SABC News | Sport | TV | Radio | Education | TV Licenses | Contact Us

Amnesty Hearings


Starting Date 10 May 1999


Day 10

MR VISSER: The next witness is Mr Pretorius. I beg leave to hand up to you his statement which will be X I will imagine.


ANTON PRETORIUS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Pretorius you are an applicant in the matter which has to do with Miss Simelane.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that's correct.

MR VISSER: Your amnesty application appears in Bundle 2, page 435 to 547. Do you confirm the content thereof as true and correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that's correct.

MR VISSER: You have Exhibit A, which you have studied, is that correct? That is the general background document.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that's correct.

MR VISSER: Is the content thereof also applicable to you?


MR VISSER: And you request that the Amnesty Committee take this into consideration when they evaluate your amnesty application along with the evidence that has been mentioned in that document?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: You also request that the Amnesty Committee incorporate the evidence in the applications of the other applicants when they consider your application?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: In Bundle 2 on page 464 to 467 you have given the same background as Mr Coetzee with regard to the current incident, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: It is then fair to say that you and your evidence, indeed your affidavit which has been served to the Committee in most aspects are similar to the affidavit compiled by Mr Coetzee, what can we ascribe that to?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson because Mr Coetzee and I were together most of the time and were involved in the same actions.

MR VISSER: Yes. And for how long did you work together before 1983?

MR PRETORIUS: From 1981, November 1981 if I am correct I was stationed at Soweto Security Branch.

MR VISSER: So by 1983, September 1983 you had been there for almost two years and that was when you worked with Mr Coetzee?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that's correct.

MR VISSER: And do you agree with his evidence regarding what your task was in the Intelligence Unit?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes I agree.

MR VISSER: And you also agree with the classes of informers and RS members to which he referred. You reiterate that in paragraph 2 of your document.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: And can we then say on a global level that paragraphs 3, 4, or at least 3 and 4 along with 5, 6, 7 are confirmed by you?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes I confirm that.

MR VISSER: And you are also familiar with - I beg your pardon did somebody say something?

You were also familiar with the informer SWT66?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Were you also one of her handlers?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes I was a co-handler.

MR VISSER: And did you also have information at your disposal regarding the agent who was supposed to come in, or at least the courier that was supposed to come in from MK in Swaziland to Soweto?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson if I recall correctly Mr Coetzee informed me that he had already spoken to the informer and that that was the information. I wasn't personally present there.

MR VISSER: Very well and you were not present when a discussion took place between Coetzee and Muller before the action against her?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct I was not present.

MR VISSER: However there was a meeting in which certain things were said.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And it boiled down to the fact that Mkhonza would meet the courier in the Carlton Centre on Saturday which we believe to have been somewhere in September 1983?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that's correct.

MR VISSER: At the meeting Coetzee told you what was decided and what the action would be, whether there would be an arrest and so forth.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And what did he say had been decided by Brigadier Muller?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson he told all of us who were present that it was going to be a grab action along with an abduction.

MR VISSER: So it was going to be an abduction?


MR VISSER: And that would be an illegitimate act because one would either have to arrest someone and prosecute them or detain them in terms of legislation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that's correct.

MR VISSER: And it wouldn't have been either one of the two?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: I beg your pardon Mr Chairperson I keep on hearing reverberations from the back and I have just requested for the lady behind me to turn the volume down somewhat.

Thus the idea was that it was going to be a turning action and you knew that this was illegitimate and illegal?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes I was aware of that.

MR VISSER: However in your work you had to do with many turning actions, not so?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: And turning actions were executed in terms of persons who were in legitimate detention in terms Section 29 of the Internal Security Act?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: And the person would appear to cooperate and that is when you would go through with a process of turning?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that is correct.

MR VISSER: And that would not necessarily be illegitimate?


MR VISSER: But in this case you went to arrest the person in order to turn her?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, the idea was to grab her and then to turn her.

MR VISSER: Was it important to undertake these turning actions which you applied to people?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes it was of immeasurable value.

MR VISSER: From which perspective?

MR PRETORIUS: From a global threat information perception the value of such information could, at that stage, not be measured at all. It was of immeasurable value.

MR VISSER: And without that you would not have been able to combat the revolutionary onslaught?

MR PRETORIUS: I don't believe so. Without information nobody would have been able to do anything.

MR VISSER: Can I take you to paragraph 7, page 7 paragraph 15 and can you just submit what appears on paragraph 15.


"On that particular day during

August/September 1983, I can no longer recall the precise date, movements of the said MK member were monitored by several members for the purpose of action as mentioned above. The members to which I have referred above were involved in the action and they were all aware that the action would ultimately indicate that an abduction was to take place".

MR VISSER: Please pause there. Mr Pretorius I know that we are discussing an incident that took place a number of years ago but can you tell us whether you can remember who was present during the meeting?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Coetzee, Mr Mong, Mr Ross ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Just a little bit slower please.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Ross, Mr Williams, Mr Mothiba, Selamolela, Radebe and Veyi.

MR VISSER: Well then I will leave it to my learned friend Mr Lamey to put questions to you regarding that.

Who were all involved in the action? Was it the same people or were any other people involved?

MR PRETORIUS: As far as I can recall all the people that I have mentioned were present. It may be possible that another member who I cannot recall was also present because our unit did not only consist of these members and there may have been another member. However I cannot place that person with this specific day.

MR VISSER: Would Strongman, for example, have been involved?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I can say in all honesty that this person was not present.

MR VISSER: I should have referred you to paragraph 10 at page 5 is where he mentioned the names. I am sorry I should have done that.

Proceed, paragraph 16 please.


"I might also mention furthermore that one could not always foresee or control all contingencies and that all of us were aware that things could go wrong if the MK member, for example, would open fire on us. And for that reason we took preventative measures to conduct the abduction in the parking area of the Carlton Centre where the risk of injury or death of members of the public could be restricted to a minimum.

Our orders from Lt Colonel Coetzee was to grab the MK member hard and quickly so that they would not have the opportunity to use a weapon or handgrenade. It was only after we saw the MK member in the company of Sergeant Mkhonza in a restaurant that we realised it was a woman".

MR VISSER: According to you that is not completely correct, you were not in the restaurant?

MR PRETORIUS: No I wasn't.

MR VISSER: Then how did you hear for the first time that the courier was a woman?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson as the witness before me has given evidence he came to inform me that the person had arrived but that it was a woman.

MR VISSER: Very well, he then returned he said.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes he had to return to his position from where he had to undertake observation.

MR VISSER: And gradually, you say in paragraph 18, Mkhonza and Simelane moved towards the parking area in the building.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And that is where she was grabbed.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: Who are the people who physically grabbed her?

MR PRETORIUS: It was me, Sergeant Radebe and Mr Coetzee.

MR VISSER: Very well proceed with paragraph 19.


"She attempted to resist. The grab action was consequently very firm. Some of the members overpowered her and pressed her against the ground. I can recall that Lt Col and Sergeant Radebe, as well as I were involved in this grab action. She was overpowered and in the process she was bruised and somewhat cut.

She was put into the boot of one of the vehicles with Constable Radebe and as planned we left for the Custodum apartments where we had an operational office in the servant's quarters on the roof above the 10th floor.

At the apartments we stopped at a place which was not within the public sight and Simelane was taken out of the boot of the vehicle in which she had been transported and placed on the back seat between me and Lt Col Coetzee in our vehicle. The reason she was brought to our vehicle was to give the other members the opportunity to ensure that the residents of the apartments would not see when she was to be taken into the building to the offices.

While we were waiting there in the vehicle for the return of the other members Lt Col Coetzee and I had the first opportunity to talk to her. We confronted her with individual facts regarding the Transvaal military machinery of which we knew. The objective with that was to lead her to believe that we had information regarding herself and her network which would render it senseless for her to resist.

She was very nervous and made certain admissions and confirmations to us. As a result of this reaction I was under the impression that she could possibly cooperate with us.

On page 471 of my amnesty application..."

MR VISSER: That is Bundle 2.

MR PRETORIUS: I meant to refer to the departure from where she was with us in the vehicle to the apartments and not from the Carlton Centre.

MR VISSER: It is not clear at what stage he refers to it. It may create the impression that before they left towards the flats from the Carlton Centre that he came to this conclusion. But in consultation it was quite clear that he meant that from where they were waiting at the flat, before they left to go into the building is when he got the impression. I now suddenly can't find it, but it's in here somewhere. But it's not a serious point.


