CHAIRPERSON: For the record, it is Wednesday the 19th of May 1999, we are continuing the amnesty application of Coetzee & Others in respect of the Simelane matter.
Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have also in the meantime obtained further instructions, I just want to ask some other questions to Mr Pretorius.
ANTON PRETORIUS: (s.u.o)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)
Mr Pretorius, can you recall a conversation with Mr Veyi after everything had passed with regard to the detention of Ms Simelane, that he had asked you where this woman was after everyone had been withdrawn and you had told him "don't ask too many questions", can you recall anything like that?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot recall such a conversation, but it is possible that Mr Veyi had asked me that question and that I had told him that Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Mr Veyi's recollection is that the time that had elapsed according to his recollection, after he was at the farm for
the last time, and at a stage when he received instructions from Mr Coetzee to go to Potchefstroom, he says it was approximately two to three days after he visited the farm for the last time?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson, I would like to know when was he at the farm the last time, that is a big problem for me because I do not know when last Mr Veyi was on the farm.
MR LAMEY: My instructions there are approximately the fourth or fifth week and two or three days had elapsed, more than that I cannot tell you.
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I deny totally that Coetzee and I had the specific day which I refer to is the day when we drove from Potchefstroom to Soweto.
MR LAMEY: No, I accept what you are saying with regard to what you dispute that Ms Simelane was in the vehicle, that I accept, all that I am saying is that his recollection is the time elapsed since the time he visited the farm the last time, which was during the fourth or fifth week, he said two or three days had elapsed afterwards when he was at the office and received the instruction from Coetzee that he had to go to Potchefstroom.
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson I am a little confused, if Mr Lamey could just - I don't know what he means now.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, I have the same problem. I don't know where to start reckoning, two to three days after four to five weeks. It is impossible to answer that question.
MR LAMEY: I will try to clarify the question. As I understand my instructions from Mr Veyi, it seems that the members came and went to the farm on a rotation basis?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: But he says his presence the last time at the farm, it was approximately four to five weeks since she had been detained on the farm.
MR PRETORIUS: If he says so ...
MR LAMEY: And then he returned to Soweto to the branch?
MR PRETORIUS: The office, yes, I accept that.
MR LAMEY: And he says two to three days later, when he received the instruction to go to Potchefstroom, do you understand what I am putting to you?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, Mr Veyi might have received an instruction from Coetzee to possibly go to Potchefstroom, I was not present, but it is possible. My problem is I don't know which day he is referring to because in many instances, at many different occasions, people - this was one of Mr Coetzee's things, he would say come here, go there, get me here, meet me here, I don't know which specific day Mr Veyi is referring to. So what I want to say it is possible that Mr Coetzee must have told Mr Veyi "come to Potchefstroom" on some day.
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Pretorius, I actually don't have a difficulty with the time span that had been set out by Mr Veyi, because as I understand the evidence, Simelane was kept at the farm either for four weeks or five weeks?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE: That is common cause?
MR PRETORIUS: Okay.
ADV GCABASHE: If she had been there for four weeks, two to three days later, is what Mr Veyi says, he was then called to Potchefstroom, so it is four weeks plus two to three days later. If in fact it was five weeks because the time is so difficult to determine, again two to three days later, after the five weeks, he was then called up to Potchefstroom. I really have no difficulty with understanding that.
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson. I cannot comment on what Mr Coetzee had told Mr Veyi to come to Potchefstroom. I do not know of this, but as I said, it is possible.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Pretorius, I think what is implicated by this is that two to three days after he left the farm, he was called up to Potchefstroom and there he saw the lady in the boot of the car?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I deny that emphatically. I was not present where he could have seen Nokuthula Simelane, I was not there at all.
MR LAMEY: And all that I want to add to that is that at that stage, when he was called to Potchefstroom, it was his impression that she was still at the farm, he says he understands that after going to Potchefstroom, he would have had to relieve somebody at the farm, but that was unnecessary because along the road, on the way to Potchefstroom, he was requested to turn back?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I am not or what I can recall ...
MR LAMEY: You were not present?
MR PRETORIUS: As I said ...
MR LAMEY: You were not with Mr Coetzee in the vehicle?
MR PRETORIUS: It could have been a previous day or it could have been the day afterwards, you must tell me on the day and that is where my problem lies, Chairperson, unfortunately Mr Lamey talks about days. It could have been the day before it, I refer to day when received Nokuthula from Mong and Mothiba and I drove to Coetzee or with Coetzee, after we have her to Langa, and as far as I can recall, we never stopped along the road. I was with Mr Coetzee from, if I can say that again, from Potchefstroom to Soweto and as far as I can recall, we never stopped for anyone along the road.
CHAIRPERSON: In your XR6 vehicle?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: In any case, Mr Veyi does not say he was with you, he says Mr Coetzee was with you in the XR6 and Nokuthula was in the boot.
MR PRETORIUS: Well, then he is probably referring to something else.
MR LAMEY: I shall continue.
ADV GCABASHE: Can I just before you move onto something else, are you saying it is possible and I am just asking, that she may have been in the boot of your car on another occasion?
MR PRETORIUS: No, that is not what I said. What I am saying Chairperson is that Mr Coetzee may have met with Mr Veyi on some other occasion on that road, and I cannot comment on it, it is possible.
MR LAMEY: Very well, and then I have further instructions with the affect that both Mr Selamolela and Mr Veyi agree that there was instructions that when you and Pretorius led the interrogation where the assaults also took place, when you were not on the farm, that certain questioning had to be continued for example photo's, bundles and to refer to them to get information from her.
