Amnesty Hearings

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I call Mr Du Preez to give evidence.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Are you Salmon Johannes Gerhardus du Preez?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And you apply for amnesty in the case of Ms Ndwandwe as well as Pumeso Nxiweni and the kwaMashu 3?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You filed an application in terms of the Act?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: And that application appears in volume 2, on page 24 and following. Is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In your application on page 26, you admitted that your memory about what happened, is vague and that you do not have any documentation or any other information where you could refresh your memory with, and my question is that during this period in which you signed your application, you did receive information from your co-applicants that refreshed your memory concerning the details of this incident?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: You then on page 28 at the bottom of the page, referred to the amnesty applications of Steyn, Botha and Forster and you confirmed it in where it is applicable to you, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: I do not have a page 28 in front of me Mr Chairperson. That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You mentioned this in your amnesty application, or about the amnesty application of Ndwandwe, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Now concerning Nxiweni, on page 29 you said that you and Sergeant Wasserman eliminated him and buried him in a sugar plantation. We know that Steyn was not involved in this?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is as far as Nxiweni.

MR VISSER: And then the kwaMashu 3, Steyn was again not involved?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Was it your intention to say that in that incident or to which you referred to in Botha's statement, that you would like this to be added to your application?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: On the 29th of November 1953 you were born in Pretoria, and you did your schooling or you completed your schooling in 1972 in Durban?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Your father was a member of the South African Police?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And you, yourself, grew up in we can describe it as a police culture?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: What were your parents' political and moral viewpoints? What were your parents like?

MR DU PREEZ: They were very conservative and they were both members of the National Party.

MR VISSER: Were they also conservative?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, they were conservative.

MR VISSER: As members of the National Party, and the party to which your parents belonged to, did this influence your viewpoints from childhood?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, certainly so.

MR VISSER: And did you see anything wrong in the policy of apartheid that was upheld by the National Party?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson, I supported this.

MR VISSER: Directly after school, you joined the South African Police in 1973?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Have you got anything to say about the unrest during that time?

MR DU PREEZ: I was a member of the Special Branch and I also served in the 1976 unrests.

MR VISSER: During that time, what was said to you concerning what your tasks would entail as a member of the Special Force?

MR DU PREEZ: When I became or joined the Special Task Force, we had to be willing to kill if it was necessary.

MR VISSER: Yes, this now specifically refer to what we in general consider as the political struggle?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I am sorry Mr Visser, I do not know if I heard you correctly, did you say that you must be willing to kill other people if it is necessary?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, to kill people if it is necessary.

MR MALAN: Was this a general statement or was it said what the circumstances would be? It is a very broad statement, isn't it, when would it be necessary, did they tell you?

MR DU PREEZ: It was not specified no, but it was part of the selection, that if you are willing to kill any person, you would not have been selected in this process.

MR MALAN: In other words if you were a pacifist?

MR DU PREEZ: Correct.

MR MALAN: But if you were an ordinary person who in an emergency situation, would kill, then you would succeed?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: It had nothing to do with illegal activities, you did not read it like that?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Just to explain this better, this was part of the psychometric test that you did, to find out if you would be suitable for this Special Task Force?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In your capacity as a member of this Task Force, you came face to face with the realities of the internal warfare that was going on at that stage?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct. During that time I also served in the previous South West and I was also applied there as more than just a soldier, we were an Anti-terrorist movement.

MR VISSER: Were you in contact?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: Can you say how many contacts you had? Not in numbers, but was it a few?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, it was in more than 10 contacts where various terrorists were killed and also of our own members.

MR VISSER: Where there was firing at both sides?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: You refer or I would like to refer the Committee to specifically volume 2, the Exhibit E47 that appeared before the Amnesty Committee, in this case in volume 2, that is the statement of the Generals.

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: We are not going to read this, but what is your comment on the situation that is explained in paragraph 13 and 14 and 16 concerning your own situation? Can you identify yourself with this?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: In 1979 you were placed with the Security Branch in Port Natal?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In Durban?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring to page 142?

MR VISSER: Page 161 Mr chairman, of volume 2, the involvement of the South African Police in both the former Rhodesia and former South West Africa in a military support role, to the Rhodesian Army and the South African Defence Force, necessitated training them in purely military tactics and techniques. In neither of these situations, they were expected to act as civil police. Every contact between them and their opponents, led to a bloody shootout, with the result that ordinary civil police functions fell by the wayside.

The ordinary policemen drawn from the ranks of the police, from the whole country involved in these guerilla warfare and counter-insurgency activities, where he in fact had to kill or be killed, became progressively more accustomed to this type of conflict and the ways, means and methods utilised in combat the enemy and it goes on Mr Chairman.

It is those ideas that Mr Du Preez says. In 1979 you were transferred to Port Natal. In what section, or I will lead you in this, originally you served in the Church Section. Was this at the desk of the ANC or what desk was this?

MR DU PREEZ: No, there was a Church Section concerning church matters.

MR VISSER: It was completely independent?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: In the Security Branch or in the ordinary branch?

MR DU PREEZ: No, it was in the Security Branch.

MR VISSER: And in 1981 you were transferred to the Terrorist Section?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Under Colonel Andy Taylor? Did you receive any special training?

MR DU PREEZ: In the investigation of terrorism?

MR VISSER: Are you an explosives expert?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And at that stage, did you investigate certain incidents?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you give a number of the amount of incidents that you visited or investigated?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, in that time in Durban, I investigated more than 100 scenes of explosions.

MR VISSER: And were people killed in those incidents?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What time was it?

MR DU PREEZ: It was from 1981, I would say up to 1990 and up to around 1994.

MR VISSER: You also became aware of the death of one of your colleagues, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, various of my colleagues died during the period when I was in the Special Branch. Four of my colleagues died and or were killed by ANC terrorists.

MR VISSER: Amongst others?

MR DU PREEZ: Colonel Welman, Zukela, Mike Mbede and Radjo.

MR VISSER: Yes. Is it so that in 1994, May 1994, you were found medically unfit for the task of a policeman?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And at the May of 1995, you were discharged with the rank of Superintendent?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: What was the diagnosis of your state?

MR DU PREEZ: It was post traumatic stress.

MR VISSER: What would you say led to this state?

MR DU PREEZ: I think it must have been the politics, the things that happened in the police and the situation in the police itself.

MR VISSER: You are now referring to the violence, etc?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: As a member of the Security Branch, did you feel that you were busy with normal, legal actions or what was your position?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, from 1981 in Durban with the beginning of the bomb explosions, we felt that we were more in a war than in ordinary service as police officers.

MR VISSER: Did you feel that you became more and more involved in a political struggle, rather than just crime prevention?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: From time to time suggestions were made that members of the Security Branch killed terrorists, MK members indiscriminately, those that they could catch?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes. No, it is not true, if it would have been the case, I would have been involved in hundreds of incidents or cases, then this amnesty application would not have been just about a few people, but about hundreds of them.

MR VISSER: Would you say that in the incidents where it did occur, would be the exception?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is true.

MR VISSER: Mr Du Preez, if we can continue and get to the point of the political background in the broader terms and we have listened to the evidence of Mr Botha and Steyn and Forster, do you agree with the general political background?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I do agree with it.

MR VISSER: Do you also agree with the political views with which these actions were executed?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Were you involved in the Ramlakan case?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In what capacity?

MR DU PREEZ: I was one of the Investigators, I also took down statements from people in this incident.

MR VISSER: You also heard the evidence of Mr Botha in broader terms, about what the Ramlakan case was about.

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: Do you agree with this?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: Concerning Ndwandwe, she was discussed or from Mr Botha, she was involved in the Ramlakan case?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: At one stage, we know in 1987 she left the country and Mr Botha said according to the information, or your information that you received, she received training and she later went back to Swaziland. Would that correlate with information that you had?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: And from Swaziland she operated as the acting Commander of MK operations within the Republic of South Africa, and more specifically in the area of Port Natal?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that she was pregnant during 1987?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson. I knew that she had a child later on.

MR VISSER: I must admit Mr Chairman, I wasn't aware of that information myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Newspaper cuttings that we have been given says she had a one year old child, when she was abducted, which would have meant that she was pregnant in 1987?

MR VISSER: Probably.

CHAIRPERSON: The child would have been born in about October.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. In any case, you were part of the abduction out of Swaziland?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Were you familiar with the planning and the purpose of this operation beforehand?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you just tell us when you became aware of this operation and what your knowledge was concerning this?

MR DU PREEZ: Colonel Botha informed me, I am not sure what his rank was at that stage, it could have been Captain.

MR VISSER: Just refer to him as Botha.

MR DU PREEZ: Well Botha informed me that an operation was planned to abduct Ndwandwe out of Swaziland. He discussed this with me, and we discussed the finer details about how we were going to do this.

MR VISSER: And among others, was there made use of two people?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: If I ask you who these people were, I am not asking you their names, I am asking what their status were of these two people.

MR DU PREEZ: They were informants.

MR VISSER: For how long were they informants of the Security Branch before this incident?

MR DU PREEZ: That is difficult to say, but I can guess it could have been a year, I am not sure of the time span.

MR VISSER: Were they askaris?

MR DU PREEZ: No, negative.

MR VISSER: Were they applied and did you receive information from them in other cases apart from that of Ndwandwe?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: You then heard as you have just said, what the purpose of this operation was, and you then accompanied them?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: We know who the people were who went with, we do not have to cover that again.

MR MALAN: Before you continue Mr Visser, the purpose of the operation was the abduction, but you said that you discussed further details with Botha, or he discussed it with you. Did he tell you what the purpose of the abduction was?