MR PRETORIUS: Paragraph 25.

"During the stage when we arrived at the apartments W/O Ross and Captain Williams were no longer present. They departed from us after the abduction. In our operational office on the roof of Block B Simelane was interrogated. Once again she was confronted with facts regarding MK activities in Swaziland and she was brought under the impression that we knew everything about her and her activities.

I am aware that Lt Col Coetzee reported to Brigadier Muller that very same day and the further course of events were discussed, although I myself was not present.

According to Lt Col Coetzee it was decided during the negotiations with Brigadier Muller that the matter would be discussed with head office.

Shortly thereafter, and I believe that it was the Monday after the Saturday upon which she was abducted, Simelane was taken to a safe place (a farm in the northern district, north-west province). Here she was intermittently and sometimes jointly by myself, Lt Col Coetzee, W/O Mong and other black members interrogated.

As far as I can remember only the following members visited the farm and helped with her interrogation and reorientation. That was me, Lt Col Coetzee; W/O Mong; Sgt Lengene; Sgt Mothiba; Sgt Veyi and then the informer by the name of Strongman.

The interrogation and turning of Simelane went along with assaults which were committed on her. These assaults took place during the first week. The method of assaults was to hit her with a flat hand through her face; to punch her with a fist in the side and in the back; and to suffocate her by means of a bag which was used in prison cells, to pull the bag over her head until she began to gasp for breath. As far as any other method of assault is alleged by any of the other applicants I know nothing about that and I deny that this took place in my presence".

MR VISSER: Mr Pretorius we will return to paragraph 32; and we will ask you to take us back to the point where you were in the car, that's paragraph 23. Was Simelane assaulted in the motor vehicle while she was seated between you and Coetzee?


MR VISSER: Did you assault her?


MR VISSER: Who assaulted her?


MR VISSER: How did he assault her?

MR PRETORIUS: He slapped her.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us how many times or can you not recall that?

MR PRETORIUS: In all sincerity I cannot remember.

MR VISSER: Were these hard slaps?


MR VISSER: What was the purpose behind that?

MR PRETORIUS: It was to create a psychosis of fear within the person if I might put it that way.

MR VISSER: In other words the person was to cooperate?


MR VISSER: Very well. Let us return to paragraph 32. I beg your pardon, did you have the impression that she was material that could be used, that she could possibly be persuaded to cooperate?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson there in the vehicle I could literally see the fear in the eyes of the person. I could see that she was the type of person who would give her co-operation; that we would be able to persuade her.

MR VISSER: With regard to the assault which you describe in paragraph 32, did you apply any of those assaults to her yourself, those assaults which you described personally?


MR VISSER: Which assaults did you commit against her?

MR PRETORIUS: By slapping her with a flat hand against her face and head. By then punching her with my fist in her sides and on her back. And then I was also part of the suffocation action on the particular person.

MR VISSER: Was any electric shock device used?


MR VISSER: Were you - no, aware that there was any such device on the farm?

MR PRETORIUS: I didn't see anything like that and I wasn't aware of anything like that.

MR VISSER: Did you or anybody else in your presence kick her with the foot?

MR PRETORIUS: Not that I ever saw.

MR VISSER: Did you yourself do this?


MR VISSER: This assault undertaken by you, in paragraph 33, you say this also took place in the apartment where you held her on the Saturday and the Sunday. It was also there that you slapped her and you punched her in the back and in the sides?


MR VISSER: These assaults, how serious were they?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I believe that they were reasonably serious, because if one decided to use the suffocation action, it would definitely not have been games, it was a serious matter.

MR VISSER: So the action of suffocation would be an action of torture?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: Because the idea would be to hold the bag over her head until she could not longer breath and began to gasp for breath?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: And would she also have been injured, received bruises and wounds, not surface wounds but below the surface wounds, as a result of the slapping and punching?


MR VISSER: Can you proceed from paragraph 34.


"The assault on Simelane were committed with the objective of convincing her to co-operate with the Security Branch and to convince ourselves that she was being sincere in her co-operation."

MR VISSER: How necessary was it for you to be convinced that she was serious about her intention to co-operate? Was that an important aspect?

MR PRETORIUS: I think it was a very important aspect of the situation.

MR VISSER: Was that also then part of the reason why she was assaulted?


MR VISSER: To make dead sure that she would not be telling you half truths, but that you had her full co-operation?


MR VISSER: Very well, proceed.


"When a newly recruited informer is replaced in the system, they would have to be provided with certain information in order to establish communication channels with that person. In the process is was thus unavoidable that the identities of other informers and/or agents had to be revealed to this person. Should the person not be sincere, he would immediately have made known the identities of such informers and agents, which would have led to their certain death.

I deny that any shock apparatus was used on her, as testified by Selamolela in his amnesty application, bundle 3, page 567. I have no knowledge that Simelane was thrown into the dam by Radebe, as Selamolela testified in his amnesty application, bundle 3, page 567. All of us had to wash in the dam. I don't know if this is what he is referring to.

The allegation, bundle 3, page 567, that Simelane was so gravely assaulted that she was unrecognisable, is untrue. If he meant to say that her face was swollen during the first week of interrogation, I would admit it.

On the farm Simelane was interrogated by myself, Lieutenant Colonel Coetzee and Warrant Officer Mong. Some of the black members acts as interpreters. The method was to request her to write a statement which would explain her role and knowledge of MK activities. She was also requested to identify persons in photo albums. Warrant Officer Mong was primarily involved in this.

After that we removed aspects of her written statement and requested her to rewrite those parts. Should she then give other information regarding the same subjects or omit to identify people in the photo albums, whom we knew she ought to have been able to identify, she would be assaulted.

During her period of detention and interrogation she exposed MK structures and functioning within and outside Swaziland. Me and the other white members were obliged to do follow-up work regarding information which we received from Simelane. Sometimes only black members were present with her.

During the period of time during which Simelane was detained on the farm, I was involved in the arrest of terrorists on the basis of information which was received from Simelane. Examples hereof would be a certain MK, Mpho, bundle 2, page 276. I'm in possession of photographs where MK Mpho was photographed with weaponry, in possession of which he was found during arrest.

Information given by Simelane led directly or indirectly to the fact that we arrested 18 persons after her return to Swaziland. Among others, Justice Mafa Ngide, MK Cheche and Jabu Ngobese.

Simelane's orders from MK was to convey three target identifications to the agents, Sergeant Mkhonza and the deceased, Sergeant Langa. In order to protect her and to prevent that the ANC becomes suspicious because she had spent so much time away, those three targets were attacked by us. These three targets were the following:

The Fairlands Power Substation;

The Bryanston North Power Substation in Sandton and;

The main railway line between Johannesburg and Natal."

MR VISSER: Do I understand you correctly, Mr Pretorius, you began with a turning action which went along with coercion, which was applied to her by means of assaults?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Initially you were under the impression that she could possibly co-operate?


MR VISSER: Did you reach a point where it became obvious that she had begun to co-operate with the police and that she would be prepared to do so in future?


MR VISSER: When did you yourself come to that conclusion? Where do you think this took place, that you could say we're not wasting our time, it would appear that she is going to co-operate?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I might explain it as follows, and I hope I'm doing so correctly, it would be that since our arrival upon the farm, or at least with every day that this particular person was in our presence she began to speak more and more open-heartedly with us and began to expose more and more MK activities to us and every day there were better signs that this person would work with us, with every day that we spent with her.

If I can get closer to a period of time when we were absolutely certain that we were on the right track with her, it would be between the second and the third week.

MR VISSER: So you say that this was a gradual process and that between the second and the third week you were at least convinced that she was going to co-operate?


MR VISSER: She gave information to you?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: And you re referring to operations which are mentioned in paragraph 46, the Fairlands and Bryanston North Power Substations and the main railway line between Johannesburg and Natal. These actions were executed by the South African Police?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: And with regard to the main railway line between Johannesburg and Natal, who was involved in this?

MR PRETORIUS: I was under the impression that the South African Railway Police at that stage had undertaken the operation.

MR VISSER: This false operation?


MR VISSER: Was the main railway line indeed damaged or what was the situation?

MR PRETORIUS: Negative. If I might just elaborate. The newspaper report which appeared the following day in the media did state that the main railway line between Johannesburg and Natal had been damaged, but the initial order as I understood it, for the South African Railway Police, would be that they would damage a sideline.

MR VISSER: So this was misinformation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: With regard to C?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, with regard to C.

MR VISSER: Were you at, or involved in the Fairlands or Bryanston Power Substation matters?

