMATALA: On the way, in actual fact on the way now when we're discussing about this, now the plan was now we must get the car now.

ADV PRIOR: Sorry let's just find out what day was that? You'd gone to Bhila, you'd made contact, you'd mentioned the Kentucky, you came back to C. R. Swart Square?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly. So on our way back to C. R. Swart we were discussing about the next method we are going to use now.

ADV PRIOR: The method to get hold of Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: Again by using the car.

ADV PRIOR: So what car was discussed?

MR RAMATALA: No, we never discussed the description of the car.

ADV PRIOR: Oh I see. Alright, did anything else happen on that same day that you had made contact with Bhila? Well, what was of importance, obviously things happened but what was the next thing in connection with obtaining Bhila or fetching Bhila from Lamontville. What was the next thing that happened?

MR RAMATALA: As far as I know to get Mr Bhila it was for the sake of information that security want information from Mr Bhila.

ADV PRIOR: And then what was done, was there any plan, firm plan discussed of how you were going to get him?

MR RAMATALA: We did plan this thing when we go there, that we can go and talk to Mr Bhila and try to see how can we get him out of his place.

ADV PRIOR: And what plan was that, what was the plan?

MR RAMATALA: The plan was, if he can come, now we went to take him out. I mean they went to take us, with him, on the way but that one didn't work lekker.

ADV PRIOR: Yes?

MR RAMATALA: Yes. So now Mr Bhila postponed.

ADV PRIOR: And he mentioned the Kentucky?

MR RAMATALA: The Kentucky.

ADV PRIOR: Alright, now we've put that day behind us. When was the next time you went to Lamontville now to fetch Bhila or to meet with Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: Now the car was there and it was a Honda that I've been given the keys by Letsatse.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, where was this Honda obtained from, do you know?

MR RAMATALA: No, seen Honda at C.R. Swart.

ADV PRIOR: Was it a new vehicle, an old vehicle?

MR RAMATALA: It was a new second hand.

ADV PRIOR: In good condition?

MR RAMATALA: In very good condition.

ADV PRIOR: And you obtained the keys at C.R. Swart?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: And what was your instruction there and who gave you your instructions from C.R. Swart onwards?

MR RAMATALA: Okay gentlemen, you go, we are going to deploy two Combis somewhere.

ADV PRIOR: Who said that?

MR RAMATALA: Mr Lekata and Mr Letsatse.

ADV PRIOR: And what was your role, what were you to do?

MR RAMATALA: My role was the driver of the car.

ADV PRIOR: Of the Honda?

MR RAMATALA: Oh yes.

ADV PRIOR: And who went with you in the Honda vehicle?

MR RAMATALA: The same two guys.

ADV PRIOR: When you first approached Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: We wait, he was little bit late about 15 minutes late.

ADV PRIOR: Was that at the Kentucky?

MR RAMATALA: At the Kentucky.

CHAIRPERSON: How many days was that after you first spoke to Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: A day or two, somewhere there.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember what time of day it was when you first met him?

MR RAMATALA: The first time?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RAMATALA: Somewhere round about 11 in the morning.

CHAIRPERSON: And the second meeting?

MR RAMATALA: The second meeting I think was 12 o'clock.

ADV PRIOR: Yes, please tell the Committee what happened on that second meeting at about 12 o'clock, you said he was slightly late?

MR RAMATALA: Yes we were there meeting in the car so they arranged that he must sit at the back. There was one guy in the back, I was sitting with another one in front. So ...[intervention]

ADV PRIOR: Yes just tell us, sorry, so that we can get clarity, who was in the vehicle with you when Mr Bhila got into the vehicle?

MR RAMATALA: It was Nobela and Shakes Malaleka.

ADV PRIOR: Can we just pause there? You said something about the Shakes Malaleka being released from prison?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: Just go into that in a little detail?

MR RAMATALA: This Shakes, he was involved in a shooting somewhere, somebody died here in Durban ...[indistinct] or something like that. Now he was in detention, something like that or in prison.

ADV PRIOR: But was he involved with any political, with any political organisation or not, to your knowledge?

MR RAMATALA: He's a former member of ANC.

ADV PRIOR: Sorry, I just don't follow quite clearly, you say he was taken out of prison, for what purpose?

MR RAMATALA: To rejoin the group again.

ADV PRIOR: Did you know whether he knew Mr Bhila or not?

MR RAMATALA: No, no he was not sure of Mr Bhila.

ADV PRIOR: Had Mr Malaleka, the Shakes Malaleka, had he been briefed on the purpose of the visit to Mr Bhila or not?

MR RAMATALA: He was with us when we were briefed by our seniors.

ADV PRIOR: Was he prepared to go along with you to Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly, exactly.

ADV PRIOR: Alright, so Mr Bhila then joins you in the vehicle, is that correct?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: And where did you then go?

MR RAMATALA: According to the plan we were supposed to go out of Durban.

ADV PRIOR: Well what - just tell us a bit more detail, what was your instruction and who gave you the instruction where you were to drive?

MR RAMATALA: They said that we must try to get out of Durban, Mr Letsatse and Mhieza now, who was giving us that instruction.

ADV PRIOR: And was that before you got to Lamontville?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

ADV PRIOR: Okay so he's in the vehicle, what then happened?

MR RAMATALA: Now we drove, we're trying to move but I think a few metres, the two Combis were there, intercepting us.

ADV PRIOR: Was that still in Lamontville?

MR RAMATALA: Outside Kentucky, little bit outside there.

ADV PRIOR: Were you still near the Kentucky when the Combi stopped?

MR RAMATALA: No it was something like now next to the chemist there.

ADV PRIOR: So you started your vehicle, you moved off a short distance as I understand it and the two Combis were there?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: Tell us what happened then?

MR RAMATALA: The instruction was we are going to be getting some ...[indistinct] all of us, so that Mr Bhila he must be confused.

ADV PRIOR: Just tell us what happened?

MR RAMATALA: They cross, they come in front of me and stop me, now Mike Mhieza, he was the one now that came that "you are driving shit, you are driving shit" Now started beating me now, he start to open the door, beating Mr Bhila, the other one now start to beat me. We went to the Combi so when I was in the Combi they say no, come, come, come, go and drive the car.

ADV PRIOR: When you say someone beat you, do you know who slapped you?

MR RAMATALA: No I don't really recall who did ...[indistinct]

ADV PRIOR: And then Mr Bhila you say was taken into the Combi?

MR RAMATALA: Into the Combi.

ADV PRIOR: And you were told to get into your vehicle?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

ADV PRIOR: Can you say who was in the vehicle in which Mr Bhila was placed, who were the members that were there, can you remember?

MR RAMATALA: There were two Combis, all the members were there but I never saw the white members during that vicinity but black members, all of them were there.

ADV PRIOR: Now which black members are you referring to?

MR RAMATALA: I'm referring of Letsatse, Gadebe, Mike Lembedi was there, Spyker was there, Pekkie was there, Luluke other one was there and Tulo was there. I see all of them.

ADV PRIOR: You came down to Durban with a number of policemen from Vlakplaas?

MR RAMATALA: Definitely.

ADV PRIOR: And askaris I understand?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

ADV PRIOR: Are you referring to that group?

MR RAMATALA: I'm referring to that group.

ADV PRIOR: In addition to that group were there any members from the Durban office?

MR RAMATALA: Yes it was Mhieza and Mike Lembedi.

ADV PRIOR: Can you remember whether Bhila, Mr Bhila said anything when he was taken into the Combi?

MR RAMATALA: No, no nothing.

ADV PRIOR: And then from that point in Lamontville where you were intercepted, what happened, where did you go?

MR RAMATALA: Three of us, now we go back to the car, we go straight to C.R. Swart.

ADV PRIOR: And what happened at C.R. Swart?

MR RAMATALA: Ten minutes or fifteen minutes time, Letsatse arrived and took the car's keys and took off the number plate of the vehicle.

ADV PRIOR: Yes?

MR RAMATALA: That was the end.

ADV PRIOR: Well did you ask him anything about what happened to Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: No nothing.

ADV PRIOR: Did you ever see Mr Bhila again?