MR DU PREEZ: The purpose of the abduction was then to recruit her as an informant.

MR MALAN: Did he talk to you or discuss with you about the possibility of success to recruit her as an informant?

MR DU PREEZ: It was discussed Mr Chairperson. I cannot remember the finer details.

MR MALAN: Did you think that the chances are good that she will be able to be recruited as an informant for the police?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I thought that it was possible.

MR MALAN: No I am asking you if you think that it would be good, not impossible?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I thought the chances were good.

MR MALAN: In other words the chances were better that she would be recruited?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Did Botha tell you this?

MR DU PREEZ: I think that was my own opinion.

MR MALAN: At no stage he told you that it would be difficult to recruit her?

MR DU PREEZ: I do not think in a percentage, I thought that the chances would be good to recruit her.

MR MALAN: You have heard his evidence, and if I can summarise it correctly, he said that in his mind she must be abducted, that she will be eliminated, except if she could be recruited. Didn't he put it to you like that?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that possibility was there.

MR MALAN: No sir, it is not a possibility. That is the framework in which Botha began this operation. That is what he said to us.

Not that it is possible that she will be eliminated, but that it would be a possibility and that she could - I think he used the expression, that she could save her own life by becoming an informant.

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, I knew that if she will not cooperate as an informant, she will be eliminated.

MR MALAN: But the probability was not shared with you, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Not that I can remember of.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Your personal view was that it would be worthwhile to abduct her from Swaziland, because there is a possibility that she could have been recruited as an informant?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: If you did not foresee that possibility and you just wanted to eliminate her, what would you have done then?

MR DU PREEZ: Then we would have eliminated her in Swaziland.

MR MALAN: Can I just ask you on what basis did you make this conclusion, was there something specific?

MR DU PREEZ: Before this incident, various other people or persons were recruited in this manner.

MR MALAN: But there was nothing specific in Ms Ndwandwe's actions that made you think that there is a chance now to recruit her, it was just because of other operations?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: If she had been eliminated in Swaziland, wouldn't there be a danger of a political scandal?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, not necessarily. The ANC eliminated many of their own members in Swaziland, so if she were to be eliminated in Swaziland, fingers could be pointed to the ANC themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: But fingers may well be pointed at the South African Security Forces, might they not?

MR DU PREEZ: Certainly so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Particularly if a fairly large group in three different vehicles had crossed the Swazi border that morning?

MR DU PREEZ: If it was about the elimination, we would not have used so many personnel or vehicles.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. It is also true, is it not, and we know this from the facts, that Ndwandwe during the Ramlakan case, did indeed under Section 29 detention, apparently offer her cooperation?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct, she also made a Section 29 statement.

MR VISSER: In either event, as history has taught us, your feeling about this was incorrect, but let us first move into Swaziland. Is it correct that you moved in three vehicles, Taylor's Nissan, the kombi and a bakkie?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: You have listened to the evidence which was given by Wasserman and he has stated that you and him were basically together.

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you agree with his breakdown of how it happened, where you went, first to Onverwacht, then up to Manzini, that you made observation in front of the bakkie, after you had given the bakkie to the two informers on the way to Manzini and that Ndwandwe climbed into the bakkie and that the bakkie moved behind you, you moved ahead. The vehicle of Taylor, with Taylor, Botha and Forster inside, was driving behind the bakkie, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Is it also correct that outside Manzini, Ms Ndwandwe was transferred from the bakkie to the kombi?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And that you then travelled in the direction of Culel?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And that you turned then on the Hluti road?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And then you stopped after you had travelled that road for a short while, and Botha and Ndwandwe took shelter at the back of the bakkie, under a piece of canvass?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And you and Wasserman were in front of the bakkie?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you recall that it rained on that evening, as we have heard?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct. We drove the bakkie in fourth wheel drive.

MR VISSER: It was a 4 x 4?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: When you were in Manzini, can you remember what time you were there, what time of the day?

MR DU PREEZ: We were in Manzini at dusk.

MR VISSER: In October that would have been approximately what time? Was it October?

MR DU PREEZ: Approximately 6 o'clock, half past six.

MR VISSER: Yes. We know that the minibus was driven by Forster away from the border post, and the bakkie was driven out...

MR DU PREEZ: No, Wasserman and I drove the bakkie.

MR VISSER: I beg your pardon, I meant that Botha and Taylor were in Taylor's vehicle and that is how they moved out at the Culel border post?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is it also your recollection of the facts, that the two informers were dropped off and that they crossed the fence illegally to the other side?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I assume that that is how it happened.

MR VISSER: We know that there was a point at the fence, where there was a rendezvous that evening, where Botha and Ndwandwe climbed through the fence to the people who waited on the other side, that would be Steyn, Forster, Botha and Taylor. Can you remember that?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: What time in the evening was that approximately?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember. All that I can remember is the time that we dropped them off and on the way back, we saw that there wouldn't be enough time to go through the gate.

MR VISSER: Which gate?

MR DU PREEZ: The Culel border post.

MR VISSER: And what did you do then?

MR DU PREEZ: Wasserman and I turned away to Shlangana and drove around that way.

MR VISSER: Is that in Wasserman's words, to get to a tar road as soon as possible?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you burgle a house that night?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MR VISSER: Are you aware of a burglary and money which was stolen from a house?

MR DU PREEZ: I heard about that from newspaper reports which I read later.

MR VISSER: Did you or Wasserman have anything to do with that?

MR DU PREEZ: No, not at all.

MR VISSER: Can you remember at what time you arrived back in Manzini that evening?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, it was early morning. We arrived in Manzini, we slept in the bakkie for approximately an hour or so, and then we departed back to the Culel border post, in order to cross at about 7 o'clock in the morning.

MR VISSER: When you arrived in Manzini, you were then too late to sleep in a hotel?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: The following morning ... (intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Visser, sorry to interrupt you once again, you would have known that you would arrive in Manzini at such a late hour, why did you drive to Manzini, why didn't you just sleep somewhere near the border post?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, we had planned to go to Manzini, and as a result of the road, we didn't think that we were going to be driving for such a long time, and seeing as we were on our way, we decided to continue.

MR MALAN: Well, seeing as you were on the tar road, you could have predicted your time of arrival at Manzini, that would have been easier?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, but we became stuck quite a number of times on the road that we were taking, and we decided not to take that road back.

MR VISSER: That is the road which we are referring to as the Hluti road?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And Wasserman has told the Committee that that was very muddy?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: The following morning you left and you arrived at the Onverwacht police house?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: An you remember approximately what time that was?

MR DU PREEZ: It was approximately 7 o'clock when we went through the border post.

MR VISSER: And did you find Ms Ndwandwe there along with Forster, Steyn and Taylor and Botha?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you participate in her interrogation?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson, Ms Ndwandwe was put in the kombi and taken back to Pietermaritzburg, that was shortly after our arrival, we hadn't been there for very long.

MR VISSER: Did you enter Swaziland with a legal passport?

MR DU PREEZ: No, it was a false passport.

MR VISSER: You then departed for Pietermaritzburg, is which vehicle.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, just on that point, do you still remember the name under which you left?

MR VISSER: The name of the passport, the name under which the passport was issued, can you remember that?

MR DU PREEZ: I think it was Du Toit.

MR MALAN: How many false passports did you have?

MR DU PREEZ: I only had the one.

MR MALAN: Do you think it was Du Toit or do you know it was Du Toit?

MR DU PREEZ: It was Du Toit, I am not entirely certain about the name.

MR VISSER: In which vehicle did you journey to Pietermaritzburg?

MR DU PREEZ: I drove the kombi.

MR VISSER: And were Botha and Ndwandwe in the back of the kombi?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Could you hear what the contents of their discussion was?

MR DU PREEZ: No Chairperson, there was a partition which divided the driver from the back of the kombi.

MR VISSER: This kombi, what was it usually used for?

MR DU PREEZ: It was an observation vehicle.

MR VISSER: But Visagie changed it, we heard that.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What were the changes in principle which he brought about?

MR DU PREEZ: There were large periscopes and other such apparatus with which to undertake observation, they were mounted into the kombi so that one could make observations of what was outside.

MR VISSER: And that was removed?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that was removed.

MR VISSER: The tables and that?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that as well.

MR VISSER: You then arrived in Pietermaritzburg.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you participate in any interrogation of Ndwandwe while you were there?

MR DU PREEZ: I did ask her some questions.

MR VISSER: Did you assault her?

MR DU PREEZ: At no stage.

MR VISSER: What was Ndwandwe's attitude regarding the questions which were put to her, did she provide any answers or did she refuse to answer?

MR DU PREEZ: She gave me answers and regarding the persons in terms of whom I made requests, she gave me the names.

MR VISSER: Mr Forster yesterday indicated that she was proud of her activities. What was your impression?

MR DU PREEZ: That was not my impression. The questions which I put to her, were answered very concisely and I never obtained that impression during my interrogation of her.

MR VISSER: At a certain stage, Ms Ndwandwe was killed in the district of Elandskop. Did you have anything to do with that?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us how it occurred?

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, one more interruption while we are on this point. You said that she answered very concisely. Were you trying to see whether or not she would be suitable for recruitment?

MR DU PREEZ: I did not consider it at that stage, it did not come up in my mind as a consideration.

MR MALAN: Was that not the primary reason for the abduction, isn't that what you told us?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, at that stage of my interrogation of her, I think it had already been decided that she would be killed.

MR MALAN: Who told you that?

MR DU PREEZ: I deduced that from Mr Botha and Mr Taylor and Mr Steyn's discussion.

MR MALAN: Which discussion are you referring to?