MR PRETORIUS: I was personally involved in the Bryanston North Power Substation in Sandton.

MR VISSER: And who was there?

MR PRETORIUS: On the scene it was me and the deceased, Sergeant Langa.

MR VISSER: And you were not involved in the explosion of the Fairlands Power Substation?


MR VISSER: With regard to your share in this false flag operation in bundle 2, on page 256, you have filed an amnesty application.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR VISSER: Now what was the result of these explosions? If you could refer to paragraph 48.

MR PRETORIUS: These explosions were necessary for us to let them take place, because Simelane had brought the order from Swaziland, that the agents, although they didn't know who the agents were, at least their units were to go ahead with the explosions.

MR VISSER: Which explosions are you referring to? The ones that Simelane spoke of.

MR PRETORIUS: Well she only brought the order and said: "The time is right, you must continue and execute the orders as they have been given to you from Swaziland".

MR VISSER: Very well. And how did you know that it was the Fairlands Power Substation and the Bryanston North Power Substation, as well as the main railway line between Johannesburg and Natal?

MR PRETORIUS: Before Simelane's arrest, Sergeant Mkhonza had been in Swaziland with the particular MK machinery. Mr Mkhonza was in Swaziland before the arrest of the particular person and in Swaziland he was in the presence of the relevant MK military machinery and that is where they discussed future military targets with him. So Sergeant Mkhonza knew exactly what the targets were about in South Africa.

MR VISSER: Paragraph 48, the second sentence.


"The explosions served to divert any suspicion from them because they were supposed to be involved with the attacks."

MR VISSER: This is now Mkhonza and Langa?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson. To finish the paragraph

"In other words, this also strengthened their credibility.

The recruitment of Simelane also took place along or over a period of several days. We had to be sure that her information was correct. We had to satisfy ourselves that she was indeed honest in her indication that she would work with the SAP."

MR VISSER: We know why you did it, it was to get the information from this person and to cross-control this information with information that already existed.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was this done in her case?

MR PRETORIUS: Several times, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And did this satisfy you that you were getting a full disclosure from her?

MR PRETORIUS: Towards the end, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Continue with paragraph 50.


"Approximately two weeks before she was placed back into Swaziland, we were satisfied that she was recruited. She was then also recruited as an opportunity source with the Soweto Security Branch."

MR VISSER: Can you recall her number?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Very well.


"It happened during her presence on the farm. Mr Coetzee registered her with himself and I as her handlers. With Simelane's accommodation and reorientation on the farm, her personal needs were seen to on a continual basis, toiletries, food, new clothing and others to ensure her co-operation with us."

MR VISSER: This was after you were satisfied that she was recruited?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Please continue.


"Not all the members were continually on the farm. All of us, two at a time had a chance to look after her. All the while at night she was chained with the leg-irons and handcuffs so that she could not escape. The environment there was quite thick."

MR VISSER: So could one get away very easily?

MR PRETORIUS: If you were away for two meters at night, nobody would have been able to find you again.

MR VISSER: Please continue.


"Mr Coetzee and I spent a few nights on the farm. Sergeant Mothiba and Strongman spent most of their time on the premises."

MR VISSER: Give us an idea, according to your recollection, how many nights did you spend there during these four or five weeks? Can you recall?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, unfortunately I cannot tell you exactly how many nights. It is indeed so that with the first week I was there for a reasonable time. Afterwards with several follow-up actions, I was busy with follow-up actions and I can quote certain actions where I went to the border of Swaziland with Sergeant Mong and so forth. This was a movement in and out. Towards the end I spent more time on the farm, but it would be a maximum of two nights at a time that I was present on the farm, Chairperson, that I can recall.

MR VISSER: Please continue.

MR PRETORIUS: I'm not sure which paragraph.

MR VISSER: You completed 53, you can go on with 54. What did you say?


"After completion of other outstanding aspects and structuring of an operational programme and the indication of the handling group and the amendments of future communication, she was placed back in Swaziland."

MR VISSER: I have to interrupt you again, Mr Pretorius. Mr Coetzee gave evidence as to what the detail or some of the detail this entailed. Can you recall what this entailed? Did you know anything of Mr Duma Nkosi?

MR PRETORIUS: I can recall the name, Duma Nkosi. I remember the name, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Any of these strategies which you mentioned here, do you recall the detail thereof?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, we realised that she was out of circulation for quite some time and there were certain points, if I could say that, that was to our advantage.

I think the first one which was the most important was the fact that she was sent into South Africa by a group of MK people who were not supposed to send her in. In other words, we knew exactly that we could exploit this point. In other words, to cause confusion in any explanation which she could give and that could be used.

Secondly, we realised that the passport and her clothing was on Mr Nkosi's premises and we could not afford to send her back to Mr Nkosi's house because this would be fatal and that is why Mr Coetzee developed some legend surrounding Mr Duma Nkosi, that she suspected that Mr Nkosi had worked for the South African Police. I don't know if that explanation is sufficient.

MR VISSER: Very well. And of course there were the false flag operations?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, we were always busy with false flag operations.

MR VISSER: Which would add credibility to Simelane, as I understand?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Very well. Continue at paragraph 55.


"Sergeant Mothiba and Sergeant Langa were directly responsible for the transport of Simelane to Swaziland. Only myself, Coetzee, Sergeant Mothiba and Sergeant Langa arranged the final arrangements surrounding Sbongile's handling."

MR VISSER: Do you agree with Mr Coetzee, that her direct contact person in Swaziland would be Sergeant Langa?

MR PRETORIUS: To meet him there, that's correct.

MR VISSER: And arrangements were made for such meetings and what would happen if a meeting did not take place?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: So you concur with Mr Coetzee's evidence in this instance?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And in paragraph 57 you mention this.


"An agreed rendezvous point was established with Simelane, but she never met anybody at these rendezvous points and we had to accept that something had happened to her. At some stage our information indicated that some of our RS agents and informers were identified by the ANC/MK in Swaziland, and this led to the fact that they had to be withdrawn."

MR VISSER: When was this?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir if I - it could have been a few months after Simelane was placed back, a month or two. I cannot recall exactly.

MR VISSER: Was this in 1983, according to your recollection or was it possibly later? Can you not remember?

MR PRETORIUS: If I could offer an explanation ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: No, I would just like to know if you can recall.

MR PRETORIUS: No, I cannot remember exactly.

MR VISSER: Very well. Continue with paragraph 59.


"Insofar as it is suggested by Mr X, that Simelane was murdered by us, this is untrue."

MR VISSER: And the evidence as it was put by my learned friend, Mr Lamey, is that this Mr X is Mr Veyi, who spoke to reporters from the Sowetan. He told him that this information he received from Mothiba. Are you aware that Mothiba would have conveyed this to Mr Veyi?

MR PRETORIUS: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And if he did convey such a message, do you know anything of the fact that Ms Simelane was killed by members of the police?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, I deny that.

MR VISSER: And paragraph 59, what do you say is your conviction, the second sentence?


"Insofar as it was suggested that Mr X said that Simelane was murdered by us, it is untrue. It is my conviction that she was killed by her own MK comrades. And I am informed that in the ANC's submission to the TRC, they admitted that they had killed some of their own members. Several murders and attempted murders amongst the ranks of the MK members in the early '80's abroad is well known.

In the Sowetan of 15 February 1995, there was an article regarding Umkhonto weSizwe member, Nokuthula Simelane. In her case it is clear that MK members who were dealing with her gave ambiguous answers to her parents.

The acts and omissions which I am guilty of, I had done in the execution of my official duty and as part of the opposition of the struggle, and it was aimed at supporters of the liberation movement. What I had done, I had done in order to protect the government and the National Party, and to oppose the revolutionary onslaught."

MR VISSER: Please continue.

MR PRETORIUS: I humbly request that amnesty be granted to me for my actions and omissions in this regard, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: This would be abduction, unlawful arrest and detention of Ms Simelane. If we could have regard to page 2. Her assault and torture to which you were part, conspiracy and accessory to abduction and any other deed which may emanate from any other evidence led here.

Mr Pretorius, before we conclude your evidence, may I just ask you, Mr Veyi, Nimrod Veyi, in Exhibit S on page 6, paragraph 8 - this is Exhibit S on page 11. I see it is written by hand, Mr Chairman. Paragraph 8, he says that he spoke to Mothiba and that he said that Coetzee and Pretorius, that's yourself, would have shot Ms Simelane and killed her and had buried her in Rustenburg. You already said that you deny that.