MR RAMATALA: It was the first time, I never seen him again.

ADV PRIOR: Did you never see him again?

MR RAMATALA: No I never saw him again.

ADV PRIOR: Did you ever make enquiries as to what possibly had happened to him after that incident?

MR RAMATALA: Nothing.

ADV PRIOR: Did you know that he was to be killed?

MR RAMATALA: No.

ADV PRIOR: Now is it correct that you were approached in July of '96 by Captain Holmes of the D'Oliveira Special Investigating Unit?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: And is it correct that you made a statement to Mr Holmes?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: And it was recorded in Afrikaans, is that correct?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

ADV PRIOR: And you signed - we have a copy, is it correct is it your signature that appears?

MR RAMATALA: Yes that's my signature.

ADV PRIOR: And you told Mr Holmes what you could remember of the incident?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

ADV PRIOR: And is there anything else you wish to tell the Committee regarding this event?

MR RAMATALA: In actual fact we were not aware that they were going to kill him because if an operation like that one, a serious one like that one, we were involved, usually we used to get some bonuses, but this one of Mr Bhila we didn't get the bonus because it was stated to us that he is just an active member inside whose got only the mere crash course.

CHAIRPERSON: But you say you usually get a bonus?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is that bonus paid by?

MR RAMATALA: Our seniors at the Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: And was that a bonus when people were killed?

MR RAMATALA: Not exactly killed, even when we have arrested somebody from the ANC camp.

CHAIRPERSON: You got a bonus for doing your job?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I hand up or formally introduce the statement, which has been circulated to all the interested parties as Exhibit E?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the Ramatala statement?

ADV PRIOR: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRIOR

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Ramatala, I'm just interested to know, in 1987 were you an askari or were you a policeman?

MR RAMATALA: A policeman.

MR VISSER: Would you perhaps just push your button? And the bonuses you speak about, for what do you say you were paid bonuses?

MR RAMATALA: For any arrest of somebody we used to call as a terrorist or somebody who is highly active on the ANC activities, we used to get bonuses.

MR VISSER: I see and who would pay you those bonuses?

MR RAMATALA: One of our seniors, they used to make a claim and we get it.

MR VISSER: I see yes. Do you know a person by the name of Stanley Moni?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VISSER: Did you have anything to do with Stanley Moni or did Stanley Moni have anything to do with your contact with Mr Bhila in February 1987?

MR RAMATALA: No I don't recall Stanley Moni taking any part in this.

MR VISSER: Alright. Wasn't it part of the plan that Mr Bhila was to be told that the security branch was going to arrest him again and that you and your fellow policemen or the askaris that went with you would offer him assistance to get him out of the country?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR VISSER: So how did you suggest to Mr Bhila, what did you suggest to him in order to lure him away from his home?

MR RAMATALA: Let me put it clear to you, Mr Bhila when he came to us, there was no bag to show that he's going out, he just came empty handed so how can we arrange for him to go out without clothes?

MR VISSER: No, no, no, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There was a plan, there was a plot to try to lure him away from his home so that he could be arrested, is that correct?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VISSER: What was that plan, was it not that to tell him that he must come, that you would take him out of the country to save him from being arrested?

MR RAMATALA: I think we differ when coming to send him out, the plan was to take him for further instruction from the UDF.

MR VISSER: I see, I see, is that how you remember it?

MR RAMATALA: It's how it was, exactly like that.

MR VISSER: Yes and after Bhila was placed in the Combi, you came back to C.R. Swart and you knew nothing about what further happened to Mr Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no questions.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman, Van Schalkwyk on behalf of McCarter.

Mr Ramatala, at the time you said you were a member of the South African Police Force, what was your rank?

MR RAMATALA: Constable.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Constable?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you carry a pocket book with you?

MR RAMATALA: What?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you carry a pocket book with you?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now did you make any entries in the pocket book about these events? Do you want me to repeat the question?

MR RAMATALA: I want to explain to you. My job was the security, the pocket book was not to be used to a sensitive information like that one, how can you use the pocket book for a thing like that one of Mr Bhila?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The point of the matter, there's no other entry or there's no entry that you made on the day in question about the events?

MR RAMATALA: No, pocket book was for your own interest, if you want to keep something for your own information. There was nobody to check up on that book.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Let me ask you again, did you make any - I'll ask it a little bit differently, did you make any entry on ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: He did say - I mean that's clear that he said that he didn't make any entry.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you. So apart - when you made your statement to Holmes in 1996, did you have anything to look at, anything to refresh your memory with?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you shown any statements by Holmes in order to refresh your memory?

MR RAMATALA: No nothing.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you shown any documents by Holmes to refresh your memory from?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are you quite sure about that?

MR RAMATALA: ...[indistinct]

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well in paragraph 4 of the statement that was handed up, appears the following sentence and least it be a mistake because of the languages, let me put it to you, it will be interpreted

"I can recall the incident as follows. Our group according to the documents that were shown to me"

...[inaudible] your statement referred to if nothing was shown to you?

MR RAMATALA: No, you see the documents that he showed me, it was the document for the claim of the S&T

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So documents were in fact shown to you.

MR RAMATALA: Ja, for the S&T

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Then you say an interesting thing further on in the statement, allow me to read it to you

"And an independent witness"

That is something I want to clarify from you because my copy Mr Chairman is little unclear, it could be "geheer" or "getui" if I might just clarify that? If it's "geheer" I'll accept it, mine is unfortunately not clear.

Perhaps if I may just ask the witness, did you discuss the matter with any witness?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Right and you were not shown a statement for instance by Mr Bosch or Mr Rosslee or anyone?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Not, now I want to canvass with you the presence of the various members of the Durban branch of the security police. Did you at the time know a certain, I think his rank at the time was Sergeant, Aubrey Nogade?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was he a member of your unit?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At Pretoria or in Durban?

MR RAMATALA: Well when we were down here he was not around, not knowing maybe he arrived in the evening.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: He was not involved in the incident that you have sketched at all?

MR RAMATALA: Abducting, he was not around as far as I know.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Right. When you made and if I may just briefly ask you a few questions about this statement, when you made the statement to Mr Holmes, were you under the impression that this was going to be used in a case docket to be opened or built against somebody?

MR RAMATALA: Can you repeat the question again?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When you made the statement did you think that this statement was going to be used in a case docket, a police docket against someone?

MR RAMATALA: I was making the statement for the only part that I had played, not knowing what's going to happen in future.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You were not asked to make a statement or were you asked to make a statement as a witness so to speak, you were not accused of having done something wrong and given an opportunity to explain?

MR RAMATALA: Well I can say so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And have you all along been aware of or under the impression rather that you would be a witness in this matter?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: That the Attorney General's office obviously were investigating?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You yourself and pardon me for asking you this, have not applied for amnesty for this particular incident?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In your mind you did nothing wrong?

MR RAMATALA: I have never been in the killing.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As far as you're concerned that is the bit that's wrong?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When you were given these instructions in your own mind did you think this would just have been an arrest?

MR RAMATALA: We used to do that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: That was part of your normal duties?

MR RAMATALA: Part of the game.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Now you seem to sketch two different incidents that happened on two days. Firstly you would go out to the scene, the general vicinity would have been pointed out to you and then later you went back, do I understand that correctly?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: On that first occasion, let us deal with that. You say that it was Mhieza who had pointed out, as I understood you, sort of the general area or did he point out a specific house?

MR RAMATALA: Mhieza knows that place very well, he said to us: "I don't want to be very close because he knows me, but you check from this" They give us the number of the house, can be number three to number four and you just count the houses and it was like that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: He did not point out the specific house to you, that's all I want to know.

MR RAMATALA: By pointing a specific house in the sense that he was there next to the house is this one, no, but he said that you go along this number, it will be number 5, then you get it.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was Mike Lembedi present at that particular point in time?

MR RAMATALA: Mike?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Lembedi was he present. Lembedi?

ADV PRIOR: Was Lembedi present?

MR RAMATALA: No, no, no. When - no, the first - he was not there.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well before you went out to this place was there a discussion between yourselves and McCarter?