MR DU PREEZ: It was decided, when it was decided that she would not be recruited, it became generally known that she would not be applied as an informer and at that stage Taylor gave Wasserman and I the order to dig the grave.

MR MALAN: Mr Du Preez, I asked you how you found out and you initially told me that it was from the discussion of three of your colleagues, and later you said that it was generally known.

Who told you that the decision had been taken to kill her, where did this come from?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't recall Mr Chairperson, it is something which was left unsaid.

MR MALAN: May I put it to you like this, initially you very clearly told us that you thought that the chances were favourable that she could be an informer.

Your first contact was the interrogation at Pietermaritzburg, direct contact with her in the form of a discussion?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: You said at that stage you knew she was going to be killed.

MR DU PREEZ: The stage during which I questioned Ndwandwe, was after Botha had completed his interrogation of her.

MR MALAN: Were you present during Botha's interrogation?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MR MALAN: On what grounds did you know that she was not suitable? Or in another sense, why didn't you try to formulate your own opinion?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, I think Mr Botha was primarily responsible or would have been primarily responsible for the recruitment of this person.

It was clear that he had not succeeded.

MR MALAN: Why? Why was it clear?

MR DU PREEZ: Through Ms Ndwandwe's attitude.

MR MALAN: What was her attitude?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, I was not involved with her interrogation until that point.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, perhaps you are misunderstanding me. You have told us that it was clear that Botha had not been successful.

Then I asked you upon which grounds, and you said on the grounds of her attitude. Now I would like to know on what grounds it was clear to you that he had not succeeded?

MR DU PREEZ: From Botha's attitude. The fact that Botha said that she cannot be recruited.

MR MALAN: When did Botha say this to you?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't recall that Botha specifically said this to me, I deduced this from discussions between Botha, Taylor and Steyn, that she would not be recruited.

MR MALAN: Where did you hear those discussions?

MR DU PREEZ: At the house.

MR MALAN: Were you present during the discussions?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I was present at some of the discussions. Mr Chairperson, these things were not said in one sentence.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Du Preez, let us just discuss this. I think that you and Commissioner Malan are on two different wave lengths, let me just put it to you like this. You were interrogating her, for what reason, for what objective?

MR DU PREEZ: I had a dossier which was out of date, and I was looking for names of people who had committed acts of terrorism.

MR VISSER: By the way, now that you mention it, did you obtain any information from her which was of assistance to you?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you recall today exactly what that was?

MR DU PREEZ: It was about the Radjo case, that was one aspect of the information.

MR VISSER: Okay. Did you interrogate her with the purpose of recruiting her as an informer?

MR DU PREEZ: Negative.

MR VISSER: Whose duty was that?

MR DU PREEZ: That was Botha's duty.

MR VISSER: And you said that afterwards there was a discussion between Botha, Steyn and Taylor.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Which you heard?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you deduced from that discussion that it was Botha's view that she was not recruitable?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Later you received an order?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: From whom?

MR DU PREEZ: From Taylor.

MR VISSER: And what did this order entail?

MR DU PREEZ: It was that Wasserman and I were to dig a grave and that we were to eliminate Ndwandwe.

MR VISSER: Did you then carry out this order?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Before we arrived at this point, were there any other people on this farm, on that particular day who interrogated Ndwandwe?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was that Labuschagne and Verwey?

MR DU PREEZ: I can only remember Labuschagne.

MR VISSER: Sorry?

MR DU PREEZ: I can only remember Labuschagne.

MR VISSER: Were you present during their interrogation, Labuschagne's interrogation of Ndwandwe?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Now we are back at the point where we were a few moments ago, where you were to go and dig the grave. What happened next?

MR DU PREEZ: We dug the grave. Wasserman and I told Ndwandwe told her that we were going to take her away to another place.

MR VISSER: Did you tell her where to or did you just tell her that you were taking her elsewhere?

MR DU PREEZ: We simply told her that she was being transferred.

MR VISSER: Was she blindfolded?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, she was blindfolded and I led her out of the house.

MR VISSER: Yes?

MR DU PREEZ: Wasserman then hit her unconscious with a wooden stick. We carried her to the grave. We placed her next to the grave and Wasserman shot her once in the head.

We then removed her clothing, and placed her inside the grave.

MR VISSER: Just before you continue, let us just take a step back. Wasserman said something about her being placed half way into the grave, something to that effect?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, she was placed in the grave in a skew fashion, her feet were in the grave, but her upper body still emerged. She was standing half upright in the grave, if I remember correctly.

MR VISSER: The sides of the grave, were they diagonal or straight down?

MR DU PREEZ: I think they were diagonal.

MR VISSER: And you say that Wasserman then shot her and her clothing was removed and she was then placed inside the grave.

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you remember anything about plastic bags?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, Wasserman sprinkled lime over her, there was a bag with lime inside, and we began to close the grave.

MR VISSER: Before you did that, did you also place the lime bag in the grave with her, the bag in which the lime had come?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Where did this lime come from, can you perhaps remember?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I don't know from where it came.

MR VISSER: But it was present after Taylor had given you the order to carry out the elimination and the burial?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, where did you see the lime for the first time, at the grave?

MR DU PREEZ: At the grave, yes.

MR MALAN: You didn't see Wasserman carrying the lime to the grave?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I can't remember that.

MR MALAN: And you said that you and Wasserman dug the grave?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: And you went together to go and fetch Ms Ndwandwe?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Any explanation or suspicion as to how the lime arrived at the grave?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot say.

MR VISSER: Well, one of you must have taken it there?

MR MALAN: No, why Mr Visser? Why should one of them have taken it?

MR VISSER: Well, it had to have arrived there in some manner.

MR MALAN: Yes, but there were other men there.

CHAIRPERSON: And there were how many other men there?

MR VISSER: That is where my question is leading to Mr Chairman. Were any of the others persons that you recall today, near the grave?

MR DU PREEZ: No, at the time of the elimination it was only me and Wasserman, Taylor and Forster who were on the farm. The other persons had all left.

MR VISSER: Where were Forster and Taylor?

MR DU PREEZ: They were inside the house.

MR VISSER: And they weren't by the grave?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MR VISSER: You said that the lime was sprinkled over her, that the bag was left there and then soil was filled into the grave?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was anything else placed over the body?

MR DU PREEZ: Refuse bags were thrown over her.

MR VISSER: The contents thereof?

MR DU PREEZ: The contents of refuse bags, they were in plastic bags.

MR VISSER: What was the reason for that?

MR DU PREEZ: So that if anybody were to dig around there, it would look like a rubbish dump.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, did you know why you had to sprinkle lime on the body?

MR DU PREEZ: The purpose for that was to remove any odour for wild animals who might start digging around there.

ADV SIGODI: Who told you that?

MR DU PREEZ: I think that it was Mr Taylor who arranged it.

ADV SIGODI: When did he tell you that?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't specifically recall whether or not I asked him about the lime, but after the lime had been sprinkled, it became known to me that it would divert odour.

ADV SIGODI: Did you get to know about this before sprinkling the lime or after you had sprinkled it, that it would divert the odour?

MR DU PREEZ: I think afterwards. I don't know whether or not it really would have worked that way.

But I did this because Taylor said so.

MR MALAN: You didn't see the lime there, you didn't see anybody bringing the lime, and you didn't see Wasserman bringing it in. You assumed that it was him, because the others were never at the grave, didn't you ask him why he had brought this lime to the graveside?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, as I have already said, the lime which was sprinkled was to remove any odour.

MR MALAN: Yes, but you said that you heard this from Mr Taylor and you think that it was afterwards. In afterwards what you are saying is that when you sprinkled it, you already knew that it was to remove odours.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, but I don't know who put the bag there, it could have been Wasserman or Taylor or perhaps even Forster still.

MR VISSER: When would Taylor have told you about lime which removes odour if this was before this occurrence, because you didn't know that the lime was going to be there, yet you found it there?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Then, why would Taylor have discussed lime with you, was there a previous incident in which you had been involved?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You cannot explain the chronological order to us, you can just tell us that the lime was there, and secondly you didn't know then that it would remove odour?

MR DU PREEZ: Shortly afterwards, I knew.

MR MALAN: But you didn't ask Wasserman why the lime was there?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't remember having asked Wasserman.

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Mr Du Preez, there was indeed a previous incident, however you were not involved in that incident, that was the incident of Deon Cele is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: I know about that incident.

MR VISSER: But Wasserman indeed had been involved in that case.

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I heard that.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Kubeka buried?

MR DU PREEZ: Negative Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The first matter in which he applied for amnesty for.

MR VISSER: Perhaps you should just state the case of Tombi Kubeka, in 1987, was that a case of elimination?

MR DU PREEZ: Negative.

MR VISSER: What happened there, just briefly?

MR DU PREEZ: It was the disposal of a body after she had died of natural causes.

MR VISSER: Natural causes then, so it is the disguising of a body?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: After you had filled in the grave, you all left?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Just to move back a little, with regard to information received, you have heard Botha and the evidence which he gave regarding the information which Ndwandwe provided to him, at Onverwacht and also during the journey to Pietermaritzburg and also possibly thereafter, it doesn't really matter where, but it was with regard to certain incidents which she referred and regarding which she had given information as to who had been responsible for those incidents. Did you listen to that evidence?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And is that in accordance with your recollection at that stage?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: When Taylor told you that you were to dig the grave and eliminate Ndwandwe, did you regard this as an order?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was it an order with which you agreed?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you have already stated that you also agree with the evidence of Botha regarding his motivation or the political objective with regard to this action?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And that was chiefly about Ndwandwe's activities from Swaziland as manifested in units in the Port Natal area?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Can we then move over to Pumeso Nxiweni? Can you just tell us what your share was in that case?