MR PRETORIUS: That is what I had said yesterday Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: I know you said that, I just want to tell you that they confirmed that that was correct what you had said, and they also said, that there were also instructions that the black members and I refer to Mr Selamolela and Mr Veyi, they had to work in another manner with her to get her co-operation, they had to speak nicely to her and they said indeed they understood that the idea thereof was to move her so that she could be recruited.
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I don't understand now.
MR LAMEY: I will get to that. I want to put that to you.
MR PRETORIUS: You can continue.
MR LAMEY: That at some meeting it was told to them that you right from the departure point was not a turning action?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I have already said the day of the incident when we abducted Ms Simelane, Constable Veyi and Sergeant Selamolela was present when Mr Coetzee said that we were to abduct her in order to turn her. I will concede that Mr Coetzee did not go into detail there, because at that stage we did not know who we were dealing with, that he spelt out in detail to every member this is our plan from A - Z, I will concede that, but they knew that this was to be a turning action.
MR LAMEY: Very well, but my instructions are that they deduced in this process because with previous persons they had apprehended who came from MK, they usually, there was an attempt to turn the person, to recruit this person and they said their black members were usually in this instance, tasked to treat her better and see if they could not get her co-operation?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson. I think I have referred to that yesterday, especially Sergeant Mothiba.
MR LAMEY: Can you tell me, maybe this is where the versions divert or differ from each other, their impression was that up to the last stage when they dealt with her, she did not want to give her co-operation and they understood from the assaults that took place that it had happened because she did not want to give her co-operation and that she possessed some information which was important to the Security Branch with regard to the activities and planning of MK within South Africa?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, Simelane I think what was humanly possible, gave us everything that she knew of. I have already tried to give an explanation, it may be possible that when some of the members who are the clients of Mr Lamey, when they were there, that Simelane might have created the impression that she did not give her full co-operation. I have already explained yesterday that she was concerned with regard to the amount of black members who were present there and she was concerned, and as Mr Coetzee had explained, we gave her the surety that he would keep her in leg irons and that only Sergeant Joseph Mothiba will talk to her when we discussed her redeployment in the MK structure. We will only do it with him and not with the other members, if I may explain it in that manner, I don't know if that is the answer.
MR LAMEY: And then I have received specifically instructions with regard to the toiletries, they said they must concede that it may have been provided for her, but they have no knowledge to that or it did not happen at any stage when they were present?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already said, I agree with the last part, I was not there at every stage, but a certain amount of toiletries or things were provided for this lady.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it in their presence?
MR PRETORIUS: What I do know Chairperson, is that Sergeant Mothiba did some of these. Mr Coetzee sent him to buy some of these things, so I cannot say if Mr Lamey's clients were present, but they should have seen these things. I accept when they say that they saw it.
CHAIRPERSON: No, they say it is possible that it could have been given to her when they were not there, but they are not aware of it. That is why I am asking you, it was just one room that you detained Ms Simelane in, they should have seen these things?
MR PRETORIUS: I believe so Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: If these toiletries were there?
MR PRETORIUS: Indeed.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. And then they never as I put it to you, their impression right up to the last minute was that they did not think that she co-operated and that she was to be recruited, and it was also not the impression that they had there, that she had been recruited because it seemed to them right up to the last stage when they had worked with her, that she did not want to cooperate.
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I deny that statement totally.
MR LAMEY: And with regard to Mr Mkhonza, Mr Pretorius is it correct that, or he says in his application in his statement that the arrest took place, he would lead this lady to his vehicle in the parking area?
MR PRETORIUS: I think it is correct if he says that.
MR LAMEY: And the arrest took place there and Mkhonza was "arrested" with her? I say "arrest" because we know that he was an agent, but what had happened there was an apparent arrest of Simelane along with him?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot deny that, but this specific instance I cannot recall, because as I have said, with this seizure of this, I was dealing with the seizure of this subject.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I think this is all that I have.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Van den Berg, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Pretorius if we can start with the nature and scope of the assaults, as I understand your evidence, she was assaulted by slapping her with an open hand?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then punches in her sides and on her back, is that correct?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the use of a wet bag?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And that was the nature and scope of the assaults according to you?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I did not understand quite properly, you said - did I hear you correctly, you said you did not kick her?
MR PRETORIUS: No, I cannot remember that I had kicked her.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall if anybody else had kicked her?
MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall anything like that Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me Mr Van den Berg, what does that mean?
MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall or to be honest today, I did not see anybody that I can come here and say today, that had kicked Ms Simelane.
CHAIRPERSON: She was never kicked in your presence, is that what you are saying?
MR PRETORIUS: That is what I am saying.
CHAIRPERSON: Continue Mr Van den Berg.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. The kicking of a person, would this be normal practice in this type of interrogation?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot see how it could be normal, I think the reason why we used the suffocating method was to substitute the slap and substitute the punches. This is a more serious nature of torture. I see this more as torture.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I would just like to understand what was the methodology of your approach, does one start with slapping and then with the punches and afterwards the bag, how did this work, you are nodding your head?
MR PRETORIUS: I think that is in the right order as you recall, I confirm that Mr Coetzee, or I remember the first assault started in the vehicle where Mr Coetzee slapped her and later on we both slapped her, we gave her, we punched her and right up to the farm when we used the bag on her.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And if I understand you correctly, the assaults or the interrogation complied with this format because she was a woman, do I understand you correctly?
MR PRETORIUS: I do not believe I said it was because she was a woman, if we had arrested a man, then that man would have received the same treatment as Ms Simelane. According to me, according to my personal opinion, there is no distinction between the methods that we would have used and would have used different methods.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand you correctly, the questioning of a male or female would be exactly the same?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, if I may say that, the way we went about it.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And this is the type of assault that led to her soiling herself and wetting herself?
MR PRETORIUS: The suffocating action, that I can assure you.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You say the suffocating?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, the suffocating is what had that affect.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And if I understand your statement in Exhibit X correctly, these assaults continued right up to the first week?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, these serious assaults. This was during the first week.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And afterwards she co-operated?
MR PRETORIUS: Systematically she started co-operating with her and as I have said the periodic punches and slaps were given to her.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When would you say, or when would you say that you classified her as a newly recruited informer, the first week, the second week, the day of the arrest or during the abduction?
MR PRETORIUS: I had said yesterday Chairperson, that I suspect it must have been from the third week to the fourth week.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So it would not be correct to describe her as a newly recruited informant on the day when she was abducted? May I refer you to your initial amnesty application, page 470, it is Bundle 2 Mr Chairperson, page 470. At the bottom of the page the last paragraph, and if I may just put it into context, this was the day when she was abducted.
"... according to Lieutenant Colonel Coetzee during the discussions with Brigadier Muller, it was decided that the turning action of the courier had to be cleared and that the courier (the newly recruited informant) had to be placed back and had to be for the purposes of future actions ..."
That is not correct, what you described there, that is not correct?
MR PRETORIUS: I think that is why I put it in brackets, the newly recruited informant to refer to the fact that we foresaw that we wanted to recruit her. That is why we wanted to turn her, I think that was my intention there. Therefore I did not try to say there that on the first day she was already an informer, I don't think that was my intention when I said that.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then your reasoning would be the same if one looks at page 471, at the bottom of the page
"... the newly recruited informer exposed the whole functioning of MK and its MK structures from Swaziland."
MR PRETORIUS: I don't think there is anything wrong with that statement. A newly recruited ...
MR VAN DEN BERG: Very well. The only information that you had about the courier was the fact that she was on her way, is that correct?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And that information you received from Mr Mkhonza, is that correct?
MR PRETORIUS: Mr Coetzee received that personally from Mr Mkhonza.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you heard this from Coetzee?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So there was no involvement of this SVT66 with the information that the courier was on his or her way?
MR PRETORIUS: Not as far as I can recall to be honest Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: After you had seized her and her identity was known to you as I understand, both her MK identity and her name of birth, the name of Nokuthula Simelane, what type of enquiries did you do as to find out who she really was?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, the Soweto Security Branch had a filing office and what I can recall is that some of us, I think myself at some stage, went because that was the procedure to go, and in that time, there were no computers, everything was written by hand, it was a card system and we had to work through hundreds of cards to see if the names that she had mentioned to us, if we could find it.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And what type of information was there with regard to Nokuthula Simelane?
MR PRETORIUS: If I recall correctly, I may be wrong, but I don't think we had anything about her herself on the Soweto filing system.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And it must have seemed to you that she operated from Swaziland, that was her base, do you agree?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, because the information was that she came from there.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What Security Branch was dealing with Swaziland?
MR PRETORIUS: In the old days it was Eastern Transvaal.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you enquire with them?
MR PRETORIUS: Physically I never went there Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Telephonically?
MR PRETORIUS: No.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So you never made any enquiries at the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch?
MR PRETORIUS: The information that you received from Ms Simelane with regard to the cell structures in Swaziland, what did you do with that?
MR PRETORIUS: We worked it into information reports and then we sent it on to Head Office.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And Head Office was in Pretoria?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was any mention made of the identity?
MR PRETORIUS: Never, never as far as I can recall with regard to Simelane.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Not by the name Simelane?
MR PRETORIUS: Not even on her MK name, Sbongile.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So you just reported that an MK informer or an MK courier gave you the following information?
MR PRETORIUS: That an informant had given us the information.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was there one report, two reports, weekly reports, how did it work?
MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall today after 16 years, but there had been several reports with regard to several subjects. A report dealt with a subject, if we said that we discussed the Transvaal Military Machinery, then there was a report there. If we wrote a report on a specific person, then the report would be sent on that specific person.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand you correctly the method that you used was that all your enquiries and reports would be channelled through to Head Office, is that correct?
MR PRETORIUS: I would say so, yes Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And if you had information which was of import to a certain area, would you have sent it to them for example the Western Cape, the Eastern Cape, would you send it directly to them or channel it through Head Office?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, that is what we did.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The information ...
ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me, I think you said that is correct, that is what we did, so therefore are you saying that you reported to Head Office and you sent directly the reports to let's say the Eastern Transvaal?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Well, he used an example, the Eastern Cape?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, yes, Eastern Cape.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you send feedback or information with regard to Sbongile to the Eastern Transvaal?