MR RAMATALA: Mr McCarter?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes sir.

MR RAMATALA: Concerning this?

ADV VAN SCHALWYK: Yes.

MR RAMATALA: Well he was briefing us as the group that is going to go there. Then from there he singled out exact three that is going to be there, that you and this one, you are going to be involved.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you know Mr Bhila prior to this incident?

MR RAMATALA: No, nothing.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you given information about Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: There was a photo.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you given any other information about him apart from the photo?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What?

MR RAMATALA: That's he fit gentleman.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I beg your pardon?

MR RAMATALA: They said that he is very fit, that's all, physically fit.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And were you told that he was locally trained, I think you used the word crash course?

MR RAMATALA: We went to Mr Bhila without any firearms.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were you told - I'll repeat the question - that he was locally trained?

MR RAMATALA: They said that he undergo crash course.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: That is all they told you about him?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly, how can we go a terrorist without firearms?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Granted but was any other information about Bhila given to you?

MR RAMATALA: To identify Mr Bhila?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Any other information about Bhila, sir?

MR RAMATALA: Well the one, that house, there's a gentleman there and he is fit, it was like that. You go to that house, the gentleman was there and he was fit.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was anything mentioned about him appearing in a court matter?

MR RAMATALA: I said that we were discussing on the way from Durban to Bhila's place, what I want to be clear about, these arrests, are we going - I just want - by then I was trying to secure the bonus, that are we going to get the bonus. Now it was clear that no, he was not a terrorist.

MR MALAN: Mr van Schalkwyk, sorry, will you not demarcate the different time periods and places and when you want to know about discussions, it's perhaps too complex to leave it open, the questions?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did Mr McCarter at any stage mentioned anything about this man having appeared in court?

MR RAMATALA: But I don't know how can I answer this because if three - four senior people, they are briefing us about certain guy, all four cannot talk at once, that we are going to Bhila - what, what, what, what, - that's why, but I cannot recall exactly what did Mr McCarter said, that he was the part of that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Ramatala, least we're at cross purposes, do I understand correctly that you can't recall McCarter telling you that Bhila was involved in a court case?

MR RAMATALA: Well that I think so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I don't understand your answer?

MR RAMATALA: Well I agree with you.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You can't recall that?

MR RAMATALA: You're telling me about the court case.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: However, that is something that you mentioned in your statement, that you recalled in 1996.

You say:

"We were informed about a person who was involved in a court case in Pietermaritzburg."

MR RAMATALA: Probably this thing happened long time ago ...[inaudible] so one can still make a small mistake.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well I'm going to suggest to you sir that you are also making a mistake about Mhieza?

MR MALAN: Just before you pursue Mhieza, the statement, Mr Ramatala, says that you were addressed by Mr McCarter. If I understood you correct there were other people present when you were addressed by Mr McCarter.

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR MALAN: And at that meeting you were informed about the acquittal and the court case by someone but you say you can't remember whether it was Mr McCarter, is that what you're saying?

MR RAMATALA: No, I think that one of the case it was Mhieza who was now talking about the case.

MR MALAN: But at that same meeting were you told about the case and the acquittal or was it another meeting, I mean these were the questions put to you.

MR RAMATALA: He had not, definitely on that meeting again there somebody, can be Mr McCarter who talked about the guy who was being released from the prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you told that he had been found not guilty?

MR RAMATALA: Not guilty, that's it.

MR MALAN: But you're not sure whether Mr McCarter told you or someone else?

MR RAMATALA: No I'm not sure.

MR MALAN: But are you sure he was present when you were informed?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr van Schalkwyk.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Malan.

Well, can you remember who else was present at that particular meeting?

MR RAMATALA: How can I?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Can you remember who else was present at that meeting, that Mr Malan has just asked you about?

MR RAMATALA: Which meeting - the last briefing?

MR MALAN: No, Mr Ramatala, the question if you have your statement before you, well it's in Afrikaans.

MR RAMATALA: No, it's in Afrikaans.

MR MALAN: But you said that you attended a meeting, all the members attended a meeting.

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR MALAN: At C.R. Swart, where Mr McCarter addressed you. You also said that you were informed at that meeting. Now granted you're not saying who gave you the information but it reads as if it was Mr McCarter. You were informed during that meeting that a person was found not guilty in the court case. Now the question of Mr van Schalkwayk is, at that meeting where Mr McCarter addressed you, apart from your group, who else was present because you gave us the information about your group?

MR RAMATALA: What had happened Mr McCarter ...[inaudible]

MR MALAN: Mr Ramatala do you want me to repeat that question.

MR RAMATALA: Yes I want to answer that question now. You see at that meeting ...[inaudible]

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: If your light goes off you're not being recorded.

MR RAMATALA: Okay, can I leave it like this?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Just press the button now and that will be alright.

MR MALAN: Yes please just go ahead and answer?

MR RAMATALA: Mr McCarter addressed the whole group but now when choosing the one that going there, again we were briefed, now when I say that now, the issue of this guy who was being discharged it was being discussed there.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Apart from Mr McCarter was there any other member of the police?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Who was there?

MR RAMATALA: Mhieza was there, Pekkie was there, Letsatse was there and these was two other ones.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Incidently, when you made your statement to Mr Holmes, did he specifically ask you about Mhieza, did he ask you was there a person by the name of Mhieza present?

MR RAMATALA: Well that might be but I know Mhieza very well.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did Holmes ask you about Mhieza, how well you knew him?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: It was not suggested by him that Mhieza was present on the day in question and you were asked to comment on it?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Right now then you went back for the second time, let's deal with that particular set of events.

Mhieza was not present when you went back, in fact to get Bhila, is that correct? To meet Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: The first one?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No, I'm talking about the second set of events.

MR RAMATALA: No, the second one when we went to Mr Bhila, we were only three guys in the Honda. Mhieza was with others in the Combis. Now Mhieza came when now they stopped us, he was coming from the Combi now.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Let's deal with when you were stopped as you say, was it a case of your vehicle being taken off or pushed off the road, intercepted as it were?

MR RAMATALA: I was the part of the game, I was aware that what was going to happen, so I did it purposely that as if there's something wrong. These people they just stopped.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And did both Combis stop?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Were there any so-called white members present?

MR RAMATALA: I said that in that area I didn't see any white people.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No one in the Combis?

MR RAMATALA: No, I didn't see, not even a single one in the Combi.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr McCarter certainly not there?

MR RAMATALA: I cannot deny maybe he was in the Combi sitting but I didn't see him.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is it possible then that in the Combi there could have been other members as well, other white members as well?

MR RAMATALA: That can be possible.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Alright, you then say it was Mhieza and Lembedi as I understand your statement who took over Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: It was not perhaps McCarter and Lembedi?

MR RAMATALA: No, no.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm going to suggest to you so that as far as this incident is concerned that you are wrong as far as Mr Mhieza's role or the role that you attribute to him is concerned, he was not there, it was Lembedi what pointed out the house, it was Lembedi who with McCarter took hold of Bhila.

MR RAMATALA: And Mr McCarter in my car, in that Combi?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: No, at the end when your vehicle was pulled off so to speak, I say so in inverted commas if one can do so, it was McCarter and Lembedi?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: My instructions from Mhieza is in any event that he was not there, he did not take part in this?

MR RAMATALA: He was there.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: At the best for you, you're mistaken about it?

MR RAMATALA: No, no, no, he was there.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: These other gentlemen that were with you, Mr Letsatse and the other gentlemen in your vehicle, Shakes - what was his name again would you remind me?

MR RAMATALA: His surname is Malaleka.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Malaleka. Do you know whether they ever made statements to the police, to Mr Holmes?

MR RAMATALA: I don't know.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: They were not there with you when you made your statement?

MR RAMATALA: No, I was making a statement alone.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Have you ever discussed this matter with them after the event?

MR RAMATALA: Nothing.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you know if these two gentlemen are still around?

MR RAMATALA: No I don't know.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You've not had any contact?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Dealing with the S & T forms, I've just had a look at that, are you saying that there were S & T forms also made out for this person Shakes Malaleka or not?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is it your version that he was at one stage incarcerated and then he came out and took part in this operation, is that your evidence?