MR DU PREEZ: In that case, Mr Botha had an informer who arranged a meeting with Nxiweni and we arrested him at the rendezvous point.

MR VISSER: That was on the 4th of November 1988 as we understand it?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And it was Botha, yourself and Van der Westhuizen?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct. We then took him to a safe house.

MR VISSER: We know that it was at the Kingspark stadium?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: You took him to a safe house and then what happened?

MR DU PREEZ: That is where we interrogated him.

MR VISSER: With what purpose?

MR DU PREEZ: In order to obtain information from him with regard to terrorist activities in Durban.

MR VISSER: Weapon stockpiling points.

MR VISSER: yes, weapon stockpiling points.

MR VISSER: Did you interrogate him?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: Did you assault him?

MR DU PREEZ: He was assaulted, I assaulted him.

MR VISSER: In what way?

MR DU PREEZ: It was slapping and punching with a balled fist.

MR VISSER: Where?

MR DU PREEZ: In the face and on the body.

MR VISSER: And in the face? As a result of the interrogation, did any information emerge?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, information did emerge.

MR VISSER: We heard from Botha that he, Nxiweni, apparently provided information that on the previous evening an act of terrorism had taken place at the Rosborough station, and it was committed by members of the unit under his command?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And on that very same evening, the 5th of November, another explosion was to occur. Was that the 4th of November, I am sorry, I beg your pardon. Sorry, it is the 4th of November, another explosion was to take place?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Where would that be?

MR DU PREEZ: That would be at Montclair, on the railway line at Montclair.

MR VISSER: What happened as a result of this information?

MR DU PREEZ: Van der Westhuizen and I drove to the place where he said the bomb would have been placed and on the way there, we received a report that the bomb had indeed exploded and when we arrived on the scene, we did see that it had exploded.

MR VISSER: Were there any police on the scene?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, they were already on the scene.

MR VISSER: Pumeso was held overnight at the safe house,is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: Did you remain there or did you go home?

MR DU PREEZ: I remained there.

MR VISSER: Was any attempt made to recruit him as an informer?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: From your side, that is what I mean?

MR DU PREEZ: No, there was no attempt from my side to recruit him.

MR VISSER: During further interrogation, more information came to light with regard to armed vehicles?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct. He indicated to us that there was a trunk full of arms and ammunition in the suitcase room at the Allan Taylor residence.

MR VISSER: Did you go along to the Allan Taylor residence in order to fetch these arms?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: How did you obtain access to this room?

MR DU PREEZ: We climbed over the fence, and we went into the room.

MR VISSER: You opened the door and went in or did you break in?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember whether the door had been forced open or simply opened.

MR VISSER: Did you find anything?

MR DU PREEZ: We found a trunk which fitted the description which Nxiweni had given us, and we found arms inside, we took the trunk and brought it back to the safe house.

MR VISSER: Was it your impression that Nxiweni was recruitable as an informer, judging by what you had observed from him?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MR VISSER: What else happened?

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Visser, while you are discussing this matter, was it ever said to you that it was a consideration to recruit him as an informer?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: We have heard from Botha that in during the afternoon of 5 November, Taylor and Wasserman arrived at the safe house, and that they were informed there by him about Nxiweni's arrest. Do you know anything about that?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was that after their arrival that you went to the Allan Taylor residence to lift the weapons?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Upon your arrival back at the safe house, what happened then?

CHAIRPERSON: Can I disturb you for one moment? This safe house, was this the safe house at Verulam?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You have arrived back at the safe house at Verulam, what happened next?

MR DU PREEZ: Colonel Taylor told Botha and Van der Westhuizen that they could go home and he began to dig a grave.

MR VISSER: That is who, who began to dig a grave?

MR DU PREEZ: Taylor, he started digging a grave.

MR VISSER: He didn't ask anybody else to do it, he did it himself?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Can you provide any reason why he did this?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, nobody offered to assist him?

MR DU PREEZ: Wasserman and I helped him later with the digging of the grave. When we arrived there, Taylor had already begun to dig the grave.

MR MALAN: And when you started helping him, did he withdraw? Surely it wouldn't have been all three of you digging the grave at the same time?

MR DU PREEZ: He was there throughout the time that the grave was being dug. We took turns.

MR VISSER: During this stage of the grave being dug, were Botha and Van der Westhuizen still there, or had they already left?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't remember.

MR VISSER: Now you have dug the grave, what happened next?

MR DU PREEZ: Taylor told Wasserman and I to eliminate Nxiweni. He and I took Nxiweni out of the house.

MR VISSER: Did you say anything to him?

MR DU PREEZ: We told him the same thing, we told him that we were taking him to another place.

MR VISSER: Was that during day time or night time?

MR DU PREEZ: It was at night.

MR VISSER: Yes?

MR DU PREEZ: He was blindfolded, and we walked with him until the grave. There I shot him in the head with a Scorpion pistol.

MR VISSER: Who shot him?

MR DU PREEZ: I shot him.

MR VISSER: Was this pistol legally in your possession?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson, it was a Russian Scorpion pistol.

MR VISSER: Where did he stand, or did he sit or lay down when you shot him?

MR DU PREEZ: He was standing.

MR VISSER: Where were you standing when you shot him?

MR DU PREEZ: I stood right next to him.

MR VISSER: On his left or right side?

MR DU PREEZ: On his left side.

MR VISSER: Was the pistol held near or far from his body when you shot him against his head, so indeed he was shot through the head?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was he dead?

MR DU PREEZ: He died instantaneously. He fell down, we removed his clothing and placed him in the hole and closed the hole.

MR VISSER: Was he buried in the same fashion as Ndwandwe?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you also sprinkle lime over him, can you remember anything about that?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember it.

MR VISSER: Can you remember if rubbish was also thrown into the grave in that case?

MR DU PREEZ: No, we didn't put any rubbish into the grave.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I notice that it is 1 o'clock, I am just about finished with this incident, if I may proceed a little while longer.

What happened with the clothing? I think you already said that his clothing had been removed?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, we burnt the clothing afterwards.

MR VISSER: And then you departed?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Just with regard to this aspect, Mr Taylor says in his amnesty application, that Nxiweni went along to point out the DLB at the Allan Taylor residence. Is this in accordance with your recollection?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot recall that.

MR VISSER: And he also says that Botha was present when Pumeso was killed, can you remember that?

MR DU PREEZ: No one else was there. By the time we killed Pumeso, Taylor had left the farm.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that concludes this incident, thank you.

MR MALAN: Just one final question, or regarding your final answer, you said at the time of your shooting Nxiweni, Taylor was no longer on the farm.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR MALAN: How much time elapsed between digging the grave and the elimination? What did you do after you dug the grave?

MR DU PREEZ: I think Taylor told us after the grave had been dug, that the decision was taken to eliminate him, and when we went to fetch Nxiweni to eliminate him, Taylor drove away.

That is when we went in to go and fetch him, that is when Taylor left.

MR MALAN: Are you certain of that?

MR DU PREEZ: That is how I remember that.

MR MALAN: Why would he have departed, he helped to dig the grave completely, he stayed there, you took turns, then you go and fetch Nxiweni 60 metres away from where he is about to be buried, and during that time, Botha or Taylor at least left.

MR DU PREEZ: Nxiweni was not fetched directly after the grave had been dug. After the grave had been completed, as far as I can remember, we first cleaned up. We wouldn't have walked in to the room where Nxiweni was with soiled feet and tell him that we were taking him away.

MR MALAN: And you also wouldn't have left the farm without cleaning yourselves up, so in other words you would have cleaned up twice?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Did you do that?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR MALAN: Can you remember that?

MR DU PREEZ: I can remember that.

MR MALAN: Why do you say that you wouldn't have, your choice of words looks like construction rather than recollection.

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I think it may be a construction, but there is no way that one would have gone to the person or left the farm with soil on one's shoes.

I can't remember specifically that I had a bath before I left the farm.

MR MALAN: Wouldn't Taylor have taken a bath before leaving the farm? If he were to work with these constructions, because he helped to dig the grave?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So you would all go and clean up first, and then take Nxiweni out for the elimination?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: While you were walking to the grave with him, Taylor climbed into his car?

MR DU PREEZ: What I can remember is that Taylor was not on the farm, that he had already left when we eliminated Nxiweni.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, just in that regard, if you will allow me just a last reference. In volume 2, page 63, the words that stand here coming from Taylor, are in my submission significant.

He says, I will read the last bit of that paragraph at page 63 Mr Chairman, he says I cannot remember today who actually pulled the trigger. It wasn't me, but I admit I was part of the decision to kill him.

Then Mr Chairman, he says, I do recall that myself and Colonel Botha were definitely present. It may be that Sam Du Preez and Laurie Wasserman were also present, but I cannot remember whether any other members were indeed present when this incident took place.

We have the two people here that were actually instrumental in the elimination. Mr Taylor couldn't remember whether they were there, with respect Mr Chairman. I just point this out to say that the evidence of Mr Taylor must be regarded in the light of what Mr Wasserman said, and Mr Botha said about his recollection at the time when he completed these documents.

I just wanted to make that point at this stage. There are conflicts Mr Chairman, clearly, there are conflicts in recollection.

MR MALAN: Mr Visser, I just don't understand the argument with regard to Taylor's absence or departure. In order to case light on this issue, because in terms of the evidence we cannot rely on the fact that Taylor had departed.