And then he says he had forgotten to mention that on the farm at Northum there was a Constable Patrick Kobe, K-O-B-E, and he says that this is the person who is currently stationed at the taxi unit in Heidelberg. Do you know a Constable Kobe?

MR PRETORIUS: I do, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was he a member of the Intelligence Unit that had worked with you?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was he on the farm, as far as you remember?

MR PRETORIUS: As far as I recall he was not there, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Mr Selamolela, through his legal representative put it to Mr Coetzee here that - maybe I am mistaken, it is on page 568 of bundle 3, Mr Chairman, paragraph 8 he says that he was withdrawn at some day on the farm and this was the last time when he saw Ms Simelane, but he can remember that he told him that you would lock her up, as in a prison. And he says that he thought that you would take her to a police station.

Now firstly, can you recall a conversation with Selamolela where you told him that you would lock up Simelane?

MR PRETORIUS: Negative, Chairperson, I cannot remember this.

MR VISSER: Now if it is so that you did tell him, and as you sit here today and think back and think about this turning situation, would it be strange if you had told him this?

MR PRETORIUS: I don't think so, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Why not?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, at that stage she was regarded as an informer and it was not necessary for Mr Selamolela to know that she was an informer and what type of work she would be doing for us.

MR VISSER: You - in cross-questioning, certain aspects were touched upon with regard to the transport of her from the farm. Can you please say who transported her away from the farm?

MR PRETORIUS: As far as I know it was Mr Mong and Mr Mothiba.

MR VISSER: And where did they take her to?

MR PRETORIUS: To Potchefstroom, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Were you there in Potchefstroom?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I was, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What did you do there?

MR PRETORIUS: I attended a meeting with Mr Coetzee, at that time the Divisional Commander of Security Western Transvaal.

MR VISSER: Did you see Simelane again that day after the meeting?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Where was this?

MR PRETORIUS: What I can recall is, Chairperson, it was in Potchefstroom or close to the industrial area of Potchefstroom.

MR VISSER: And what did you do there?

MR PRETORIUS: We received her there, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: If you say "we" or "us"?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, it was Mr Coetzee and I. We received her from Mr Mong and Mr Mothiba.

MR VISSER: She was taken to the car and placed in the car?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: In front or at the back?

MR PRETORIUS: In the back seat, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did she sit down or was she lying down?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Coetzee asked her to lie down.

MR VISSER: Was she cuffed when you received her?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What was she wearing?

MR PRETORIUS: If I can recall correctly it was the clothing which I had, which we had bought for her, but I cannot remember what type of clothing.

MR VISSER: But what I want to know is, was she wearing a brown police uniform?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And from Potchefstroom, or from the time that you loaded her into the vehicle, where did she go to?

MR PRETORIUS: Just outside the town of Potchefstroom we met Sergeant Langa.

MR VISSER: And then?

MR PRETORIUS: And we handed Simelane over to him and Mr Coetzee gave them instructions to have final a discussion and get their story together, to sort out things with each other. And then at some later stage the same day we would meet with them close to Soweto.

MR VISSER: Did you agree on a place?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was it along the road?

MR PRETORIUS: It was just along the road, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And was there such a meeting?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Were you present?


MR VISSER: Were final arrangements with Langa and Simelane made?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: By Mr Coetzee?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you also participate?

MR PRETORIUS: I believe that I would also have spoken, Chairperson, but Mr Coetzee was the chief speaker in this regard, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And what happened afterwards to Simelane?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I think this was the last day that I saw Simelane. Mr Langa and Simelane and Sergeant Mothiba drove away from there to the Eastern Transvaal.

MR VISSER: Did you ever afterwards hear what had happened to her?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: What do you think had happened to her?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, something might have gone wrong. That is the suspicion I have. Something must have gone wrong in Swaziland and that the explanations which she had given to her commanders did not work, may not have worked,

MR VISSER: And that what had happened to her then?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I can mention many instances. The strategy of the MK at that stage was if a person was under suspicion, that person would be taken away from that neighbouring State to Angola or to Zambia, depending on the circumstances of that person.

MR VISSER: There was evidence, or it was put here that because of the relationship between Duma Nkosi and Mpho in Swaziland, the was story that she worked out in his instance would not have worked. Were you aware thereof that this story would not have worked when you had thought up this cover story?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You thought it would work?

MR PRETORIUS: We believed that it would work, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you know that Mr Duma Nkosi was indeed, a day or two after the abduction of Simelane he reported the fact that she disappeared to MK in Swaziland?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: With regard to the assaults, you said it was during the first week, and after the first week were there any other assaults?

MR PRETORIUS: If I refer to the first week's assaults, then I refer to the serious types of assaults which we used. And we also used the suffocating method and after the first week when there was some conflict or when we felt that Simelane was lying to us, or she did not speak in a manner that we believed she should speak, she would receive one or two slaps or a few punches in the side. She would receive that.

MR VISSER: So you say those assaults were not very serious?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: But the first ones were?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you ever personally enquire anywhere to find out what had happened to Simelane? And I'm not talking about enquiries in Swaziland, but maybe at the other Security Branches.

MR PRETORIUS: If I may put it in the following, Chairperson, it would have been very strange to make such enquiries. And if I can offer an explanation as to how the system worked at that stage, which may shed some light on what we believed, it is that all information that was received by the security was fed into a system. There was the old telex system at that stage, that normal reports were circulated. Mr Coetzee and myself studied all intelligence from all over the country that was received. Our information ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: May I interrupt here. In these reports which you received after this, was there any reference as to what may have happened to Ms Simelane?

MR PRETORIUS: I did not encounter anything like this, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You are also aware that Mr Mkhonza was placed in plaster-of-paris as a cover story for him, as to why he allegedly did not meet with Simelane.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, this was the first time my memory was jogged here yesterday ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Please excuse me, I have led you now and I have made a mistake, that was Mr Coetzee. What do you know of this plaster-of-paris?

MR PRETORIUS: I can recall such an incident, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: So you do not deny that it did happen?

MR PRETORIUS: I can recall something to that effect, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Mr Coetzee has given evidence with regard to an agreement with Simelane, did you know anything of that?

MR PRETORIUS: I've lost you there for a second, can you repeat please.

MR VISSER: Mr Coetzee has given evidence that, or with effect to some agreement which was made with Simelane with regard to the disclosure of the fact that she would be a source of informant.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I can recall personally where Simelane at some point said to me that she was worried that so many black colleagues of ours knew of her presence there and knew her and this is what worried her. I would believe that she - I cannot specifically or I was not specifically present where she and Mr Coetzee discussed this, but I can recall that she personally told me that she was worried why so many black members were present there.

MR VISSER: Was a decision given taken and an undertaking given to her that the recruitment of her as an informer would be covered up from the black members?

MR PRETORIUS: From some of them, yes.

MR VISSER: Specifically not Mothiba?

MR PRETORIUS: No, he was part of us.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey, any questions?


Mr Pretorius, before the incident of Simelane, at how many turning actions were you involved, or your unit or yourself?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot exactly remember how many turning actions we were involved in, there was a reasonable number.

MR LAMEY: So you were involved in several instances. CHAIRPERSON: And with women, women whom you turned?

MR PRETORIUS: There were a few.

CHAIRPERSON: Before this?

MR PRETORIUS: Before the Simelane incident.


MR PRETORIUS: It's SWT66 to which we referred, this was a turning action, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: A similar incident where you tortured a person?

MR PRETORIUS: No, no, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It was not necessary.

MR PRETORIUS: No, that was very easy, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you speak to her there?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I was not present when she was arrested with her entrance from Swaziland and she was in possession of an F1 defensive handgrenade.

CHAIRPERSON: SWT66 was also a trained MK member.

MR PRETORIUS: I could say so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't have to assault her?

MR PRETORIUS: No, she gave us her total co-operation right from the start.

CHAIRPERSON: Without any assault?

MR PRETORIUS: Without any assault, Mr Chairperson.


MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

With previous turning actions, can you recall or do you know if other black members were involved?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, definitely, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall if Mr Veyi and Mr Selamolela were present with other turning actions?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: In this Simelane instance, according to you Mr Veyi and Mr Selamolela, and I refer specifically to them as my clients and as part of the black members of the group, they knew of the purpose of the exercise, whether before or during this action, that it would be a turning action.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I could say, I was also informed just like them. If I could refer to the first day, the specific Saturday, Mr Veyi and Selamolela just like me was informed that we would abduct this person to turn her.