MR PRETORIUS: Negative Chairperson, I have already said we did not, her as a person, Sbongile, her activities, everything surrounding her, her activities or the MK's activities in Swaziland, that is the type of information that we send through, we did not say in the report MK member, Sbongile is there, is involved here and there as an example, that is not what we did.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Maybe my question was not clear. As I understand from Mr Coetzee, she gave you information with regard to Barney Molokwane, a well known MK member, a person who was involved with the attacks on Sasol 1 and 2?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And these were things that had happened in the Eastern Transvaal?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And she probably gave you information about his activities in the Eastern Transvaal?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was that information given to the Eastern Transvaal?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that was sent to Eastern Transvaal and to Headquarters as I can recall.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The decision to turn her, that decision was taken before you knew her identity, is that correct?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand your statement in Exhibit X correctly, according to you and you made certain concessions to Mr Lamey, but according to you Coetzee, Mong, Ross, Williams, Selamolela, Veyi were all involved with the original instructions, that is paragraph 10, page 5?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson. This is at the abduction.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Where mention was made that this would be a turning action?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Eight people were involved there, excuse me, nine including you?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then at a later stage, Sergeant Langa joined?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the Mozambican, Strongman?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson, yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So altogether there were 11 persons involved in this operation in some or other manner?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: The Security Branch, did the Security Branch have female members at that stage in Soweto?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I think there was one or two but not in our section. I think they were at the Protea Security Branch administratively, as it was known.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I understand that the modus operandi the person who was to be turned, certain security mechanisms would be put into place, or that certain tests had to be put to this person. For example he was tasked to get information or to go and meet a person and that information and that person was controlled, is that correct?
MR PRETORIUS: It was not always possible, especially outside the borders of the country.
MR VAN DEN BERG: But in this instance it was not applied? And the reason if I understand you correctly, if I can just pre-empt you, was because it was outside the country?
MR PRETORIUS: One of the main reasons was because it was in a foreign information network and placing her back, was or I described it, it was the first risk that we had to take, to see if she would do what we asked her to do. That was our first.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You had knowledge of her family, that they were in the Eastern Transvaal, is that correct?
MR PRETORIUS: After her arrest, at some stage she mentioned where her family was, that is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did she mention the involvement of her family in the struggle and the support that they had given to Molokwane's group?
MR PRETORIUS: I can recall something like that Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So this did not create the possibility of a test to send her back to her family?
MR PRETORIUS: Not at that stage, that was not the option that Mr Coetzee had considered.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I am not sure if it is your evidence of Mr Coetzee's evidence, but at some stage it was decided to withdraw Mkhonza from Swaziland, do you recall that?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes Mkhonza and others Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Can we specifically talk about Mkhonza? Can you recall when this was?
MR PRETORIUS: No, not exactly but I think Mr Mkhonza can give more clarity there.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Before or after the abduction?
MR PRETORIUS: After the abduction Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And before or after the arrest of the 18 persons that you mentioned?
MR PRETORIUS: I think during the process, and why I say this was because Mkhonza one more time, as far as I can recall after the arrest of Simelane, was sent to Swaziland. I can recall the incident. The day he rolled over the vehicle he was driving in in Swaziland to prove that he was in Swaziland and we had to go and fetch the vehicle from Swaziland. I do not know whether that was the last time that he was in Swaziland, but he was in Swaziland again.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Who was Mr Mkhonza's handler?
MR PRETORIUS: At that stage it was Mr Coetzee, he was the Chief Handler.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And was Langa also withdrawn from Swaziland?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Before or after the arrest of the 18?
MR PRETORIUS: If I could just explain, the persons were arrested over some time period, they were not arrested in one day. During the time of those 18, he was withdrawn.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And of the 18, can you remember who was the first person that was apprehended?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson, that was the Mpho on the photo that you have with you.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Well, the instructions, I have no instructions as to how he may be, but I will find out if he does know. Where did the arrest of Cheche fit into these 18 persons?
MR PRETORIUS: This was after Simelane had been released Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I understand that, but was he the first person, the second person or the third person or can you not recall?
MR PRETORIUS: That is difficult Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And can you dispute the fact that on the 25th of May 1994 he was arrested?
MR PRETORIUS: The date I will not dispute the date, but you have to keep in mind that Mr Cheche was arrested twice. I don't know if you know that he had escaped, I don't know if you refer to his first arrest or his second arrest.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I will have to receive an instruction, I am aware that he was arrested twice. What was the relationship between Jabu Ngubezi and Simelane, were they members of the same Unit, did he give her instructions or vice versa, were they involved with the same logistics, do you have knowledge of this?
MR PRETORIUS: This was 16 years ago, with all honesty I cannot tell you today what had happened there.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Twala tells me that Simelane did not know Jabu Ngubezi and there was no contact between the two.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that makes two of us, I am not quite sure to whom reference is being made, who is Jabu Ngubezi? Perhaps if my learned friend could just tell us.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Pretorius, may I refer you to your statement, paragraph 35, page 13, there that name is mentioned there?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson. I want to agree with Mr De Berg that it is possible that Simelane did not know Ngubezi, because if I recall the situation of Ngubezi, he was arrested after Mr Ngedi.
MR VISSER: May I just be allowed to apologise, it comes with old age Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Then it is common cause that Ngubezi was an MK member and was part of a Swaziland structure?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And according to us, his arrest followed the arrest of Ngedi?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: May I refer you to paragraph 43 of your statement. There you say
"... the other white members and I from time to time, had to do follow up work on information which we received from Simelane."
Who were these other white members?
MR PRETORIUS: It was Mr Coetzee and I and Warrant Officer Mong.
MR VAN DEN BERG: But you pertinently state here white members?
MR PRETORIUS: Mr Coetzee and Mr Mong, white members, these are the white members who I referred to.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I see, so you do not refer there to Inspector Ross or Inspector Williams?
MR PRETORIUS: No.
MR VAN DEN BERG: They did none of this follow up work?
MR PRETORIUS: Soweto is very large and with those 18 actions to which you are referring to, it is possible that - I cannot recall that they were involved there or not, I would rather say no Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And the final aspect as regard to the bomb explosions at some power sub-station in Fairlands in Bryanston.
MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand or if I recall your evidence exactly, Mkhonza had already received instructions in Swaziland?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And Simelane's role was to confirm the instructions and to give the go-ahead?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson, that is what I can remember.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And this differs from the evidence of Mr Coetzee who said that the target instructions came from Simelane, in other words that she had said Fairlands and Bryanston?
MR PRETORIUS: No, I do not want to speak on behalf of Mr Coetzee, but what I know for a fact, what he meant there I think was that Simelane came and said that targets had to be hit which was discussed in Swaziland. In other words as I have said already, Mr Mkhonza before the Simelane arrest, was already with MK in Swaziland and they were there where they discussed the targets, where they received instructions with regard to those targets and she said that the targets that they had discussed in Swaziland, had to be hit. So perhaps just to facilitate it, Mr Coetzee may have linked the names to that, that is the only explanation that I have, but I don't believe that there is any real difference.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you heard when I put it to him and I am now putting it to you that her orders were simply to establish a communications network between operatives Scotch and Langa from Swaziland?
MR PRETORIUS: She didn't tell us anything about that, she didn't tell us that she was to establish an additional communications network, she was the communication between Swaziland and South Africa if I may put it that way, because MK sent her in as the communication line. That was the agreement that somebody would come in.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Her instructions were about the establishment of contact between the group, that would be the front MK group being Langa and Mkhonza, and figuring how messages would be sent and how weapons would be brought in and so forth?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, at that stage according to my knowledge and my information, the fact was that she was the courier who acted as ... (tape ends) ... and I can't recall that she told us anything about having to establish or implement other communications networks, I don't know anything about that.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The premises where she was detained on the farm, that was an outside form of a storage room, if I understand your evidence correctly?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Without water?
MR PRETORIUS: Without running water if I recall correctly.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And probably without electricity?
MR PRETORIUS: We had no electricity, we had to make use of gas lamps.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You used gas lamps? I have no further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
MS THABETHE: No questions Mr Chair.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe?
ADV GCABASHE : Thank you Chair. Just to go while I find the rest of my notes, the time she spent at the Police quarters at the top, who was she guarded by? Let me start from the beginning, she spent two nights there?
MR PRETORIUS: As I recall, yes.
ADV GCABASHE : And who guarded her there?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I can recall when Mr Coetzee departed to see Brigadier Muller, that was shortly after her arrival there, I was there. Sergeant Mong and me, I can't remember precisely but I think that Sergeant Mothiba might have been there, some of the black members were there and I should think that Sergeant Mothiba would definitely have been there.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Excuse me, that would have been the Saturday afternoon?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that was the Saturday shortly after we seized her.
ADV GCABASHE : And Sunday, because she only left on Monday?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct. If I might proceed, you must remember that Mr Coetzee and Mr Mong and I lived in the complex. Coincidentally I worked in the B-complex, I lived in B31 and she was on the 10th floor, on the roof, so it wasn't necessary for us to sleep in the room, there with her, some of the black members spent the night there in the room with her. Now you may ask me again whether I know who slept there, but I can sincerely tell you that I don't know who it was that stayed there with her on the first two nights, which one of the black members. I cannot remember that unfortunately.
ADV GCABASHE : Then over these two days, again there was intensive interrogation of Nokuthula Simelane?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, we assaulted her as I have already stated, but it could not have been that intense. The reason is as follows, it was on the 10th floor of a department block, right next to the rooms were the washing lines where ladies who lived in the apartment block, would be walking by consistently to go and hang their washing. There were servants living in the adjacent quarters, so we could not work too noisily with Simelane in that office, if I may put it that way, we had to be very cautious so that the people would not surmise what was happening there.
CHAIRPERSON: Could she have screamed?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I believe she could have.
CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you shut her mouth?
MR PRETORIUS: I can't remember that we closed her mouth up.
ADV GCABASHE : Now let's talk about the meeting that you attended where you decided on the seizure.
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE : Are you saying that the people at that meeting worked off the general assumption that any MK activist was a subject for a turning action?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, a turning action, that is correct.
ADV GCABASHE : And was this standard procedure, you did it with whichever MK activist you managed to arrest?
MR PRETORIUS: No, Mr Chairperson, that is why Mr Coetzee, when he received the information that there was an MK member coming in from Swaziland, and I think that I did mention this in my statements, there were two options and he had to clear this with the Commanding Officer, here was an opportunity to arrest a person, or should we seize the person and attempt to turn them, the decision was then to seize that person and to attempt to turn them.
ADV GCABASHE : And you did this even though you had no profile at all on the person you were going to abduct?
MR PRETORIUS: No, we had no profile, however it was sufficient for us, we knew that it was an MK member who was coming in. It was a terrorist.
ADV GCABASHE : You stated in your evidence under chief, that you did cross-check the information that she gave you, that Simelane gave you, you cross-checked it. With who? I have a note here?
MR PRETORIUS: I am not entirely certain what we are referring to.
ADV GCABASHE : The note I have here is Mkhonza knew about these targets in South Africa.
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct yes.
ADV GCABASHE : Because he had recently been in Swaziland where the information was given to him?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.
ADV GCABASHE : And then a question must have been asked because my next note is, "we did cross-check the information that she gave us." Does that not make sense to you?
MR PRETORIUS: I am not very certain about what the lady is referring to.
ADV GCABASHE : The information, let's start from a general point of view, the information that you got from Nokuthula Simelane, did you in fact cross-check it with anybody at all?
MR PRETORIUS: Perhaps let me put it this way, to which information are you referring Mr Chairperson? The general information?
CHAIRPERSON: Did you do that or not?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Please explain then.
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, what I can recall is when a person told you that Mr Jimmy for example was also an MK member and that he was involved in this and that, then we would do some research and fall back on our own information networks. The Security Branch was known for having millions of documents which we could use as reference to determine whether or not this person that she had mentioned, this Jimmy for example, was in existence in Swaziland and in many cases we would come back and say listen here, there are six Jimmy's here, which one of these six Jimmy's are you referring to. This was the type of follow up work that we would do.
ADV GCABASHE : And would you at any stage for instance phone the Eastern Transvaal and say we are trying to locate this Jimmy, do you know anything at all about this Jimmy?
MR PRETORIUS: As I have already said at that stage, any information which you received you would place in a SAP69, it was known as an information document, you would give a complete review of what the information was and who the person was. Then you would send this document out and in many cases, the other Security Branches would report back and say yes, they know about this Mr Jimmy, Mr Jimmy is in Swaziland and he could be the Unit Commander of this Unit or he may be involved in Operation Burning Forest or something like that, and that is how it operated at that stage.
ADV GCABASHE : Then you talked about at some stage the clothing at Nkosi's house, that you knew she had left clothing there.
MR PRETORIUS: We were aware that her clothing and her passport were there.
ADV GCABASHE : You then at the end of the day, expected her to return to Swaziland and continue working with her old cell mates?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
ADV GCABASHE : And you also said that you knew nothing of the Nkosi/Mpho relationship as has been set out under cross-examination?
MR PRETORIUS: No, I was not aware of that at that stage.
ADV GCABASHE : You didn't think that you were taking a chance, I mean you were asking her to go and report on Nkosi being somebody who was working with the Police, yet you could not at any level justify that? I mean she was going back to say something she couldn't explain properly?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already stated yesterday, we had the benefit of the doubt if I may express it that way. This lady came in from Swaziland to South Africa and it would appear to me that Mr Duma and the others don't know about that. She came in on a mission for which she was not allowed to come in, because she worked for a different Unit. You could think for yourself that this person was coming in, that was contradictory to other orders and that was our advantage. As I have already said we attempted to exploit the Duma Nkosi situation by saying that there was a possibility that he was collaborating with the Police and that was the reason why she didn't trust him and that was the reason why she wouldn't go back to his house. For us at that stage, it appeared to be a reasonably acceptable explanation and she agreed and said that it would work.
ADV GCABASHE : You are saying that the people who sent her in, were not authorised to send her in?
MR PRETORIUS: That is what she told us. That she was actually working with another Unit. I think Mr Coetzee referred to a white woman and an Indian man and this other MK Unit asked her on the side, do us a favour, please act as a courier for us to South Africa and she was not allowed to do that, and she put that to us pertinently, that she was not authorised to do that.
ADV DE JAGER: Could I just - what wasn't she allowed to do? Was she not allowed to work for the Indian man and the white woman or was she not allowed to work for Mr Mpho?
MR PRETORIUS: That is the impression that she created for us, that she was not committed to work for Mpho if it is Mpho as it is alleged, that she was not actually permitted to enter the RSA for that specific Unit's functions.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I just want to finish this off, sorry Leah, did you obtain any objective affirmation for that allegation or did you simply believe it?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, it was clear when she provided the wealth of information that she had, we realised that she was much more than a mere university student.
CHAIRPERSON: That may have been so, she told you that she was actually working for another Unit and these people had asked her on the side to do a quick favour for them, did you confirm that or did you simply believe what she told you?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, she gave us a complete and thorough explanation of the situation with the white woman and the Indian man in Mozambique who were her actual Commanders, she explained all of that to us, and informed us about how she came to work for this Unit and it made sense to us at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: So you simply believed it?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, we accepted that what she was telling us, was true and correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And that is what you based your plan on?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, around that.
CHAIRPERSON: And that is why you felt that you could use this Duma Nkosi's story?
MR PRETORIUS: That would be the second reason and the third reason was that she also told us that she had to go around to other Units, she had to service other Units, that was the terminology that they used. We knew that the ANC at that stage, if you can recall, there were no communications channels because communication always functioned by hand. In certain cases it would be telephonic, but in Swaziland there wasn't sufficient infrastructure for telephones. Mr Mpho, or MK did not have any idea what happened to this woman, I can prove that to you because otherwise Langa would have been caught and killed in Swaziland. We knew that if the ANC sent somebody in, they did not expect that person to arrive at a given point at a given time, they knew that it was difficult. People would come in and spend months here, sometimes certain people would go back after a year only, and re-establish contact with their original Unit. I am just trying to explain to you by way of an example that the ANC in Swaziland did not know what was going on. While Ms Simelane was in detention at Thabazimbi, Mr Mong is testifying after me, he could confirm this, while she was there and I assume that it may have been after the first week of intensive interrogation and after we staged the two limpet mine explosions at the two sub-stations at the railway line, we realised that that was the first phase, that the ANC in Swaziland had to know that it was them because they were under the impression that it was their members. Then we sent Sergeant Langa in to the ANC, to the machinery, he went in. Sergeant Mong and I, for the time here that 269 was in Swaziland, we waited for him at the border post. He came out on that day, I can remember in a Volkswagen Beetle, that was the car that he was driving, we saw him just outside Oshoek and we saw all these limpet mines which they had hidden inside the vehicle. Sergeant Mong and I raced back to Thabazimbi because Mr Coetzee was at Thabazimbi at that stage. There were no telephones by means of which we could contact him, we had to race through to Thabazimbi. We gave Sergeant Langa the order to drive to Soweto so long and wait for us there. He received an order that I can recall, he had to hand it over to a certain terrorist by the name of, the name is at the back of that photograph.
CHAIRPERSON: Mpho?
MR PRETORIUS: Mpho, yes Mpho. The statement that I want to make in order to summarise everything is that if the ANC wants to allege as they are alleging, they would have known, then why didn't they seize 269 there, because he was there and I am certain thereof that Mr Mkhonza would be able to confirm that.
CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon, what does the fact that Ms Simelane allegedly was working on the side-line for people who were not authorised to send her to South Africa, what does that fact have to do with Mr Duma Nkosi?
MR PRETORIUS: If I might just explain, I think that that was an additional aspect because the more people had to be visited, the more people she had to make contact with, the better our opportunity to formulate a legend for her stay here, because the problem was the period of time that she spent here, that she did not return to Swaziland, we knew that the more people she had to make contact with, the better the scope for us and that is actually what I mean.
ADV GCABASHE : Did she indicate how many other people she was supposed to come into contact with?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I can recall that she said that there were other people, but I can't recall exactly who they were or whether she said who they were.
ADV GCABASHE : And did she indicate the nature of her contact with them, I mean what was she supposed to say to these people?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, it was also messages because she was a communications courier, she had to convey messages. I accept that she told us that, however today in all sincerity I must say that I cannot recall exactly what she said about the other people.
ADV GCABASHE : And did she give any indication as to when she was expected back in Swaziland?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly she mentioned something about her biggest problem being the university and not the ANC, that was the biggest issue. The reason why she had to return, she couldn't say away from the university for too long, but with regard to the ANC, she didn't tell us that she had a specific date that she had to be back. There was a lapse of time.
ADV GCABASHE : No, she had completed her studies at the university, exams are written from May so she had finished by June. You don't recall what she said about the university, she had completed her studies.
MR PRETORIUS: No, to be honest, I can really not remember precisely what she said about that.
ADV GCABASHE : And then finally, just to understand you correctly, you say she in fact was working with the Indian gentleman and the white woman, she was not supposed to be working with Mpho, this is what you are saying?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, that is what she told us.
ADV GCABASHE : Okay. And in terms of the planning of that seizure, if she was simply passing on information, why would she have to go down to Mr Mkhonza's car, I do not know if you can help me with that?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct. I don't think that anybody has actually put that question yet, what I can remember is that the order to Mr Mkhonza was to lure her away from the restaurant, because I think Mr Coetzee stated clearly that the rendezvous point was in the restaurant, and we couldn't exactly conduct a seizing action in the restaurant and Mkhonza can be of assistance there. I remember that his order was to tell her something like for example and I am just thinking of an example, we can't talk here, let's go and talk in the parking area, in other words Mr Mkhonza had to conduct the luring action. He had to get her into the parking area.
ADV GCABASHE : Thank you, thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination Mr Visser?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, might I intervene, I am sorry, there is just one aspect arising from the questions which Adv Gcabashe asked the applicant, which might take it a little further, and simply that my instructions are - Mr Pretorius, she had to go and fetch her degree, there was a graduation ceremony during which her degree would be handed over to her and she missed it, do you know about that?
MR PRETORIUS: I can recall that she said something about the university and that there was a limited period of time during which she had to return. Whether or not it was the graduation or the degree, I cannot say with a hundred percent certainty.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van den Berg. Mr Visser?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. It was suggested to you that Mr Mkhonza when he returned from Swaziland, merely had the order with regard to one target, and that was the Wits Command, can you recall that?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes.
MR VISSER: You said in your evidence that he indeed spoke about other targets?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct, when he returned from Swaziland the first time, that Wits Command had to enjoy immediate attention, he had basically received the approval to go ahead.
MR VISSER: Did the Police then launch a false flag operation at the Wits Command or did that not happen?
MR PRETORIUS: No, I believe that we actually did something else there, I cannot remember exactly what happened there, I think Mr Coetzee would cast further light on that issue.
MR VISSER: With regard to the other targets, was there one or more specific targets of which he may have told you?
MR PRETORIUS: That would be Mr Mkhonza?
MR VISSER: Yes?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, what I can recall is that the Policemen had to be attacked, the Council offices ...
MR VISSER: I beg your pardon, you don't understand me. Please restrict yourself to the three false flag operations that we have discussed here. Were any one of those specifically identified or were they identified generally speaking, by means of type?
MR PRETORIUS: By means of type they said sub-stations and railway lines.
MR VISSER: But he was specific enough?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, they were specific although they did not indicate at which point it was supposed to be undertaken.
MR VISSER: And just to bring everything together, you said that the way you understood the information that you received from Simelane was that one of her orders was to tell Mkhonza to go ahead?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, to go ahead with the orders that he had already received.
MR VISSER: You were examined this morning by Mr Lamey about the discussion which they allegedly had with you during which you said "don't ask too many questions", you also said that it was possible that such a discussion may have taken place?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And upon this speculative supposition that such a discussion did indeed take place, I would like to put the following speculative question to you. If Mr Veyi after Ms Simelane had already been replaced in Swaziland, had asked what had happened to her, what would you in all probability have said to him, "don't ask too many questions", why would you have said that?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I think that everybody who was involved in the Security Branch, knew that you shouldn't ask too many questions because there were operations under way, to protect the informer and he wasn't part of the handling programme, he didn't have anything to do with it.
MR VISSER: It wasn't necessary for him to know?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR VISSER: In all fairness, the clients of Mr Lamey conceded this morning that it is possible that certain toiletries may have been purchased for Ms Simelane from the very beginning and then upon a question of the Chairperson, you stated that you thought that they would have seen it. The question is simply about the following, did she have a bag with her when she was arrested that she kept with her, a handbag or a carry bag?
MR PRETORIUS: I can't recall anything like that.
MR VISSER: Would there have been a place where she could have stored her things?
MR PRETORIUS: I wouldn't like to refer to her room, but her bed was there in the corner of a room.
MR VISSER: No, I don't care about the bed, I want to know whether or not there was a place where she could have stored her things?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, in the corner of the room.
MR VISSER: And isn't it possible that she may have had these things and the other members didn't see it?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I would concede that that is possible.
MR VISSER: It was put to you that the scope of the assault included slaps, punches and the use of the wet bag method. That was not the only discomfort or suffering which Ms Simelane endured while she was under your control, she was also bound with handcuffs and leg irons?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Her movements were limited to the room itself?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And there were other deprivations, there wasn't any running water and so forth and she had to wash in the dam and that sort of thing?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: The other aspect which was tabled by Mr Van den Berg was that he put it to you, or he put to you a question about the assaults and you said that the format was the same regardless of whether it was a man or a woman, the methodology would have been the same?
MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Would the degree of application of that modus operandi have been the same with a man or a woman?
MR PRETORIUS: No, it would have differed.
MR VISSER: In other words what does that mean, would it have been more serious with a woman?
MR PRETORIUS: No, I think it would have been less severe with a woman, because the subject was a petite lady.
MR VISSER: In other words it wasn't necessary to apply such a high level of violence on a woman as may have been necessary with a big, strong man?
MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: This isn't re-examination, but just to put this on record Mr Chairperson, the evidence was that these false flag operations were conducted for the exact reason that it should appear that these were ANC actions and this was done in order to protect the position of Simelane and the other informers or agents. Now in the further submissions and responses by the African National Congress to questions raised by the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, that would be the yellow documents Mr Chairman, there is indeed a reference on page 78 and 79 which is relevant. On 78 it would appear that the heading is 1983 and on the next page, page 79, there are two dates. The one is the 8th of September 1983 and the target for which the ANC claims responsibility was "economic electrical sub-stations Johannesburg area", (2) Randburg and Sandton bomb, and then 11 September 1983, again "economic sub-stations at Bryanston-North and Fairland limpet mines cause structural damage". It would appear those are the two that we are speaking about in the evidence here. I have nothing further, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, is there any reason why you didn't use female Police Officers in this operation?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, we didn't have people like that if I might say this. I think at that stage, with regard to Soweto, there were two or three ladies that I recall, but they were employed in an administrative capacity and they worked in the office, they didn't work with us. There was never any order at that stage that any ladies had to work with the External Units.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the women that you are speaking about, are Police Officers?
MR PRETORIUS: You see Chairperson, I can remember perhaps one lady who was there who was a Police Officer, the rest were all administrative workers.
CHAIRPERSON: So there was no reason why you couldn't have used that female Police Officer?
MR PRETORIUS: But that woman wasn't allocated to us, and I didn't know whether or not it was the policy at that stage of the Police, to use lady Officers. They were only deployed at a later stage. There were very few women who were used and especially within the Soweto context, they didn't want to use women.
CHAIRPERSON: Why not?
MR PRETORIUS: Because it was too dangerous at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: What was too dangerous?
MR PRETORIUS: The onslaught on the Police, you must understand that the Protea office was located within Soweto and Sergeant Mong can testify here about an afternoon when he was on his way to the office and he was attacked with an AK47.
CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't wish to expose the Police women to this violence and rough situation?
MR PRETORIUS: The decision didn't rest with me, I was simply a Warrant Officer.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that the policy of the Police?
MR PRETORIUS: Unfortunately I cannot tell you that.
CHAIRPERSON: You didn't want to expose women to these dangers and this violence?
MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I would rather not comment about that, as I have said I was not in such a position of command that I could tell you what the Commanders decided.
CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't that within the usual set up where women were involved, you would use your female members in some or other capacity?
MR PRETORIUS: Later on it was that way, but I can assure you that a Unit such as Murder and Robbery who picked up men, women and children on a daily basis, never had women working for it at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't know what the reason for that is?
MR PRETORIUS: I cannot comment on that at all.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are excused Mr Pretorius.
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, perhaps just in regard to the question that you have asked, if I may be allowed just to follow that up with one question please. The Security Police, in relation to other Policemen, did you receive the same training and instructions to prepare you for your tasks as Security Policemen, was this the same for all Policemen or did you receive extra training?
MR PRETORIUS: We received further courses in training.
MR VISSER: And if you found yourself with a woman that you were dealing with, was it proper to bring any woman in and involve her in a turning action?
MR PRETORIUS: No, not at that stage.
MR VISSER: Well, forget about the stage, what would such a woman be of value to you?
MR PRETORIUS: It is true what Mr Visser says Mr Chairperson, I can't see what the use would have been of such a woman because she wouldn't have had any knowledge of how to deal with the situation. She would have been completely worthless to us in such a situation.
MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.
MR PRETORIUS: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