When he made this statement, he was in a condition which meant that he could not really stand in for that statement. But you say Mr Du Preez, that your recollection is that Taylor departed before Nxiweni was eliminated?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn until 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (continued) Mr Du Preez, we've got now the third and last incident, and that is the case which was referred to as the kwaMashu unit to which these people belonged to. After the elimination of Pumeso, we have heard that members of the Security Branch succeeded with the help of informers to make contact with the members of the kwaMashu unit, are you aware of this?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I am.

MR VISSER: Apparently these informants took them into their confidence and agreed with them, that a meeting will take place, it seems to me, at a certain place?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: On the 17th of November 1988, a report was received from informants and members of the Security Branch then went to the Avoca Bridge between Durban and kwaMashu, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Were you one of the members of that team?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, it was myself, Botha and Wasserman.

MR VISSER: You found people there or met up with people there. How many were they?

MR DU PREEZ: Three.

MR VISSER: Was it the three that I have just mentioned?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: How many people did you expect?

MR DU PREEZ: We expected four.

MR VISSER: Were they then arrested or whatever you want to call it?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct, we took them to the house of safety.

MR VISSER: Which house is this?

MR DU PREEZ: It is the house is Verulam where Taylor waited for us.

MR VISSER: Were they then interrogated there?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did they have anything with them?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, they had a carrier bag with limpet mines.

MR VISSER: How many?

MR DU PREEZ: Three.

MR VISSER: Limpet mines?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: During interrogation, did they give an explanation for the reason why they had these mines?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, they did give an explanation.

MR VISSER: What was that?

MR DU PREEZ: That someone dropped it off at their homes, and that they were going to get rid of it at some place.

MR VISSER: Did they tell what happened to this person?

MR DU PREEZ: This person then left to Swaziland.

MR VISSER: You knew better, because of the informants?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And in the interrogation, what you heard - what happened afterwards?

MR DU PREEZ: We interrogated the three persons to who the other member was.

MR VISSER: Did you then try to find out if they had any other weapons?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: Were there any results?

MR DU PREEZ: They gave us the name of the fourth person who went to Swaziland.

MR VISSER: Can you remember that name today?

MR DU PREEZ: It was Naya Ngema.

MR VISSER: Did you attack them, assault them?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In the same manner that you did, or was it different, to Nxiweni?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, it was the same way that we assaulted them. We slapped them and hit them with a fist.

MR MALAN: Sorry, just before you get to the assault. Did you say that they told you that the fourth person who did not arrive there, went to Swaziland?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct. With later interrogation, it was not during the arrest.

MR MALAN: Did they say to you that the fourth person was the person who gave them the limpet mines or that it was an unknown person?

MR DU PREEZ: Their initial lie was that it would have been another person, and not the person who went to Swaziland and that they did not know him, but it was a lie, and we knew that.

MR MALAN: How did you know this?

MR DU PREEZ: We knew who the group was and who the members of this group was.

MR MALAN: How did you know that Ngema did not go to Swaziland if he was then the fourth person?

MR DU PREEZ: I am sorry, I do not understand your question.

MR MALAN: When your evidence was led, you said that they told you that the fourth person went to Swaziland?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, when they made that allegation, they said that it was a person who went to Swaziland, who left the weapons with them.

At that stage they did not say it was the fourth person of their group.

MR MALAN: Thank you, it is more clear now. Excuse me, did you ask any questions with regards to the absence of this fourth person?

MR DU PREEZ: We expected four to arrive at the scene.

MR MALAN: And you knew that it would be Ngema?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Did you ask them questions about this?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR MALAN: And what did they answer?

MR DU PREEZ: They admitted at a later stage that it was Ngema and they said that he went to Swaziland.

MR MALAN: In other words he went to Swaziland as well as the person who left the weapons with them, went to Swaziland, was that their story?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Well, then I do not understand who went to Swaziland?

MR DU PREEZ: Ngema went to Swaziland.

MR MALAN: And the person who left the limpet mines with them?

MR DU PREEZ: It would also be Ngema?

MR MALAN: Did they say so?

MR DU PREEZ: Initially they said, or they said that they did not know Ngema.

MR MALAN: Did you know that he did not go to Swaziland, is that what you are saying to us?

MR DU PREEZ: We did not know at that stage that he went to Swaziland.

MR MALAN: Well, then I do not understand Mr Visser's question that you knew better. Maybe Mr Visser can just explain this to me.

MR VISSER: Commissioner, it was about the fact that they told a story that an unknown person left the limpet mines with them, and that they were on the way to get rid of them. That is what they knew better, they knew that they were on their way to go and place the limpet mines as a group or a unit.

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: They firstly referred to an unknown person, and that this person went to Swaziland if I understand you correctly?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And afterwards it seems that the fourth person was Ngema and that he possibly also went to Swaziland?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that he indeed went to Swaziland and that he was part of their group.

MR VISSER: But you did not know at that stage if he did go to Swaziland?

MR DU PREEZ: No, we did not know that.

MR VISSER: During the questioning, did they agree that they would show where the target would be?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And the members who were present there, the four, Taylor, Botha, yourself and Wasserman, did you then take a decision?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What was the decision?

MR DU PREEZ: We decided that we are going to eliminate them at the place or the spot that they wanted to target.

MR VISSER: What are you going to do then?

MR DU PREEZ: We will then get rid of the bodies with explosives.

MR VISSER: The people then went to the railway line in the Phoenix area?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What happened there at the scene?

MR DU PREEZ: We took the explosives out of the car.

MR MALAN: I wonder Mr Visser, if you can just ask him, he has heard the evidence, if maybe he can add anything else.

MR VISSER: It would be in order yes. The evidence from here on would be the same as Mr Wasserman's. I would just like to deal with it short.

The three people were then taken to a place at the railway where with the nod of Botha, they were killed or shot by your group. After the first shot was fired, do you know if any other shots were fired after that?

MR DU PREEZ: I fired two shots at the person who was in front of me.

MR VISSER: Afterwards, did you then prime the limpet mines?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: And the bodies were then placed on the limpet mines, with the hands and heads on them and you then left there and afterwards you heard the explosion of the limpet mines going off?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: Did you agree with the decision that they had to be eliminated?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: What was the reason for this?

MR DU PREEZ: There was no possibility to recruit them as informants because they were three together, and also because they were responsible for most or various explosions in the Durban area.

MR VISSER: Did you consider them as dangerous?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, they were dangerous terrorists.

MR VISSER: Did you think that they had more explosives or ammunition?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I thought that.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson, Christo Nel. Mr Du Preez, just a few questions about late Colonel Taylor.

Do you agree with me, I think especially the applicants here, you would be the one who would have known Taylor the best?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I knew him very well.

MR NEL: You worked with him longer than the others at the Security Branch?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR NEL: Is it correct that late Bobby Welman who were also an explosives expert, was in charge of Taylor and were also very close to him?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR NEL: And the late Mike Mbede worked under Taylor's command as one of his men?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR NEL: Would you say that Colonel Taylor's political viewpoints would be the same as yourself and the others here?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR NEL: And it is also so that in the last few months of Taylor's life, and also in the application that he submitted, you had a lot of contact with him?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I did liaise with him regularly.

MR NEL: What was your impression concerning the memories he had, or information that he had, if you discussed it with him?

MR DU PREEZ: Well, Taylor could not remember a lot of things.

MR NEL: If you look at Taylor's application, he says at one stage that he helped with the digging of the grave on Ndwandwe. Can you comment on that?

MR DU PREEZ: That is not true.

MR NEL: Would you say that it is a mistake that he made because of his bad memory?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, it was a mistake that he made.

MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEL

MR NOLTE: Mr Chairman, no questions.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NOLTE

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NGUBANE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Du Preez, before you could go to Swaziland, was there any decision that Ms Ndwandwe would be killed if she didn't cooperate?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember such a pertinent decision.

MR NGUBANE: Was there any practise prior to your going to Swaziland that any person who didn't cooperate to become an informer, would be killed as a matter of course?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Was there a decision at any stage that any person who did not want to cooperate as an informer, would be killed, that was taken in your presence and perhaps with your participation?

MR DU PREEZ: At any time, the time I spent at the Security Branch or are you talking about Ndwandwe specifically?

MR NGUBANE: Yes, the time you spent at the Security Branch, was it ever taken as a principle that anyone who didn't cooperate with you, would be eliminated?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairman, each case was dealt with on its own merit.

MR NGUBANE: So when you went to Swaziland for the kidnap of Ndwandwe, your aim was to kidnap her and convert her to be an informer, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

MR NGUBANE: And did you discuss when and where you were going to do this, to convert her?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, we did discuss it.

MR NGUBANE: Where was that process going to be done?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember.

MR NGUBANE: Did you gain the impression that she was going to be brought back into South Africa, and then be converted in the offices maybe of C.R. Swart or in Maritzburg, or what was your impression?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, the plan was very clear. We would take her to a house of safety at the border post, and from there, we would go to Pietermaritzburg.

MR NGUBANE: So when you left South Africa, your plan was clear, kidnap her from Swaziland, bring her to the border post and then take her to Pietermaritzburg, is that your evidence?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

MR NGUBANE: There was no plan that she would be taken to the border post, converted and brought back to Swaziland?

MR DU PREEZ: If she were recruited as an informant, it would have been the process, yes.

MR NGUBANE: What would be the purpose of bringing her to Maritzburg?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, if she were to be recruited, we would have sent her back to Swaziland. If we did not recruit her, we would have taken her to Pietermaritzburg. That was the plan.

MR NGUBANE: So your evidence earlier on that you didn't, you can't recall where she was going to be converted as an informer, is incorrect?