MR LAMEY: Let's take you back to the list of names. At a meeting you specifically referred to Mr Selamolela and Mr Veyi, are you sure of their presence there?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Why are you so sure?

MR PRETORIUS: Because I can remember them.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but one can place someone at a scene, but that you can made a bona fide mistake about it. Is it possible that you are mistaken?

MR PRETORIUS: I don't think that I am making a mistake with Veyi and Selamolela.

MR LAMEY: With certain previous turning actions where your other members were also involved, can you give us a list of names in each of these situations, who were present there? Can you give us a complete list of who was there?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if the Honourable Sir could mention a specific operation, then I could give him a list as to who was ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: How many turning actions were you and your members of the unit involved with?

MR PRETORIUS: No, it's impossible for me, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Are you able to say with all those instances of abduction and turning, where you can't even mention the number, who all the members were who in each instance were present?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, this particular Sir is talking about a wide spectrum. I can mention the Lengene incident which was a year before that. I can remember with certainty who was present there. Mr Selamolela was personally present there, in the Lengene matter.

MR LAMEY: If you cannot recall at how many turning actions you were involved with, how can you say with certainty who were all present at these turning actions?

MR PRETORIUS: It's very easy. This was an extraordinary matter as well as the Lengene matter, which I also applied for amnesty for. It is indeed so that there are some things which one could remember of in one instance than in another instance.

MR LAMEY: What makes this matter so specific?

MR PRETORIUS: This was an abduction, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And the others?

MR PRETORIUS: The others were not abductions.

MR LAMEY: So how did you turn the others' heads?

MR PRETORIUS: I've already mentioned SWT66. She came into the country and was caught in possession of an F1 handgrenade. The choice was put to her: "We will charge you or you co-operate with us". In some cases it was literally just that easy.

MR LAMEY: With regard to this turning question of Simelane, you said she was worried about the presence of certain black members.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: When did she voice this concern?

MR PRETORIUS: I would say this was after the first week, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: With regard to certain black members?

MR PRETORIUS: My words were that she was worried that there were so many black members present. I can just add to this, in many instances the first thing - and I think your clients can testify to that, in many instances where they were present where persons were recruited, that in many instances they said they were scared of the black members because they could not trust them, they would rather talk to the white members.

MR LAMEY: Also in the past?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, such incidents did happen where they did not want to speak to other black members.

MR LAMEY: Are you talking about previous turning actions?


MR LAMEY: What did she say, she was concerned about the presence of black members or the amount of black members, or certain black members? What was her concern specifically?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, for any future agent or informant it was the greatest fear to be caught out, that he or she at that stage was working for the State. And it was indeed so that the more people - there's some idiom that says that one or two can keep a secret, but three cannot keep a secret, and it was applicable here. She was concerned as to why there were so many people and we were eat the phase where we had started with her recruitment and she was concerned that one of these members could turn around and say: "This is an informer ..." ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what she told you?

MR PRETORIUS: This was her concern, that one of the members, because ...

...(end of Side A of tape)

... evidence has been before the Commission that some of the members would come and go and they disappear for a few days and they come back again. If I was a person who was recruited, I would be very careful in such a situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what did she tell you?

MR PRETORIUS: She was concerned with the many members who came there. She did not want the black members to know that she was going to work with us.

CHAIRPERSON: So she was worried about the many members that came there.

MR PRETORIUS: Who came there, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What members, all the members?

MR PRETORIUS: No, she specifically referred to the black members.

CHAIRPERSON: So she said: "I am worried about all these black members that come here." What else did she say?

MR PRETORIUS: Then at that stage, Sir, we were recruiting her.

CHAIRPERSON: What else did she say?

MR PRETORIUS: That she felt that only specific people could work with her. What I can recall, Chairperson, is that this is the reason why Sergeant Mothiba, we told her that ...(indistinct) would take place in front of Sergeant Mothiba, not before the other members.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she satisfied?

MR PRETORIUS: She was satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: She agreed that Mr Mothiba can be present?


CHAIRPERSON: And what did she say about the others?

MR PRETORIUS: She never said anything to me which I can recall at this stage, just that she had this fear that she did not want the other members to know that she was in a recruitment programme with us.

CHAIRPERSON: She did not have anything specific against those persons?

MR PRETORIUS: She didn't say that to me, Chairperson.


MR LAMEY: Did you not tell her; "Listen all these members know and they were all informed at some briefing session before that you are being detained here for the purposes of turning you"? Did you not tell her this?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, what I can recall is that I told her that we are in a programme and that is why in my application I said that at the end there were less members present on the farm. We worked according to a system without creating any suspicion or antagonism with the other members, to phase them out from the firm so that only Mothiba could speak to her with regard to this turning action.

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me. What did she say about the Mozambican that was there?


CHAIRPERSON: She didn't have problems with him?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, Strongman's participation or involvement was, at the last stages he was used as I have said previously. He could speak English, but he could not interpret. He was only there as security guard and to help with the food, to help with the logistics of the place.

CHAIRPERSON: But he was present most on the farm.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he was like a guard.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. He was the person who was on the farm the most?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: She didn't have a problem with that?

MR PRETORIUS: She did not voice this to me, that she had a problem with Strongman, Chairperson.


MR LAMEY: Is that why Mr Mothiba was involved with the reorientation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he was the leading figure.

MR LAMEY: I'd just like to return. You did not answer this question for me properly. You did not tell her: "Listen, all the members who are here you can trust, I trust them and that is why they are part of the unit, they know that this is a turning action, they know who these cover persons in Swaziland were" and that there was nothing that she was to be concerned with? You did not tell her this?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I believe that I might have said this to her, that she need not be worried about the members who were all present there because if I had a concern, they would not be there. I would believe that I have told her further that: "We will out her handling programme with Mothiba and not with them", and that makes a big difference.

MR LAMEY: But despite these words that you spoke to her, you gave into her request that most of the black members be withdrawn when you were specifically busy with her reorientation, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I have lost you there, can you repeat.

MR LAMEY: Despite your conveyance to her and your putting her at ease, you complied with her request and had withdrawn most of the black members except for Mothiba, while you and Coetzee were busy with her reorientation, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I could explain it in the following way. What Mr Coetzee did was that he was in the position to arrange who had to stay at the farm and who did not have to be there. He made the arrangements. Then he would send this person this way and he'd call that person that way or send him back to Soweto. He made sure that Mothiba and himself, and at certain times I was also present, where we were alone with this person and the other members were not there.

MR LAMEY: This was when you were involved with the reorientation?


MR LAMEY: So it's correct what I am putting to you, that when, to comply with her request with regard to this concern of hers about the presence of most of these black members, you had withdrawn all the other members from sessions where reorientation was at hand?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry Mr Lamey. And at what point was this, week one, two, three?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I must make an estimation I would say from the third week.

MR LAMEY: Lengene, was he involved with that reorientation?

MR PRETORIUS: An incident which I recall very well with regard to Lengene, as I have said previously, Lengene in the same manner was not even a year before that brought from Botswana.

One day Lengene and I were present where we sat with her the whole day and Lengene had to explain to her that he was in a similar situation as her, that we orientated him to work for us and that he was working for us and he was now a police official and everything had changed. In other words I would like to say that Lengene had to be aware that we were turning her, because I was tasked to explain that process to her with Lengene, that nothing would happen to her if she worked with us because there was a person here who was in the same situation about a year ago.

MR LAMEY: Was Lengene also withdrawn later?


MR LAMEY: And Strongman, was he involved with the reorientation?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have said previously, Strongman did not play a role with anything with regard to the lady, how can I say, with regard to operational arrangements. He was there to watch her, to guide her, to safeguard the place. I would like to say he was the administrative logistical person, he had nothing to do with this action.

MR LAMEY: Was he not involved with the questioning and reorientation?

MR PRETORIUS: Not that I can recall, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you please have a look at paragraph 30 of your exhibit? There you have a list of names and you say

"As far as I can remember only the following members were involved with her reorientation ..."

And then you say:

"... Lengene, Mothiba, Veyi and Strongman."

My concern is Veyi and that is why I'm asking you, is this list correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I had said there, members who visited the farm and helped with her reorientation. I did not give a definite division as to who did what. The question was whether Strongman had helped with the reorientation, and my answer is "no".

MR LAMEY: But you mentioned him in the list.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, as a person who visited the farm.

MR LAMEY: This has nothing to do with the visit to the farm, this has to do with the reorientation and there is a list there. It doesn't stop at the farm visit.

MR PRETORIUS: This is how I saw it there.

MR LAMEY: But it is not said there that he visited the farm just to guard the people, this is with the objectivity and reorientation of the person.

MR PRETORIUS: He was not involved with the reorientation.

MR LAMEY: But that is what I want to know.

MR PRETORIUS: And that is why I say, the paragraph may create the wrong impression, that I may have faulted in putting it in this context.

MR LAMEY: Well I would like to tell you if you're at fault with this list of names, you may as well be wrong with the previous list of names where this, at this meeting where this turning action was conveyed to Veyi and Selamolela.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I stick to the list of names of persons who were there and I said there might have been other persons who may have been present, these are the people whom I can remember that were present.

MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr Veyi and Selamolela are that they did periodically, as you say, visit the farm, left, went back. Their impression from their observation and their inferences that they draw is that during the questioning, as late as the fourth or fifth week was that the person, it was not a turning action, it was an interrogation, an intensive interrogation which was accompanied by assaults to draw information from an MK person who would not give her co-operation.

MR PRETORIUS: That is not correct, Chairperson, that person gave her co-operation. I did not hold her hand when she wrote that information for us, she did it on her own.

MR LAMEY: I would like to return to the false flag operations, the explosions at the power stations. Can you tell us what Simelane's role here was?

MR PRETORIUS: Basically she brought the message that they could continue with the explosions as it was discussed by them.

MR LAMEY: Who is "they"?

MR PRETORIUS: This is Sergeant Mkhonza and Sergeant Langa.

MR LAMEY: She brought a message that they had to continue with the explosions?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: When did she convey this, was it during the interrogation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: It was not said before by Mkhonza, for example, that he would meet Simelane with the purpose that she would bring some message or give some instructions with regard to planned actions by MK?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, Mr Mkhonza knew, they knew that there was person on the way with a message with regard to ...(no further interpretation)

MR LAMEY: Mr Mkhonza says his instructions from Mpho, the MK commander in Swaziland, was that he would be the person and this person would hand over certain information to her. He didn't know whether it was soft material or hard material or whether it was information or whatever.

MR PRETORIUS: Did the gentleman say that Mpho conveyed these messages? I missed the first bit. Do you say Mpho said so or do you say ...(no further interpretation)

MR LAMEY: I said, Mkhonza will say that the MK in Swaziland gave him instructions that the person would be met, who would be Simelane, and later that she would hand over certain information to him.

MR PRETORIUS: That statement is only halfway correct. If I can recall, Mkhonza reported back that in Swaziland, he was with his MK commanders in Swaziland and that he told him that a courier would come in. They did not tell him that it would be a man or a woman. If they told him it was a woman, then he did not give us all the information.

MR LAMEY: Can I just stop you right there? My instructions are that he may have said it to Coetzee, that is a woman, he knew it was a woman.

MR PRETORIUS: I did not know that he told Coetzee it was a woman, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you know that she would hand over certain material to him?

MR PRETORIUS: ... if the instructions included some material, I don't know, Chairperson, if it was any terrorist matters or whatever.

MR LAMEY: It would appear from our bundle that the section pertaining to your amnesty application with regard to the power station is also contained therein. You say that Simelane was supposed to bring a message for them to go ahead with the explosion.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: This message, after this came to light during interrogation, was supposed to go back to Mkhonza?

MR PRETORIUS: I believe so, because he was part of the action and we were supposed to make these explosions take place and they would have to be part of it because they would have to report back to confirm that it had taken place.

MR LAMEY: So it was reported to Langa and Mkhonza? If they had had that order from Swaziland for the explosions to take place, why was it necessary for Simelane to bring a message for them to go ahead with it if they had already received the order?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, the ANC, if I may give them credit, they didn't simply send people in and tell them to plant a bomb wherever, there were specific order for specific times and I don't know what the Transvaal military machinery's onslaught at that stage was and what was the timing and so forth.

MR LAMEY: I have studied your amnesty application in which you mention these specific incidents, on page 246, a specific event, up until page 463 and nowhere is there any mention or reference to Simelane as a person who had told you to continue with such actions after reorientation.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct. If I could ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I don't think that she told them that they were supposed to go ahead with the action.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the "they" refers to Mkhonza and the other one.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAMEY: But as I understand Mr Pretorius' evidence, Simelane said that they were to continue with this action.

ADV DE JAGER: So that would have to be conveyed to Mkhonza and Langa, or would that be the message that she was to convey for them to go ahead?

MR LAMEY: As I understand Mr Pretorius' evidence, we must remember that Mkhonza and Langa were not present during the interrogation and this was her admission to Coetzee and Pretorius, that they were to continue with the action.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I understand, but it's not for Pretorius and the others to go ahead, it's for Mkhonza and Langa to go ahead.

MR LAMEY: Very well. I don't think that that really differs from the question that I want to pose to you because in your statement regarding the second event, mention is made of how these false flag operations were executed. However, there is no mention of Simelane anywhere here, that she too emphasised the importance of continuing the actions during her interrogation or her reorientation.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, but if you read it correctly you will understand that precisely the same agents and informers, such as SWT66, Mkhonza and Langa were used. And when I was busy compiling these amnesty applications I was under the impression I would have the opportunity to give thorough explanations surrounding certain issues, as I have received today, the opportunity to explain exactly what happened. I was also advised - if I could just explain to you for example, without wasting too much time, my initial application was a very longwinded affidavit and I was advised to collate all this information into specific grouping according to the offences for which I am requesting amnesty and that is probably what may have happened there.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just want to make certain of my instructions here, I just want to be absolutely certain.

MR VISSER: While there is a space of time, Chairperson, I'm not interrupting my learned friend, I think if I don't we might finish sooner, but my learned is not entirely correct in putting these questions because if you read from page 456 to the point where you reach page 460, where he deals with these attacks, it's quite clear that it all ties in with what they knew at that stage about the Transvaal military machinery from Swaziland, and yes, it's true, Simelane's name is not mentioned here. But in context, Chairperson, it's perhaps not all that fair to say that there is no reference to any information having been received, because it all ties in. You've got to read from page 456 onwards. But I'm not interrupting.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have my instructions.

Mr Pretorius, my instructions fro RS243, Mr Mkhonza, are that the explosion of these power stations had absolutely nothing to do with Simelane.

MR PRETORIUS: I deny that emphatically, it had to do with her.

MR LAMEY: I would like to tell you more about what my instructions are, and they are that Mr Mkhonza had instructions that an action was to take place at the military base in Wits, you are aware of that?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I can recall something like that.

MR LAMEY: Where handgrenades were to be tossed?


MR LAMEY: Now this was the order to him from MK, and that was during a parade.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, but that was before the arrest or abduction then of Simelane.

MR LAMEY: Yes, indeed, it was before the arrest. This action at Wits, at the military base where the handgrenades were to be tossed into the parade, created quite a dilemma. In order to maintain the credibility of your deep cover-agents, it was decided, it was the brainchild of Coetzee, possibly also you within your unit, that the explosion of power stations should be investigated instead, to ensure the credibility of these deep cover-agents.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I deny this. I don't know anything about that which Mr Mkhonza has imparted to his legal representative.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mkhonza has instructed me that he did not have specific instructions from MK in Swaziland to blow up these power stations.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, Mr Mkhonza, according to my recollection, during his visit before the abduction of Simelane, returned and reported what the ANC had told him and one of these instructions was to bomb power stations and railway lines. And he had also mentioned targets to them which he could possibly blow up so that he could preserve his credibility later on and indicate that he was indeed capable of doing this. If now, 16 years after the fact, Mr Mkhonza comes along and gives us a different story, it's a complete distortion of what he told us at that stage.

MR LAMEY: If you will grant me a moment please. You were present when I put it to Mr Coetzee, with regard to the assault on Ms Simelane. I accept your version, and to save time I'm not going to discuss everything, I accept that you differ and that your version is more-or-less similar to that of Mr Coetzee.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAMEY: I don't know, Chairperson, whether you expect of me to put every single aspect to this witness as I did with Mr Coetzee. I'm willing to do so should it be necessary because the two applications appear to be the same. I do not wish to waste any time unnecessarily with regard to the assault, as they have explained it's course, how many times it took place and so forth. I should assume that it took place according to the way they put it.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. You have heard what Mr Lamey put to your former colleague, Mr Coetzee, with regard to the assaults and the duration thereof and the apparent effect thereof on Ms Simelane. You have heard all those statements, what is your commentary with regard to the version of the applicants represented by Mr Lamey.