MR RAMATALA: By then he was not a policeman by then, when he came back from jail so it was impossible to clear him for somebody who is not the part of the police.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Alright. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK

MR MALAN: May I just ask, is it not possible that a claim form was put in on behalf of Mr Mhieza in order to collect the money to hand to Shakes Malaleka, is that not a possibility?

MR RAMATALA: It was the money that has been used in the operation like this one, maybe to give the people money to go to the shebeen, you see, to do anything in the line of the duty, you understand? So that money maybe he was getting the S & T from that one.

MR MALAN: So you're basically saying this relates only to S & T, it wouldn't - the claim forms wouldn't have involved bonuses?

MR RAMATALA: No, no, no, no.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Ramatala you'll just have to bear with me, your evidence in chief you testified at a rapid pace so I might have to ask you some questions just to clarify as to what you said. Can I just go first of all to Exhibit E, that is the affidavit that was procured by Captain Holmes, have you got it in front of you? You have?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: Right at the last page at the bottom it says there it was signed on the 17th July 1996 at Ladybrand. Were you living in Ladybrand at the time?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR HUGO: And I take it you're a Sotho speaking man, is that correct?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR HUGO: Then will you just go back to the first page of this affidavit? There it says

"I Tomelo Ernest Ramatala make this statement in Sotho under oath."

MR RAMATALA: Can you repeat it in English?

MR HUGO: Well it says there I Tomelo Ernest Ramatala declares in Sotho under oath"

that's the translation of the Afrikaans portion, do you see that?

MR RAMATALA: Oh yes, but I was speaking English you know, I don't know what had happened but I could say that this is a Sotho speaking person.

MR HUGO: No, but it's very clear from this document that you were speaking, ostensibly speaking Sotho at that time?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR HUGO: So what were you speaking when you made this affidavit?

MR RAMATALA: I was speaking English.

MR HUGO: And were there any interpreters present when you made this affidavit?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR HUGO: And were you happy with the contents of this affidavit before you signed it?

MR RAMATALA: Man the atmosphere was so conducive so I couldn't have any doubt about ...[indistinct]

MR HUGO: No, but that's not with all due respect a proper answer to the question. Let me ask you first, did you go through the affidavit before you signed it?

MR HUGO: After writing this thing he explained in English I've said this and this and this and this, it's formally what we have been speaking about.

MR HUGO: Yes Mr Ramatala, but you're an experienced policeman, you actually joined the security police in 1981 so you know full well what the affidavits are all about. Were you happy, as an experienced policeman that the contents of this affidavit were correct and that you were happy with it?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR HUGO: Now can you just tell us a little bit about your background? How did it come about that you ended up at Vlakplaas?

MR RAMATALA: I'm very sorry I cannot discuss that here.

It's not relevant to this case.

MR HUGO: Well Mr Ramatala, it is unfortunately relevant and I'm going to point out to you why it's relevant, so won't you just answer the question?

MR RAMATALA: I said I would never answer that question because it's not relevant to this one.

MR HUGO: Well Mr Ramatala, let me ask you this. Were you involved as an ANC member in student activities in Lesotho?

MR RAMATALA: Nothing, I hear when Mr McCarter made that mistake yesterday.

MR HUGO: So are you saying that this proposition was wrong in the sense that you were never involved in student activities in Lesotho, as an ANC member?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR HUGO: Now can you just then tell us why do you think that Mr McCarter chose you to approach Mr Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: I want to give a full answer there.

MR HUGO: Yes?

MR RAMATALA: Two days before that we had a quarrel with Mr McCarter concerning Letsatse. Mr McCarter said that ...[intervention]

MR HUGO: Sorry Mr Ramatala, may I just ask you to ...[intervention]

MR RAMATALA: I'm trying to explain.

MR HUGO: May I just ask you to speak a little it slower, I find it difficult to follow you.

MR RAMATALA: I want to come to a point, so I said that I want to explain so that you can understand. I say that previous days we had a quarrel with Mr McCarter concerning Letsatse, so Mr McCarter used the word that I'm trying to build my own complex in the police force but it was to my surprise when he said that I was an experienced person and for that matter Mr McCarter managed to promote the whole section excluding me. How can today he mention that I'm an experienced and then when the benefits - I don't enjoy the benefits. I want to put it to you that Mr McCarter is trying to grab anything that he'd say, human nature is like that.

MR HUGO: Yes but what I don't understand still is, on what basis were you picked to go and approach an ANC member like Mr Bhila?

MR HU: GO: The guy was not an ANC trained person, maybe for my intelligence so that the guy can really believe what I'm saying. Is it true that you were an askari before you joined the South African Police?

MR RAMATALA: No. The interpretation of an askari, judge, do you really understand what does that mean? It means that somebody has been a member of the organisation now trained and joined the ...[indistinct] I have never been trained. He mentioned that thing, he arrived at the Vlakplaas while I was there for five years before, six years, so he didn't know me very well.

MR HUGO: Now I want to go over to the group that was sent down from Vlakplaas. You said in your evidence in chief that Shakes Malaleka was also part of this group, did I understand you correctly.

MR RAMATALA: That's Shakes Malaleka?

MR HUGO: That he was part of a group that was sent down from Pretoria to Durban?

MR RAMATALA: No, he joined us here, he was right here in Durban by then, in prison.

MR HUGO: And he was in prison here in Durban when you arrived here?

MR RAMATALA: That's Malaleka?

MR HUGO: Shakes Malaleka.

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: Now when did you meet Mr Shakes Malaleka for the first time?

MR RAMATALA: I think it was the first day when we are going to make the first contact with Mr Bhila.

MR HUGO: In which jail was Mr Malaleka detained?

MR RAMATALA: I was not sure of the jail.

MR HUGO: And how did he get out of jail, how was he released?

MR RAMATALA: That question you're supposed to put it to them because I do not - they used to control, they used to do everything that they can do.

MR HUGO: But if you say you - they - who are you referring to, just give us specific names?

MR RAMATALA: Well Malaleka was the part of the group from Pretoria but he was being arrested some - or years or months before we came here. Now he was in Durban, now he was released the time we are here.

MR HUGO: Yes but it's important to us to know who was instrumental in releasing Mr Shakes Malaleka from jail.

MR RAMATALA: That one I won't have any knowledge about that.

MR HUGO: When you saw Mr Shakes Malaleka for the first time after he had been released and he'd been taken to, I suppose, C.R. Swart?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR HUGO: And with whom was Mr Shakes Malaleka when he arrived at C.R. Swart, who was in his presence?

MR RAMATALA: I cannot remember the time he was coming, no I just saw him as part of the group.

MR HUGO: Well let me just put it to you that we're acting for Mr Willie Malaleka, do you know him?

MR RAMATALA: Very well.

MR HUGO: Yes, now Mr Willie Malaleka says that he was present when a person and we have been in contact with him, he initially said it was a Stanley Moni but he has now conceded that he might have the name wrong, when a person was released from jail or booked out of jail and his recollection was that members of the Durban security branch were present and instrumental in having him released. Can you remember whether Mr Shakes Malaleka arrived at C.R. Swart in the presence of Mr Malaleka, Willie Malaleka?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR HUGO: Then before we carry on I just want to clarify one further aspect and that is the initial purpose of this operation, was it a routine, was it to be a routine operation when you were sent down from Pretoria to Durban?

MR RAMATALA: Yes, routine operation.

MR HUGO: So at that stage there was no mention of a specific operation that you were going to participate in?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR HUGO: And is it also then true that Mr de Kock, Mr Eugene de Kock who was the commander of Vlakplaas at that time, was on leave during this operation?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: And do you confirm as is set out in Exhibit E that Mr Bosch actually travelled down to Durban in Mr de Kock's BMW?

MR RAMATALA: Bosch was driving Mr de Kock's BMW.

MR HUGO: Now the first order group that you were talking about, where you were informed as to what your participation would be in this operation, what was the date, when did that take place?

MR RAMATALA: I don't remember the date.

MR HUGO: Well we now have it on record that the 20th was the first time, the 20th February 1987, was the first time that contact had been made with Mr Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: I don't remember the date that ...[intervention]

MR HUGO: Well was it a day before the 20th, two days before the 20th, or on the same day?

MR RAMATALA: What do you mean, same day when we arrived from Pretoria.

MR HUGO: No, no, when you were first, for the first time instructed to partake in this operation. This is the order group that was held and amongst other people Mr McCarter had addressed you?

MR RAMATALA: Can you repeat? I don't hear you.

MR HUGO: Look, all I want to ascertain is, you met Mr Bhila on the 20th February, we now have that, it's common cause. Prior to that, when was this order group held when you were told to go and meet Mr Bhila?

MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Hugo just before you proceed. I may be lost but why do you say it's common cause that the meeting with Bhila was on the 20th, the first meeting?

MR HUGO: Well if I say so, I think most of the witnesses have conceded that - no, I fact I actually put it I think Mr McCarter as well that - but Mr Malaleka said that they met on the 20th, but I'm sure as to whether I put it to Mr McCarter. If we accept just for the moment that this meeting was -that your first approach to Mr Bhila took place on the 20th, when did the first order group meeting take place?

MR RAMATALA: ...[inaudible] but I said it, I cannot remember the dates but what I only remember when making contact with Mr - now he said that we must see him a day or two after that day, so I really don't know how to fit the days nicely there.

MR HUGO: Yes, well we - let me put it to you that the 20th was the Friday and the 22nd when Mr Bhila was killed was a Sunday. Can you remember whether it was a Thursday?

MR RAMATALA: I think on Sunday.

MR MALAN: Mr Ramatala, if I may just see if I can help you?

If I understand the question correctly is, it is you met for the first time with Bhila on the 20th and assuming that is so, you met with Bhila for the first time on a specific day. That meeting that you had which you were instructed, briefed and then instructed, it's the smaller group, to locate Mr Bhila, when did that meeting take place, was it on the same day that you went to Bhila or was it the day before or two days before?

MR RAMATALA: Same day.

MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman I see it's 1 o'clock, I don't know whether it's a convenient time to take the adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: We'll now adjourn till 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ERNEST RAMATALA: (s.u.o.)

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, before you proceed, Visser on record. I've been requested by Mr Rosslee to enquire from you whether he might be excused Mr Chairman. He's basically only involved in the Bhila application and he's got a job waiting for him in Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it Mr Visser if something arises, we can arrange his recall?

MR VISSER: Oh certainly yes Mr Chairman. It just seems unlikely, that's why I'm asking you at the moment. But certainly he can be called back if it's necessary. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's a reasonable request.

MR HUGO: (continues) Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Ramatala, you said in your evidence in chief that you were instructed by McCarter and then you said that Mr Letsatse briefed us, can you remember that?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: What exactly did Mr Letsatse tell you?

MR RAMATALA: By briefing us he was telling us that gentlemen, you must do what I said you must do. Nothing that - you must get the instruction that I'm going to give him.

MR HUGO: No but can you just give us the details when he was briefing you, what exactly did he tell you to do?

MR RAMATALA: My understanding, why I said briefing, that we are going to listen, we are going to get the instruction from him, he is going to lead us, he is going to tell us what to do. We are going to report back to him.

MR HUGO: Does that mean that Mr Letsatse didn't give you particular instructions as to how you should go about for instance about contacting Mr Bhila etc? He just said to you look, he was going to be the leader and you should report to him, is that what you meant?

MR RAMATALA: No, how can I assume that I must go to Mr Bhila without the immediate command of Letsatse?

MR HUGO: Well, didn't Mr McCarter tell you about Mr Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: Mr McCarter told us about Mr Bhila but on the way we were with Mr Letsatse, somebody who is the commander right at that time.

MR HUGO: Well Mr Ramatala, let me just put it to you that we're acting also for Mr Letsatse. He says that he was never present during this initial briefing session and he'd never been told about Mr Bhila and let me finish - that he assumes that all the instructions came from Mr McCarter and he wasn't told about that.

MR RAMATALA: Mr Letsatse by that time he was a senior to Mr McCarter, how can Mr Letsatse not know of this operation while he was a senior to McCarter?

MR HUGO: You would agree though that Mr Letsatse came from Pretoria and to the best of your knowledge there was no ways that he could have had any knowledge pertaining to Mr Bhila prior to have coming down to Durban?

MR RAMATALA: That one I agree with you.

MR HUGO: Then you said in your evidence in chief that you then went to Lamontville and you were shown the house of Mr Bhila and you said the people who went with you were - well the one person was Mr Letsatse and you mentioned Nobela and a Mr Radebe. Now let me put it to you that we're also acting for Mr Radebe and both Mr Radebe and Letsatse say that they never went to the house or to Lamontville, what do you say to that? Aren't you just making a mistake here?

MR RAMATALA: No, not to the house but at Lamontville, they were there.

MR HUGO: This was the initial visit to the house when you, on your version, when Mr Mhieza pointed the house out?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR HUGO: I just want to get back to Mr Shakes Malaleka, was Mr Malaleka a former member of the ANC?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: And I think maybe you must just get us some clarity on that, to the best of your knowledge did Mr Malaleka, this is Mr Shakes Malaleka, did he know Mr Bhila?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR HUGO: So what was Mr Shakes Malaleka's participation during the initial conversation with Mr Bhila when Mr Bhila was convinced to attend a meeting two days later at the Kentucky Fried Chicken building in Lamontville, can you remember?

MR RAMATALA: No, I don't remember.

MR HUGO: Who would you say was instrumental during this conversation in convincing Mr Bhila to go to the Kentucky rendezvous point?

MR RAMATALA: Who?

MR HUGO: Ja, whom of the three of you that went in?

MR RAMATALA: I would say between myself and Nobela.

MR HUGO: Mr Nobela was he a former member of the ANC or is he just a normal policeman?

MR RAMATALA: A normal policeman.

MR HUGO: And what would you say made Mr Bhila decide to go to Kentucky, what convinced him?

MR RAMATALA: I don't really recall but what I recall is that Mr Biela suggested another day.

CHAIRPERSON: He suggested what? Another day?

MR RAMATALA: Another day.

MR HUGO: Would you say that you yourself were convincing enough to persuade Mr Bhila that you had intimate knowledge of the ANC structures or at least the UDF structures?

MR RAMATALA: At Mr Bhila's place there was no time to discuss of the structures, the only thing was to introduce ourself as comrade to him, then we want a communal place to speak.

MR HUGO: And are you saying that he didn't ask any further questions, he didn't verify as to whether you were bona fide members of the UDF and/or the ANC?

MR RAMATALA: Nothing.

MR HUGO: Mr Ramatala, you also said in your evidence in chief that after that particular meeting, you then went back and you reported to Mr Letsatse, Mr Mhieza and Mr Radebe, do you recall that?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR HUGO: Let me just put it to you that Mr Letsatse and Mr Radebe are both saying that they weren't there and they deny that you reported to them. What do you say to that?

MR RAMATALA: To whom did I report now?

MR HUGO: Well, they're just saying that you didn't report to them.

MR RAMATALA: And let me put it clear again to you, we were using one Combi that was being driven by Mr Letsatse so Mr Gadebe and Mhieza was in the Combi. Now how can we travel from Lamontville to C.R. Swart without going to them?

MR HUGO: Both Mr Letsatse and Mr Radebe will say that they weren't in the Combi, they never went to Mr Bhila's house, it must have been somebody else.

MR RAMATALA: I said they were there.

MR HUGO: Then you also said that Mr Letsatse, after this meeting with Mr Bhila, with Mr Mhieza, went to the office and I take it you're referring to the office at C.R. Swart, is that correct?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR HUGO: Whom did they go and see?

MR RAMATALA: Well I don't know.

MR HUGO: Now let me just put it to you for completeness sake that Mr Letsatse once more says that he never went to an office after this particular incident to go and report whatever was to be reported?

MR RAMATALA: Or after this thing. He was there.

MR HUGO: Now Mr Ramatala, something that I found astounding was the conversation on your version that took place in the combi after the first incident, after the first meeting with Mr Bhila, on your way back to C.R. Swart, can you just recall what took place, what was decided?

MR RAMATALA: From Mr Bhila's place to?

MR HUGO: To C.R. Swart yes, that's after you had agreed to meet Mr Bhila at the Kentucky here in two days time, at the Kentucky building?

MR RAMATALA: Then it was to report back what did we find, the discussion with Mr Bhila, the arrangement, what did he say because they were not sure that Mr Bhila will say that we will meet at Kentucky so that is the thing that came with Mr Bhila during our discussion so we were supposed to tell Mr Letsatse and others about what had happened.

MR HUGO: Yes, no but you then testified that it was decided that a car should be obtained?

MR RAMATALA: Well according to the nature of the operation now there was supposed to be the car.

MR HUGO: Yes but whose idea was this that a car should be hired, why couldn't you use the same Combi?

MR RAMATALA: The Combi was well known that the police are using Combis.

MR HUGO: Well, why didn't you go to Mr Bhila's place in the first instance with a Combi then?

MR RAMATALA: I think you didn't understand, we didn't go straight to Mr Bhila's place.

MR HUGO: Sorry, you're correct there.

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: So you decided that a combi shouldn't be used and a car should be hired. Whose idea was this?

MR RAMATALA: Well that one I don't know but I think all of us now, we were discussing about what can we use.

MR HUGO: Now if you say all of us, I take it you're referring to Mr Letsatse, on your version, Mr Mhieza, Mr Radebe and Mr Nobela, yourself and Shakes Malaleka, those were the ones who were in the Combi?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR HUGO: Now, Mr Ramatala, who was going to pay for this car that was to be hired?

MR RAMATALA: In my understanding I can pay for the car for the State myself.

MR HUGO: No, I'm not asking you to speculate, I'm asking you what was agreed as to who would pay for this car?

MR RAMATALA: That one was beyond my reach really, I wouldn't know whose going to hire, whose going to provide.

MR HUGO: And what was discussed, where would they hire this car from?

MR RAMATALA: That one I don't know.

MR HUGO: And was the idea that the car would be hired by the black members?

MR RAMATALA: That one I don't know.

MR HUGO: You see Mr Letsatse says that he finds this absolutely amazing that the black would hire a car and Mr Letsatse says further that they didn't have credit cards or any other means to go and hire a car?

MR RAMATALA: That's true but Mr Letsatse can facilitate that thing, acting between senior policeman whose going to fetch the car and give it to Letsatse.

MR HUGO: Well let me put it to you that Mr Malaleka who we are also acting for, it's Mr Willie Malaleka, he says that he can recall that a car was indeed hired but his recollection is that the car was hired by the Durban security police. What would you say to that?

MR RAMATALA: That is possible.

MR HUGO: But he says obviously that he wasn't part and parcel of the discussion or the decision, he just saw this car and heard later that it was hired by the security police in Durban.

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: Then you testified that you were given this car or the car was handed over to you by Mr Letsatse once it had been hired?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: Now Mr Letsatse once more says this is not so, he was never part and parcel of an operation where this particular car was handed over to you?

MR RAMATALA: Oh, to Mr Letsatse who was driving the car?

MR HUGO: Well didn't you say that you drove the vehicle?

I mean there were three of you in this particular vehicle, it's you, it's Mr Nobela, Mr Malaleka and then later Mr Bhila was in the car?

MR RAMATALA: Yes, what I'm trying to say that the car was hired, I was given the car by Mr Letsatse, I was the one who was driving the car.

MR HUGO: Yes. I think you did say, I asked you about Mr Shakes Malaleka, he was a former member of the ANC, is that correct?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: He had intimate knowledge of the structures, would you say that?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: Or would you agree with that?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: Then you said in your evidence that you were told to go out of Durban, that was - those instructions were given to you by Mr Mhieza and Mr Letsatse, do you remember saying that?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: Now Mr Letsatse once more says that he wasn't involved in this, he never gave you those instructions. Are you sure that he did and it was maybe not just Mr Mhieza?

MR RAMATALA: Hundred percent sure.

MR HUGO: Now I just want to deal with a so-called interception. So you were then travelling in this Honda vehicle and if I understand your evidence correctly, you were then approached by two Combis, is that correct?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: Now how many occupants were there in these Combis?

MR RAMATALA: It's very difficult for me to know the number.

MR HUGO: Yes was Mr Radebe in this Combi or in one of the Combis?

MR RAMATALA: One thing sure he was having one of the Combis and Letsatse was driving one other one.

MR HUGO: And Mr Malaleka, Mr Willie Malaleka?

MR RAMATALA: He must be in one of them.

MR HUGO: No, no, not must be, was he?

MR RAMATALA: In the Combis?

MR HUGO: Yes.

MR RAMATALA: Well, he was supposed to be there.

MR HUGO: No, no, that's not good enough Mr Ramatala, you must tell us, to the best of your knowledge and recollection, was Mr Malaleka in one of the Combis and it's important, I'll tell you now why.

MR RAMATALA: Okay. Not knowing if maybe something happened on the way but they were in the Combis from C.R. Swart when we are about to go to that place so I don't know if maybe somewhere on the way, they dropped one or two.

MR HUGO: Well let me put it to you why I'm saying it's important, Mr Malaleka's version, Mr Willie Malaleka's version is that he was in a Combi and he just kept observation at Kentucky Fried Chicken building when Mr Bhila got into your car and after that he departed from the scene and he went back to C.R. Swart. What do you say to that?

MR RAMATALA: Using what?

MR HUGO: A Combi.

MR RAMATALA: As far as I remember when they stopped us, two Combis were there.

MR HUGO: Well you seem to be a bit unsure now, is it possible that Mr Malaleka could be right on this score?

MR RAMATALA: That's possible.

MR HUGO: So if we said that then it's possible that there was only one Combi during the interception, is that not so?

MR RAMATALA: Two combis.

MR HUGO: No but you've just conceded that it's possible that there was just one Combi or that the other Combi could have gone to - back to C.R. Swart?

MR RAMATALA: When, after?

MR MALAN: I don't think that's a reasonable deduction, I think what is reasonable to say that there might have been a third Combi?

MR HUGO: Well Mr Ramatala, were there three Combis used by the group at that time?

MR RAMATALA: Two.

MR HUGO: Then you said that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: How many Combis or where did you see the Combis at C.R. Swart?

MR RAMATALA: We came down from Pretoria to C.R. Swart with two Combis.

CHAIRPERSON: You had two Combis?

MR RAMATALA: Two Combis, I know the drivers of those two Combis.

CHAIRPERSON: But did C.R. Swarts not possibly have a Combi?

MR RAMATALA: Possible they might have one Combi.

MR HUGO: Mr Ramatala, you then also testified and if I - you must please correct me if I understood you wrongly, but it was prearranged that the Combi, your vehicle would be stopped and then that you would be assaulted and slapped around, is that the gist of what you wanted to say?

MR RAMATALA: Assault not to cause injuries but to make as if there is a fight, to convince - even the gentleman he must not know what is happening.

MR HUGO: Yes but who arranged this, who told you beforehand that this was going to happen to you?

MR RAMATALA: We used to do such a thing.

MR HUGO: No, but you see that's something else, Mr Ramatala, can you remember who arranged this beforehand, who told you, who was instrumental in arranging for this act?

MR RAMATALA: Oh I don't remember the particular person arranging but I mean a name but there was a saying that "gentlemen we will stop you and we will be a little bit rough".

MR HUGO: And were any of the black members, did they partake in roughing you up?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: Which ones?

MR RAMATALA: I cannot remember because ...[indistinct] I was trying to run to other Combi.

MR HUGO: And did any of the white members from Vlakplaas partake in this particular act?

MR RAMATALA: I didn't see them.

MR HUGO: And what do you say, Mr McCarter testified that he was there during this interception and he was responsible for Mr Bhila being taken into the Combi and McCarter away to the shooting range. What do you say about that?

MR RAMATALA: I deny that thing.

MR HUGO: Now you also alluded in your evidence in chief to the registration number of this vehicle that was changed, the number plates. When did or when were these number plates changed, can you remember?

MR RAMATALA: I said immediately after - from Kentucky, after they abduct Mr Bhila from us, I went straight to C.R. Swart, according to the instructions of Letsatse. Ten to fifteen minutes Letsatse arrived, demand the car keys and take off the plate numbers of the very same vehicle.

MR HUGO: And were there other plate numbers underneath those ones?

MR RAMATALA: No I didn't see other number plates.

MR HUGO: Well let me just put it to you also for completeness sake, Letsatse says he was not involved in the changing of these number plates at all?

MR RAMATALA: Now if he denies everything, I don't know but he was there.

MR HUGO: Now Mr Ramatala, you said that you didn't apply for amnesty and your perception was that there was no need for you to apply for amnesty in the sense that you didn't do anything wrong. Are you still of the same opinion today?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR HUGO: And I don't want you to give us a legal opinion, that would be unfair but would you say to the best of your knowledge there was any need for the other black members that partook in this operation to apply for amnesty in the sense that they did anything wrong?

MR RAMATALA: So I must talk on behalf of them?

MR HUGO: No, you shouldn't - you don't have to do that, you were there on your version when everything was planned and executed etc., did they do anything wrong that necessitated them ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But he wasn't there, he said that from the time of the abduction he had nothing further to do with it, he doesn't know what the other black people did after that.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, I'm just referring to the Vlakplaas black members who were present during the first meeting, the second meeting and this particular witness, he was present then, and the abduction. Those are the only three incidents that I'm referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: And they remained, didn't they, they didn't all come back, only two others came back with him, to C.R. Swart?

MR HUGO: Well Mr Chairman, that's another question that we have to canvass with this witness, I'll just ask him that.

Mr Ramatala, when Mr Bhila was then put into the other Combi at what stage did the other black members arrive at C.R. Swart?

MR RAMATALA: I said earlier as I remember seeing Mhieza and Lembedi, Lembedi opening the door, the front seat door immediately.

MR HUGO: No, I don't understand your question, your answer, you testified that Mr Bhila was then handed over to - well you can't recall whether Mr McCarter was there but he was then taken in this Combi and he was carted away. When did you for the first time after that see the other black members? After Mr Biela had been handed over?

MR RAMATALA: The first one I saw is Letsatse when he came and fetched the keys to us in about ten to fifteen minutes and others I saw them late.

MR HUGO: You also made mention of the fact that you weren't paid a bonus for this particular operation, what was the custom at Vlakplaas in respect of bonuses and amounts that were paid after operations had been carried out.

MR RAMATALA: The bonus was a way of encouraging them to work to identify seriously.

MR HUGO: But is it not true that there were proper structures for members of Vlakplaas in terms whereof they would be rewarded if weapons were found, like AK47's?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR HUGO: And the same applied for arrests of so-called terrorists and the idea was never that Vlakplaas members would be compensated for killing people at random?

MR RAMATALA: Can you repeat it?

MR HUGO: I'm just saying on this question of compensation, isn't it true that you were never compensated just for the sake of killing people, you had to go and arrest terrorists or so-called terrorists and or find weapons like AK47's etc?

MR RAMATALA: You see when talking about this issue of compensation, the whole group of Vlakplaas, all of them they cannot be involved in ...[indistinct] or killing one person, there maybe can be two people or three people involved. Others don't know about that when coming to a mere arrest where others can make a trip, others can watch or keep or still like that but bonus we used to get. But even those who were killed, who kill, they used to get the bonus.

MR HUGO: Ja, but you were never told by Mr de Kock and or other people at Vlakplaas to your knowledge that you would be paid if you go and kill people?

MR MALAN: But Mr Hugo that wasn't his evidence, he talked about performing a specific function or instruction and then bonuses would ...[inaudible]

MR HUGO: Afterward yes ...[inaudible]

Then Mr Ramatala, you also made mention of a photo that was shown to you, where did this photo come from and I'm referring to the first meeting, the first order group meeting when you were initially instructed?

MR RAMATALA: I can say that one from Mr Mhieza.

MR HUGO: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NGUBANE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Can you just press - thanks. Please don't touch it, leave it like that. Now for the sake of information, these bonuses that were paid to you, were they fixed bonuses or you received varying amounts at different times?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR NGUBANE: Well if you say ...[inaudible]

MR RAMATALA: ...[inaudible] to others, maybe the group there were five, can be 2000 or 3000 each.

MR NGUBANE: And as far as you are aware, did Mr Makata - I'm sorry I'm used to Makata the football player. Makata, did he at any stage discuss with you this question of bonuses?

MR RAMATALA: No nothing.

MR NGUBANE: Okay. The impression that you gained about these bonuses was it that it was the practice of Vlakplaas or it applied to all the security branches in South Africa?

MR RAMATALA: No, the practice of Vlakplaas.

MR NGUBANE: Alright. Now the members of the Durban branch security, Wasserman did you know him?

MR RAMATALA: That one?

MR NGUBANE: Yes.

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR NGUBANE: And Taylor? Major Taylor?

MR RAMATALA: Yes

MR NGUBANE: And during your stay in Durban, during this period when Bhila was killed, did you discuss any operation with Mr Wasserman?

MR RAMATALA: No nothing.

MR NGUBANE: And with Mr Taylor?

MR RAMATALA: Nothing.

MR NGUBANE: They were higher up you had no contact with them?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR NGUBANE: I see. Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NGUBANE

ADV PRIOR: There's no re-examination thank you.

ADV SIGODI: There's just one aspect on the issue of bonuses. Would you say that it was the practice at Vlakplaas to - let me say, would you say that the killing of a person was an act which was so serious that it warranted the payment of a bonus?

MR RAMATALA: I have never been in the killing at first place in Vlakplaas but on arresting , getting some firearms, there was a bonus but for those who were involved in the killings, it's only now we can see that their bonus was too much.

ADV SIGODI: Do you perhaps know how much they would be paid?

MR RAMATALA: No I don't know but it's only now from the Truth Commission we start to hear that oh, this one used to get this.

ADV SIGODI: But at the time that you were at Vlakplaas, you never knew how much people would be paid for the killing?

MR RAMATALA: The killing of a person is a very difficult thing.

ADV SIGODI: Yes.

MR RAMATALA: It doesn't involve the whole group.

ADV SIGODI: Yes.

MR RAMATALA: There were particular persons who are going to be involved so those two or three people, they are the ones that know the bonuses, how much they received.

ADV SIGODI: Would you say that this payment of bonuses would be something that would make it easier or be an incentive on the people at Vlakplaas to kill more easily than other branches?

MR RAMATALA: Not necessarily to kill but to stimulate them to work - we were dealing with people who were former ANC members so sometimes as a human being I might - presume that I'm an ANC member - I might see you, maybe I say: "Comrade I don't report or I don't arrest you" but the bonuses was the way of making the person to feel like arresting anybody, that he knows exactly this one is from that side.

ADV SIGODI: Yes. Again I understand with the askaris or the people who had defected from the liberation movements, but when it comes to the police themselves, the people who had not defected, would you say that the killing, the payment of bonuses would add an extra incentive for those people to kill?

MR RAMATALA: Can you repeat your question please?

ADV SIGODI: Alright, I'm referring to policemen, people who had not come from the liberation movement, would you say that this payment of bonuses.

MR RAMATALA: The bonus, you mustn't take as if it was my suggestion for the bonuses but I say that it was there.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, that's why I want to find out from you because you were there at Vlakplaas, you knew ...[intervention]

MR RAMATALA: But I didn't participate on killing somebody to receive the bonus of killing.

ADV SIGODI: Yes.

MR RAMATALA: Maybe that one I might not know.

ADV SIGODI: I understand, but I want to get the information from you, from what you know.

MR RAMATALA: My information concerning the bonus, it can be limited to only firearms, arresting a person, but not for killing.

ADV SIGODI: In any event, would you say that the payment of bonuses would make people, would make it easier for people to kill?

MR RAMATALA: I want to say again, I said to you the killing of a person it's not an easy thing so all of us - I had never been involved in a killing so the bonuses for getting to arrest these people, getting the firearms, to work very hard. Maybe I can even say that now, to come to your question, maybe even those who were involved on the killing, maybe the bonus can be the way of trying to make them do that job but I say my information is very limited when coming to that one.

ADV SIGODI: Alright, I accept what you say. If a person could be paid for a job like arresting a person and getting firearms, if you could get a bonus for that, would you agree with me that if anybody killed then definitely that person would get a bonus?

MR RAMATALA: Can you repeat it slowly again so that I can understand?

ADV SIGODI: I'm saying that if a person could get a bonus for arresting a person for getting firearms doesn't it follow that a person who kills will definitely get a bonus for such an act?

MR RAMATALA: Well I agree with you but at Vlakplaas there are more than 400 people there, I think 300 and something they have never been involved on the killing so whether you are at Vlakplaas, but the killing of the human being, it wasn't the thing that has been discussed openly.

ADV SIGODI: Alright, just finally, I mean on that aspect, if somebody who had killed a person who had said to you that he was not paid a bonus?

MR RAMATALA: You see the bonus you don't sign the S & T form so it's easy to say no I've never received and that some did receive.

ADV SIGODI: Alright, thanks.

MR MALAN: Mr Ramatala, if I understood you correctly, you refer to the bonuses initially simply to tell us that because you didn't receive a bonus you believe this was not a serious terrorist, it was small fry, not a big fish?

MR RAMATALA: Not a big fish at all.

MR MALAN: That was the reason why you referred to bonuses?

MR RAMATALA: Definitely.

MR MALAN: Then the second question just referring you to your statement again, on the 3rd page under paragraph 9. It's in Afrikaans now, but you say and this is my paraphrasing in English that you met Bhila for the first time when you were taken to Lamontville with the Combi, that you and two others approached him, you pretended to be members of the UDF ...[intervention]

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR MALAN: And that he and now this is the operative part - he was under the impression, he was brought under the impression by yourselves that friends wanted to meet with them and that you would take him to the friends to talk to them?

MR RAMATALA: Definitely.

MR MALAN: Is that correct?

MR RAMATALA: Correct.

MR MALAN: Now am I mistaken did you not earlier give evidence that you told him that you wanted some, you wanted him to do some things for the UDF, did I misunderstand you?

MR RAMATALA: No I didn't say that.

MR MALAN: So this is correct, you stand by what is written here?

MR RAMATALA: Correct.

MR MALAN: And just to get back to that sequence, you said you met with Mhieza again, this is now after the interception when you were slapped around, you went back to C.R. Swart and about 15 minutes later Mhieza fetched the keys?

MR RAMATALA: No, no.

MR MALAN: Who fetched the key?

MR RAMATALA: Letsatse.

MR MALAN: I'm sorry, did I say Mhieza, I mean Letsatse fetched the key?

MR RAMATALA: Yes.

MR MALAN: The others you said you only saw late again?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR MALAN: How late was that?

MR RAMATALA: Round about 5, he went - a minute after the key, he took the keys and left us there.

MR MALAN: If you say the others then you mean all the other black members of the Vlakplaas group?

MR RAMATALA: Exactly.

MR MALAN: Alright and Lembedi?

MR RAMATALA: I've never seen him, that was the last time.

MR MALAN: You did not see Lembedi again that night?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR MALAN: And you didn't see Letsatse leave again?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR MALAN: Did he stay at C.R. Swart?

MR RAMATALA: He stays at C.R. Swart with us, now he came late with others now.

MR MALAN: Alright and then lastly Mhieza, did he return with the other group at 5 o'clock?

MR RAMATALA: No, no, no.

MR MALAN: And when did you see him again?

MR RAMATALA: I think after four, five days after that.

MR MALAN: Four or five days after that. You didn't see him again that same day?

MR RAMATALA: No.

MR MALAN: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, may I enquire whether Mr Ramatala can be excused, there is a flight booked for him later this afternoon?

CHAIRPERSON: I take it as in the case of others that if he is required he can be brought back here?

ADV PRIOR: Yes Mr Chairman, thank you very much. Thank you.

MR RAMATALA: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, there is no more evidence from the Evidence Leader's side as far as the Bhila incident is concerned at this time. May we then proceed with the other events?

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, may I just say that I wasn't going to call any of my clients as witnesses but I'm in your hands in the sense that if the Committee wants them to be here, arrangements can be made but it's entirely up to the Committee. May I just say that they're still in Pretoria but arrangements can be made for them to be brought down.

CHAIRPERSON: Remind me again who they are?

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman they are Mr Willie Malaleka, Mr Radebe, Mr Letsatse and then there is Mr Khumalo whose name hasn't been mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think at the present stage there's any need to bring them down. If the need arises I'm sure we can make arrangements with you.

MR HUGO: May we then be excused sir, Mr Chairman? Thank you.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Chairman, I do apologise, just one aspect. In the event of the Commission not calling those witnesses, I was going to ask permission to consult with Mr Hugo in this respect to perhaps get permission to consult with some of those witnesses to see whether we don't want to call them but I will clear that with him before he...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well, would you like a short adjournment now? What time do you want to leave Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: Well my flight is only at 8 o'clock tonight, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You might have an opportunity to have a word with Mr van Schalkwyk. Very well, the two of you discuss it and decide what you want or would you like to take a short break and discuss it now rather than make Mr Hugo sitting around waiting here until 4 o'clock? I'm sure he has been in this hall for quite long enough.

MR HUGO: I'm very much obliged, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: We're going to take a short adjournment, please rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I'm indebted for the time granted, Mr Hugo has no objection to us consulting with his clients, it's just the logistics of the matter. Clients are obviously in Pretoria and may I perhaps ask the Commission's indulgence, I do not say that we should interrupt at all, but we'll arrange with Mr Hugo when to consult with these people and I will liaise with Mr Prior as to whether or not we would want to call any of these witnesses at all, but we won't interrupt proceedings at all. Thank you.

MR ROUSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, may I with the leave of the Committee also be excused as I believe I will not be involved further in this hearing? Mr Chairman, if there is a need for either myself of Mr Bosch to return, Mr Prior can contact me and we'll be available. May I just also place on record, Mr Chairman, I believe that the evidence that Mr Visser is about to lead might also be useful when it comes to argument in the Bhila matter and it might be that I will also make use of that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we had agreed on that, hadn't we, that although they might be handled separately they are all really part of one proceedings and the evidence led in respect of any portion of them can be used in the others.

MR ROUSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I then be excused?

MR NOLTE: Mr Chairman, if I may place on record, I am Wynand Nolte from the firm Strijdom Britz Attorneys, acting on behalf of Mr F.H.S. Labuschagne who might during the course of these hearings be implicated in the matter. We're not certain yet. The extent of his implication is uncertain and will only become clear after evidence has been led in cross-examination. If I may also place on record the following, neither my client nor our firm has been notified of the possible implication. We have discussed it with Mr Prior and he has indicated that -well that was last week - that if there was an implication he would let us know. Because we are uncertain of the extent we would ask the Committee's indulgence, if necessary, to consult with Mr Labuschagne and just adjourn for a short while if there is such an implication?

CHAIRPERSON: Is he here?

MR NOLTE: Mr Chairman he is reachable, I have his cell phone number.

CHAIRPERSON: You wouldn't have to go far away to look for him?

MR NOLTE: No sir, thank you.

ADV PRIOR: Mr Chairman, I confirm what Mr Nolte has said, there was no formal notice given in terms of Section 19, but certainly informal notice which has occasioned his presence here and the implication will only arise depending on what some of the applicants will or will not say so it's certainly, his implication didn't appear ex facie the applications as they stand. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, Visser on record, I may add that during the hearing which you attended last week and while we were preparing this case, Mr Chairman, the name of Mr Labuschagne was mentioned and I personally mentioned it to my learned friend Mr du Plessis and Mr Britz and that was how they were informed and I also told them that in the interest of full disclosure we're going to have to tell this Committee that they were involved but that we were not going to implicate him but of course that's not our decision, that's Mr Nolte's decision. But that's how it came about Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But anyway he's here now and we can get on with it.

MR VISSER: Yes, yes indeed.