MR DU PREEZ: I am not sure what your question is.

MR NGUBANE: I heard your evidence as being that you can't recall where the process of converting her was going to take place.

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, we would have tried to recruit her after the abduction in Swaziland or during the abduction in Swaziland. How long this process would take, we could not have decided that beforehand.

MR NGUBANE: When she was taken the following day from the border post to Maritzburg, what was created in your mind, what did you think was happening?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, at that stage I haven't seen or did not know a lot about Ndwandwe, I did not form an opinion.

MR NGUBANE: You were just happy about taking her to Pietermaritzburg?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct. At that stage Steyn, Botha and Taylor in control.

MR NGUBANE: Did you enquire why she was being taken to Maritzburg?

MR DU PREEZ: It was part of the plan, yes.

MR NGUBANE: Well, did you enquire why she was being taken to Maritzburg?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I did not.

MR MALAN: If I understand you correctly, then the plan or part of the plan was to take her to Pietermaritzburg and that was for the elimination, because if you were to turn her, according to your evidence, you would take her back across the border.

I think the question is really when Pietermaritzburg came in, was it part of the implementation or the decision on the basis that she will not be recruited and that she must be eliminated?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, at this stage I cannot say when it became clear to me. I think it only became clear tome that afternoon in Pietermaritzburg, that she will be eliminated.

MR MALAN: Mr Du Preez, Mr Ngubane asked you what was the plan and you then explained the plan concerning taking her across the border, and if she is not recruited, her elimination, and when he asked you if this was the decision, you then said no, if she cooperated, she would have been taken immediately across the border, back into Swaziland.

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: In other words it would have been another plan that you would have implemented, is that not correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: The question is, the execution of the plan where she will not be taken back, but will be taken to Pietermaritzburg, must that then be seen as a confirmation of an execution of the first plan, the moment when she was taken to Pietermaritzburg?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you. I won't pursue with that point. Why did you have to use a false passport to go to Swaziland?

MR DU PREEZ: I had a false passport and I usually used it when I went to Swaziland.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, why?

MR DU PREEZ: To cover up the activities of the Security Branch, so that other people cannot see that we are operating there.

MR NGUBANE: Well, if you say other people, who do you mean? Who was going to get into these affairs and know that you are the Security people who are doing dirty works?

MR DU PREEZ: I am not sure what you mean with dirty works?

MR NGUBANE: Well, you could have used your ordinary passport, go to Swaziland and come back. I still don't follow the reason why you had to use a false passport.

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, we worked with informants and a lot of the work we did, was undercover.

MR NGUBANE: Did you travel in false number plates, registration plates?

MR DU PREEZ: I did, yes.

MR NGUBANE: The vehicles that you used when you abducted Ndwandwe, did they have false registration number plates?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, they did have false number plates.

MR NGUBANE: And you did that for the purposes of cover up, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR NGUBANE: Coming to the question of a baby, you say that you were not aware that she was breastfeeding, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

MR NGUBANE: Did she at any stage complain to you that she had left a baby for quite some time and she wanted to see the baby?

MR DU PREEZ: She did mention that she had a child, yes.

MR NGUBANE: And was it in the presence of Mr Botha when she mentioned this?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember if Botha was there.

MR NGUBANE: At what stage did she mention that she had a baby, in Maritzburg or the border?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, I knew she had a child.

MR NGUBANE: Well, I know that you knew that she had a child, but you say that she mentioned that. All that I want to know is was it in Maritzburg or at the border when she mentioned it?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember.

MR NGUBANE: Under what circumstances did she mentioned to you that she had a baby?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember it Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Was she crying?

MR DU PREEZ: She never cried in my presence.

MR NGUBANE: Did she say that she had a baby and she was longing for the baby?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, during that time she mentioned to me that she had a child.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, did she say she was longing for the child?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Did she plead with you not to kill her because she had a small baby?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Was there any stage before she could be killed, when you gained the impression that she was aware that she was going to be killed?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: When you blindfolded her, did she cry, scream?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Was she talking when you blindfolded her?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Did she complain and say why are you blindfolding me?

MR DU PREEZ: No, we gave an explanation why we were blindfolding her.

MR NGUBANE: And she was happy with your explanation?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

MR NGUBANE: What explanation did you give her?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot hear, can you repeat please.

CHAIRPERSON: He did not hear that last question.

MR NGUBANE: The question was what explanation did you give and the answer was that he can't remember.

MR DU PREEZ: That is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: The answer was he did not hear you.

MR NGUBANE: Okay. All right, you have heard the question, can you give me an answer?

MR VISSER: Can I just know what the question is, because I am confused.

MR NGUBANE: When you blindfolded her, you said that you gave her an explanation why you were blindfolding her, and my question was what explanation was that.

MR DU PREEZ: We told her that we are going to take her to another place, or transfer her to another place.

MR NGUBANE: And she was happy about that, as far as you could, did she ask you what place it was?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct. No, she didn't ask any questions. She accepted it like that.

MR NGUBANE: And when you transferred her, before you could shoot her, did anyone tell you to shoot?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: When the order was given to shoot her, was it given at the house or at the spot when she was actually shot?

MR DU PREEZ: I have already testified that Colonel Taylor told us that we must eliminate Ndwandwe, he did not give any prescriptions on how to do it.

MR NGUBANE: Was it at the house or at the spot where the shooting took place?

MR DU PREEZ: At the house.

MR NGUBANE: And was it in the presence of Ndwandwe?

MR DU PREEZ: Negative.

MR NGUBANE: Let's turn to the incident of Nxiweni. You say that he was involved in the Ramlakan case, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: And some of the people that were arrested in connection with that case, they were promised that they would be made State witnesses, they made statements in terms of Section 29, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Were those people that made statements in terms of Section 29, Umkhonto We Sizwe people?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: And did you influence them by assaulting them, so that they could make these statements?

MR DU PREEZ: No Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Did you attempt to influence Nxiweni to turn into a State witness?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Why not?

MR DU PREEZ: I didn't work with him.

MR NGUBANE: Well, how did you know that there was no attempt to turn him into a State witness, do you know?

MR DU PREEZ: Could you please repeat the question.

MR NGUBANE: Do you know whether there was an attempt to turn him into a State witness, if I may make myself clearer?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I wasn't aware of any such attempt.

MR NGUBANE: But your investigations, was it not the plan to make the case as strong as possible against the main actors, Ramlakan and Duduzile?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I was one of the interrogators and I questioned one of the persons, by name of Robert Mlanzi. I was not in control of those that Mr Taylor had to do with.

MR NGUBANE: But you accept it as a fact that Mr Nxiweni did not offer to be a State witness, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: As he said, he said he doesn't know. He doesn't know if an attempt was made to get him. The first question you asked him was if he did it, and he said no.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, if I may just put it the other way. Do you accept it as a fact that according to your knowledge, no Section statement that you are aware of, was taken from Mr Nxiweni?

MR DU PREEZ: I am not aware of that.

MR NGUBANE: Do you know how much time they spent in prison before the trial could be heard?

MR DU PREEZ: I suspect approximately one year.

MR NGUBANE: Do you agree with me that if there was an attempt to make him a State witness, a period of one year could have been enough inducement for him to turn into a State witness?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot comment on that.

MR NGUBANE: And when he was arrested, just immediately before he could be killed, that is the second arrest now, were you present when he was interrogated for the first time?

MR DU PREEZ: No Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Did you meet him on the very first day that he was arrested?

MR DU PREEZ: For the second time?

MR NGUBANE: Yes?

MR DU PREEZ: For the second time, yes.

MR NGUBANE: And approximately when did you come into contact with him?

MR DU PREEZ: When he was arrested?

MR NGUBANE: Yes, that is for the second time now, that is the second incident, forget about the Ramlakan incident.

MR DU PREEZ: It was in the late afternoon that he was arrested.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, well when you came into contact with him, approximately at what hour?

MR DU PREEZ: Late afternoon, 6 o'clock approximately.

MR NGUBANE: Were you involved in the immediate interrogation of him?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I was.

MR NGUBANE: From 6 o'clock until when?

MR DU PREEZ: It was from 6 o'clock until late at night.

MR NGUBANE: All right. Did he give you information during that period?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, he gave us information.

MR NGUBANE: That is after you had assaulted him as you have indicated?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: The following day, did you also participate in his interrogation?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I did.

MR NGUBANE: Did you assault him on the following day again?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot recall that he was assaulted on the following day as well.

MR NGUBANE: But did he give you information on the following day?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, he did. He did provide information.

MR NGUBANE: If you can recall, how many incidents did he talk about during the interrogation the previous day and the following day?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, he told us about him and his unit, which places they had bombed.

I don't know, do you want me to mention specific things, I can refer you to Exhibit 88. I think amongst other things, there was the Montclair railway line, the Rosborough railway station, offices, court offices which they had bombed.

I might be able to mention more if I could peruse Exhibit A.

MR NGUBANE: Okay, not a problem. But do you confirm the evidence of Mr Botha that on the following day, he was interrogated the whole day?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, he was interrogated.

MR NGUBANE: Well sir, these incidents that you have mentioned, I suggest to you that they are not so lengthy as to necessitate a period of more than 12 hours of interrogation, do you agree with me?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, we did not only interrogate him regarding the explosions, he was interrogated regarding other matters as well.

MR NGUBANE: Which matters are you referring to now?

MR DU PREEZ: Regarding other activities, other divisions which were under his command.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, even those, I suggest to you they could not have necessitated this length of time.

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, this interrogation was not continuous throughout the day. There were times when we took breaks and there were times when we went over things that he had told us.