MR PRETORIUS: What I can remember, Chairperson, is that the first week had the most serious degree of assault and after that I cannot remember up until which precise stage she was periodically, or not periodically but intermittently assaulted. When Mr Coetzee realised that she may have told a lie or that there were certain unclarities in what she was saying, she would be slapped or punched.

However, I deny emphatically that she was so gravely assaulted up to and including the last day. Furthermore, I deny that she was unable to walk, she was able to walk. But it is so, Chairperson, that a person who was bound in leg-irons had to be assisted to walk. I don't know whether it is that aspect to which the applicant on my right is referring. I cannot assure you that anything else didn't happen, I just know that we had to assist her with walking at those times when she was bound in leg-irons. I don't know whether I have answered your question sufficiently, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that would then be your version according to Mr Lamey's remark. It is very much similar to the version presented by Mr Coetzee. Was she ever assaulted to the extent that she soiled or wet herself and had to be thrown into the dam to wash herself?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, regarding the first aspect of your question, the first part of interrogation was always very harsh and I do recall that she did soil or wet herself, to express it that way, but with regard to her being thrown into the dam I cannot say anything, that she did wash there. As Mr Coetzee said, we brought her a blue enamel dish at one stage, in which she could wash. However, we did not throw her into the dam. I was not present at any time when we threw her into the dam.

CHAIRPERSON: How many times did she soil or wet herself?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have said it was during the first week and it may have happened several times, however I cannot say exactly how many times. I would say about three to four times.

CHAIRPERSON: And how was she cleaned?

MR PRETORIUS: She had to clean herself.


MR PRETORIUS: Behind the house and many times inside the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Not in the dam?

MR PRETORIUS: As I've said, behind the house near the dam. There were many cases where she had to go and wash herself there, but that was the only place where there was available water. There was no tap with running water as such, as I can recall, from which one could tap water or pour water.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Lamey?

ADV GCABASHE: Sorry, Mr Lamey, before you continue. What about the swelling of the face, do you confirm what Mr Coetzee ...(intervention)

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, definitely, her face was swollen and if I can remember correctly she had a very light complexion and it was clearly visible.

ADV GCABASHE: And the eyes as well, one, two swollen, you couldn't quite recall?

MR PRETORIUS: I would say that her eyes were swollen as a result of her light complexion. It looked worse than what it may have been, if I might put it that way. However, one could see clearly that her eyes were thicker than usual.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also confirm that you did not give her any medical treatment.

MR PRETORIUS: No, there was none.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pretorius, I would just like to put it to you for completion's sake, that her sleep was restricted to a minimum.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I might offer a possible explanation for that, I think that Mr Coetzee has already said this and I will repeat his sentiments. We were not always there, but it did happen that when we were there we tried accomplish a maximum level of work and it may have been that we worked until late at night on many of those evenings. And I'm sure that we can agree that Mr Coetzee was a very efficient, he could work for long hours, but it is not as if we kept her up all night and every night, according to the statement that the applicant over there wishes to put.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, it was part of the process of breaking her. You would not only assault her, but you would also deprive her of sleep?

MR PRETORIUS: That we deprived her of her sleep and that we spent many hours interrogating her, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that part of the strategy in breaking her down?

MR PRETORIUS: On the one hand, if I had to say yes today, but at that stage I think that was more Mr Coetzee's modus operandi. It was also part of the plan of breaking her down.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he such a hard worker that when he interrogated you ...(intervention)?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, he was a very hard worker, but what I mean by that is that we worked very long hours. In other words, in order to explain I could say that we had many cases that we were dealing with and we would arrive there at 4 o'clock the afternoon after spending the day in Soweto and we would stay up until about 11 o'clock at night with the person and interrogate her and tell her: "Write these things" and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: But that was not purposeful as such?

MR PRETORIUS: Well I can't remember, Chairperson, and I understand what you are aiming at. It's not that we told her: "You have to stand here for the following day all the time, you may not sit down, you may not sleep". That never happened in my presence, I never saw that and I don't know about it.

CHAIRPERSON: So you dispute that statement?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, if that is the statement that this gentleman is aiming to make.

CHAIRPERSON: That is how I understand it.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, then I will dispute it.

MR LAMEY: Maybe I could just achieve some clarity about this, Chairperson, I was simply quoting from his amnesty application in which it said

"Sleep was kept to a minimum"

Perhaps I should just receive instructions. Thank you, Chairperson. My instructions are as follows, Mr Pretorius, what I mean by that is that there were occasions upon which you and Mr Coetzee returned, that you had not been on the farm and then the interrogation had not been continued in your absence. In other words, the interrogation took place only in your presence.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I understand that, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And during those interrogation sessions her sleep was kept to a minimum.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I have already ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: In other words, she became tired and she was assaulted and you continued the interrogation, but when you departed she would resume her normal sleep patterns?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I think we could state that with relative correctness.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that you and Coetzee were the ones who led the interrogation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, and Mr Mong, along with some of the other black members who were present.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but you were the leaders of the interrogation.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Coetzee was the commanding officer and I was his deputy.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but he led it?


MR LAMEY: And he would begin it and he would end it?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: With regard to the sleep being kept to a minimum, with regard to hours, would it be until 4 o'clock in the morning or what are the further particulars that we could gain from that?

MR PRETORIUS: ...(no audible reply)

MR LAMEY: I hope this will be of assistance, my instructions from Mr Veyi are that during these interrogation session it happened more-or-less as follows, that she would be interrogated and also then assaulted during these sessions, then at a certain stage she would appear to be tired and she would be given the opportunity to rest for a while, say 30 minutes to an hour, then she would reawaken and they would continue with the whole session. So it seems to me as if these sessions functioned on an on/off basis. However, the sum total of that is that her sleep was kept to a minimum. That is my instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you correctly that this was continuously the situation while she was detained on the farm?

MR LAMEY: Yes, that was during the interrogation sessions on the farm. There were occasions that Coetzee and Pretorius were not present on the farm and during those times the interrogation did not continue.

CHAIRPERSON: But was this the case during the complete four to five weeks that she spent on the farm, or was this only during the first week?

MR LAMEY: Well then let me just get instructions once again. That was my initial impression, but I will just make certain. Yes, I confirm that this took place throughout the entire period of time, that the depravations and assaults continued until she was withdrawn from the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. You have the statement, do you have any reaction to that?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, he's correct when he says that during the interrogation sessions we wanted to spend maximum time with that particular person because Mr Coetzee and I had to return regularly. However, just as he says that, there were also many days that we didn't spend with this person and during that time she would rest, unless she was interrogated by the others. But there were times that Coetzee and I and some of the other white officers were not there at all and there were only black officers with her.

And just to give you an example, there were incidents where limpet mines were planted and I was injured because Sergeant Langa fell on me and I was hospitalised and put out of circulation for a few days. The point that I'm trying to make is that it is correct if it is said that while we were there, we spent maximum time with her. However, she had much time, in fact more time free, when we were not with her, except during the first week because the first week was heavy and intense interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: But would you interrogate her and if she appeared tired you would allow her to rest for a little while, about 30 minutes, allow her to fall asleep and then reawaken her and continue with the session?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, but it was our primary objective to win that person's favour at the end of the day.

MR LAMEY: Mr Pretorius, did the other members have order whatsoever to interrogate her when Coetzee specifically, and you were not there?

MR PRETORIUS: I can tell you that I was left alone there a number of times when Coetzee gave me orders such as: "Complete those photo identifications" or "Let her rewrite that story, something like that. And I know that there were occasions when there were black members who remained behind, who were specifically tasked to perform certain duties. Officers such as Mr Mong were given orders to undertake certain interrogation functions and identification functions and so forth.

MR LAMEY: But when we speak of subordinates such as Veyi and the others, they would not have acted alone or on their own initiative and undertaken interrogation when you or Coetzee were not on the farm?

MR PRETORIUS: They had instructions.

MR LAMEY: Did they have instructions to interrogate in your absence?

MR PRETORIUS: Well to ensure that the person would study the photo identification albums, to ensure that the person would study the documents and clear up any written statements that she had made. They were interpreters.

MR LAMEY: Was this only when you were there?

MR PRETORIUS: No, when we were not there as well. There were policemen. Sergeant Selamolela was a Sergeant and I think that he was competent enough to undertake such functions.

MR LAMEY: Well unfortunately he is not here, he had to return. He had to go for a neck operation. I will take instructions from him tomorrow morning. Let me just once again obtain instructions from Mr Veyi with regard to this.

My instructions from Mr Veyi are that photo identifications took place during the interrogation sessions, in which they may have assisted while you and Coetzee were present, but that they did not have instructions to undertake this upon their own initiative or alone, after your departure.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, any former MK terrorists who was captured could testify here today that to go through one of those photo albums would take a few hours, and then to go through the identification process to say: "Who is that person, how do you know that person, what were they involved in, what infiltrations were they involved in", would take a number of days.

And this would be, according to my recollection, functions that these members assisted us with, because they had to see that this person would compile these affidavits, or not these affidavits, these statements and identify the persons and complete the information as much as possible.

And in my wildest dreams, Chairperson, I would never think that the clients of this gentleman could not have remained still on that farm while we were not there, it is not as if they were sentries that stood in front of the door, that's totally absurd.

MR LAMEY: No, but that's not what they're saying.

MR PRETORIUS: They were there to assist with the guarding of the subject and to assist with the extraction of the information in our absence. That is what I remember.

MR LAMEY: Would they also have assaulted her in your absence if they saw that she was not bringing her full co-operation?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot comment on that, however they were in the position to do that, if I may express it like that.

MR LAMEY: With regard to these instructions to extract information by means of interrogation and to undertake the photo identifications did this take place after the first week?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson I think that the main extraction of information took place after the first week, because as I can recall during that first week we could not sit still with the person and say give us a description. In other words it would be a question of her asking something, us assaulting her; her saying something wrong; us questioning her again. I don't really have a word to denote that sort of interrogation. But from the second week onwards things were more systematic when it came to the extraction of information. In other words as already testified by Mr Coetzee we would tell her right, about the MK military machinery of the Transvaal, tell us who all the members are, what you know about them, where they are, who they are, and that is what she would have to do.

Every time that I can recall where I was present before we left we gave pertinent instructions for her to write about specific subjects and the members who remained behind had to see to it that she would do that, because we returned or when Coetzee returned he would want those reports.

MR LAMEY: But did you give instructions to the other members that when they remained behind they should continue with the extraction of information, for example that they would not assault the woman?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall any instruction that was given by Coetzee or me that a person should be or should not be assaulted. There was no such instruction.

MR LAMEY: But during that first week she had been gravely assaulted until it appeared that she was going to give her co-operation.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes that's correct and after that it ceased with the exception of the odd slap here and there.

MR LAMEY: Did the danger not exist that if such an order was not given to the remaining staff members that such a turning action would be jeopardised?

MR PRETORIUS: I think that is what Mr Coetzee tried to explain, the reason why we always had two members present there, so that there could be no illegitimate actions without us knowing about it, that the one - or at least if there was only one person there we could foresee the possibility of problems and the idea was for two members to be there, for the one to watch the other, so that we wouldn't have other problems, if I might explain it as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there ever any complaints of other problems?

MR PRETORIUS: No, not to me. Not that I heard of.

CHAIRPERSON: And from Simelane?


CHAIRPERSON: Were there any signs of other problems?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I think that the members who were present, if I might put it like this, Mr Coetzee was very strict about instructions and he would not have tolerated any kind of impropriety.

MR LAMEY: Mr Selamolela, my instructions from him are that when he left the farm or was instructed to leave the farm and he says here in paragraph 8 on page 568 he was one of the first to leave, he said that you and Coetzee and Radebe remained behind when they left the farm. Is it correct that Radebe remained until the very end?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson I can't recall that Radebe remained until the very end. I cannot recall that.

MR LAMEY: But what is perhaps more important is that he was still dressed in this brown, or she was still dressed in the brown clothing which was given to her at the beginning and there was no talk of toiletries and so forth which were given to her. Might I just ask you at what stage this took place, the handing over of clothing and toiletries to her, at what stage of her stay on the farm?

MR PRETORIUS: I should say during the last two weeks, but toiletries would include toilet paper and there was toilet paper as I remember.

MR LAMEY: No I am talking about cosmetic toiletries.

MR PRETORIUS: Well I would say that this would be from the last two weeks onwards.

CHAIRPERSON: So before then there was nothing?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson the basic facilities were there, such as toiletries, I mean we were not inhuman. I can also tell you that we had ration packs which at that stage were available, they are commonly referred to as "rat packs", and they were specifically geared for survival in a bush situation.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are a group of men, we are talking about a woman. It's logical that it's not the same for a woman as what it is for a man. If for a period of five weeks she was kept locked up in a place there would be certain sanitary requirements which are radically different from that of a man.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes we had the basic necessities for her, which we provided for her.


MR PRETORIUS: Such feminine products. I know that I sent Mr Mothiba to go and purchase some of these things for her. There was toilet paper and apart from her own personal toiletries and toilet paper the other ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So are you saying this was there from the very beginning?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, from the very first week.

CHAIRPERSON: From the very first week?


CHAIRPERSON: And what happened during the second and the third week? What was added?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Coetzee said that we should get her some clothing. I think that in Lengele's statement it will appear. Unfortunately he isn't with us anymore today but it will appear that we were to go and purchase clothing and shoes and all sorts of items for her. Things like a comb and other such items.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree that if for a period of four to five weeks those necessities were not provided to Miss Simelane it would have been inhuman?



MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, let me first receive some instruction from Mr Veyi because at this stage I don't have any further questions. I can just say that my instructions from my clients are that her general physical condition, because of her interrogation and the assaults during these interrogations was to a stage where when they were at the farm the last time it was very bad for a woman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey please assist us. You are just as general as some of these witnesses, when was the last time they were at the farm?

MR LAMEY: The last time they were at the farm was during the fourth or the fifth week ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: How long before they saw her the last time at Potchefstroom, a week, two weeks, how long?

MR LAMEY: I will have to receive instructions to that Chairperson, but my instructions - or the last time they were there was during the fourth or fifth week ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: But we don't even know whether she was there for four or five weeks. Everybody is saying four or five weeks. We don't have any clarity as to the time period. Was it quite a while before she was removed from the farm that they left there or was it the day before?

MR LAMEY: I shall get instructions Chairperson, I don't have instructions to that at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: I will tell you what the impression is that I have, and that is for the major part of that four or five weeks they were involved at the farm and if that is wrong you must put that right.

MR LAMEY: My instructions are that they came and went. They were not there continually ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But over the time with their involvement - (not interpreted) on the farm ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: I shall these aspects - but the essence of what I want to say, what my instructions are is that up to the fourth or fifth week, the last time that they were there her general physical condition was very deteriorated because of this interrogation and assaults. Those are my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words it differs from the version of this applicant?

MR LAMEY: That is what I am putting to him Chairperson. I would like to know from the applicant if he agrees with that statement that up to the fourth or fifth week her physical condition was very bad.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you should react to that Mr Pretorius because the version of Mr Lamey's clients was that up to the end of the time she was continually interrogated and assaulted and she was in a very bad condition. I think you have to react on that if you want.

MR PRETORIUS: I am just as confused as Mr Lamey's clients because at some stage Mr Lamey told him that one of his clients, Selamolela came at an earlier stage, when was the earlier stage? And then he says he saw it right to the end.

MR LAMEY: Let me clear that aspect up for you. It is in paragraph 8. He says, and my instructions from him also is that at approximately the fourth or fifth week he was at the farm for the last time and he was withdrawn and he was one of the first who was withdrawn, but he was the last - the last time he visited the farm was during the fourth or fifth week.

MR PRETORIUS: I deny if the client or if the person says that by the fourth week he was there and that she was assaulted so badly. I deny that. That his statement is wrong. And from my personal inference I think they are confusing the time because myself, to be honest to you Chairperson, because I came and went, and no time was kept as to "listen you have been here one or two days", maybe they kept time but I did not, but time might have been lost somewhere, but I am not sure. During the last time this person did not look like the way they explained it. I have a problem with my last time and their last time.

CHAIRPERSON: You were there from the start to the end, right up to the moment when Miss Simelane went to Swaziland you were at the scene. You saw her. And your evidence is that right up to the last instance when you saw her she was not in the condition that Mr Lamey's clients allege she was?

MR PRETORIUS: No Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I shall have to take instructions and we shall have to clear this time lapse, as to the time that elapsed when this person was on the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we shall adjourn and then you can between now and when we start again, you can use the time to clarify those differences and then you can conclude your cross-examination. We shall adjourn until tomorrow morning at 09H30.


Broadcasting for Total Citizen Empowerment
SABC © 2022