MR NGUBANE: Is it not the position that this interrogation was not as mild as you have put it to us, this man was severely assaulted before he could give you any information?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, he was assaulted as I have described.

MR NGUBANE: Had you discussed with Mr Botha that this man would just be given a few slaps and a punch?

MR DU PREEZ: I did not discuss that with Botha.

MR NGUBANE: I am just surprised by the similarity of the pattern. Mr Botha assaults this man, he gives him a few slaps and punches and you also do the same thing. Was it a coincidence?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, this man was questioned, and if we were not satisfied with his responses, he was assaulted.

MR NGUBANE: How many times approximately?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't recall.

MR NGUBANE: It could have been 10 times, 20 times, because you cannot recall?

MR DU PREEZ: That is possible, I can't recall.

MR MALAN: Mr Ngubane, if you will just allow me - Mr Du Preez, this so-called question and answer method, I would like to have more information regarding this, because it is something that the other applicants have mentioned.

This question/answer method incorporated assault, that if there wasn't any cooperation, the person would be slapped and hit with a fist?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: One of the things on everybody's conscience would be, the degree of severity of these assaults, these slappings and fist blows. Regarding fist blows, he was hit in the face and on the body, I think you also gave evidence which was similar?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Was he injured, did he bleed at any place on his body as a result of being hit with a fist?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't remember that Pumeso was bleeding.

MR MALAN: Could his nose have broken as a result of the fist blows, could one have broken a rib, what was the violence with which he was struck?

These are the questions which are being put consistently, what was the degree of assault which would make a man talk? Can you remember?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, he was assaulted as I have said. I can't remember that there was any blood running from his nose or his mouth for example and I am very certain that there were no fractures, such as broken ribs or arms.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you. As far as you were aware, before Nxiweni could be arrested, was there any intention of turning him into an informer?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson, not according to me.

MR NGUBANE: If I understood your evidence correctly when you were being led, you said that there was no chance that this man could be turned into an informer and he was eliminated, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, it was clear from two years previously that he had been busy with bombings, and it was not his intention to seize his terrorist activities.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, my understanding of your evidence is that you interrogated this man, and you realised that he could not be turned into an informer. To me it sounded as if it was a realisation of that particular moment, was I correct in my understanding of your evidence?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: So you were going to eliminate him any way, without even attempting to turn him into an informer? Was that your plan?

MR DU PREEZ: That was the plan Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: You wanted to squeeze him of all the information and then kill him just like that?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Was it ever in your mind, that he should be prosecuted?

MR DU PREEZ: No Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Why not?

MR DU PREEZ: I think that we had learnt from previous experience.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, what previous experience and what had you learnt?

MR DU PREEZ: When Pumeso was formerly charged and found not guilty.

MR NGUBANE: So, after the Ramlakan case, is it your suggestion that you decided that if we catch this man, we must just eliminate him?

MR DU PREEZ: No Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: At what stage did you then because of the Ramlakan experience, decide that this man should be eliminated?

MR DU PREEZ: After we had become aware that he had once again become involved in bomb explosions and continued with his acts of terrorism.

MR NGUBANE: Immediately after the Ramlakan case, did it ever occur to you that this man has escaped and he is going to continue with his terrorist as you put it, activities?

MR DU PREEZ: It did not come to my attention then.

MR NGUBANE: You thought that he was a changed man after the acquittal?

MR DU PREEZ: I did not give that a thought.

MR NGUBANE: You didn't think about him at all?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't recall whether I thought about him specifically. There were many persons involved in that case who got away.

MR NGUBANE: Okay, the kwaMashu 3 incident.

MR MALAN: I beg our pardon Mr Ngubane. Nxiweni and Bhila were the only two who got away on a specific date before the others, isn't that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So there weren't many others who got away with him, it was only those two?

MR DU PREEZ: In the court case there were also other persons who got away.

MR MALAN: I don't have the records in front of me, but according to the judgment it was much later?

MR DU PREEZ: I think Buthelezi was much earlier.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon?

MR DU PREEZ: Buthelezi was earlier if I recall correctly.

MR MALAN: Weren't Nxiweni and Bhila let go at the end of the State's case on the basis that there was absolutely no evidence brought in against them, that is the reflection of the record?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Well, then the others would not have been set free, the hearing continued, and the question is when he was released, when he got away from the case from which you say you have learnt things out of previous experience, did you then think of him as someone who would continue with his activities, and your answer was then, but there were many other people, it wasn't only him.

But there were actually only those two people. So, I am just asking you this question again, did you ever consider when Bhila and Nxiweni were released, that the risk would arise that they would continue with their activities?

MR DU PREEZ: It was a possibility. I did consider that possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it also true that there were many others who had not been charged?

MR DU PREEZ: And also not caught.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you. The kwaMashu 3 incident, before I put any questions to you, I have been requested by Mr Filikazi to enquire from you whether you can point to him a spot where these people were killed, so that they can do some traditional rights on that spot. Are you in a position to do that?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, my evidence was that all of them were shot in the back of the head.

MR NGUBANE: No, I mean the scene where they were shot, are you in a position to point that out?

MR DU PREEZ: The scene?

MR NGUBANE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the Investigation Unit knows exactly where the spot is, it has been pointed out by the witnesses to him. There is no problem in them finding it through the Investigation Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: This is the kwaMashu 3. There are numerous.

MR VISSER: We all know where it is, well, except myself, I haven't been there, but there is no problem in finding out.

MR NGUBANE: Then that satisfies us Mr Chairman. When you had information about the activities of the kwaMashu 3, especially about the bombing they were about to execute, when did you hear about that? You personally?

MR DU PREEZ: I myself? Botha contacted me and told me that the informer had arranged a meeting.

MR NGUBANE: I take it that Botha requested you to come with him, to prevent that bombing to take place, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: You wanted to add something?

MR DU PREEZ: Botha called me to come and help him with the arrest of the four that we suspected.

MR NGUBANE: So as far as you were aware, the plan was to go and arrest these people, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That was initially, when Botha contacted me.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, in other words, the number of people who were expected to come, there were four people expected to come on that day?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know if that would also include Naya Ngema?

MR DU PREEZ: It would have been him as well, he was supposed to be with the group.

ADV SIGODI: He was also expected to come?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

MR NGUBANE: But to make everything clear once more, is it correct that it is not your evidence that Naya Ngema was the person that gave you information about these people, he was one of the people that you intended to arrest, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Before you could go to arrest these people, was there a meeting amongst all of you that eventually went there, to discuss the plan?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't recall where we all came together. Botha contacted me and Wasserman and told us to come along.

I don't know where we rendezvoused before the time, but we moved together or congregated and then moved to Avoca Bridge where the other four would arrive.

MR NGUBANE: With the purpose of arresting these people?

MR DU PREEZ: Arresting, yes.

MR NGUBANE: Pardon?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And you intercepted these people, and you put certain questions to them, is that right?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: But you knew all that they were going to do, is that right? You had information about what they were going to do?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: Why was it necessary to enquire from them about their activities, if you knew what they were going to do?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, if you arrest someone, you would obviously ask them what they were doing. Even though you know who the person was, you would ask their name and ask them where they were on their way to.

MR NGUBANE: And they told you a lie and you decided to assault them, is that right?

MR DU PREEZ: That is not correct.

MR NGUBANE: Well, what made you decide to assault them?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, we arrested them and took them to the safe house at Verulam, where we began to interrogate them.

It was during this process that they were assaulted.

MR NGUBANE: When you interrogated them, well, I understood you as saying that when you asked them about this incident they were going to be involved in, they told you a lie and you gave them a few slaps because you realised that they were telling a lie. Was that not your evidence?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, that was when they were arrested. At the house, they tried to repeat this story when we asked for an explanation as to what they were busy doing.

MR NGUBANE: And they told you a lie before you could assault them, is that right?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And you assaulted them in order for them to repeat what you already knew, is that right?

MR DU PREEZ: We assaulted them so that they would produce the true story.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, well, if you knew about this story, was it not out of spite that you assaulted them? What more did you want them to tell you, because you knew the story?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, it was a test for other questions which we were going to put to them.

MR NGUBANE: And you hadn't put those questions to them to see whether they were going to tell you some information?

MR DU PREEZ: We did put other questions to them, upon which they did provide us with answers.

MR NGUBANE: Was it before you could assault them, that you asked them about the other incidents?

MR DU PREEZ: Could you please repeat your question.

MR NGUBANE: About the other incidents that you asked them about, did you ask them before you could assault them, or after you had assaulted them?

MR DU PREEZ: We interrogated them, and if they were telling lies, according to what we suspected to be lies, we would assault them.

MR NGUBANE: So this process of assaulting them, was an ongoing process, if they told you something that you felt was a lie, you kept on assaulting them?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: For how long did this process take place? Was it a day or six hours, ten hours?

MR DU PREEZ: It was approximately four to five hours.

MR NGUBANE: Can you recall, the question has been put whether they bled at any stage, can you recall?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't recall.

MR NGUBANE: When was the decision taken to eliminate them?

MR DU PREEZ: This decision was made on the farm, at the safe house, after they had been arrested.

MR NGUBANE: It was taken at the farm, was it after the interrogation or during the interrogation?

MR DU PREEZ: I think that this was during the interrogation.

MR NGUBANE: They were giving you information, why decide to eliminate them?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, we were of the opinion that all three of them could not be recruited or charged.

MR NGUBANE: Why couldn't you charge them, you had found them in possession of instruments in terms of the law, which were illegal to possess. You had direct evidence that these people had been found in possession of these instruments. What prevented you from charging them?

MR DU PREEZ: I think that the decision had already been taken to eliminate them.

MR NGUBANE: Well, you have told us that the decision was taken there at the house. Now if you say that you think that it had been taken to eliminate them, what makes you say so?

MR DU PREEZ: Perhaps I may be wrong, the decision had been taken to eliminate them.

MR NGUBANE: Are you sure about that?

MR DU PREEZ: I think the ultimate is indicative thereof.

MR NGUBANE: No, are you sure about the fact that when you came to the house and interrogated these people, the decision had been taken to eliminate them?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Assuming that the decision had been taken that they would be eliminated, before you could go to the house, was there a decision taken at the house again, to eliminate them?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with respect to my learned friend, he is confusing not only the witness, but even myself. The witness has made it quite clear that the decision to eliminate them, was taken after they had arrived at the safe house.

My learned friend is now juggling it around to when you arrived at the house, or on the proposition that before you arrived at the house, none of which was the witness' evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: He is now agreeing with it Mr Visser. As I understand it, your witness has just agreed that the decision had been taken by the time they came to the house.

MR VISSER: That is precisely my point Mr Chairman, it is because of the confusion that is created by the question. He is being misled into answering questions which is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he is being misled, I think he is being pushed along, and he is agreeing.

MR NGUBANE: Mr Du Preez, can we get an answer, the question was at the house, was there a stage when it was agreed again that these people should be eliminated?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, after these arrests of these persons, when we arrived at the house, we had decided that they were to be eliminated.

MR NGUBANE: Mr Du Preez, I am going to put it to you that the conflict in your answer is a clear indication that you are not making a full disclosure.

You are trying to create a story that should agree with the other applicants, who have told fabricated stories before this Commission.

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, I am not certain what Mr Ngubane is driving at.

MR MALAN: I am watching you and I am watching the questioning. I don't know if you should listen to the interpretation, if there is one available, because I am not certain whether or not you are following the intonation of all the questions.

Mr Ngubane, will you proceed, we will see if helps a little if the interpretation assists him.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you. I am putting to you sir, that you are telling this story differently because you are not coming out clean on what happened. You are trying to tailor your evidence.

MR DU PREEZ: Could you repeat please.

MR NGUBANE: I am putting to you that you are contradicting yourself precisely because you are not coming out clean as to what happened regarding this incident. You are tailoring your evidence to agree with the story of the other applicants, which also is fabricated, which is not a full disclosure of what happened.

MR DU PREEZ: That is not true Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: I am putting it to you that you killed these people out of spite, there was no reason why you should kill them, the kwaMashu 3?

MR DU PREEZ: That is not true.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NGUBANE

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRIOR: I have a few aspects, thank you. Mr Du Preez, in the case of terrorists who were caught with weapons, what was the possibilities except for the elimination or killing of them, you could have detained them, is that not true?

MR DU PREEZ: It was not a decision in this case.

ADV PRIOR: No, I am talking now in general. You could have detained them, is that not true?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

ADV PRIOR: In terms of Section 29 or any other Section.

MR DU PREEZ: That is a possibility, yes.

ADV PRIOR: For how long before you charged them?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember at that stage, what it was.

ADV PRIOR: Was it months, weeks?

MR DU PREEZ: I think 30 days maybe.

ADV PRIOR: And you could get a new certificate and still detain that person?

MR DU PREEZ: No, it wasn't very easy.

ADV PRIOR: And the fact that they were in possession of limpet mines, you could successfully charge them? There were direct evidence against them, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Not what I believed.

ADV PRIOR: Let us leave the decision to eliminate them out of this. You could if you wanted to, charge them under whatever legislation and continue with a successful prosecution?

MR DU PREEZ: At that stage I did not think that it would be the case.

ADV PRIOR: You found three limpet mines in a carrier bag, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRIOR: You said that you did not trust that evidence. I am talking in general, Mr Du Preez, it is not a trick question.

If they were charged, would they have been found guilty?

MR DU PREEZ: Possibly yes.

ADV PRIOR: And at least five years?

MR DU PREEZ: That is possible.

ADV PRIOR: And effectively would be taken out of circulation through this method, on the basis of that?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRIOR: Exactly the same with Nxiweni, he was found with weapons and explosives in a trunk in his house?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

ADV PRIOR: Is it not the case that the decision was made a long time before they were arrested, and that is to kill them?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

ADV PRIOR: With the release of Nxiweni and Bhila in 1987, according to the amnesty application of Mr Rosslee, bundle 1, Mr Rosslee put it as follows, page 24 of that bundle, although it is being denied, but I am going to question you about this and present you with a probability.

We Mr Wasserman of the local Security Branch. He told us that two of the accused in the Toti bomb blast criminal trial, had been acquitted, but was still continuing their subversive actions, that our task was to arrest them for purposes of elimination.

We know that that reference there is about a period after the Ramlakan case and the release of Bhila and Nxiweni?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

ADV PRIOR: I would like to put it to you and it seems out of Rosslee's initial application, that at that stage in 1987, a decision was made to those who were referred to wrongly in the Toti case, was the Ramlakan incident, and that they had to be killed at that stage, will you agree with me?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I heard that in evidence.

ADV PRIOR: Was that the case?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I cannot comment on that.

ADV PRIOR: The name Pindele Mfeti, is it known to you?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

ADV PRIOR: The questions that I put to your colleagues, you heard it?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: Have you got any comment or can you maybe assist us in that regard?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

ADV PRIOR: Is it possible that you at one stage in April 1987 rather than Nxiweni, abducted the wrong person?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Why do you say that?

MR DU PREEZ: Because I did not pick a man up before that.

MR MALAN: No, I do not think that they refer to you, they refer to the unit?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I do not know about a person that was picked up.

MR MALAN: The question was is it a possibility?

MR DU PREEZ: I do not think that it is possible, that a person would be wrongly abducted.

MR MALAN: Did you have any knowledge of Bhila's abduction and elimination?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I did not.

MR MALAN: Why is it not possible that you would not have any knowledge of that attempt to eliminate Nxiweni?

MR DU PREEZ: I have not heard anything like that.

MR MALAN: But you haven't heard about Bhila?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Is it possible that there was such an attempt?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, it is possible.

MR MALAN: Is it possible that the wrong person was picked up?

MR DU PREEZ: It is possible.

ADV PRIOR: During the Ramlakan hearing and also the investigation thereof, mention was made of a Taylor unit, the Allan Taylor unit, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: During Ramlakan?

ADV PRIOR: Yes, Nxiweni had ties with that unit, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is.

ADV PRIOR: Can you remember who else were members of that unit, that is now during the Ramlakan hearing?

MR DU PREEZ: I remember that there was a person named Chichanzi and I cannot remember the other person.

ADV PRIOR: Was there another person?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, there was.

ADV PRIOR: Do you agree that that unit broke away after the arrests, or disbanded completely, they did not exist, because of the Ramlakan charges?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

ADV PRIOR: And that was also the information that you had?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRIOR: The whole organisation was infiltrated to such an manner as we heard and that the information received, was of good quality?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, it was.

ADV PRIOR: In 1988, what was the information that you had concerning the Allan Taylor unit? Did it still exist?

MR DU PREEZ: At that stage Nxiweni, there were two other members with him.

ADV PRIOR: Who were they?

MR DU PREEZ: I tried to remember their names. I did know their names Mr Chairperson, but I cannot remember at this stage.

ADV PRIOR: They were not your informants?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

ADV PRIOR: What happened to them according to the information that you have?

MR DU PREEZ: The two people were taken back by bus to the Transkei after Pumeso's elimination.

ADV PRIOR: Just a moment Mr Chairperson. Mr Chairman, may I place something on record, to correct a statement of fact that was put to, I think, Colonel Botha. I don't have any more questions of this witness.

If the Committee will recall Exhibit H was tendered and I had indicated that these were notes made or preparatory notes made in the course of an investigation. A lot of the information had not been corroborated.

It was then put to Mr Botha and some of the others that Pila Portia Ndwandwe had remained in attendance at the Ramlakan trial, which conflicted with the applicants' version, that she had left the country in 1986. I have subsequently been able to confirm that in fact, she left the Republic in October of 1986, which means that she was not present at the Ramlakan trial, as was suggested to the witness.

I thought it necessary to place that on record Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRIOR

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes, I thank my learned friend Mr Chairman, not that I believe that there was really a big point turning around it, but we thank him for his honesty.

Mr Chairman, I have one question this time by way of exception, in re-examination. I might deal with it immediately, unless the Committee has questions to this witness, in which event, we will stand down till tomorrow.

Well, then may I deal with the one question Mr Chairman. Mr Du Preez, one easily thinks that if one arrests someone, take him to court and he is charged or put into jail for a period of time, that he would have no influence in the community, is that true?

MR DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Why do you say that is not true?

MR DU PREEZ: I think if we can just look at the ANC leaders at Robben Island and the influence they had on the organisation.

MR VISSER: In your experience, is it that messages were sent in and out of jail?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: And that instructions were given from out of jail?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR VISSER: Not just in our country, but all across the world?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, it is the general experience.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

It is quarter past three Mr Chairman, I hope your dentist is going to be waiting for you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: No, my turn is half past.

MR VISSER: Oh, I thought 3 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: No, half past. Do you want to start another witness, or do you want to finish early?

MR VISSER: We can start another witness, yes Mr Chairman.

ADV PRIOR: May I suggest that we take the adjournment now, we have one last witness, Mr Chairman. By all accounts, we should be finished with the evidence tomorrow as a whole, so we are ahead of schedule. If we call a witness now, he is going to stand over, we are not going to finish any of the cross-examination.

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman, I would go along with that.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS