Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today we will hear the application of Charles Alfred Zeelie. The amnesty application number is AM3751/96. My name is Motata, I will be chairing this hearing. I'll invite my colleagues to place their names on record.

MS BOSMAN: Francis Bosman, Member of the Amnesty Committee.

MR LAX: Ilan Lax, Member of the Amnesty Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: May I formally invite the legal representatives to place themselves on record. For the applicant first.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Fanie Rossouw, I'm from the firm Rooth and Wessels Attorneys, and I represent the applicant, Mr Charles Zeelie.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rossouw.

MR BIZOS: May it please you, Mr Chairman. I appear on behalf of Mr Tokyo Sexwale, instructed by Caroline Nichols of Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Chairperson, Eric van den Berg, Attorneys Bell Dewar and Hall, on behalf of Mr Martins and on behalf of the Xhosa family, also on behalf of a Mr Dlamini who is present.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, before I proceed to the other legal representatives, I hear that you represent the Xhosa family. We have problems at this twilight stage of our lives within the TRC process, that the Amnesty Committee has got to identify victims and that the nearest in the family, that is the Xhosa family, I know the whole family is interested to know what happened, or what obtained during this period, but for purposes of identifying the victims and the nearest to the victim, that is of the one which we would be dealing with, they would want to know the precise family tree. I would invite you to canvass that point and at some stage give it to your Evidence Analyst, because we don't have that capacity to proceed for a number of months, I think we're left with three months only and that should be captured immediately. Would you do that for us?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I will indeed, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Koopedi, are you also here?

MR KOOPEDI: I am, Chairperson. My name is Brian Koopedi, I appear before you on behalf of JB Sibanyoni, a victim in this matter. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Koopedi.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson. I'm Zuko Mapoma, the Leader of Evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Mapoma. Before I will commence I would say to those who want to benefit from the translation, you have to be in possession of this gadget and on line 1 it would be Afrikaans, line 2, English, line 3, Sesotho, line 4, Zulu and line 5, Xhosa.

And again may I say, please those who are in possession of mobile phones, switch them off because they interfere with the machinery that picks up the translation. It's very sensitive, so we would ask everybody to please switch off their phones.

Mr Rossouw, before you commence, is there anything you want to place on record?

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you. Mr Chairman, no, we're ready to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. In what language is Mr Zeelie going to testify.

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry, Mr Chairman he's going to testify in Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may sit down, Mr Zeelie. Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The applicant has just requested whether he can remove his jacket, with your leave.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, certainly, even those who feel hot, I believe it's hot today, I'm not certain, but those who are feeling hot, they are allowed to take off their jackets.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I at the outset request to hand up to you a document which details the background of Mr Zeelie's employment in the South African Police. I've made a copy available to my learned colleague, Mr Bizos, and I believe that copies will also be made available to the other legal representatives here. Mr Chairman, it's marked Exhibit E from a previous hearing, so maybe we can just cross that out.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, couldn't we for our purposes, mark it Exhibit A?

MR ROSSOUW: That would be fine.

CHAIRPERSON: If there are no other exhibits, but let's just check the application. Yes, it doesn't look like there are other

exhibits here, but we'll change them as we go on. This one will be marked Exhibit A.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, you are an applicant for amnesty in four incidents, do you have a copy of your amnesty bundle before you?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Before we look at that, Mr Zeelie, I would just like you to briefly study Exhibit A that has been handed up and I would request you to briefly tell the Committee - and this is the run-up for the first incident for which you apply, when did you join the South African Police?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I joined directly after I completed my matric, it was December 1969, in Phalaborwa.

MR ROSSOUW: And this was from 1969 - we know you apply for assaults in which you were involved from 1975 up to 1994, will you briefly tell the Committee, from 1969 when you joined the Police, what was your rank at that stage and what was your exposure to assaults by police officers?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have said, after I completed my matric, I directly joined the South African Police and I was appointed as a student Constable in Phalaborwa. The first three months I received training locally there, in the uniform activities of the South African Police, and in the second three months I was moved to the Detective Branch of the South African Police. And in that training Chairperson, I had already encountered assaults and methods of assault which were used to obtain information from people in order to solve cases.

During those three months, in my presence, many people were assaulted in various ways, to obtain information in order to solve cases and it did happen that even in the presence of the Commander of the Detective Branch that time and I realised that this was a general method, or general methods to obtain information from suspects in order to solve cases.

MR ROSSOUW: Will you briefly tell the Committee what were those methods that you observed.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, at that stage there were methods used, common assault, slapping with an open hand or with fists. Then there was also the tube method that was used and at that stage we used a wet bag that was pulled over a person's head more often and basically the person was suffocated for a short while. And then we also used shock methods where, at that stage, two electrical wires which were connected to a telephone like device, was attached to the person. We would at that stage put a stick between a person's teeth so he can bite on it and then the telephone handle was turned and this sent a shock through the person, and at that stage that also sort of suffocated the person.

And then what I can recall now is the method of a broomstick where a person is handcuffed and his hands are pulled over his knees and the broomstick is pushed in-between, through his arms and legs and he's hung between two tables, and it is in that position that he is question.

And as I have already testified in a similar TRC hearing where there was one incident where a pliers was used and this person was then blindfolded and he would be told that if he does not talk, then I will bite him and bite his big toe and then the pliers would be used to pinch his toes. The reason for this was, I can recall there was a charge, at that stage it was not in my presence, a charge was laid Chairperson, and the chairing person said there: "What policeman will go and bite another person's foot", because that person thought that a mouth was used and that is how the case was thrown out of court. That is basically what I can recall of the methods that we used at that stage.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. These methods that you described now, did you find them there or did you invent these methods?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already said, I never knew of these methods before it was shown to me there and what I observed through the course of investigations. So this was a practice that was there for many years in the South African Police, is what I assumed.

MR ROSSOUW: The instruments, for example, the shocking machine that you referred to, was this available at the police offices where you joined?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson, one would possibly find that one or two members of the Detective Branch at that stage, would be in possession of such a machine and all the detectives knew about it and they used it amongst themselves.

MR ROSSOUW: Is it correct if I say that what you found after you joined the Police, was a well established practice of assault of detainees to obtain information from them?

MR ZEELIE: Absolutely, Chairperson, that is how I met this situation there.

MR ROSSOUW: In 1975 you came to Johannesburg, which unit did you join?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I already earlier came to Johannesburg. In 1972 I was transferred from Pretoria to the Flying Squad in Johannesburg and in 1975 the Unrest Unit was established and I was one of the first groups who was trained as unrest members. We were located at the mechanical garage there in Diepkloof in Soweto, from where we operated forward as well.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, what was the objective of this Unrest Unit, what did they have to combat?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it was all unrest related incidents where, for example, there would be strikes or where there would be any marches, in order to apply crowd control. You see this thing, if I recall correctly, this thing started after the Dawid Protter incident and a report was written and it was said that certain specialist units had to be founded and then the Task Force was founded, and from there the Unrest Unit was established.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, with the Unrest Unit, this practice that you referred to, did this exist there as well?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson no, not necessarily specifically in the Unrest Unit, at that stage when I was involved there. As I have said, at that stage it was primarily a training period that lasted up until the unrests broke out in June 1976.

MR ROSSOUW: So with the outbreak of the unrests in 1976, in June of that year you were still with the Unrest Unit when were you transferred to John Vorster Security Branch?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, in July of 1976, just a month after the unrests broke out I was transferred to Security Branch, John Vorster Square.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. Mr Zeelie, this will now be the relevant period for which you apply for amnesty. Firstly, I would like to ask you, did you find that assaults took place by other members of the Security Branch on detainees at John Vorster Branch?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson. After I was transferred to the Security Branch, it was in the unrest period and there were many people, many young students, black students. We detained thousands at a stage and whether you were attached to an Investigative Unit at that time or not, you were used to undertake questioning of these people as well, and during that stage already these techniques were used as I have described them, in order to obtain information from these people, to disclose whatever political incidents or activities they were involved with.

MR ROSSOUW: Let us just discuss apparatus. Sorry, Mr Chairman, just a minute.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zeelie, whilst your attorney is talking to somebody, when you referred to the Dawid Protter incident, is it the incident at Volkskas Building, or along Fox Street?

MR ZEELIE: It was the so-called Fox Street investment, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, let us first discuss the apparatus, amongst others, the shocking apparatus, the suffocation technique which we know is known as tubing. Did you have such apparatus on your person, did you take it with you to John Vorster Square, or did you find it there?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I never had any of those apparatus on my person. One or two members had it with them at John Vorster Square. And I can mention that some of the Commanders there did know of those apparatuses.

MR ROSSOUW: And on what grounds do you say that the Commanders had knowledge of these apparatuses?

MR ROSSOUW: Chairperson, there were times when the Commanders were present where assaults took place and some of these apparatus were used.

MR ROSSOUW: I would just like you to tell the Committee the Commanders of the Security Branch at John Vorster Square when you arrived there in 1976, can you recall who it was?

MR ZEELIE: Yes Chairperson, if I refer to Commanders, then I can mention that it was specifically directed at Commanders of, for example, Investigative Units. The Commanders whom I will refer to were the Commanders of the Security Branch at that stage and that specifically they, the names that are mentioned now, were present that I know of, where such assaults and apparatus were used, but the Commanders with whom I worked, the Commanders at the Security Branch were, amongst others, Gen Johan Coetzee. At that stage I think he was a Colonel or a Brigadier. I cannot recall the people's ranks at that stage, but I will mention them by the ranks they held when they retired. It is firstly, Gen Coetzee and then Gen Louw Malan ... (interven-tion)

MR ROSSOUW: And before you left the Security Branch at John Vorster Square, who was the Commander?

MR ZEELIE: It was then Gen Gerrit Erasmus.

MR ROSSOUW: And just to place this into perspective, when you arrived at John Vorster, what was your rank?

MR ZEELIE: I was a Sergeant at that stage.

MR ROSSOUW: And then in Exhibit A you give the dates of your promotions there in the South African Police, on page 12. Mr Chairman, you'll find that ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: Will you grant me a moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, my attention has just been drawn to these names which were mentioned now, that were we aware of their names and were they given notice as implicated persons?

MR MAPOMA: The others, Chairperson, particularly Gen Coetzee and Gen Malan, we were not aware of those names, but Gen Gerrit Erasmus, we issued a notice and in fact a response thereto was received from Wagener Muller Attorneys, where they said that - if I may quote from the second paragraph

"My client is not available for instructions and therefore no representations will be filed on his behalf."

But pursuant to this I spoke to Mr Wagener today and they indicated that they will not be attending this hearing on his behalf, but they will leave the matter to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Would I at this early stage say that you make a transcript of these proceedings available to Generals Johan Coetzee, Louw, Malan, for their comments.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry about that, Mr Rossouw, you may proceed.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let me just make it clear and I'll deal with that again, Mr Chairman, I think the applicant has indicated that he's not implicating the people that he's mentioned now, as being present. The question was merely asked: "Who were the commanding officers of the Security Branch during the time when he was there". He did not implicate them, Mr Chairman. But I'll clear that in evidence again.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, may you please clear that, because the prima facie thing is that they were aware of assaults that took place at John Vorster Square.

MR ROSSOUW: Well let me clear that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Please.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, have just now said that the persons you have mentioned, the Commanders of the Security Branch, at various stage you say were not involved themselves in assaults. Are you able to say whether they knew about it and if they did, which of them?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have said, not one of them were present at the assaults that I know of, but I believe that all these Commanders should have known of these assaults, because where a person was assaulted charges were laid and as far as my knowledge goes, I was never, in all the cases that were laid against me, or the charges that were laid against me, was reprimanded about any of these assaults and the techniques that were applied. And I accepted therefore, that they approved it.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Rossouw, may I just come in here for one moment?

Mr Zeelie, I wrote down your evidence as it was interpreted into English and your evidence reads:

"There were times Commanders were present when these assaults took place"

and immediately thereafter you said:

"Commanders of Investigative Units were ..."

and you gave the names of Johan Coetzee, Louw Malan and Erasmus. I stand to be corrected if I have it wrong, but I wrote down the ipsissima verba as it was interpreted:

"There were times Commanders were present when these assaults took place"

If you can just clear that up. ...(No English interpretation of Adv Bosman's statements - transcriber's interpretation)

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, no, what I testified was that Commanders to whom I directly referred were Commanders, for example, with the Investigative Units and I specifically said the Commanders that Mr Rossouw basically referred to were the Commanders of the Security Branch at that stage, and I did not specifically refer to them.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, may I ask you as follows. When you left John Vorster Square you were the Chief of the Bomb Squad.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: So the Commanders whom you referred to now, who may have been involved, would have been the Commander of this Bomb Squad, for example?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson. Maybe I can just state that clearly, and we refer to desk officers. The Security Branch was divided into various groups and each and every group had a Commander to which we referred to as a desk officer and those were the people, those are the Commanders to whom I referred.

MR ROSSOUW: And the persons to whom you referred would be the overhead Commanders of the whole Security Branch?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, the Generals that I referred to, they were overhead of all the Commanders of all these various groups within the Security Branch.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, then I would like to take you to Exhibit A, page 12 thereof ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, before you go there, just to get this beyond any confusion, because again you said: "These are the officers to which I referred". When you say: "These are the officers to which I referred", you're saying these are the officers that you referred to who would have been present during assaults, as opposed to the overarching Commanders, who wouldn't necessarily have been present during the assaults? Is that the distinction you are making?

MR ZEELIE: These overhead Commanders, Chairperson, would not necessarily have been there. As I have said, never in my presence but as I have said, I believe at the end of the day that they would have known about people who were assaulted there.

MR LAX: But the people you were specifically referring to, it was in this last statement, were these desk officers.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. Exhibit A, page 12, states your promotion through the South African Police. When you arrived at John Vorster Square in 1976 you were, in other words, a Sergeant, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And then in '82 you were a Warrant Officer and in '84 you became a Lieutenant.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, from the time that you arrived there as a Sergeant, were you exposed to such assaults and did you participate in these?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And were there senior police officers and also officers present?

MR ZEELIE: Definitely, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Are you able to tie a specific person to a specific incident today?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already stated in a previous amnesty application where names were specifically asked I, amongst others, mentioned Gen Piet du Toit's name where such incidents did take place in his presence. And at that stage I specifically mentioned George Martin's name. If I recall correctly, I was called out to the offices of Murder and Robbery ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: We will deal with that later, Mr Zeelie. What I would like to know from you, these assaults that took place, you have now described when you joined the Police before 1975, you described these methods, was it similar or were other methods used at John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: There were similar assaults, amongst others, common assaults with the hand or with the first and there were incidents of tubing here. They used a motor car's inner tube that was placed over the face, as well as the shocking apparatus. But in this case I took note of another way of using the shocking apparatus, where the apparatus was not attached with clips to the ears, but we put cloth around the points of the electric wire and then those two points and the cloth were placed in water and then the person was then wet with water and he was undressed up to his underpants, or sometimes entirely naked and then we would wet him, and in the cases where I was present, for example, the wet cloth on the wire would be placed under his one armpit and the other one would be placed under his leg where he is seated on the chair and then the shocking apparatus is applied when the machine is turned. And after you turned it twice or thrice you will find that the man tries to breath and then you would slap him with the hand on his back, then he would catch his breath and the interrogation would continue.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, on page 22 in the bundle you mention that persons were also psychologically intimidated, will you please explain to the Committee what that entailed.

MR ZEELIE: This is where I would say that you took the person's mind and you made him believe that something could happen to him. This was a type of thing that I did after I had undergone my explosives training and in some of the demonstrations I took a handgrenade and it was a handgrenade that has been secured, there's no explosives in it, there's no detonator that could go off. And then that handgrenade, this is what I did, I would for example, take it and have the person hold in-between his legs while his hands are bound behind his back and then psychologically you made him believe that if he opens his legs the handgrenade will drop to the floor and it will blow him up. That is basically to what I refer there.

And then, for example, we also used methods were persons would be assaulted by an interrogator and then the assault would be ceased and then perhaps the following day you would use another interrogator and that interrogator would be the so-called 'nice guy' and he would speak nicely to the person and then psychologically that man will, this guy who is nice to him, he would trust this guy more and supply information to him. So there were various techniques that were used. But it did not work on everyone.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, you've now described the techniques, are you able to say today, or can you distinguish between specific instances where you were the operative or where you were an accomplice or an accessory? Can you make that distinction today?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot today recall persons names where I, for example, used a shocking apparatus, but there were various incidents. Today I can just tell you, Chairperson, from the unrest up until the day that I went to the Security Branch, I interrogated or questioned many people and it was not specifically that one would recall a person's name, because you were the investigator.

There were cases where an investigating officer would have four of five detainees or sometimes more, there were sometimes cases where we had nineteen detainees and then those persons are given to various interrogators. You would question him and then you would withdraw again. Therefore it is very difficult for me to mention specific names of persons whom I had applied the shocking apparatus to and had tubed. I am able to say that the one case was an amnesty application that I have already received amnesty for, where the shock apparatus was applied.

MR ROSSOUW: Is that the case of Mr Stanza Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And in that case is it correct that from the evidence in that case it appeared that there was a cover-up by senior police officers?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson. Once again, we were willing to go to the Commanders and in this regard we can mention his name, our Commander was Gen Erasmus, that is why we went to him and told him what problem we had and he on his part went to Head Office and conveyed the incident there and at high level it was decided to cover the death of Mr Stanza Bopape up.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, before we get to the specific persons that you can recall, before we deal with those I would just like you to tell the Committee, during your career, from the time that you joined John Vorster Square as a Sergeant, you are now telling the story and you have now sketched the background, but what was the understanding, what was the talk in the corridors amongst the members of the Security Branch? Did they know that this happened, or was this something that you would just do in a dark room, or was this general knowledge?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I will honestly say that it was general practice in the Police and specifically in the final years where I was involved in the Security Branch. There was never any person that was ashamed to say that he had assaulted a person or had applied certain techniques in order to obtain certain information. And amongst ourselves we discussed it.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, and is it also so that charges of assault were laid against you by persons who were detained and assaulted?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson, there were specific - and I refer to myself, there were various charges of assault laid against me that were investigated and in which I made statements. I must put it to the Committee that there were false charges laid against me as well. There were charges where there indeed grounds to investigate me, where I was guilty and then there were also various occasions where I was not guilty, where false charges were laid against me.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, this investigation would have been a court directed investigation, would you have made any false statements in that regard?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: But except for those investigations, were there any departmental investigations by any of your seniors in the branch?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, there were never such investigations against me, and at no stage was I reprimanded by any senior officer with regard to any assault charge that was laid against me. And once again I wish to mention, you know Chairperson, if one assault charge is laid against you, then as I can say, it could be a false charge and the Commander most probably would accept it as such, but if there are various charges laid against you, then the Commander must think that this man is really assaulting people. And that is why I am saying I was never reprimanded by any Commander about this, in spite of the fact that they knew that on various occasions I was charged or I was investigated for assault cases.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, let us get to the specific persons. You'll find this and answers that were put by the Amnesty Committee from page 31, specifically with regard to the assaults on page 32 and 33. Can we commence with the incident of Mr Tokyo Sexwale. Can you sketch the background to the Committee, what happened, what led to Mr Sexwale's arrest?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot recall any specific dates, but there was a handgrenade incident to which is referred as the Border Gate Incident, at which Mr Tokyo Sexwale was involved. And in brief I can only sketch the incident as I can recall it. As I have said I was not there, but from the investigation I understand that a policeman was doing patrol on the border, and I cannot recall whether he saw two or three black persons with a container and he stopped by them and he asked them where they were on their way to, they said they were going to town, and the police officer asked them what was in the container and they said it was their clothing and he wanted to open the container.

I cannot say which person at that stage, but someone said that he can't find the key to this container, then the people - it was an open Landrover, as far as I can recall, I may be wrong, they were then loaded onto the back of the Landrover with this container and the police officer told them that they would open the container in town and they would also be at their destination. During the trip to town - as you know, all these Landrovers' windows, the back windows are sliding windows, and one of the persons at the back of the vehicle threw a handgrenade into the cabin of the Landrover from behind, and at that stage the only thing that the police could recall was a ring that this person had, the one who threw a handgrenade through the window. This police officer was seriously injured and I think, I do speak under correction, but I think at that stage he became a paraplegic.

From there an investigation was launched and the investigation led to Johannesburg, West Rand and Soweto. I can recall this quite clearly, Chairperson, on the 30th of December we launched an operation ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Was this in 1976?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, Chairperson, this was in 1976. We launched a big operation during which various homes in Soweto and on the West Rand area and in Alexandra, were hit and various persons were arrested and taken to John Vorster Square, in the middle of the night. I can say the operation basically took place in the early morning hours of the 31st, and some of these persons were questioned, the ones who were detained. At some stage during the morning Mr Sexwale was placed in an office. I walked in and I addressed him and told him that he should start speaking the truth.

MR ROSSOUW: What information did you want from him?

MR ZEELIE: We wanted information from him with regard to arms, Chairperson, that they brought along with them and there was information about that. While he stood there, if I can recall I wanted to slap him but I saw a broomstick standing there and I took the broomstick and I struck him a blow to the stomach. He immediately fell to the ground and had some spasms.

At that stage another officer, I don't believe he's mentioned here, and if the Committee does not want me to mention a name, it was an officer, it was a Coloured officer, he walked into the office and asked me what happened now and I told him that I struck Mr Sexwale in the stomach and he said: "Geez, Mr Sexwale is experiencing epileptic seizures". At that stage I told him if he was experiencing epileptic seizures, it's not to say that he shouldn't give information ...(end of side A of tape) ... or that he used the so-called epileptic seizures to ensure that he would not be assaulted. It is a method that he used at that stage. I then spoke to him and at that stage he said that he would give his co-operation.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. Was Mr Sexwale later assaulted by you at any stage, in any manner?

MR ZEELIE: He was never further assaulted by me in any manner.

MR ROSSOUW: Are you able to say whether he was assaulted by other members of the Security Branch before you found him in this particular room?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I believed that he must have been assaulted, otherwise that officer would not have told me that I should watch out that this person experiences epileptic seizures.

MR ROSSOUW: And after he told you that he would give his co-operation, was he assaulted by other members in your presence?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, no, he was not assaulted in my presence. I can only mention that over the long weekend we conducted investigations, from which we obtained positive information from what he told us and after that long weekend we decided that this whole group would be transferred and that an Investigative Unit or some unit would be put together, and the investigations were continued in Pretoria.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you tell us, Mr Zeelie, the officer who came into the room, you do not want to withhold that name, I think you can mention that name to the Committee, and notices can go out later.

MR ZEELIE: The person that walked in there was at that stage a Lieutenant Sons, S-o-n-s.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, the information that you were looking for with regard to arms of Mr Sexwale, you say this had positive results. Did he give you any names of persons?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson, names were supplied of whom we could go to, where the arms would be hidden, and that led to other persons. If I can just get back. We got back and Mr Sexwale spoke to us again and as I've said, he was not assaulted by me or in my presence again and he gave his total co-operation and eventually all the arms were found back in Alexandra.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, after this incident did you at any stage, until today, have the opportunity to discuss anything with Mr Sexwale?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson, approximately three years ago, and I would lie to you if I give you an exact year, but I coincidentally met Mr Sexwale on the road close to his home where he was led by security vehicles as well. When I recognised him in my rear-view mirror I turned around and he recognised me and told me to pull off the road. I then pulled off the road and he was glad to see me for the first time again. He and I had a conversation and he told me that he was not angry at me or any of the Security Branch members, he said he knew that we were on opposite sides and that we were fighting a war, and he said that we should take hands and go into the new South Africa together.

MR ROSSOUW: Now that sentiment, Mr Zeelie, that it was a war and there were two sides and that that was the accepted practice, is that how you saw it in the light of those circumstances, why it was necessary to use these methods to obtain information from people?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson. Then I can only mention that, you know these groups whom we refer to as terrorists, usually operated and came into the country in groups of three to five and each and every one of them had his own arms, and then there were the so-called DLBs that were established and the arms were then taken out of the dead letter boxes and explosions took place, and that is why it was my opinion as well that it was necessary to, as quickly as possible, find these arms before other innocent persons are hurt.

I can only mention to the Committee that if, for example, if I take the senseless - according to me, it's my view, placing of explosives of a railway line in-between Soweto and Johannesburg, where innocent black people who really wanted to support their families and they wanted to work, were injured in explosions. That in itself was also the things that went through me, to protect innocent persons who were not involved in politics and that is why I would have done my utmost to get this information from them, to combat these political motives of these persons.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, insofar as Mr Sexwale is concerned, the assault that you executed on him, did you do this because of any personal malice towards him?

MR ZEELIE: Not at all, Chairperson. I can even mention to you that before Mr Sexwale was transferred to Pretoria, he and I, as I've said he was never assaulted by me again and we had a friendly disposition towards each other. And that specific hand that the police identified as the hand that threw the handgrenade, he gave that to me, and that was very important evidence later in his hearing.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. Can we go to the second person whose name you mentioned - Mr Sibanyoni.

CHAIRPERSON: Could we, whilst you are dealing with the second incident, I think it's an opportune time to take the tea bread.

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I didn't even watch my watch.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, why I'm suggesting the tea break, I can hear the Interpreters being out of breath catching up with Mr Zeelie, so they must catch their breath as well. Thank you, we'll take a 15 minutes adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: (s.u.o.)

RECORDING COMMENCES INTO MR ZEELIE'S EVIDENCE

MR ZEELIE: ... I took photos of the detainees and during this process of taking photos, Mr Sibanyoni did not want to give his names to me, so that we could finish the questioning, or the investigation. As I said, it's a bit vague about the exact words that we used, but I know that at that stage I slapped him. It's possible that I hit him with my fist in his stomach. I cannot remember the exact facts of what happened that day.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you swear at him, did you use foul language?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it's possible that I used foul language. I think there are few times when questionings take place where members of the police do not use foul language.

MR ROSSOUW: You say that this incident of assault happened in Sandton?

MR ZEELIE: If I recall correctly, yes it was there.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you carry out any further investigations with Mr Sibanyoni?

MR ZEELIE: If I remember correctly, yes Chairperson, we went to his home, I think it was near Bronkhorstspruit, if I recall correctly, I might be wrong, and we investigated a vehicle. We used a kind of an apparatus to remove dust from the vehicle to see if there were any explosives or remains of explosives, and as far as I can recall we had information that he had explosives in a tin container in the car.

I took photos of Mr Sibanyoni there at the vehicle, as well as at the container where he pointed to the container. I can recall that we were in the house and there was an organ or a piano and I asked Mr Sibanyoni about whose piano it was, who played on the piano and he said it was him, and he played something on the piano or on the organ. And I say this, this happened - after the assault charge was laid, I mentioned this in my declaration, because photos were taken where he played on the piano. This was one of the things I laid on the table and said: "Why would I assault Mr Sibanyoni at any stage if this is the kind of relationship we had with him, that he even - that he moved around without handgrenades in his house and he played piano. And I think if I can recall correctly, that was one of the points that came - one of the things mentioned by the office of the Attorney-General.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright, Mr Zeelie. So a charge of assault was laid against you by Mr Sibanyoni.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And you made a false declaration and you were never prosecuted by the Attorney-General?

MR ZEELIE: No, never.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright.

MR ZEELIE: I just want to mention that I was never reprimanded about the charge laid against me in this case.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, at the stage where Mr Sibanyoni was assaulted by you, let me just ask you, was he assaulted by other members as well?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it's possible, I cannot remember that he was assaulted by other members in my presence. I can't remember.

MR ROSSOUW: And at the stage when you assaulted him, was he fully clothed?

MR ZEELIE: He was fully clothed, Chairperson. I wouldn't have taken photos if he were naked.

MR ROSSOUW: And can you describe the extent of his injury?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I don't think he had very noticeable injuries, no.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright, Mr Zeelie. Then we can go to the incident of Mr George Martins. Could you explain to the Committee how it happened, how you became involved in this. How did it happen?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I've explained already, there were so many incidents and if I recall correctly this was the incident where I went to the offices of Murder and Robbery, or Gen Piet du Toit called me to Murder and Robbery offices and we found Mr Martins there. I cannot recall who was with me, there were other members involved as well. Mr Martins was assaulted there ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Just before we get to that, Gen du Toit was your senior.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: What did he tell you about Mr Martins?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot remember exactly what he told me, but I can say that Mr Martins was assaulted there. I cannot say exactly which methods were used in his case. I can recall an incident that took place at the offices of Murder and Robbery, where I was very worried in that - and I don't know if this could be this incident, but normally where we use shocking methods, this is something I remember now, then we blindfolded the person, so the person didn't always know who handled the shocking apparatus. But in this case I don't know if this was Mr Martins, but it rings a bell, it could have been him where he was not blindfolded and where I was very worried about it. So if this was the case, it's possible that he was shocked electrically, because I know that there was such an incident where I was very worried. It's a thing that I remember now.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright. Except for that possibility, was he also assaulted in any other way?

MR ZEELIE: I accept that he was hit with the firsts or slapped. It's possible.

MR ROSSOUW: Were you involved and responsible alone for this, or were other members as well?

MR ZEELIE: No, there were other members present. As I say, Gen Piet du Toit was present and some of the members of Murder and Robbery were also present, but I can't say who they were.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright. Apart from the fact that they were present, did they also take part in the assault?

MR ZEELIE: I believe - that's why I say, at that I was not happy about the fact that he was not blindfolded, and I believe the members of Murder and Robbery took part in the assault, where I was present and also took part in it.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright, Mr Zeelie. Did Mr Martins lay a charge of assault against you?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as far as I know no charge was laid against me by Mr Martins. I can't remember, but as far as I know there was no charge laid against me by Mr Martins. He couldn't have done it because he escaped. And the way in which he escaped, I praised him for that, because he was a very well trained ANC member, one of the best, and I always believed that he would obtain a senior position in politics. That's how highly I regarded him.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, just shortly, what information did you want from him, and did that lead to anything?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as far as I can recall it was about the tracing of explosives and if I recall correctly, we went to mine heaps where we did find limpet mines and explosives.

MR ROSSOUW: Did he indicate it to you or did he give you the information?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, if I recall correctly I think it was shown to us or indicated to us, but as I said it's a long time ago, there might be facts that I don't remember, but if I recall correctly we found explosives.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. Gen du Toit who was present, did he prosecute you afterwards in a disciplinary way, to tell you that this was not the way to act?

MR ZEELIE: No, under no circumstances, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And Gen du Toit, what was his position at that point, where was he? Where did he work?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I can't remember if at that stage - I think he was Head of the Investigative Unit, or he could have been second-in-command of the Security Branch. I might be wrong, but I think at that stage he was Head of the Investigative Unit.

MR ROSSOUW: Since that incident did you have the opportunity to discuss the incident with Mr Martins?

MR ZEELIE: I can remember, Chairperson, we had a family business at Ellis Park, we had one of these little shops, and I remember it was a day, there was a soccer match and a person came to me where I was working and he asked me if I recognised him and I couldn't recognise him immediately, but when he mentioned his name I remembered who he was. He told me that it was something that happened in the past, we fought on different sides and he withdrew completely from politics. I think he told me that he was a consultant and he wanted to concentrate on his businesses and he felt that we should forget the past.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, there are statements in the bundle before the Committee, the first statement - Mr Chairman, on page 35 and further, this is a statement by Mr Jacob Siatlolo and he declares that he was assaulted and tortured while he was detained at John Vorster Square. On page 46, you'll find he mentions that in April '76 he was detained for a month at John Vorster Square. Could you tell us when you were transferred to John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: I was transferred to John Vorster Square in July '76.

MR ROSSOUW: So this would have been after this date mentioned by this person. Now he describes methods in which he was assaulted, was this indicated to you? Did you check this?

MR ZEELIE: This was indicated to me, Chairperson, but I have no knowledge of myself being involved in this incident.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright, Mr Zeelie. On page 47, he names the perpetrators and he talks about ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: Sorry, Chairperson, I just want to go back. The name Jacob Siatlolo does not ring a bell, the only Jacob I can recall was a person who was involved in Mr Tokyo Sexwale's incident, but I never questioned that person at any stage.

MR ROSSOUW: On page 47, he talks about

"John or Portuguese and (it looks like) Zeel, a German, both policemen"

Now first of all, are you of German descent?

MR ZEELIE: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And what this person indicated here, if this is meant to refer to you, you say you can't remember him?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I can only say that I'm not German. I know that there was a person called John who was a Portuguese, in the Security Branch. I cannot take it any further. As I said, if it's the Jacob who was involved in Mr Tokyo Sexwale's group, he was an old man, I never questioned him.

MR ROSSOUW: You say you have no knowledge about the assault described here, or this person?

MR ZEELIE: No, not at all, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Then I want to ask you to go to page 58, Mr Chairman, and further in the bundle. On page 60, specifically.

Mr Zeelie, on page 60 you'll find a declaration by Mr Velapi Dlamini, and you will see in his declaration he mentions, on page 63, that he was first arrested in Bophuthatswana, then he was taken to Protea Police Station in Soweto. Did you sometimes work at Protea Police Station?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, yes, in 1976 during the unrest periods we were involved in questioning and interrogations in Soweto at Protea Police Station.

MR ROSSOUW: Now here he mentions that in 1987, if I read this correctly, he was detained at Protea, and then on page 70 he refers to the perpetrators and he mentions that at John Vorster, he talks about Treurnicht. Do you know such a person?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot really remember such a person right now, but it seems to me that there was a person of that name stationed at John Vorster, at Security Branch.

MR ROSSOUW: And at Protea Police Station he talks about Kritzinger.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I know Kritzinger, that's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And as far as Bophuthatswana is concerned, at the end of that sentence he talks about Capt Zeel. Now let us start. Were you ever in the employ of the Bophuthatswana Police?

MR ZEELIE: No, never.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you ever operate in Bophuthatswana?

MR ZEELIE: No never, Chairperson, not as far as I can recall.

MR ROSSOUW: And in 1987, when he was detained at John Vorster, what was your rank at that stage?

MR ZEELIE: At stage I was a Lieutenant.

MR ROSSOUW: Is it correct that you only became a Captain in '88?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You say that - Mr Zeelie, this person, can you recall this person at all?

MR ZEELIE: According to these documents I cannot remember him.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright, Mr Zeelie. You told the Committee, as well as in your declaration, that you are willing to, if you are confronted by specific persons and you can recognise them, you will divulge everything you can remember.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson, that's why I'm here today. In no circumstances would I shy away from anything I was involved in, otherwise I wouldn't have been here today.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, on page 81 of the bundle there's a short declaration by Mr Humphrey Mabaso and it seems to me as if that declaration should be read together with Mr Dlamini's declaration, because it seems that those two were tried together. Now can you remember Mr Mabaso said he was suffocated and his hands were tied and he was left without water and food for a whole day? Can you recall him?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot remember this specific incident, the only Mr Mabaso I can remember is another person who was charged on his own, so I cannot remember this incident.

MR ROSSOUW: Then I want you to go to page 22 ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: I just want to mention, if I look at page 82 of the Annexure, there was a newspaper article, all the incidents where I was involved, I collected the newspaper articles and I still have them today, but even this part on page 82, that doesn't ring a bell at all.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, can I ask you to go to page 22, where you talk about the political objective, and also on page 23, do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I do.

MR ROSSOUW: In general. And do you also confirm the information that you wanted to obtain from those persons?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And you already gave evidence about the general practice which existed in the Security Forces, about assault and the fact that the Commanders knew about it.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, did you at any stage receive any compensation, financially or otherwise after the assault, in order to lead to assault people?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I was never even praised for the good deeds I was involved in.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't the medals be praise? You received several medals. Look at Exhibit A.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that was specifically for matters where I secured explosive devices and where I was successful in that.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's the evidence-in-chief.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Rossouw. Mr Bizos, I'll start with you. Any cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Zeelie, I want to deal with the 10th floor at John Vorster Square, in general terms, before we deal with the incidents in which you say you were involved in.

Was the 10th floor the top floor of John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Did the lift go up to the 10th floor for any person other than a security policeman?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, this lift went from cellar level and the first place where it stopped was on the 9th floor and then 10th floor and this was only for Security Branch members' use, because there in the cellar level there was a reception as well and on the 9th floor as well.

MR BIZOS: Were legal representatives, or Magistrates, or anyone who was not a member of the Security Police, or a detainee, allowed to take the lift from the ground floor to the 10th floor?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, they were allowed if someone from the Security Branch accompanied them.

MR BIZOS: Oh so that was the precaution?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Was that because the 10th floor was in fact a torture chamber?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I would not put it as such, because on the 10th floor - when I arrived at Security Branch in 1976, then I was placed on the Black Force activities section, so at that time I was not part of the Investigative Unit. So I shall not say that it was as such. As I am trying to say to what Mr Bizos is trying to refer to, that the tortures took place there, it was not only specifically there Chairperson, because there were other units also on that floor.

MR BIZOS: Let's confine ourselves to the major torture chamber. Now for how long were you in John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I was there from 1976, in July, as I have already said and I cannot say with certainty in which year we went over to Sandton, but I was there for quite a few years.

MR BIZOS: Was there a wire mesh fence between the 9th and 10th floor staircase, when you got there?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, if I recall correctly on the one side of the building there was, but not on the other side where the lift was. So anyone, any person who was on the 9th floor, any person had access to the top floor. And the wire mesh that Mr Bizos is referring to was in, according to my knowledge, that was never locked off. The only place where it was locked on that side, Chairperson, was where one could go down with the steps to the 9th floor and then the levels of the ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: I didn't ask you about that, and I'm sorry for interrupting you, I merely want to ask you whether this wire mesh was there or not.

MR ZEELIE: There were ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes, thank you. Now listen to the next question. Whenever you took detainees from the 9th floor to the 10th floor, did you tell them that the wire mesh was put there in order to prevent people jumping down the well of the staircase to commit suicide, like Timol had done? Did you tell them that?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson. Firstly, we never took them from the 9th floor, that is what I am trying to explain. There were mezzanine levels on the one side of the floor, where there was a mezzanine level to the Security Branch side, so basically they came in from the Charge Office's side and then they were taken up by the stairs. But on the question here, I never told anyone that.

MR BIZOS: Did you know whether this was a favourite statement in order to mentally suggest to the detainee that he may lose his life there?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, if I speak for myself, I cannot answer it as such.

MR BIZOS: Please tell us how many offices were there on the 10th floor.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, many, the corridor was quite long ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: No, please give us ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I am trying to describe that there was a reasonable amount of officers there, some of those offices were large, where three or four people occupied, others were smaller. So at this stage I cannot say how many members there were.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you guess?

MR ZEELIE: It's difficult to guess, Chairperson, at this stage. I cannot say anything about that.

MR BIZOS: How many rooms were there?

MR LAX: Ja, that's what I was going to say. Were you asking about the rooms, as opposed to the people?

MR BIZOS: The rooms? I never got his ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Offices, rather than officers?

MR BIZOS: Oh, I see, offices, not officers. I'm sorry, I can understand the misunderstanding.

How many offices were there on the 10th floor?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, once again I cannot specifically say, but if I have to guess, I would say there was approximately four or five smaller offices and then there would easily be six or seven larger offices, because it was some of those offices that we sat in that I earlier referred to, when I was transferred to Security Branch, where I sat with another group and we sat in one of the larger offices.

MR BIZOS: Tell us more-or-less how many offices, big and small, there were.

MR ZEELIE: As I've already said, Chairperson, I don't want to bind myself to any number, but there may have been four or five smaller offices and six or seven larger offices. It may less. I cannot bind myself at this stage to any number.

MR BIZOS: Do you say that there were only 10 offices on the whole floor?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I've already said, I do not want to tie myself, that is why I cannot mention a number of offices at this stage. If it's necessary, then we can drive there and go and count the offices.

MR BIZOS: Yes thank you for that suggestion, but we'll try and avoid that. Just confine yourself to answering the questions. Now tell me, this widespread torture that was happening on the 10th floor of John Vorster Square, did the torture take place at any one of the offices at random, or was there a special room or rooms in which the torture took place?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, there was no specific rule that I knew of on the 10th floor, where persons were specifically assaulted. Usually one would find that the investigative officer and people who worked with him, if it was in a larger office, then it would take place in that office, but there was no specific office were it would take place.

MR BIZOS: Was there one room in particular from which the light of day was excluded?

MR ZEELIE: Not that I know of, Chairperson. I can state that when one went through the offices, through to the lifts side, then one side was the Technical Division where the photographer was, there one could say that it was more dark, but on the other side it was more the technical people at that time, where bugging was done and so forth. But I do not know of any other office on the 10th floor - can I just express myself clearly here. The 10th floor, are you referring to the wing at the back? Because that wing was, if I recall correctly, the file offices. I may be incorrect, or if it was on the 9th floor. But I'm referring specifically to there down the corridor.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interpose here, Mr Bizos.

When you say you are speaking of the right side, let's be specific in this sense. We know that there is Commissioner Street cum Market Street, one part of John Vorster Square, and then there is the freeway with the two levels.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson. I am somewhat confused here with regard to which side, where the file offices were, whether it was on the 9th or on the 10th floors.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it depends from which side you come down.

MR ZEELIE: But you see, Chairperson, the offices sit on Commissioner Street side and in the corridor, on both sides of the corridor there were offices, but when one moves through to the lift's side that we use, you can move down the left, then there was another wing. And I am want to imagine that the file offices were located there, but I may be wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: And on President Street's wing, could it be the same?

MR ZEELIE: No, on that side there were the barracks, but from what I refer to now, it was where one moved through to the lifts side, that would be on the freeway side.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there not two sections of lifts there?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, as I've already said, on the left-hand side, away from the freeway side there were also lifts, but those lifts served all the other departments of John Vorster Square, and from that lift, that is where one can go into the main entrance from various places, but that's next to the Charge Offices. There were also lifts. And usually when people came from the cells, then most of the time they used those lifts and they were taken up, if I recall correctly, up to the 7th or 8th floor and then they were taken through up to the 10th floor.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Zeelie.

MR BIZOS: Let me just get clarity. In this interrogation process, did you have any training?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I've already said, at that stage I did not have any specific training in interrogation, I was a young police officer and the seniors would guide us eventually and that is why I said that these assaults were common practice there, because that is the process that one had to go through.

MR BIZOS: So it was in-house job training, so to speak?

MR ZEELIE: You can mention it as such, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: In this psychological disorientation of people, was that part and parcel of the practice that was adopted on the 10th floor of John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: Some of the techniques were used there, yes Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Yes. One of the best ways of disorientating people is to have windows and other places from which day may be distinguished from night is not allowed to a detainee. You have a room, you can't see outside, you can't see whether it's day or night, you have the lights on all the time, day and night, does that help to disorientate a person, a detainee?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, yes, it would assist. I know that there were such types of rooms at Protea, but definitely not at John Vorster Square, that I am aware of. And I should know.

MR BIZOS: Well I think that you should know quite a lot of things for the number of years that you were there and what was happening. But let's get down to some details.

MR ZEELIE: Maybe I can add, Chairperson, that there were various of these large walk-in safes. I never used it, but if that is what Mr Bizos is referring to, then maybe certain interrogations could have taken place in those safes. But there were no specific rooms that were closed off at John Vorster Square, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Well, the Committee will hear from the person or persons who were subjected to this ...(indistinct) come to it.

Now, were people deprived of sleep?

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Sometimes for as long as fifty or sixty or seventy or even eighty hours?

MR ZEELIE: Even longer, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: And were they compelled to stand and not allowed to sit or rest?

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson, it depended on person to person that undertook the interrogation, but I will concur with that.

MR BIZOS: And compulsory exercises for physical exhaustion?

MR ZEELIE: For example?

MR BIZOS: To do thirty push-ups and do compulsory exercises so that you can be exhausted, so that you can more easily answer our questions?

MR ZEELIE: Please Chairperson, just grant me an opportunity, I would like to have made that clear. I never made anyone do push-ups, but there were instances like Mr Bizos is referring to now, where the technique may have been used, the chair type of technique, where a person sits with his back against the wall and he has no wall upon which he sits and this causes his muscles to ache. Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. How many people would you say you tortured? As an estimate.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot answer that question even though I would want to. You must please excuse. As I have said, I spent many years with the Security Branch and there were many interrogations. I will not go out and say now that I tortured hundreds of people, I used other methods of questioning as well, but it's difficult for me to answer that question.

MR BIZOS: I'm talking about torture. Please give us, dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? How many?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot say. It definitely would not have been hundreds of people that I had tortured, it could be dozens. But as I have said, at this stage that is an unfair question to me, to come forward and say that I am applying for amnesty for this and tell me how many, I cannot recall. I would like to have mentioned a figure, but I cannot.

CHAIRPERSON: I will protect you on any unfair question, until I say so, know that it's not unfair at this stage.

MR ZEELIE: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Let us start off with the ten male co-accused of Mr Tokyo Sexwale. There were twelve, were there not, Sexwale, a woman and ten others? Did you interrogate any of the male co-accused of Mr Sexwale?

MR ZEELIE: I interrogated some of them, Chairperson. I can only mention that that is why I earlier said that Jacob Siatlolo, I do not know whether that person was in that group. Him, for example, I did not question him. I know there was a Jacob, an elderly man present, but if I cast my mind back quickly this was after I spoke to Mr Sexwale. Then there was a woman and ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Try and remember how many of the ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: I'm trying to work it out, Chairperson, please. There was Bafana and then there was Tsitsi - I think in that group and people who came back added to it also, it may have been four or five, it could be more, it could be less, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Did you assault any of them?

MR ZEELIE: I assaulted some of them, Chairperson, yes.

MR BIZOS: Did you torture some of them?

MR ZEELIE: I did not torture any of those people myself, but I may have assaulted them, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Well the assault and torture may be a fine line in some instances. Were they tortured in your presence, by your colleagues?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson. As I have said earlier, after the first assault of Mr Sexwale and for that long weekend the we undertook the investigation, the investigation was moved to Pretoria, and I was not involved in that. Therefore, I never interrogated any further persons, or had any involvement further in the case.

MR BIZOS: Did you interrogate the persons whose names you mentioned?

MR ZEELIE: Can you repeat that please.

MR BIZOS: Did you interrogate the four or five persons that you mentioned as having assaulted some of them who were co-accused of Mr Sexwale?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I've already said we worked over that long weekend, I had indeed assaulted some of them with my hands, and in my evidence in the criminal trial I at some stage did testify where one of the detainees, I think his name at that stage was Bafana, that I kicked him because at that stage he reached for a weapon when I moved into the room. I did testify that, that I assaulted him and I kicked him in order to stop him from obtaining a weapon. But some of the others that we arrested that weekend, yes, I assaulted some of them, but I did not use any shocking techniques or any of those things on the other people. I was not involved in any such activities in my presence.

MR BIZOS: Did any of them complain of being tortured by you and your colleagues at their trial?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, no I cannot answer positively to that question, because at that stage the only time when I was at the hearing was when I gave evidence and I have no knowledge personally of any charge of assaults. I will not deny that there possibly were charges, but there was no charge of assault against me investigated in this case, that I know of.

MR BIZOS: Do you recall whether you were asked whether you had tortured anyone, when you gave evidence at Mr Sexwale's trial?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot recall that, but as I have already testified, I had testified that for example, I did kick Bafana and I said it twice because the Chairperson there, the Judge before the trial was over he died. And I cannot recall that I answered such questions. If it is so, then it's possible, but I would have denied it, I would have absolutely denied it at that stage. But I do not know that any such thing happened.

MR BIZOS: If we take your figure that you tortured dozens of people and hardly any complaints were laid against you, except the one or two that you have mentioned, can you explain why people that you now admit that you tortured, failed to make complaints?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, at no stage did I say that it was only one or two people who laid charges, I think I said that various assault charges were investigated against me. I cannot recall exactly by whom and how many, but it was a reasonable amount. I, for example, can state that in one investigation there may have been six people who laid assault charges against me, but I cannot give you any names now. I would have like to do so.

MR BIZOS: In deciding to apply for amnesty, didn't you want to make as full a disclosure as possible and try and find out who you had interrogated, whom had you tortured, whom had you assaulted?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I have previously given evidence about this. After I left the Security Branch and when this amnesty came about, specifically I can firstly go back, an instruction was passed on that all files, all dossiers should be destroyed. So with regard documentation first, to get information was not easy because everything was basically destroyed. There may have been some of the documentation that was not destroyed, but there were instructions that documentation be destroyed.

And after the investigations commenced of the TRC, a finger was pointed at me, and I testified to this earlier in other applications Chairperson, where allegations were made that I went to the Goldstone Commission.

And today I want to emphasise it once again, I never saw Mr Goldstone, I would not even recognise him, but certain members gave false information, or distributed false information about me and at that stage, afterwards, if I could contact any other colleague of mine, they look at me differently. So there is no way for me to clear up any information with regard to the question that is now being put to me.

MR LAX: Can I just interpose, Mr Bizos, if you'll allow me?

This file of yours that you've kept all these year, with the newspaper cuttings and so on, didn't that have some allegations of torture in it?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, the only one where there could possibly have been something in there, was a specific incident. I cannot recall the person's name. I may have been reading through it and I may have omitted to mention that I might have found a name in there, but no assault charge was laid against me and I also did not torture that person. It was only at the arrest. He persisted against any arrest, or he resisted arrest and it was accepted as such. But from that file, to bring it forward, no.

MR LAX: Just before you continue Mr Bizos ...

Surely in your mind, many of the lies you have told have now merged into facts, how are you able to separate out all the lies you've told over the years to cover up all your assaults from the realities?

MR ZEELIE: I do not exactly understand what you want from me.

MR LAX: What I'm trying to say is this. Someone accuses you of assaulting them, the case is investigated, you give false evidence, you make false statements, you have to start believing that stuff in order to be credible.

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, at that stage I knew that I made a false statement and I do not deny any of those things. That is why I told Mr Sibanyoni, yes, it's a fact, I did assault him. And some of the other instances, if my memory could be refreshed, I will not try to shy away from it. That is why some of these incidents here, it's easy for me to say yes, I assaulted him, but these are incidents that I cannot recall, it does not ring any bell with me. And if people come forward and say: "But you did assault me", then I will tell the Committee: "Yes, it could have been so, but I cannot recall the facts and the details thereof", I will not shy away from it.

MR LAX: All I'm asking you is this, over the years you have assaulted numerous people and tortured dozens and arising out of those assaults and those tortures, have been charges of one description or another, in all of those instances you would have made exculpatory statements.

MR ZEELIE: Correct.

MR LAX: In which you deny the allegations.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: All I'm asking you is, it wouldn't surprise me that your memory therefore is defective, because you've gone on so many occasions and said: "I didn't do it, I didn't do it", and you've given explanations of an exculpatory nature: "Well, the man fell against the wall, that's how he hurt his eye", or "Yes, he struggled and we had to punish him to pacify him".

MR ZEELIE: I agree with you there, Chairperson, it is so, that is why it is so difficult for me to specifically mention any other incidents, because that is exactly how you described it now, how it goes through one's head.

MR LAX: So what I'm saying is, you may be confronted with instances where in your mind now you think that those were false cases against you, but in reality they may well have been matters where you did actually assault people.

MR ZEELIE: It's very possible, Chairperson. And that is why I say I am prepared to say it is possible, but I cannot recall the detail thereof. I am prepared to place myself there, although I am not able to recall the detail at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: And the files that have been destroyed wouldn't be helpful, because all that was contained in those files for purposes of presenting evidence before Court, was false evidence.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: When did you prepare this document, Exhibit A?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that was done - I cannot exactly ... but this was after I made these statements, Chairperson. So that was before the Amnesty Hearings commenced I drew up a document. I cannot give you a date.

MR BIZOS: But now you see, it would appear from pages 8 and 9 that you must have had records from which you get quite precise information about your doings.

MR ZEELIE: Yes Chairperson, I can once again state that you earlier asked me about the recognition that I received. Where I made a statement with regard to explosive scenes, but even there I can put it on the table for you, but from those statements I will not be informed about people who were assaulted, because this was specifically where I visited scenes, explosion scenes and made my statement in that regard.

MR BIZOS: Please try and come to terms with the question. What information did you have before you that enabled you to give the precision that is set out on pages 8 and 9?

MR ZEELIE: I've already stated now, Chairperson, that all the explosions that took place in which I made statements, I made copies for myself over the years, that I used in evidence and that is what I primarily depended upon for this information.

MR BIZOS: Have you still got those statements?

MR ZEELIE: I still have them, yes Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: The statements that were in the dockets?

MR ZEELIE: Some of those statements would appear in the dossiers, yes Chairperson. I can state that when I was questioned by the TRC, the first time when they came to me they confiscated that file of mine and they worked through that file and when I received back, some of the statements were missing. So I did not withhold anything, I did place it on the table before the TRC. Their Investigator was in possession of all that documentation already.

MR BIZOS: Now from the documentation that you had and with reference to these specific rich findings that you recorded as part of your work, surely if you have a look that you record that you got 10 AK47s, you must remember who you got them from, and in the statements that you had there must have been reference numbers, not necessarily in the files, but in the occurrences books. Were you not interested in actually compiling as careful, or perhaps not as absolutely careful, a list of your victims as you recorded with such accurate detail your achievements?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, the documentation that I have, that I gave to the TRC Investigating team, this was basically where explosions took place, it was not where people were necessarily arrested. I went through some of those documents. Questions were put to me and I do not believe that from that documentation I will be able to know, because those were cases where an explosion took place at some place and I visited the scene and then I made a copy for myself, specifically at that stage to give evidence, and I kept those documents. I do not have documentation of interrogations, even with regard to Mr Sibanyoni. I don't have any form of statements that he was involved in, otherwise I would have placed it before you.

MR BIZOS: Why did you apply for amnesty for these particular incidents?

MR ZEELIE: Are you referring to the assaults now?

MR BIZOS: Yes, the matters in respect of which ... why did you apply for amnesty?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, because I know that I was involved in various assaults and tortures and that is why at that stage I said when I applied, that I cannot recall the dates.

When I was at the A-G's office the first time, I also told them and in reality they said at that stage it is not necessary to apply for amnesty for assaults, but I felt that I was involved there.

If there were people who come forward and said: "You assaulted me grossly", then I am prepared to stand up. That is why a long time had elapsed and people could come forward and say: "Listen, I was assaulted by this one and that one", and I would have been prepared, I am still prepared to say yes, I was involved in that specific incident. I am not running away from what I had done in the past.

MR BIZOS: Let me be a little more direct in order to avoid the long speeches, Mr Zeelie ... listen please. Did you apply for amnesty in order to come to terms with yourself, or to avoid prosecution by the two or three high profile victims that you tortured? Which one of the two?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I did this because this was my conviction to apply and because I was involved in various incidents.

MR BIZOS: No, just listen to me please. Did you apply for amnesty in relation to these matters because you feared prosecution, or did you do it for the purposes of salving your conscience?

MR ZEELIE: I did not specifically do it because I was afraid of any prosecution, Chairperson. As I have already said, even in Mr Sibanyoni's incident they refused to prosecute. Other persons did not lay any charges against me, therefore there was nothing that I had to fear, that I would be prosecuted. That is why I purely came and applied for amnesty, because the of process of reconciliation.

MR BIZOS: How could you become reconciled with the dozens of people that you tortured and the even greater number that you assaulted, if you took no steps to find out whom you had tortured and whom you had assaulted, in order to come to terms with all of them and not selectively with the three high profile people that might have the means to, or the desire to prosecute you?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, today I sit here, I am a well known person in the Security Branch and amongst the ANC ranks, I am giving evidence today and I open myself and I disclose and say that yes, I was involved in various incidents. So I am opening myself for anyone to come forward to say: "But listen here, you were involved in my case", and then I apologise because I cannot recall the people's names at this stage, because I cannot. If I could, then I would have gladly done so. But if there were 30 names that I could place on the table before you, I would have. And if it must and people come forward tomorrow, then I am prepared to come and stand before you once again.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Bizos, will you allow me just to come in here?

Mr Zeelie, are you saying to us that you did not know all those people's names, or did you at that stage know their names but you cannot recall them now? Can we just get clarity there.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it was a long time ago, I cannot recall people's names. I maybe could tell you that yes, there were people in the incident, for example, for Why Not's investigation, but I cannot give you the names of the people who were involved there.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Zeelie, please just listen to my question. I am asking whether it's your evidence that you assaulted persons and you did not know who you were assaulting?

MR ZEELIE: At that stage I definitely knew who I was assaulting, Chairperson, and I knew that it was done for a specific purpose during the interrogation.

ADV BOSMAN: Now you have answered my question, thank you. In general please listen carefully, then we will save lots of time.

MR BIZOS: If I understood your evidence correctly, you collected newspaper clippings.

MR ZEELIE: Where my name was mentioned in the paper, yes Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: But what about the cases that you were involved in, whether your name was mentioned in the paper or not, where you helped to investigate a case and there were convictions and sentences, did you keep those cuttings?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR BIZOS: If you were collecting newspaper cuttings, why didn't you also keep the cuttings that you, in the cases in which you were involved?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I primarily, where I gave evidence and my name was mentioned, I took it, because that was for personal purposes, for my family, for my heritage and if names were mentioned there, where my name was not mentioned, then it would not make any sense to my heritage, they would not know what it was about. That is why I did this right from the start.

MR BIZOS: These DLBs, dead letter boxes in which you found all this information, that must have been as a result of information given to you by people in the liberation movements after they were tortured or assaulted or otherwise dealt with, in order to tell you where the DLB was.

MR ZEELIE: Not necessarily, Chairperson, because I was the chief of the Explosives Unit, where explosives were involved or where I was involved in a case or not, and I would go out there if the information was there. It's not necessary that any persons would have been arrested about whom the informers gave information, then the DLB was lifted, the arms were taken out and I put a report that on such and such a day we visited this place and that place and that is whatever we found there. It is not to say that those arms could specifically be connected to someone.

There may be instances where it could possibly be connected with a person, where I was not involved in any interrogation. But from my expertise I only lifted the DLB.

MR BIZOS: Do you say that in none of these cases when this was recovered, were you responsible in obtaining the information as to where the DLB was?

MR ZEELIE: No, I would not necessarily say that, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Well why can't you tell us for instance, like you know the big finds, like the AK47s, which was your work, that as a result of torture or assault this was disclosed to you and you went and found in three or four different places, 10 AK47s? That would have helped you to identify the people that you tortured or assaulted.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already said, I cannot say that I have to go through everything and look at names, whether names were mentioned there. As I have said earlier on, there may have been one or two instances where a person's name could come forward, but I could not pick up anything up to this stage. If you want me to go back and do it, then I will do it. But I cannot specifically recall names while I removed this information.

MR BIZOS: Let me just return or deal with before the adjournment, in order to understand what your version is in relation to Mr Sexwale. Were you part of an investigation team in John Vorster Square at the time that Mr Sexwale was detained?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, a specific investigative group was only put together after the long weekend. I, along with Lieut de Waal and then also a day or two afterwards, and Billy Cox went to the Commander at that stage - and earlier I mentioned his name, I'm trying to think who he is, he's now deceased ... I apologise, I cannot recall his name Chairperson, we went to him and said that over the weekend we will continue with this investigation and he gave us permission to do so and then at the end of the day we obtained information and we followed it up. That was positive ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: No, you're going to fast for me please, just listen, listen to the question. As suggested by Adv Bosman, we will get on very much faster if you listen to the question and answer it directly. You say that this was a long weekend, when did you, during that weekend, did you become involved in the investigation into the case in which Mr Sexwale was detained? In the beginning of the weekend?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I've already said, it was the beginning of the long weekend. I think ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Thank you. No, just one moment. Was that a Friday afternoon or a Saturday?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, the reason why I mention the word long weekend was because I just tried to make it clear here that it was New Year's Eve, the 30th, the night or the morning of the 31st, that was the morning the operation took place, and during the day there was telexes and faxes sent and interrogations undertaken and that afternoon, from there the long weekend started. At this stage I cannot say whether it was a Friday or a Saturday, but I can tell you that it was the 31st and the following day was the 1st of the following year, of '77. That is why I say it was a long weekend. From that afternoon, from the 31st of December 1976, I was involved with Lieut de Waal in the investigation and several people were arrested and then the investigation team was put together.

MR BIZOS: So for how long were you and Lieut de Waal involved in the investigation of the case in which Mr Sexwale was a detainee, for how long, how many days?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I would say that I was involved for approximately four days.

MR BIZOS: Four?

MR ZEELIE: I said approximately four days.

MR BIZOS: Four days, yes. So that for four days you and Mr de Waal and who else, were busy investigating the case in which Mr Sexwale was involved?

MR ZEELIE: At that stage de Waal and I, as I have said, Billy Cox joined us.

MR BIZOS: Now during that period of four days, how much did you or Mr de Waal or the other person on the investigation team, spend with Mr Sexwale?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot tell you exactly how much because we saw him over the weekend. We received information from Mr Sexwale on which we acted, that was positive, and from that positive information we went further.

The four days that I was involved we went out to Skhekhuneland, and that is where some of the other members were also arrested that were involved with that unit. I'm trying to say that there we did not spend so much time with Mr Sexwale during those four days.

MR BIZOS: When you first saw Mr Sexwale on the first of those four days, was that at John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: When you first saw him, had anyone interrogated him before you took part in any interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I believe so, I accept that he had reasonably been questioned before I arrived at him.

MR BIZOS: When you arrived there and you assumed that he had been interrogated, was he clothed, or naked? When you first saw him.

MR ZEELIE: I've already said that he was clothed, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Did you during that period of four days, ever see him naked?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot recall that I saw this, but it is very possible, Chairperson. I cannot recall it.

MR BIZOS: Now if there is evidence that he was in fact naked, what would have been the purpose of his being naked on the 10th floor of John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have said, I was not involved during any interrogation. As I have said, I cannot say with certainty, I said it was possible. So I cannot really say what it was. Maybe he was assaulted or tortured by other members, but I cannot specifically say that I can recall it in any way or whether it happened in my presence, Chairperson.

MR LAX: The question was a simple one. What would the purpose of having him naked have been? It's really quite straightforward, it's not whether you saw it or not, what would the object of such a ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: If it was, Chairperson, it was to interrogate him and to torture him.

MR BIZOS: Torture him, how if he was naked?

MR ZEELIE: Shocking by applying a shocking apparatus to him.

MR BIZOS: Now, according to you it was only you and Mr de Waal, at the early stages of this interrogation on the first day, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I said that it was later that afternoon that we obtained information from my Commander, to continue with the investigation, and that is what I referred to, the early part of the investigation. That which happened before I assaulted Mr Sexwale, that is not what I have referred to.

MR BIZOS: Yes let's take it, you know you've got four days to - in your evidence-in-chief, we got the impression that you just had a chance meeting with Mr Sexwale and you took a stick and you hit him on the stomach and then he was a good detainee and he gave you all the information. That's the impression that you gave in your evidence-in-chief. Unfortunately, we've got to take it step by step.

Was there on the first day, anyone other than Mr de Waal and you interrogating Mr Sexwale?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already said, before I assaulted Mr Sexwale, he was possibly questioned by other persons and I accept that he was questioned there, but I was not involved there.

MR BIZOS: Just a moment please. Surely you didn't come at the tail end and assault the person without knowing what had happened to him before, what did he say, how was he responding? Surely you just don't just walk into a situation and see a broomstick and hit him.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that is what happened. If it happened in any other way, then I would have been willing to testify about it.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well that's what we are really challenging. Now who would have gone behind your back to remove Mr Sexwale's clothes, wet his body, put a bank looking bag over his head and shock him with an instrument, without you finding out about it, although this happened on the 10th floor of John Vorster Square and you had an office, or you were working in John Vorster Square, the 10th floor? Who would have done it without you knowing about it, without you being told about it, without a report being presented to you? Who would have done it?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I can only give evidence with regard to what I can recall. I cannot recall by whom he was possibly assaulted before that. And what I wanted to say was that, before I was interrupted, where I assaulted Mr Sexwale, was not on the 10th floor, at that stage he was in a small office on the 9th floor. That was already away from there. And I accept that - as I have said, when Lieut Sons came to me and said: "What did you do, this person is experiencing epileptic seizures", that because of the previous questioning by other members, perhaps on the 10th floor, that I cannot give evidence about, that I do not have information about here, I cannot recall it specifically because several people were questioned. At that stage I didn't even know Mr Tokyo's name ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, Mr Zeelie, it's very simple. What Mr Bizos is trying to get out of you is that this is a process, for instance, they can't just bring Mr Sexwale to you and say: "Interrogate him", for what? And if you have to speak to Mr Sexwale, get information out of him, they would say: "This is a stubborn man", for instance, "he doesn't want to talk, we hand him over to you". You wouldn't just be given a person. And if we follow your evidence, you say you hit him with a broomstick on his stomach where he had epileptic seizures and he gave you the information. Now from the questioning of Mr Bizos, I say why should this man be tortured when he gave you information - favourable? Wouldn't that be the line of cross-examination, Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Absolutely, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So that's we want to get it by stages. You don't have to be convoluted in your answering, if it needs yes or no, just say so. We know you have said that this happened a long time ago, some of the things you don't remember, but if you could be reminded, that's what you're saying. If somebody can confront you with information, you would admit where you had forgotten. I think that's how I understand you.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson, but that is why I am saying I assaulted him after he had possibly, according to Mr Bizos, had already been assaulted and had already been questioned and tortured. And from the stage that I questioned him and spoke to him in that office after I assaulted him, I can almost say to you with certainty, he did not go back to the 10th floor where he was assaulted. From there he was taken to the cells. And that is why I said we obtained permission, Lieut de Waal and I received permission from our Commander, to continue with the investigation over the weekend, because many of the members left on the long weekend.

CHAIRPERSON: Why were you questioning him, that is Mr Sexwale, why were you questioning him? Or why was he brought to you? Let's start from there.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, he was standing in an office and most probably there was another member or a black member who looked after him, standing at the door, and I walked in there and I spoke to him. I don't want to mention things here, it's a long time ago, but I told him that he will talk now and I wanted to hit him with my hand, I saw the stick there and then I struck him in the stomach and then he fell down on the floor and he had some seizure, and it was at that stage when Mr Sons came in and asked me: "What are you doing, this person is having epileptic seizures", and then I pretended to strike him again and then he stood up. And that is exactly what happened, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But that does not make sense at this stage, because you are saying that you had to go and speak to the Commander, with De Waal, that you could become involved in this case, and now you are saying that you found Mr Sexwale in a room and from there you started speaking to him and struck him with a stick, with a broomstick. That does not make sense.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it is indeed because of the fact that after I struck him with the stick and he said that he would cooperate, it is because of that that I, as a young policeman, felt that we cannot stop the investigation here and that is why I spoke to Lieut de Waal and we went to the Commander and said that we want to continue with this investigation.

CHAIRPERSON: After you struck him with the broomstick?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And he supplied certain information to you?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Bizos.

MR LAX: There's just one thing that's really bothering me - sorry, Mr Bizos, you still haven't answered one very important issue, that flows from what the Chairperson ... and in fact precedes what he's just asked you. There's an issue here that just simply does not make sense to me, and that is this. How was it that you came into that office? Who told you to go there? On your version you weren't even briefed, you just stumbled into the office and found him there.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, yes, I agree with you one hundred percent, it sounds unbelievable. At that stage I was a young policeman who wanted to do work and I was on the 10th floor, people were interrogated there, and at that stage when I arrived at the 9th floor, because as I said, he was definitely on the 9th floor when I saw him, and there on the spur of the moment I walked in there to speak to him. It may not have been the correct procedure, but that is indeed what happened. It was a whole night's work and everything was disorganised, said with all respect, because several people were detained and paperwork had to be completed and I walked in on the 9th floor there and I spoke to him and told him: "You will now speak the truth". I have to be honest, at that stage I did not even know his name, really, but I knew that he was detained, because as I've said, a guard would have been guarding him. It sounds improbable, but that is what I am saying today, that it is the truth. I walked in, I stuck him with a stick and he fell on the ground and he had seizures.

MR LAX: You see you didn't even know if he wasn't telling the truth, you didn't know that he wasn't co-operating, why go and assault someone you don't know anything about?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it was an operation, and I said that the guard would have been standing there and I would have known at that stage - it's difficult at such a late stage to say "how did you know", but it did happen like that. I walked in, I did put questions to him, I did assault him and thereafter, because of that, we continued with the investigation, which was very positive and which led to the arrest of the other persons.

MR LAX: Ja, but you could have had the exact opposite effect on him, you could have taken someone who'd been co-operating up to that point and got him so angry at being assaulted in that way that he would have refused his co-operation. You didn't know, you could have interfered in the whole thing.

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I understand what you are saying, but what I am trying to say is that on a long weekend everyone worked through the night, we found explosives, handgrenades at some of these places where these persons were picked up, and here was a long weekend before us and I felt that as a young police officer, I in reality felt that at this stage the people wanted to go over to the following day, and I walked in myself and I did what I said I had done.

MR BIZOS: I just want to get one clarity before asking if you consider it an appropriate time to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you, I was going to do that actually.

MR BIZOS: Do I understand you correctly that when you came to that room you didn't know the name of the person that was in that room and you assaulted him without knowing his name? Is that what you are saying?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, what I have testified now, and I may have said it in this manner, at this stage I cannot recall that I recalled at that stage that this was Mr Sexwale. In any case, I would not have directly known that this was Mr Sexwale, because they used other names ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes, you're beginning to speak a little of the truth. At the stage when you and De Waal were torturing Mr Sexwale, you were actually to get from him where Sexwale was, because he did not admit and you did not know ...

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I will say again, I did not assault him afterwards, if I did, then it would have been very simple ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, Mr Bizos is not suggesting the opposite, he's not suggesting the opposite, he says to you, you did know where Mr Sexwale was and you saw this man in this room, you tortured him and said: "Where's Mr Sexwale?" That's the question.

MR BIZOS: Yes, in fact let me just put it that the evidence will be that for a substantial period of the time of this torture he was thought to be Solly Khumalo, which was the name that he gave, and they were torturing him in order for him to point out where Sexwale may be found, and that is what De Waal and you were busy doing.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, Mr de Waal and I never at any stage assaulted him and before that I was not with De Waal where he was assaulted. The fact is that we arrested various persons and picked them up, and as I have said now I cannot think or recall whether I knew his name at that stage, but as a person there I could identify this person as one of the persons that had been arrested. Therefore the specific identification I cannot give evidence about now, that I had that information about him exactly, but I knew what the whole thing was about and I recognised him as one of the people who were picked up. That is why I walked in there when I saw him standing there and I commenced questioning him.

MR BIZOS: Don't you recall that Mr Sexwale had an ID document in which he was described as Solly Khumalo? Did you take part in the arrest?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have said, it's possible. I was involved in the whole operation, names were mentioned one hundred percent, I agree with you ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: No, nevermind that, do you recall ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just get clarity, because we're becoming semantic. Did you arrest Mr Sexwale? Forget about the operations, let's just ask, did you arrest Mr Sexwale? It's very simple.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot recall that I personally was involved in his arrest, but with the group, yes.

MR BIZOS: You may have been a member of the group that arrested him?

MR ZEELIE: It's possible, Chairperson, that is why I say that is why I saw him as a person that was also arrested.

MR BIZOS: And was he known to you in the initial stages of the interrogation, as Solly Khumalo?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I did not participate. It's possible that he may have been known as such, I shall not deny it.

MR BIZOS: Did you have information from other people that one, Sexwale, was the leader of the group? Did you have such information?

MR ZEELIE: The information would have been there, definitely Chairperson, but I myself cannot recall whether it was conveyed to me as such.

MR BIZOS: Did you torture any of the people that you arrested, in order to find out from them where Sexwale was to be found, and was that one of the purposes of your interrogation during that long weekend?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I was not involved in any previous torture of Mr Sexwale, and after I assaulted Mr Sexwale he gave his co-operation and we could continue with the investigation.

MR BIZOS: Well I am going to put to you that what in fact happened was that you and De Waal applied the tortures that you have described in relation to shock and suffocation, whilst he was naked in your presence, and the gravamen of your interrogation was that he must lead you to Sexwale and he was refusing to identify himself, obviously, and he was telling you that he was not in a position to give you information that will lead to the arrest of Sexwale. Are you able, having regard to what you told us about all the things that you have forgotten, to tell us that that did not happen?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I have already said, and that is why I am positive, that I did not assault Mr Sexwale before the incident that I had described now, I did not torture him or assault him in any way. If I did so, I would have said so.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not probably torturing Solly Khumalo?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I would most probably have been involved in the others. I cannot tell you with which specific ones, as I have said I cannot mention any names, but if it was Mr Sexwale, if I was involved, then I would have been able to say yes, Mr Sexwale was there and afterwards I did it again, I assaulted him again, but I did not do it. Before that I did not torture him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you give you his full names when you spoke to him, who he was? Do you recall that?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall whether he gave me his full names, I was only interested in the information with regard to where the explosives were hidden.

CHAIRPERSON: But you just stumbled upon this man in a room, how could you now talk to him about explosives, when you don't know who he is?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that is why I say that I did not specifically ask him there with regard to explosives, I directly came in and told him to speak the truth and he must tell us what's going on. As I have said - now I will be playing with words to use words because it will now be thrown back at me because I cannot recall the specific words, but I know for a fact that Mr Sexwale, before I met him and struck him with the broomstick in that room, specifically Mr Sexwale - I do not say that I was possibly not involved with the other persons, but I cannot think, I am trying to be positive, that I was in any way involved in the torture of Mr Sexwale before I struck him with the broomstick.

MR BIZOS: May I be permitted to take up one of the questions that you asked, Mr Chairman? I just want to finish it off.

You interrogated and tortured the other people in the group, right?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I may have been involved there, yes, but I can't ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Thank you, right. Do you know the identity of those people that you tortured?

MR ZEELIE: At this stage I would not be able to tell you, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And if in truth and in fact the person that you may have tortured was Mr Sexwale, with the alias of Solly Khumalo, you wouldn't have known that you were torturing Khumalo(sic), because you ...(indistinct) different with the others.

MR ZEELIE: If we go on names, Chairperson, then I agree with Mr Bizos, but I speaking of - there sits Mr Sexwale - the person whom I assaulted there in the office, I was not involved with that person as identification ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Alright, thank you. Just a last question. You have conceded that it is possible that you saw Mr Sexwale naked during that long weekend, at what stage might you have seen him naked?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have said, it is possible that I may have seen him there, that I could directly identify him as the person who was naked, but I say it is possible, but I cannot identify him.

MR BIZOS: At what stage, when you say that you speak of images, at what stage did you see the image of Mr Sexwale naked? At what stage of this long weekend?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that is why I say it's possible I could have seen him, but as a person I cannot identify it now and say that I specifically saw Mr Sexwale naked. I say it is possible. But I cannot identify it now as specifically, yes I saw him naked.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to have overridden the ...

CHAIRPERSON: I also had forgotten, I'm sorry to everybody. I think this is an opportune moment to take the lunch adjournment. We'll take 45 minutes. Is everybody comfortable with 45 minutes?

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We adjourn for 45 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Bizos.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

At the time of the arrest, were you, De Waal and Billy Cox, part of the team that arrested the various people?

MR ZEELIE: We were all involved in the whole operation.

MR BIZOS: Why can't you answer a question directly? Were you, the three of you, there at the time of the arrest? Because the whole operation is maybe something else. At the time of the arrest, were you there?

MR ZEELIE: I was present with the arrest of the group.

MR BIZOS: That is the arrest of whom you believed to be Solly Khumalo, took place?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, yes, we had several addresses and we hid these addresses and were looking for several people.

MR BIZOS: Yes, the answer is yes? Let's try and make progress please, by answering the questions directly. Did the three of you, that is you, Cox and De Waal, remain as part of the investigation team during the long weekend?

MR ZEELIE: Cox only joined us on the next day. The evening De Waal and I talked to Mr Sexwale and only the next day when we had further operations in Alexandra, Cox joined us.

MR BIZOS: I see. But when did you hit Mr Sexwale with a broomstick in the stomach?

MR ZEELIE: It was at John Vorster Square, Chairperson, on the 31st. Meaning, Cox only joined us on the 1st.

MR BIZOS: How long had Mr Sexwale been a detainee at the time that you knocked him with a broom?

MR ZEELIE: Early in the morning - sorry, Chairperson, he was arrested in the morning hours, the night of the 30th/31st.

MR BIZOS: For how long had he been a detainee at the time that you assaulted him?

MR ZEELIE: It was that same day, the 1st - sorry, the 31st, I assaulted him.

MR BIZOS: On your understanding and on your evidence, when did he pretend to be suffering from epileptic fits?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I said before, several people were picked up and interrogated and assaulted by members at John Vorster Square, and afterwards, on the 9th Floor, I hit him with a broomstick in the stomach.

MR BIZOS: I want to put to you that your version is false, that you actually, the three of you, tortured Mr Sexwale, persisted in extracting from him where Mr Sexwale could be found, when you believed him to be Solly Khumalo, and that the three of you acted together, and Mr Sexwale will say that out of the three you were the most vicious.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, De Waal and I and Cox only started working together after I assaulted Mr Sexwale in the office, and as I said, Cox only joined us on the next day. I did not assault Mr Sexwale with those people before the incident I described with the broomstick. I might just add to say we were all on the 10th floor. I said earlier, my problem was an identification problem. I never said that Mr Sexwale was not assaulted on the 10th floor, I could not identify him as a person I was involved with on the 10th floor. What I can identify is that he was one of the arrested people there that night and I assaulted him on the 9th floor with a broomstick.

CHAIRPERSON: That you were the most vicious?

MR ZEELIE: Please repeat, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr George Bizos, part of his question was that amongst the three of you, you were the most vicious. Now you say Mr Cox joined you the next day. ...(indistinct) between you and Mr de Waal, were you the most vicious?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I wouldn't say that ...

MR BIZOS: Well what do you say, did De Waal take part in any assault or torture?

MR ZEELIE: It's possible, Chairperson, I can't say which of the members all participated in assault and which members did not, but there were general interrogations on the 10th floor in the offices and it's possible that they were involved.

MR LAX: You see again you're talking in generalities. We're talking now about the torture or assault of Mr Sexwale, so that's the issue. The question was, did De Waal take part in any assault? What is assumed in that question is, in your presence. Because you must understand, it flows from the first proposition that was put to you, which was that you three were together and you've now changed that and said well, it wasn't three, it was just the two of us. So, in the context of the two of you, did Mr de Waal assault Mr Sexwale?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I can't remember or give evidence that Mr de Waal assaulted Mr Sexwale in my presence at any stage. It's possible in the interrogation above, on the 10th floor, but I cannot give positive evidence in that regard.

MR LAX: Is there any possibility - sorry Mr Bizos, that I'm interposing, is there any possibility that while Mr Sexwale was on the 10th floor and in your presence and in the presence of others, that he was assaulted?

MR ZEELIE: It's what I'm trying to say, Chairperson, it's quite possible and I believe that it happened. I'm almost positive, yes. But what I'm trying to say is that I cannot identify that Mr Sexwale specifically, I cannot - I believe that he would have been assaulted.

MR LAX: So are you saying that the only time you've become consciously aware that the person you are now dealing with is Mr Sexwale and not some other person who is otherwise unidentified to you, is on the 9th floor after you hit him with the broomstick?

MR ZEELIE: It's correct, Chairperson. I can positively say yes, I hit him on the 9th floor with a broomstick, but on the 10th floor I could have been present where I couldn't identify him. I'm willing to say yes, but I can't say yes, I can identify him positively if I can't really do that. I wish I could help you in this regard, Chairperson.

MR LAX: You see, but then you're not in a position to gainsay anything that gets put to you in that regard, because you simply can't remember.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson, that's why ... (inter-vention)

MR LAX: Well then rather than giving us a long story, simply say you can't remember.

MR ZEELIE: I will do so, Chairperson.

MS BOSMAN: Mr Bizos, if I may just come in.

Mr Zeelie, if I can just get clarity on this, are you saying you can positively remember that you assaulted detainees on the 10th floor, more-or-less at that time, but I cannot remember who they were?

MR ZEELIE: I was present there, Chairperson, I can't remember whether I really participated at that stage in the assaults. It's possible, yes.

MS BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: Where those persons that were being assaulted, with or without your participation, in fact tortured naked, shocked, having the inner tube placed on their face? Is that was you saw happening to other detainees?

MR ZEELIE: It did happen, yes Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And I think it's quite clear from the answers that you have given that if Mr Sexwale says that you took part in the assaults or that you were present during the assaults, you are not able to deny it, because you may be mistaken about his identity, is that what your evidence amounts to?

MR ZEELIE: That's what I'm trying to say, Chairperson. It could be, because the identification was not positive.

MR BIZOS: No, no, you see what I want to put to you, that that is a sort of last resort which is not available to you. How long does it take to take a person's clothes off, ask him questions, wet his body and prepare the mechanism to shock him, put a bag over his face? How can you be mistaken about a person's identity, having done all these things, or having been present whilst your colleagues were doing things to him?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot remember. I can't identify Mr Sexwale, I can't say that I was involved in the 10th floor in his incident.

MR BIZOS: Well you can't really - but you do admit that you tortured people on the 10th floor, after those arrests?

MR ZEELIE: I said that it was possible, yes Chairperson. I can't really remember how involved I was on the 10th floor. At that stage I was a young policeman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you ask any of them whether they knew where Sexwale was?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Was that a priority during the course of that interrogation, to find out where you can get Sexwale?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember if that was the specific priority, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Do you remember the name ... I'll spell it, I don't want to murder anybody's language, Mr Chairman, R-w-a-x-a. I'll ask Mr Sexwale. Will you please put that on record?

MR SEXWALE: Rwaxa.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, no.

MR BIZOS: Sorry. Does that name mean anything to you?

MR ZEELIE: No, I can't place it, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: His pen name was Inch(?)

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I know there was a person with the name of Inch. If I'm not mistaken, I think that's the person who conveyed the original information about the "Border Gate" incident, about Mr Sexwale.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and he was the chief prosecution's witness in Mr Joe Kwabe’s and Mr Sexwale's trial?

MR ZEELIE: I have no knowledge about that, but I know the name Inch.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Die - you told us that Inch provided the information, did you take him from one other detainee to another, in order to confront the detainee?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember that. It is possible, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: You see, because on the third day of Mr Sexwale's interrogation, Inch was brought face to face with Solly Khumalo and Inch said: "Stop looking for Sexwale, that's him", pointing to Mr Sexwale. Are you able to deny that?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember that, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Is it possible that that's how it happened and that's how Mr Sexwale was identified?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it's possible, but not as far as I know.

MR BIZOS: Well you see, if that is possible, then your evidence just doesn't fit into the picture at all, because you told us that shortly after his arrest you struck Mr Sexwale on the stomach with a broomstick and he then told you everything that you wanted to know. That's hardly consistent with his being identified for the first time in the third day of his detention, is it?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, why I said that it's possible, after I assaulted him, after we spoke to him, as I said before, we went to other parts of the country to Skhekhuneland, other members interrogated other people in other areas and it's possible that they took him, but myself, I did not take Mr Inch to Mr Sexwale, but it could have happened in my absence and that's why I said it's possible.

But if we can go back to the dates of the arrest of the other members, you'll see that on the third day several other members had been arrested because of the information we received from Mr Sexwale.

MR BIZOS: Mr Sexwale agrees with you, that you were not there when Inch was brought, he was brought by De Waal, and that was the first time that he was identified as Sexwale.

MR ZEELIE: As I said, I have no knowledge of that, although De Waal was with us ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's what Mr Bizos is saying, he says he's just taken instructions from Mr Sexwale and he says when he was identified you were not there. So you need not expand on that.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Did you or members of your team torture Inch?

MR ZEELIE: I was never involved in that, I only know, Chairperson, that Inch's face was swollen the time I saw him. If I remember correctly, he was arrested in the West Rand, and I know his face was swollen, and that's when the investigation started.

MR BIZOS: Why did you think that his face was swollen?

MR ZEELIE: It was clear, I could see it.

MR BIZOS: No, but what had caused the swelling?

MR ZEELIE: It could only have been assault, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And did he complain about torture at the trial when he was called as a State witness?

MR ZEELIE: I was not involved in the investigation where people were taken to court, Chairperson, so I don't know what happened there.

MR BIZOS: Well Mr Sexwale will say that you were frequently present during the course of the trial, you took an interest in the trial. It was a high profile trial that went on for a long time, surely you went there?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, maybe I was there once or twice, but I wasn't there prominently or all the time. That trial lasted for nine months, maybe more. No, I might have been there once or twice, I wasn't there so often.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now where is Mr de Waal?

MR ZEELIE: I don't know where he is now. The last time I knew he was an attorney in the East Rand, I don't know where he is now. I haven't heard from him in years, even before I left the Force.

MR BIZOS: And you've already told us that he took part in torture on the 10th floor.

MR ZEELIE: I believe he was involved, yes Chairperson. I can't say that he was, but ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: No, what do you mean you believe? You were his fellow investigating officer, didn't you do anything together?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I said, on the 10th floor on that day there were several people detained and that's what I'm trying to say, I wasn't with Mr de Waal for the whole time.

MR BIZOS: During this weekend when four or five of the people arrested were tortured, according to you, did Mr de Waal take part in it?

MR ZEELIE: It's possible yes, Chairperson, I can't remember exactly.

MR BIZOS: You are now falling into the mode of saying: "Dis moontlik" whenever you want to protect somebody, why do you say it's only "moontlik"?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, from the Chair you told me that if I'm not certain I must say I'm not sure, I can't say anything else.

MR BIZOS: Well we know that Mr de Waal was part of the investigating team during this weekend.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: And we know from you that four or five people were tortured.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I said some of them, I named Bafana's name during the arrest. It was a continuous work. Afterwards detainees were taken back to Johannesburg, where they were also interrogated. It's possible, yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well the "moontlikheid" has come in again. Nevermind. Now who was the officer from whom you sought permission to work during the weekend?

MR ZEELIE: He was definitely at that stage the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch. His surname was Muller, Brig Muller. He's deceased.

MR BIZOS: Now you told us that there were, that torture took place on the 10th floor on a regular basis and that the officers could not possibly not have known about it, does that include Col Muller?

MR ZEELIE: He would have known about it I believe, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: How many electrical apparatuses were there?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I can't say, maybe one or two. I can't say there were definitely two, but it's possible.

MR BIZOS: In whose custody were they kept?

MR ZEELIE: I'm not sure in whose custody it was kept.

MR BIZOS: Where did you get it from? From whom did you get it when you wanted to use it?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, and I stand to be corrected, it was the specific administration office, they were in a drawer.

MR BIZOS: Who was the Administrative Officer at that time? Under Col Muller.

MR ZEELIE: Sorry, Chairperson, I talk about the person who handled the administrative aspect of the personnel.

MR BIZOS: Whilst Col Muller was the Head of the Security Police, who was the Administrative Officer in whose office the electrical mechanism, or mechanisms were kept?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember the person's name at that stage, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Now on how many occasions did you go to pick up this instrument?

MR ZEELIE: I can't recall, I didn't always fetch it myself.

MR BIZOS: Well try and tell us on how many occasions you remember trying to get it.

MR ZEELIE: It could be four or five times, it could be more Chairperson, I can't remember.

MR BIZOS: During Col Muller's stewardship, how many pieces of inner tubing were there?

MR ZEELIE: I can't answer that question, Chairperson, I don't know.

MR BIZOS: From whom did you get your when you wanted to use it?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, some of the members who interrogated as well, there could have been an occasion where I fetched it myself, but they usually did that.

MR LAX: Mr Bizos, while you're just looking through your papers ...

You were a Security policeman for a very long period of time.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Your average day, would you have one interrogation a day, at least?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I was not involved with the investigation personnel the whole time, I had other responsibilities as well. I was also in the Bomb Squad, I worked at various scenes, I controlled explosives, so I had various other tasks as well.

MR LAX: I hear that and I assumed that, but I'm trying to get a sense of how much investigative work you would have done that would have entailed interrogating people. Your average week would have consisted of how many interrogations?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, two weeks might have gone by without, or three weeks, without me interrogating anybody. I'm saying it's very difficult for me to give an average. It's difficult.

MR LAX: Ja, okay.

MR BIZOS: Now when you undertook an investigation, did you have report-back meetings with your senior officers, as to how a particular investigation was getting on?

MR ZEELIE: There were such meetings, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Presided over by Col Muller?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, very often it happened that the officers of the investigative team would get together and discuss things, and I believe at that stage I was still a Warrant Officer, it was discussed a the officer's meeting.

MR BIZOS: From whom did Col Muller take over as Head?

MR ZEELIE: I think he came directly after Gen Coetzee.

MR BIZOS: Well Gen Coetzee was not a General at the time that he ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: Correct.

MR BIZOS: ... that he was the Head of the Security Police in Johannesburg.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, I said so in my evidence. I referred to General, because he was a General when he retired.

MR BIZOS: And when Colonel or Brig Coetzee was the Head of the Security Police at John Vorster Square, was torture going on?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it happened continuously. While I was part of the Security Branch, it happened continuously.

MR BIZOS: And would Colonel Coetzee, or whatever his rank was when he was Head of the Johannesburg of the Security Police, have known what the position was, just as Col Muller would have known?

MR ZEELIE: I believe so, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Now you know that there was a lot of agitation and allegations of torture at John Vorster Square.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: The newspapers were full of it.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: And it was always denied.

MR ZEELIE: It was always denied.

MR BIZOS: And it was always characterised as communist propaganda, in order to besmirch the good name of the South African Police.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: And you knew that to be false.

MR ZEELIE: Please repeat.

MR BIZOS: You knew that this propaganda statement was false.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: And your senior officers knew it.

MR ZEELIE: They also knew, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Did any one of them come at any stage and tell you: "Be careful, because we don't want evidence of it to come out"?

MR ZEELIE: I can't think of any incident when they told us to be careful. As I say, I was never reprimanded by any senior officer. It could be that a direct Commander told us to be careful, but I can't think that any of the other Commanders would have said something like that.

MR BIZOS: This business of teams working during the weekends was favoured at John Vorster Square, was it not? Do you recall that at the end of 1981, beginning of 1982, Mr Neil Aggit was there?

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Were you there?

MR ZEELIE: I was then at John Vorster Square, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Was Capt Naude there?

MR ZEELIE: I can't place him, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: The man from East London who had come there for that purpose.

MR ZEELIE: I can't place him, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Who was - what was the position of Maj Cronwright?

MR ZEELIE: Maj Cronwright, during Mr Sexwale's arrest in that operation, if I remember correctly, he was the Commander of the Investigative Unit.

MR BIZOS: And he knew about the assaults taking place and the torture?

MR ZEELIE: Definitely, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Why do you say definitely? Did you encourage him to put even more pressure on people?

MR ZEELIE: He was the man who encouraged us to obtain information in a hard way.

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct - mike not on) in a hard way?

MR ZEELIE: Assault, tortures. He was known for that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you have anything to do with the interrogation of Dr Neil Agate?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR BIZOS: But you were there during that time?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I know he died, but I don't know about the exact circumstances.

MR BIZOS: At that time there was an Inspector of detainees, or Inspectors of detainees, Magistrates. Did you have a way of bypassing their inspections by having notice of when they were coming and you would take the detainee out of the cells so that the magistrates would not see them?

MR ZEELIE: It's correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: On whose orders did you do that?

MR ZEELIE: It came from the Commander of the Investigative Unit and I also believe, as Commander in Chief, had knowledge of an assault. He would have made sure that those people were taken away.

MR BIZOS: Who was the Commander in Chief?

MR ZEELIE: I'm talking about the Commander of Security Branch, he would have made sure that a person who was visually assaulted, he would have given the order to the Commander to remove that person from the cells.

MR BIZOS: Would that have been Coetzee and Muller?

MR ZEELIE: I don't know of specific incidents where they gave the instruction, but people in their position, yes.

MR BIZOS: Now, in relation to investigations of complaints made by detainees, who chose the Investigating Officer in order to investigate the complaint?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as far as I know and as far as I can recall, there was a specific person who was appointed to handle all those investigations, I think it was a retired Colonel. Who appointed him, I don't know.

MR BIZOS: Whatever the procedures may have been, they hardly had any successful prosecutions.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Why was that?

MR ZEELIE: It was to protect the members of the Security Branch, so that assaults and tortures would not be divulged or disclosed.

MR BIZOS: Who protected them?

MR ZEELIE: I believe the investigative team investigated in such a way so that it would show that there were no assaults and I want to add that the statement made by policemen who assaulted others, were done in such a way that it would seem that they did not assault people.

MR BIZOS: Did you also support one another, that if an allegation was made against a particular person of an assault, you supported one another by furnishing false alibis?

MR ZEELIE: It's correct, Chairperson. It happened in Security Branch that we sat around a table and we discussed the whole thing and there were stages when we used pocket books and we re-wrote them in order to deny those allegations.

MR BIZOS: And how did you treat the District Surgeons who were supposed to visit these detainees and report on their conditions?

MR ZEELIE: District Surgeons, according to me at that stage, they were a problem and all we did at that stage was, as you said before, we removed the person when the District Surgeon made note when he was told that the person had been assaulted but at that stage when he received the statement that the person had been assaulted, the person had already recovered.

MR BIZOS: The persons that were tortured on the 10th floor, did they sometimes scream in pain?

MR ZEELIE: There were cases, but mostly on weekends. We did a lot of investigative work on weekends when there were no people present in the building.

MR BIZOS: And when it was not during the weekend, would the people on the floor, including the senior officers, be able to hear the screams?

MR ZEELIE: I can't really remember an incident where a person screamed so much on the 10th floor that other people could hear him on a lower floor, no.

MR BIZOS: By way of contrast, did you get together, these round-table conferences that you had in order to defeat the ends of justice, did senior officers say that: "I was there when this person says that he was assaulted and if anything like that had happened, it would inevitably have come to my notice" and of your senior officers made statements to that effect?

MR ZEELIE: No, I can't think that they made such a statement. Orally yes. Sorry, Chairperson, could you please repeat the question?

MR BIZOS: The way you helped one another was to get your senior officers to say that nothing like this happened as alleged by the detainee. "I was in the office next door and if anything like that happened, I would have heard about it. Once I didn't hear about it, the detainee is lying"?

MR ZEELIE: It's correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Now, I don't want to put any further detail to you except to suggest to you that you have not told the truth, that you have in fact chosen to apply for amnesty, not in relation to all the matters, but you chose three or four cases where you minimised your participation, you were untruthful about it and that you have not made full disclosure in relation to the manner in which you treated Mr Sexwale.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson no, I deny that. In my original application I only mentioned Mr Tokyo Sexwale's name and the only reason why I named him was because at that stage I didn't assault him that seriously, so I spoke the truth today and I stand with what I said and I deny that I did not tell the truth.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos. Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I'm just reminded in relation to the ring. Perhaps I should just put ...

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: I'm going to put to you that even your evidence in relation to the ring is contrived. You asked Mr Sexwale for the ring after the conclusion of his trial and you told him: "They're going to take everything away from you anyway now that you have been sentenced to imprisonment, give me the ring" and he actually thought that there was some sort of humanity in your request and he gave you the ring at that stage and not when you said he gave it to you.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that is impossible because that ring was handed in as an exhibit in that trial, so he could definitely not have given me the ring after the trial.

MR BIZOS: What happened to the ring?

MR ZEELIE: I do not know what happened to it. As I have said, it was handed up as an exhibit in the trial. That is why I said, Chairperson, that I was not involved in the Pretoria questioning and the members who undertook questioning there, it came out there that the ring was the identifying hand and the Investigative staff who continued that questioning and came back to me and fetched the ring from me and it was handed up as an exhibit.

MR BIZOS: Mr Sexwale will say that you got that part wrong as well because the police officers in the van said that they saw nobody.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, the ring was handed up as an exhibit and that is why they came to fetch the ring from me. It was handed in as an exhibit. Those records could be checked and then you'll see I speak the truth.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos. Mr van den Berg.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Zeelie how is it that you recollect my client, Mr Martins? Why do you remember his name?

MR ZEELIE: Please repeat that, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Why do you remember my client, Mr Martins? Why do you recollect his name?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, in the first application when I was asked to mention a person's name, then I specifically thought of George Martin and I will remember him for all time because as I have said in my evidence-in-chief, I hold him in high regard and I thought that he would reach a high portfolio in the politics of today the manner in which he escaped remained with me always.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now Mr Martins agrees that at the time that your first came across him during 1988 or 1989, he was in the detention of the Murder and Robbery Unit and that he was in fact assaulted by members of the Murder and Robbery Unit and by members of your unit. You agree with that?

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson, that is where I found him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But that you were not the person who was in charge of the investigation pertaining to Mr Martins?

MR ZEELIE: No, I was not in command at that stage. I know Mr Nick Deetleffs investigated the matter and Mr Deetleffs did report to me as well, but I cannot recall who was the Commander above me, I think at that stage I was a Lieutenant and Deetleffs worked under my section, if I can recall correctly.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was his rank at the time?

MR ZEELIE: Warrant Officer.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you were at that stage a Lieutenant?

MR ZEELIE: I believe that I was a Lieutenant at that stage, yes. Yes, I became a Lieutenant in 1984.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There was also a Colonel and a Major who were involved in the interrogation of Mr Martins, can you recall who they were?

MR ZEELIE: From Security Branch?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, from Security Branch.

MR ZEELIE: I cannot recall exactly who they were.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Martins doesn't recollect their names either, but one of them boasted to him that he had been involved in the death of Steve Biko. Does that ring a bell?

MR ZEELIE: No, I think that at that stage I reported to Col van Niekerk, but I may be incorrect.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Outside of your police work, do you have any social interests?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you have an interest in martial arts?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Because Mr Martin instructs me that you would practice your manoeuvres on him, either judo or karate and that you would use him literally as a human punch-bag. Do you agree with that?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I did not do karate, I did judo, so I did not have any karate training. I cannot say that it is not so, I may have executed a technique on him, I will accept it and then it would have certainly been a judo technique.

MR VAN DEN BERG: It's also correct that in your presence he was shocked and in your presence the tube technique was used on him?

MR ZEELIE: That's as I already said in my evidence-in-chief, it's only today that it came through to me that it was Mr Martins that was shocked at Murder and Robbery. During my first trial, during the Bopape incident, I said that I could not recall how he was assaulted, but as my memory was refreshed, that is why today I can say that I am convinced that it was Mr Martins.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you. Did you say that Mr Martins was - the use of electric shocks was applied to Mr Martins when he was held at the Murder and Robbery Unit?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson, that is how I can remember it. He was shocked there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Martin's recollection is that electric shock treatment was only applied to him at John Vorster Square when he was in the hands of the Security Branch and not at the Murder and Robbery Unit.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, the reason why I say, when I said in my evidence at that stage I was concerned because Murder and Robbery applied shocks, that is when I said that I am trying to place Mr Martins at that scene, that he was not blindfolded and that people could be identified in that manner. I may be wrong, but that is how my thoughts run at this stage, that is why, in my first hearing in the Stanza Bopape incident, I could not recall how Mr Martin was assaulted, but while I sat here, it came through to me that it was at Murder and Robbery's offices and that's where it happened.

MR VAN DEN BERG: In terms of the work that you did at the Security Branch, did the Special Operations Unit of Umkhonto weSizwe enjoy any particular - was it allocated to any particular offices?

MR ZEELIE: Not specifically. As I have said, the investigators were on the 10th floor and they dealt with it there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Because you do know that Mr Martins was a member of the Special Operations Unit of Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR ZEELIE: Correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: In respect of Mr Dlamini who is no longer present at this hearing, there is the - and you were taken through the statement which he made by your counsel, his evidence or his instructions to me are that you came into his cell or into an office where he was and that you asked him after a Peter Dlamini.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, Peter Dlamini was sought for in the Why Not - or I beg your pardon, in the Cafe Zurich incident. I had two persons who did investigations under my command, Mr van Heerden and Mr Mostert. I tried to place Mr Dlamini here. I cannot place him. I shall not deny it but I cannot place him. If he says that I assaulted him, I cannot recall it and I cannot place him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: He says it was on the basis that he didn't know who Peter Dlamini was, that an interrogation took place during which the acts which are described in this statement took place. You have no recollection?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall that this Mr Dlamini, in that investigation, came to the fore. I cannot recall that at all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van den Berg. Mr Koopedi.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, a few questions perhaps for Mr Zeelie.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Mr Zeelie when you first were incorporated at John Vorster Square with the Security Police, how many of you were there as members of the Security Police?

MR ZEELIE: It was a large staff. I think it was the largest Security Branch staff in the country. There were many people there at Security Branch. The staff could have easily have been, I may give you an incorrect figure, but it could have been 100 members. It could have been a little more, a little less, because it was a very large branch.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Well I wanted the estimate, about 100 or so. Now in your evidence-in-chief, you stated that when you went to John Vorster Square, you did not have this shocking apparatus, or you know those type of apparatus. Did I hear you correct?

MR ZEELIE: I did not have something like that myself, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Did I further hear you correct to say that one or two members had those apparatus?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, I said it was in the possession of one or two persons and that I can recall there in the admin office, some of the investigative staff had something like that, yes.

MR KOOPEDI: Who were these two members?

MR ZEELIE: As I've already said, Chairperson, I cannot recall anyone who at that stage, had something like that with him.

MR KOOPEDI: Now when you refer to members, what are you talking about? Are you talking about administrative staff, or are you talking about actual policemen?

MR ZEELIE: I accept that the members I refer to would be members of the Investigative staff.

MR KOOPEDI: And not administrative staff?

MR ZEELIE: Not necessarily that it would have belonged to that person, but if I recall correctly, at some stage it was left in that office.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Were you part of the Investigation Unit that arrested Mr Sibanyoni?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Sibanyoni?

MR KOOPEDI: Yes.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot recall whether I myself was involved in his arrest. I cannot recall that at all.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you know why was he arrested?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, what I can recall was that he was a supporter of the ANC and he was involved in the transporting, or those were the allegations that were made, he was involved in the transportation of explosives.

MR KOOPEDI: Now, I want to tell you a little story and get your comment on that. Whilst Mr Sibanyoni was detained at John Vorster Square, on three consecutive nights his cell was left unlocked and in the immediate vicinity there was a fence which had a hole in it where a person can escape and to his mind, this meant that it was a trap, meant for him to escape so that he could get ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: I don't know about anything like that, Chairperson, under no circumstances.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Now let's go to the day you were with him at Sandton, in your offices, the day of the assault. Why did you assault him on this day?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I was in command, as far as I can recall, of the investigation that investigated leftist activities and if I recall correctly at that stage it was reported to me that Mr Sibanyoni did not want to co-operate and that he refused to give his names and to tell us who he was and if I recall correctly, I asked him for this information and he also refused and at that stage, to get his name from him, as I have said if I recall correctly, I slapped him and punched him in the stomach.

MR KOOPEDI: What I find strange is that this man was already arrested then, there were suspicions which you had on him that he transports whatever, but you still did not have his name.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that is how I can recall it. Everything was about his name and the report that had to be completed. I do not know whether he used another name, or what the exact circumstances were, the only thing I can say is that yes, I did assault Mr Sibanyoni at that stage and it was about a name.

MR KOOPEDI: Let me tell you what my instructions are and perhaps comment there on. You were to take pictures of him, like it was ordinarily done with other detainees and before you would take a picture, you would write a name of a detainee on a piece of paper and ask this detainee to hold that piece of paper or board next to his chest, or her chest.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Now my instructions are that you asked him to give you his name. He told you his name was J B Sibanyoni and you were not happy with that. You assaulted him for calling himself J B Sibanyoni.

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall that basis. I cannot recall why I would assault him if he did give his name to me. It was about a name that he did not want to give, that is how I recall it.

MR KOOPEDI: You do not recall the exact circumstances under which you assaulted him.

MR ZEELIE: I cannot recall the exact circumstances of what happened there, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Now would you deny the version that I'm putting to you now, that he was assaulted for telling you that he's J B Sibanyoni?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I can recall it, he did not want to give his name and that is why I assaulted him. I cannot say or I cannot concur that he gave his name and despite him giving his name, I still assaulted him, that does not make sense in any case.

MR LAX: It does make sense in this sense, that if he gave you a different name, if he gave you J B Sibanyoni and you thought you were dealing with J B Khumalo, or something, you would have thought he was giving you the wrong name, he would have irritated the hell out of you. Isn't that so?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson. I said yes, it would have bothered me if he did that, yes.

MR LAX: Well, then why are you disagreeing with him, because that's exactly what he's putting to you.

MR ZEELIE: Otherwise, I understood him incorrectly Chairperson. What I meant was that he may have given me an incorrect name and I wanted to ask him: "What is your name" and that thereby I assaulted him because he wanted to give me an incorrect name. I say it's a possibility that that could have happened.

MR KOOPEDI: I put it to you that you were in no position to know whether he was giving you a correct or an incorrect name.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I am quite honest when I say that I cannot recall exactly, that is why I also say that I cannot see myself doing that, if it was otherwise, but I agree with you, I cannot recall exactly.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Now at some stage you then took him to his house.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: And you took pictures of him pointing at a tin trunk, a "trommel" in Afrikaans.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Why?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it was information that was there with regard to and I think this was conveyed by the Investigative Officer that this trunk contained explosives that were in the boot of the vehicle and at that stage I took photos on pointing out by Mr Sibanyoni, the vehicle and the trunk.

CHAIRPERSON: Now did you find anything, I'm sorry Mr Koopedi, did you personally find anything in the trunk?

MR ZEELIE: No, there was nothing in there, Chairperson. As I have already said, we conducted a type of test like a vacuum test within the boot as well as the trunk, to determine whether there were explosives there, if they transported it, then one could pick it up in that manner.

MR KOOPEDI: Would you say you received any form of co-operation from Mr Sibanyoni?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, if I recall, after that incident with the photos, I never had a problem with Mr Sibanyoni. At this stage I am not able to say afterwards what was found with him.

MR KOOPEDI: If I can assist you, I'm referring to the period before the photos. Was there any co-operation or non co-operation?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as far as my knowledge goes and what I can recall, the report of the investigator was that he was not co-operating. That is as far as I can recall.

MR KOOPEDI: You're right, because he did not co-operate with the police. Now what I want to know is why did you take a picture of him pointing at a tin trunk?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I would solely have done this if there was a statement or information that he had used this specific trunk and had placed it into his vehicle. That is the only reason why I would have taken a photo.

MR KOOPEDI: Let me ask it simply. Were you manufacturing evidence against him?

MR ZEELIE: No, absolutely not, Chairperson. I did not say that he gave information. It could be that other persons supplied that information and that I could have seen a trunk there and the vehicle standing there, so I was not fabricating any evidence against Mr Sibanyoni. I've already said, according to the report that was given to me, he did not want to co-operate.

MR KOOPEDI: What I want to know is, why didn't you take a picture of this trunk, if you believed that this trunk had been carrying explosives for something? Why didn't you take a picture of it? Why do you want to have him point at this trunk, then take a picture?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that was someone was involved and he does a pointing-out, then he indicates to the thing that was found with him.

MR KOOPEDI: Pointing-outs, are they not done voluntarily?

MR ZEELIE: Please repeat that? Can you please repeat that?

MR KOOPEDI: The pointing-out you're referring to where people get their pictures taken, are those not done voluntarily? Do I not volunteer to go and show the police?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson, usually it is done voluntarily and I believe on that day it was done voluntarily, or whether Mr Sibanyoni requested me to point at the trunk or whether he did it with another agenda, or whether he attached himself, or connected himself to it, I do not know, otherwise he would not have pointed at the trunk.

MR KOOPEDI: My instructions are that you actually forced him to point at this trunk, because when you first said to him he must point at it and you take a picture, he refused and it's only when you charged at him, that he co-operated with you.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot recall that. I may have told him that he should do it. I will not deny that, but at that stage I was not aggressive towards him and that that is why he did it. I will not deny it.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay, whilst in this house, why did you take pictures of him playing the piano?

MR ZEELIE: At that stage, when I took the photo, Chairperson, it was with no specific purpose. I took a photo of him because the camera was in my hand, but afterwards when a charge of assault was laid against me, I saw this as an opportunity to tell the Investigative Officer: "Look at this, look at this, this man is not in handcuffs, he was there voluntarily with us." This was only afterwards that that idea came to me, but when I took the picture, it was on the spur of the moment. I most probably would have given the picture to him, so this was not with any specific motive or any other reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you overwhelmed by the melody that came out of the piano?

MR ZEELIE: He plays very beautifully Chairperson, we enjoyed it and I think Mr Sibanyoni will concur with me, when he played we were on a very friendly basis.

MR KOOPEDI: I should point out that it sounds very strange that you even remember that he played very good music.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that's correct, I cannot recall what melody he played, but the music was beautiful.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Now, did you find any evidence that suggested that transported weapons or explosives?

MR ZEELIE: Sir, as I have said, the matter further was quite vague. I cannot really recall whether positive information came through later and that he had been charged in any way, I cannot recall.

MR KOOPEDI: I'm referring to the day when you went to his house, the day when you say you did a vacuum dusting of some sort, to test for presence of weapons and explosives. Did you find any such evidence?

MR ZEELIE: Not in the least, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Okay.

MR LAX: Can I just ask something? Why ask him to point out something where you didn't find any evidence of explosives in?

MR ZEELIE: ; Chairperson this was an investigation that was conducted. Usually in an investigation, that is why I say in some or other manner there must have been evidence conveyed to me to say that this specific trunk and that is why earlier on when the question was put to me, I said that if I was aggressive towards him, I would not deny it, it may have been that I wanted him to connect himself to the incident, but ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Connect himself to what? Here was a trommel that you found that had been vacuumed so that you could check it for traces of explosives and there were none in it. What, would you have fabricated the evidence that there were explosives and then used the photograph together with that?

MR ZEELIE: No, I would not have done that Chairperson, that is why I say I don't believe that any traces were found and that is why that evidence was never used. If traces of explosives were found, then it would have been used, yes.

MR LAX: Why go tot he trouble of taking all the photographs before you even know that what you're dealing with is explosives? That doesn't make sense to me.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have said, there was evidence to me at that stage because otherwise I would not have done so. That is what I'm trying to explain. I would not have done this myself if there was not information from a source about it and it may be that at that stage that there was information that a specific trunk was used and we arrived at the house, we found a trunk there and at that stage there was more confirmation of this to me and it was because of that that I took the photos.

MR LAX: Did you ever fabricate evidence against people?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, except for not embarrassing the Security Branch, I never fabricated any evidence to have someone who was innocent found guilty, never Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And this enemy which was the ANC, even against the ANC you would never fabricate any evidence?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed.

MR KOOPEDI: You've said in your evidence-in-chief that you could have used foul language on my client. My instructions are in fact that you did. Now I need to find out why? Why would you use foul language on him?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, to intimidate him. I mean when one tortures someone, you do not speak nicely to them. You will raise your voice and you will use language that one would not usually use, so I believe and it is my opinion it was more to intimidate the person to show that you have control over him.

MR KOOPEDI: But at this stage you were not torturing him or interrogating him, you were with him at that stage to take pictures, why use foul language? Why intimidate him?

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson, that is why I say as I can recall it at that stage, if he did not co-operate and he did not co-operate and that is why I would have used foul language to intimidate him.

MR KOOPEDI: Would that be the same reason why you said to him that he must not forget that he's detained at John Vorster Square and that from time to time people do fall from the high floor?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot recall that I said something like that to him. I have to be honest. I will not say that I did not say it at all, but I cannot recall saying anything like that to him. Maybe I could have said something like that to intimidate that person.

MR KOOPEDI: Now after he was released, he was never charged because no evidence was found on him. After he was released, several Afrikaans speaking white people went to his office, I'm sure you know that he's an attorney and was an attorney at that stage.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Put pressure on his landlord telephonically to evict him from the premises. Do you know anything about that?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I have no knowledge of that.

MR KOOPEDI: Perhaps something which I need to find out from you, you said whilst being asked questions here that you were ordered to destroy documents.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: Who ordered this?

MR ZEELIE: This came from Head Office.

MR KOOPEDI: Who in Head Office?

MR ZEELIE: It was from the Generals-in-staff at Head Office. The instruction came that files and dossiers should be destroyed. That was just before the election.

MR KOOPEDI: Do you have names? Do you know who did this? It's very easy to say it came from a particular office without any fact or name attached to the statement. Who said that?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot recall who at that stage signed the document, but on our officers' conference, our Commander gave us that information as an instruction and I believe at that stage it would have probably been Gen Erasmus or it could have been Gen du Toit. At that stage we were already at the Regional Offices, but an instruction definitely came from Head Office.

MR KOOPEDI: Correct me if I'm wrong here, from the evidence you have given, I've summed it up as follows, that you have forgotten the names of the many people you have assaulted and tortured over the years.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR KOOPEDI: But are you able to recall the number of incidents you were involved in?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I would not be able to recall the exact number of incidents as I have already said, in one case may be four or five or six people that reported me and in some of them, and I stand by that, in some of them I may be involved, in others I was not involved.

MR KOOPEDI: Now what in particular made you remember my client?

MR ZEELIE: I think the specific time was when Mr Sibanyoni acted as Chairperson in an amnesty application where I was present and where my legal representative said that I feel that Mr Sibanyoni should not serve on that specific bench because he laid a charge of assault against me and after Mr Sibanyoni spoke to my legal representative and said to the Chairperson that it would have no influence on the finding, I gave my legal representative instruction that he may remain there and that is where his name came from and the application has regard for him as well.

MR KOOPEDI: So what you're saying is you would not have remembered him but for the amnesty application, is that what you're saying?

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson. that is why I said in the original application I did not mention his name and specifically at that sitting when I saw Mr Sibanyoni there and I recognised him and it then came to me, I told my legal representative that Mr Sibanyoni laid a charge of assault against me.

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you Chairperson, I have no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I put a correction on the record before the Committee examines the witness, through the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, Mr Bizos.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Zeelie, Mr Sexwale informs me that you may well be correct that it was not at the end of the trial that the ring was given. It may well have been at the end of the detention. Does that accord with your ...?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, he gave it to me before he was handed over to Pretoria. You are referring to the ring now? He gave it to me before he went to Pretoria.

MR BIZOS: Was it shortly before, when his detention had come to an end?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I may be wrong about the specific incident, but you see when someone is detained, all his personal possessions would be removed from him and I think when he was discharged from John Vorster and was transferred to Pretoria that at that stage it could be when his possessions were returned to him and because I was not involved any further in the investigation that at that stage he gave it to me, because I can recall clearly at a later stage, as I've already said, the investigators or some of the investigators, I think amongst others it was Billy Cox, who came to me and asked me where is the ring that Mr Sexwale had given to me.

MR BIZOS: The only difference now between the two of you is whether he offered it or whether you asked for it and he now recalls that you asked for it.

MR ZEELIE: That's very possible.

MR BIZOS: And that the possibility was that is was in order to be used in evidence against him.

MR ZEELIE: No, definitely at that stage I did not know that Chairperson. Actually, at that stage ...

MR BIZOS: In any event. The other thing is that when you followed him and he asked you to come to his house, he is going to say to the Committee that he was actually a bit scared and he wanted the tight security at his house to be around whilst he spoke to you and that you told him that you were applying for amnesty for Bopape. Do you remember that?

MR ZEELIE: It's very possible Chairperson, that is why - can I add something here? That is why I, at this stage, did not want to say that I went to Bopape's house because that is not relevant here, that is why he asked me just to pull off the road and I spoke to him there.

MR BIZOS: And the advice that he gave to you was: "Make use of the amnesty process, but tell the whole truth." Do you recall that?

MR ZEELIE: That is very possible, Chairperson, but as I've already said, Mr Sexwale told me: "It's in the past. We fought on two sides and we must take hands."

MR BIZOS: Provided the truth is told.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson, and that is what I am doing and I respect Mr Sexwale for that.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Chairperson if I might before ...

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Chairperson, if I might ask one further question. My client's memory was refreshed whilst certain questions were put on behalf of Mr Sibanyoni.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh certainly you may, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Zeelie, do you recall whether Mr Martins pointed out any arms, ammunition, explosives to you?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson that is why I say I am trying to let my mind go and I want to imagine that he did it at mine heaps, but I might be entirely incorrect.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you contest whether those pointing out were voluntary or not?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I believe that there was great pressure on Mr Martin and - are you referring to in an office?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No where he was physically taken to a place and he was instructed to point out the DLB,

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, yes, I believe automatically where he was questioned and where assault and torture was applied to him, it was absolute great pressure, I would also have done so if I was in the same position. There was definitely pressure on him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you participated in the interrogation which led to the pointing-out?

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson, if I recall correctly.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van den Berg. Mr Rossouw, any re-examination?

MR ROSSOUW: I have none, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW

CHAIRPERSON: Anything from the Panel? Mr Lax.

MR LAX: Just two, Chairperson. I still have a vague picture about, for example in the case of Mr Sexwale, what happened and how it was that you came to be involved in this investigation in the first place and so on. You've said that there was some sort of an operation where various people's houses were going to be hit, as you put it.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, such an operation had basically happened that we were put together, it was not only a Security Branch, John Vorster that was involved. As I have said, it would be Soweto and West Rand, so it is quite a large group of people and we were briefed with regard to certain aspects and that is why we were divided to hit several addresses and that is why I said that I cannot recall specifically at which address I was. I know that I was also in Alexandra, but I cannot recall whether I was at Mr Sexwale's house.

MR LAX: You see that explains to me now. I kept asking you: "Did you have any information about who these people were?" and you said no, but clearly you must have been briefed before this operation, who it was that you were going to try and get hold of, what their names were, where their addresses were, who it was you were looking for?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson, there would have been such a briefing but as I have said, at that stage I would not have been able to recall any names, but yes.

MR LAX: And then once you'd arrested certain people, you would have come back to John Vorster Square and there must have been, certainly at that point, first some sort of debriefing on who you'd got hold of, who was still outstanding, what information you were going to look for.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson. As I've said, there was disorganisation that day because much information was conveyed to and fro, yes.

MR LAX: Yes, but the simple point I want to put across is that it wouldn't have been possible for you or any of your other colleagues to interrogate somebody without knowing what the context was, without knowing what information was outstanding, without knowing what information was at hand and without knowing what developments were taking place in the course of the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: So you did not just stumble on Mr Sexwale in that office, you know that he's part of the people who were involved in the operation you had undertaken?

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Just with regard to people being electrocuted and some of them being stripped of their clothes, you were asked a question earlier: "What would be the object of removing someone's clothes?" and you didn't really give a straight answer and I just want to say to you, surely the object is to humiliate somebody when you take off their clothes.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that was one of the reasons, Chairperson, it's that psychological breaking down, but secondly why I say that, it's a person who - the shock method was applied on him, he would be placed in a chair and his hands are tied to the arms of the chair and his legs or his ankles are tied to the legs of the chair, so that he cannot injure himself on such a basis and then the water is poured over him and if the shock is applied to him, because he is wet, the effect of it is maximal.

MR LAX: The point is simply, he doesn't have to have his clothes removed to do that. In fact if he had wet clothes on him it would be even better from a shocking point of view. Surely the object is to make the person feel vulnerable and humiliated.

MR ZEELIE: I don't know Chairperson, but that is how I learned to do it at Security Branch and that is what I believed, that if he's shocked in such a manner, then the effect would be more effective.

MR LAX: Now, were these various people who'd been arrested, were they being questioned in the same room? Were they being questioned in separate rooms?

MR ZEELIE: Separate rooms, Chairperson. I cannot recall that there were people together there when they were questioned. There may have been one or two cases where one person was brought to another person so that they could confront each other, that is possible, yes, but usually the questioning would take place in various offices and in separate rooms.

MR LAX: But it's highly unlikely that you would have assaulted or tortured one person in the presence of another?

MR ZEELIE: It would not have happened just like that Chairperson, that is why I say with the case that I am trying to recall, it is not right that a person would not be blindfolded.

MR LAX: Now, so in addition to being naked, they would have been blindfolded.

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson, he would have been blindfolded before he is undressed.

MR LAX: Now, that day you were obviously - or were you, I don't know, were you going from room to room participating in interrogation on one person, moving on to another? If there was information from that person of some relevance to another person, you might go through to the next room?

MR ZEELIE: It's very possible, yes Chairperson, that - it's not necessarily that one would go into the office where one person is questioned, but information would have been exchanged, that I believe, yes.

MR LAX: Now why would people be moved from one floor to the other?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I believe, that is why I say that at no stage will I ever deny or say that it is not possible that Mr Sexwale was seriously tortured and that is why I mentioned this thing about the fits, the epileptic seizures, that it is possible that he moved down. I cannot give you an explanation there and that I found him on the 9th floor and I assaulted him there.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, the question is why were people moved from one floor to the other? Do you know or don't you know?

MR ZEELIE: I am not entirely certain, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you not certain about? You say you are not certain, what are you not certain of?

MR ZEELIE: I don't know why it was done, Chairperson.

MR LAX: And then lastly, these sorts of statements that you're alleged to have made to various people, well you know remember that so-and-so fell out of the window and so-and-so fell down these stairs, those are the sorts of things you would have said to somebody, aren't they?

MR ZEELIE: That is why I do not deny, Chairperson, it's very possible that I could have said so, I will not deny it.

MR LAX: Then just one last thing. How many of your fellow officers would have been present during the time of these interrogations that we've heard about, particularly with regard to Mr Sexwale for example?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it may be possible that three or four persons will question such a person and that he will apply violence to that person. I cannot see where it would be less than two, it could be four, it could be five that question him.

MR LAX: And so that if there were about four or five people that had been detained at that time, we're talking about in the region of about 15 to 20 policemen being present in the building while all of this was going on at least.

MR ZEELIE: ; Yes, on that day there may have been so many people, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you Chairperson, just two questions. Mr Zeelie, you referred to yourself as a young policeman at some stage, but you were already an officer, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I was a sergeant.

ADV BOSMAN: When did you refer to the rank of Lieutenant?

MR ZEELIE: 1984, I was a Lieutenant, it might have been the time of Mr Sibanyoni.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you for clearing that up. And then just one more question. You described various techniques here, did you in your career participate or use all those techniques?

MR ZEELIE: One of the techniques that I applied was shocking apparatus. I myself did not apply any suffocation because I did not like it, but it was done in my presence and then assaults with the open hand or with the fist, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: I will rephrase my question to you. Everything that has been put to you by the victims' legal representatives, would that concur with your conduct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Sexwale would have, by then, because I see you have picked up a number of grey hairs, that you would have been younger as well?

MR ZEELIE: I believe so, Chairperson. I don't believe he heard you now.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you subsequently met him, when he was on his way home, round about when was that? What year?

MR ZEELIE: It could have been three years ago, perhaps four years. It could be three years.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you both driving?

MR ZEELIE: Correct, Chairperson, I drove in front of him and when I looked in the rear view mirror, I recognised him and I turned around and he told me: "Pull off".

CHAIRPERSON: He told you?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, he showed me to pull off the road.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions arising from what the Panel asked, Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: I have nothing, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, anything arising from the Panel?

MR BIZOS: No thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, anything arising from what the Panel asked?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Nothing Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: I nearly said nothing arises Chairperson, but on our side nothing arises. It's a question of semantics, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: Nothing Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you Mr Zeelie, that concludes your evidence.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw, are you calling anybody as a witness?

MR ROSSOUW: I have no further witnesses, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the end of your case? You're closing your case?

MR ROSSOUW: End of this application, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Bizos, are you calling...?

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct - mike not on) Tokyo Sexwale.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it be, just to refresh for 5 minutes before Mr Sexwale?

MR BIZOS: We are ready to go on, unless the Panel, we certainly don't ask for it but if the Panel wants it, we have no problem.

CHAIRPERSON: One of my Panel members advises me that it's the interpreters who are ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: No, well obviously they have a double job to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take a 5 minute break.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) Mr Sexwale is ready to testify? MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

TOKYO MUSIMA GABRIEL SEXWALE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Sexwale, you were a Senior Commander of Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR SEXWALE: Yes, I was.

MR BIZOS: And you came back to South Africa and were you arrested?

MR SEXWALE: Yes, I was arrested.

MR BIZOS: Was Mr Zeelie, the applicant in this case, one of the arresting officers?

MR SEXWALE: The arrest took place in the night with many, many police there. He was one of those outside in the cars which took us to John Vorster.

MR BIZOS: Was Mr de Waal also one of them?

MR SEXWALE: Lieutenant de Waal as well as Billy Cox.

MR BIZOS: Did you have a document in a name other than your own?

MR SEXWALE: I had ANC manufactured false documents and it was a South African ID.

MR BIZOS: Under what name?

MR SEXWALE: Under Solomon Khumalo from Newcastle in Natal.

MR BIZOS: Where were you taken from the place of arrest?

MR SEXWALE: I was driven to John Vorster Square.

MR BIZOS: At what time of the day or night?

MR SEXWALE: It was late in the night, it could have been also in the early hours of the morning.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Were you interrogated shortly after you arrived at John Vorster Square?

MR SEXWALE: The questioning, if I may call it that, at that stage started in the car.

MR BIZOS: In the car. Who asked you questions in the car?

MR SEXWALE: I was asked questions by the policemen who were with me in the car. Later one of them was Mr Zeelie.

MR BIZOS: When you say later, you identified him as Mr Zeelie later, is that what you mean, or did he ask questions afterwards?

MR SEXWALE: Like I say, it was in the night, at that time you don't know which policeman is which one. You are in the car, you are bundled, you are being assaulted, so there's no time to recognise people. It's only later when you see people in the light in the building that you can see who is who.

MR BIZOS: Yes. In what manner and by whom, if you are able to say, were you assaulted in the car?

MR SEXWALE: I shall not attribute a particular form of assault to one person, it's a kind of a free for all, where you are beaten, you are kicked before you get into a car. I would say it's a rough and tumble type of a situation and you can't say this punch came from so and so, this slap, this push, that type of thing. It was just free punches, but you know they are all involved in it.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And did you arrive at John Vorster Square?

MR SEXWALE: We arrived at John Vorster Square.

MR BIZOS: Do you know what floor you were taken onto?

MR SEXWALE: I didn't know what floor it was at the time, but later, this is quite some time when we were in that building, one came to realise that it is the 10th floor.

MR BIZOS: 10th floor. What happened to you when you got to the 10th floor?

MR SEXWALE: Before we got to the 10th floor, there were beatings along the way as we got out of the car and the beatings were about Musima Sexwale, it is an individual they were looking for, because at the time they were not aware that they had arrested actually myself and those were just general beatings, pushing and so on, being kicked, what I would call being assaulted.

MR BIZOS: And the reason for it, you say, was given that they were looking for Musima Sexwale.

MR SEXWALE: They were looking for Musima Sexwale.

MR BIZOS: You didn't own up?

MR SEXWALE: No, I did not own up.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and what happened then?

MR SEXWALE: Then we were taken, I was taken into one of the rooms.

MR BIZOS: Yes, please describe in your own words what happened.

MR SEXWALE: In those rooms further beatings went on with questions: "Where is Musima Tokyo Sexwale? Where is Naledi Tsiki?" A pistol was also found apparently where I was arrested and I think - but they were talking about it, I could hear that they found a pistol which was my pistol, a Soviet made Tokarev pistol, but they were not sure whether I was carrying that weapon or not and they were saying: "Do we have guns? Where are the guns? Do you have any guns? Where's Musima? Where's Naledi Tsiki? Where are the others?" Those type of questions. "Were you ever trained?" It was many, many questions which were fired and at the time these questions are fired, you are punched, you are kicked. I was bleeding on both my noses.

MR BIZOS: Both nostrils.

MR SEXWALE: Yes, both my nostrils and I could feel that my eardrum was affected. I became aware that one of the ears could have been affected. I could not feel it at that time, but one of my eyes were closed. This is later when you come to see yourself in the mirror. A lip here was cut. Those were the types of beatings. This was before what I would like to call torture had started, these were just beatings.

MR BIZOS: What happened when the torture started?

MR SEXWALE: The torture consisted of - at first they tied me to a chair.

MR BIZOS: Who is they?

MR SEXWALE: Well they were these officers, Lieutenant de Waal, Billy Cox, together with Zeelie. There were other policemen who kept on coming in and out. One was being harassed, you must know, these are the people who you can identify who are staying on with you. Other policemen are outside. People keep on coming and shouting but to tie the scene down, it is being sat on a chair, tied to that chair and a hood covered my head.

MR BIZOS: Who was in the room at the time that your head was covered with the hood?

MR SEXWALE: There was Zeelie, there was Lieut de Waal and there was Billy Cox. Other policeman, like I said, kept on coming in and out and this Col Muller, I now remember that he mentioned him, Col Muller was there. I had forgotten the name of that Colonel, but he didn't touch me.

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry, was Mr Zeelie there at that stage?

MR SEXWALE: He was there.

MR BIZOS: Did he take part in tying you up on the chair or putting on the hood?

MR SEXWALE: I wouldn't say who was tying me up at the time. You are sitting down and there are hands and people are all around you, so they participated in that exercise.

MR BIZOS: Right the hood is on your head and then what happened?

MR SEXWALE: Then the next thing I felt it was a kind of a jolt.

MR BIZOS: Were you clothed at that time?

MR SEXWALE: I was still clothed at that time. I felt a kind of a jolt and I went up with the chair. I fell on the side. They righted the chair again and this went on for some time.

MR BIZOS: Were they questioning you?

MR SEXWALE: The questioning kept on going on, but the main important question was: "Where is Musima Sexwale?" The question started adding: "Whose weapon was it that we found in the house?"

MR BIZOS: What were your responses to that?

MR SEXWALE: At first I pretended I don't know Musima Sexwale. I pretended I don't know anything about the weapon. There was also another ANC member who was arrested with me, but he looked like an old man. He refers to him as Jacob, the man he refers to as Jacob, he's correct, he was arrested with us. Jacob Motaung, he's now late. They also asked me about him. "Who's that man we found in the other bedroom?" and all the time, as follows the rules of our ...(indistinct) we deny. So I denied all the things that they were saying. I don't know Sexwale, I don't know about the pistol and those things and this kept on going for quite some time.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Carry on.

MR SEXWALE: I beg your pardon?

MR BIZOS: Carry on. What happened after that?

MR SEXWALE: What happened after - I remember there came an officer to ask them: "Hoe gaan dit kêrels? Hoe ver is julle?" I wouldn't identify who that - it was very clear, because they all were respecting this gentleman. The impression I was getting was that the officer was trying to find out how far they are going, if they are getting any information, that type of thing and then later they said: "I think we should take him to stage 2." I didn't know what stage 2 was. I was removed from the chair in order to remove my clothes. At first I tried to resist but you are alone, there's pressure there. I'm not as old as I am today, you are a young, 23 year old man and I removed my clothes. All my clothes were ordered to be removed. I removed everything.

MR BIZOS: And what happened then?

MR SEXWALE: I was tied. They tied me again to the chair. This time there was a pole. I don't know how they did this but there's a pole introduced behind the legs with handcuffs. I could feel there's a pole here. Handcuffs are in front, but you are still tied to the chair, because I did fall off again from that chair, but this time without the chair as the electricity was being applied.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did the second stage come to an end?

MR SEXWALE: I presumed the second stage now - this is done, I'm naked, there was water being poured on my body. I don't know who was doing that, but then the jolts started changing. First they were just administering all over the body, but then there was a systematic way of putting them on the fingertips. It wasn't much of a problem. It's a strange thing, you don't mind if that happens.

MR BIZOS: Were you able to see who was doing what, or were you blindfolded?

MR SEXWALE: I'll explain. This is a very difficult thing to explain because you are not with one person in a room. You know that there are voices. Maybe they could have gone out themselves, maybe others had come in. At that time there's a lot of disorientation because you've got a lot of beatings and I think it's part of the methods just to disorientate you, you don't know at that stage what is happening and you cannot say who is doing what, but you last know that these are the people I'm with. The electricity thing, whilst it was real, real, real dangerous, because one could feel that you are being brought closer and closer to death, it was worse with this hood, because when that is applied, you are gasping for air and this hood is wet and as you try to gasp for air, the hood actually - it's like you suffocate with that hood on your nostrils and the mouth. It's a very difficult thing to explain today, but there was a reprieve from them from time to time to open the hood to allow you (panting), you are breathing at the time. It's the most wonderful thing in life to be given that chance.

MR BIZOS: When you were given that chance, did you see who was around?

MR SEXWALE: That time you never know who is around because of the hood. They only bring it up, up to the nostrils and your eyes are still covered.

MR BIZOS: Yes, what happened then?

MR SEXWALE: I think this went on for quite some time.

MR BIZOS: Were you able to see whether the sun had risen or what time it was? Did you have any idea?

MR SEXWALE: You are inside the building - I'm inside the building, you are in a room, the lights are on all the time, this torture is happening, I don't know how long this thing is happening, but what I do remember is that I was taken back to the cells. I don't know at what stage, but I was taken, I can't say back to the cells, I was taken to the cells because I was seeing those cells for the first time. I was kept in those cells with one blanket and there was a blue uniformed policeman, ostensibly given instructions to sit outside the cell and somebody had said, one of the officers, I don't know what the time, had said they must check that he must not commit suicide and I think this is the task of that policeman, because he was locked up in the cell. Later I was taken up. I don't know what later means. I'm using these words but at that time you don't know what is later. I mean subsequently.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean you had lost count of time?

MR SEXWALE: You don't know the difference between time. I don't know whether this is many hours later and so on. My calculation was that this happened for about three days because we would see officers come and they would be gone and then they would return with changed clothes and you are trying to imagine they've come back from home right now. Zeelie always was with them.

MR LAX: Sorry, if I can just ask this. Did they allow you to get dressed again before they took you to the cells?

MR SEXWALE: I was wearing an underpants, that was allowed.

MR LAX: That's it?

MR SEXWALE: That's all.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR SEXWALE: And that underpants was given at the time when I left upstairs to go to the cell.

CHAIRPERSON: So when they now poured water over you, you were completely naked?

MR SEXWALE: Yes. When they?

CHAIRPERSON: I say, when they went to stage two, when they removed your clothing.

MR SEXWALE: Everything was removed at the time when they were doing that, but the underpants was given to me to wear when I was taken to those cells which I was seeing for the first time. I later - you spend quite some time, you know I'm trying to explain so that it's at the moment. Later you would come to know this is the 9th floor, 10th floor, the cells and so on but I'm describing the situation as was developing.

CHAIRPERSON: As it was then.

MR SEXWALE: As it was developing, so at the time you don't know whether this is a cell on the 9th floor, at the bottom, are you on the 10th floor. We came to know later, this is the 10th floor, this is the 9th floor.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed.

MR BIZOS: You were brought back to the building, you say?

MR SEXWALE: I never left the building.

MR BIZOS: Rather, away from the cells back to the ...

MR SEXWALE: From the cells, we'd go into the lift again. It seemed that there were two lifts as you go up. you get into one lift and then there's another lift that eventually takes you to what I later became aware was the John Vorster famous ...(indistinct)

MR BIZOS: And what happened when you were back ...(indistinct)

MR SEXWALE: I changed my story to say I know Musima and I was beaten. "Why were you protecting him?" I said to them: "I was afraid because he had left a pistol in my possession, he must be an ANC man because he asked us to go for education abroad. He said we'll travel through Swaziland. He has gone to Swaziland. He said he's going to fix up things, when he returns, he will make sure that we go for education abroad." They said: "Do you realise this many is tricking you because you will end up in the hands of the ANC? As a guerrilla fighter, you'll be used and you'll fight, you'll die in Zimbabwe", those type of things. These stories were given just to continue my cover, so at the time they were still not aware they have - the pressure stopped, can I say subsided, electricity was not being used any more. I was co-operating. In other words Solly Khumalo was co-operating. They did ask if I'm prepared to become a State Witness against Musima and I said: "Yes, I think you must arrest that man because he has put me in this place". My situation improved. I was taken back to the cells because I was beginning to co-operate. It was only one, I don't know whether it was in the morning or in the night.

MR BIZOS: In this interrogation when you gave them this version about knowing ...

MR SEXWALE: I beg your pardon?

MR BIZOS: And this version that you gave, to whom did you give this version?

MR SEXWALE: To all of them who were interrogating me, including Zeelie.

MR BIZOS: Including Zeelie, yes. What happened next?

MR SEXWALE: It was on one day, I don't know what day, could be the fourth, it could be the third day, that a large body of the police came down to the cells. Quite a large body. You hear the gates being opened. It's a torture to hear those gates because they could be coming for you or the people in the other cells, I don't know who they are but you hear them. By the way, there are screams all the time in this building. It is untrue to say there are no screams. There are screams all the time in this building, not only over the weekend, there are screams.

MR BIZOS: On the 10th floor or in the cells?

MR SEXWALE: In the cells and on the 10th floor. I heard these gates opening and there were many feet of people coming in. The policeman at the door stood up to acknowledge whoever was coming. Quite clearly these were senior people and they opened the grille, because it was only the grille, the door was not closed. They had a man in a hood, not a hood but a blanket, a prison blanket over his head and it had eye holes. I immediately recognised who he was. It was one of our comrades, the one who was missing all along, because we didn't know where he was. Subsequently we came to know he was arrested. His name was Ian Kgwatla, otherwise known to everybody and throughout the trial as Inch. They said: "Moenie praat nie", this is the voice of one of these people, there were many, many policemen. "Moenie praat nie." He looked and they took him away. I know it was dark because when they came back they were very enraged, very, very enraged. They charged into the cell. At this time I couldn't say who was what. I didn't see Zeelie at the time. I didn't see him at the time. I can't say: "I saw so and so", but they just came and it's total - into the cell, it was not torture, it was anger. It was people very, very angry that I wasted their time. I was taken back to the 10th floor and they were boasting. They were very, very boastful that they have captured the terrorist Musima Tokyo Sexwale. "We know who you are". There were my files and so on. It was Col van Niekerk who was doing that at the time, so there was this victory that eventually they have arrested me.

MR BIZOS: You've heard the version of Mr Zeelie, that the only thing that he did to you, it's true that he says as far as he can remember, was that he met you, saw you, was going to hit you, he took a broomstick and hit you on the stomach and then you immediately became co-operative and you talked. What do you say about that version?

MR SEXWALE: Well, I was not here when he made that version first. I came and I found him answering questions around that version during cross-examination. It is false and he knows it is false. According to his answers in the cross-examination, he cannot dispute that he was one of the many policemen who were there during my arrest. That he doesn't dispute. I think conveniently so because the way he has put his story, which I think places him in a very difficult position, is to put himself at the tail end of my interrogation and torture instead of at the beginning. I don't know why he's doing that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Let me ask you a couple general questions, Mr Sexwale. You were sentenced to a term of imprisonment, spent time on Robben Island. You were released - on what date?

MR SEXWALE: I was released after the Groote Schuur discussions. It was June 1990.

MR BIZOS: Were you elected to the National Executive of the African National Congress at its first Congress after the liberation?

MR SEXWALE: I became a member of the National Executive Committee via my election as the Chairperson of this province, automatically I became a member of the National Executive that way.

MR BIZOS: Did you become the premier of the province then known as Transvaal?

MR SEXWALE: Yes, I did.

MR BIZOS: What was - you are still a member of the African National Congress?

MR SEXWALE: I am.

MR BIZOS: Still an office bearer of the African National Congress?

MR SEXWALE: Not an office bearer, but a member of the organisation.

MR BIZOS: A member of the organisation.

MR SEXWALE: In the same position that you find Nelson Mandela, we are no longer ...

MR BIZOS: Just an ordinary member. So you tell us. Loyal and disciplined.

MR SEXWALE: Loyal and disciplined, but questioning also. Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now the - did you support the process of the, starting with the enactment of the Truth and Reconciliation Act, to give it its popular name? What is your attitude to amnesty?

MR SEXWALE: This has been not an easy process for many of us to accept, even the ANC itself, but we have taken that decision but the truth should be known that it has not been an easy process for us to accept, because there were views that we should have Nuremberg trials in this country and we voted against those views. There were views that people should be sent to prison and should suffer punishment for what they did, but we took a decision that we are more about reconciliation than reconstruction, about repairing what happened in this country and with all the pain that we had both person, family as well as friends that you know, it's correct to say it has not been an easy thing to accept, but then we accept it.

MR BIZOS: Is there any precondition for you to support an application for amnesty?

MR SEXWALE: I have no personal preconditions, save for those that are enshrined in the regulations in the law which say that there should be full disclosure.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Would you have opposed the application by the applicant if you believed that he had told the whole truth?

MR SEXWALE: You know it's a very ambivalent thing because this is a man I recently met and I spoke with him. He saw me in the traffic, because I didn't just call him, or stop him, he saw me in the traffic and was greeting me. He was difficult to recognise because I mean it was 20 years later and I was not sure who it was, so I asked him to pull off the road because he was waving in my direction. When he pulled off the road I had an inkling that it could be somebody that looks like Sgt Zeelie and when we got off the cars, I was with my wife, indeed it was Zeelie. Just to be secure, I said, because it was in Oxford Street, I said: "Follow me home, my home is two streets from Oxford" so it's about two minutes from there, because I didn't know what the game plan was, so I asked him to come home because my home is guarded.

MR BIZOS: Did you speak to him there?

MR SEXWALE: Yes, I spoke with him. He spoke very, very nicely. He showed a lot of remorse. Not here, in my house. I introduced him, I think I did. I think I said to my wife: "This is a man who tortured me" and he said: "Look I'm sorry about the past". I said: "Look, we were soldiers. I may not have liked what you people were doing, but I think it is the past, let us put that past behind us" and he told me that he's making an application in the Bopape case. I was not aware that he's involved in the Bopape case. I did ask: "So you are involved in this case?" He said: "Yes, Tokyo, things have been very, very tough. I am involved in that case. It's a sad thing, I never wanted to be." I said: "Look, do yourself a favour, tell the truth and only the truth will get you out." We parted on that note.

MR BIZOS: Do you wish to add anything to your testimony here?

MR SEXWALE: Well save to express a surprise that Mr Zeelie here, whom I nearly forgave in my own house, this is not a thing about being contrary, I'm actually surprised that I'm here because I forgave him. What surprises me and it's a question I'm asking myself, perhaps also asking that question, that is he really asking for amnesty and in my case all he did was to hit me with a broom on my stomach. He is a man of martial arts, so am I. We trained the stomach more than any other thing. He was a man of the Security Forces, so was I, trained in the Soviet Union, surely my stomach can't just be hit with a stick and ...(indistinct) hands. Evidence has been led and it is on record in a trial that lasted close to two years, where I was defended by the current President of the Constitution Court, Arthur Chaskalson, evidence was led, I didn't know this and I want to put this on record, because it is in our records, that I even lost consciousness. I learned whilst in court that I was unconscious during these tortures, by their own star witness who turned against them. You will remember Inch and he said he found me, he was led into a room where he found Sexwale lying on the floor, naked, with a fan and he thought it was being put there to try to revive him. All this I don't know. It is in my record and it's their own witness who came in to say that, therefore I must have lost consciousness. I say it surprises me for Sgt Zeel, as we knew him at the time, to make an application and expect the world to believe that all he did was to hit me with a broom on the stomach. I think it is wrong. There's nothing wrong with that beating here. I mean if you're involved in the Bopape case and he has got amnesty for the Bopape case, I don't know whether it's out of a sense of shame or something, because he's been in my house now or he met me again, he is afraid to tell the world that I was tortured. I don't know whether it is the profile I've had as a Premier, it's difficult to say that, even right now when we had the recess he came to me and said: "Look, I'm very, very sorry." I think he should come to terms with the past.

MR BIZOS: It wasn't an easy matter for you whilst you were awaiting trial. Where were you in jail?

MR SEXWALE: I was, whilst awaiting trial, we were jailed in Pretoria.

MR BIZOS: What section?

MR SEXWALE: We were put in three jails and this will just show you the type of pressure that followed us even when we were out of detention. When I say we now, I keep on saying we, it was twelve accused in a trial that involved people like Nchabaleng, Motaung, Joe Kwabe who died in Zimbabwe, he was shot there because he's one of those who got discharged. We actually were kept in the death cells for some months, whilst on trial and there was an uproar after some time and application was made, I don't know whether it was a formal application or request to the Court, but this is all on record, by Arthur Chaskalson, that the Court should consider moving us out of the gallows. I ...(indistinct) behind the gallows. This is the type of pressure that we were subjected to, whilst on trial, to run a case. I'm not putting that on him, but I'm saying the system had done that, but it was after that application, I think it was granted by either Justice Myburg or Justice Davidson, we were taken out of the gallows.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos. Mr Rossouw, any cross-examination?

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, yes Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Mr Sexwale, let's start with your arrest. Let me first, I'm going to put Mr Zeelie's version to you on each step as I take you through it, then you can decide whether he's lying or not, since you did not hear his evidence-in-chief. He says that he can't remember that he was at a specific address where you were arrested, but he would not deny it.

MR SEXWALE: I heard that under cross-examination.

MR ROSSOUW: Now you say that he was not part of the police force who actually did the arrest, he was outside in a car.

MR SEXWALE: He was not part of the group that came into there, those I saw but when I was taken out, there were many police and there he was in those cars.

MR ROSSOUW: Okay. Now those policemen who actually carried out the arrest, did they assault you?

MR SEXWALE: Yes, they did.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes. Mr Zeelie was in other words not part of that group?

MR SEXWALE: Inside the house?

MR ROSSOUW: Inside the house.

MR SEXWALE: No, no, no, I didn't see him at the house and I cannot say he was there in the house.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes. You didn't know Mr Zeelie before that time, before your arrest?

MR SEXWALE: I didn't know him.

MR ROSSOUW: So placing him in the car would be a recollection, after you've spoken to him again, or saw him on later once again?

MR SEXWALE: No, that is not correct. Placing him in the car would be a process from the car right to John Vorster Square and right to the 9th floor.

MR ROSSOUW: Okay, so are you saying, correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying that he travelled in the same car as you?

MR SEXWALE: I'm saying that.

MR ROSSOUW: Okay, because I understood your testimony that you say it was only later on that Zeelie, you recognised Zeelie when the lights were on in the building as it was dark inside the car.

MR SEXWALE: No, I think you should understand what I said. I said I gave you a process. You are in a car with the policemen. When you get into the building, you get off that car with them. It's lit in those garages of their's, that's when you realise this is so-and-so. I was giving a process. I didn't want to say: "I saw him." How could I see in the dark? I saw him later.

MR ROSSOUW: Later? That's how I understood you.

MR SEXWALE: Yes, there was never a difference, we were all together when we got out of that car. I'm not making a mistake about that.

MR LAX: May I just interpose while you're busy Mr Rossouw? May I just interpose on one thing?

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman?

MR LAX: May I just interpose while you're busy?

MR ROSSOUW: Sure.

MR LAX: When you used the word saw, what context do you use it in, because if you saw this person in the car and you saw him again later, I'm just not clear what you mean by that.

MR SEXWALE: Let me explain what I'm saying. It was easy for me to say he was in the car and make it that simple. What I was saying is that the arrest took place in the night. I want us to understand. There are policemen. It's lit in the house where they arrested me. Outside it's not lit, this is Alexandra township which still doesn't have lights today. You don't see the policemen, you are just bundled and thrown into the car. Subsequently when the lights became very clear, we get off. The people who got off the car with me, amongst them, it was himself. The car was being driven by Lieut de Waal, so this you all see, but at the time when we get to the car, I don't say: "This is Zeelie", it's not like that.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Sexwale my instructions are that Mr Zeelie, my instructions are that he did not travel in the same car as you. Now when you stopped at John Vorster Square, I assume that it would have been more than one car, a whole bunch of people, because various arrests took place, was it like that?

MR SEXWALE: I don't know if we were followed by other cars, when I'm inside that car.

MR ROSSOUW: You don't know? Is it possible that more than one car was travelling there?

MR SEXWALE: It is possible. If he says there were other cars, it's possible. I don't know, I was not part of their operation. I'm a prisoner at that time and badly beaten to try to subdue me.

MR ROSSOUW: And is it then also possible that if you saw Mr Zeelie there, that he could have alighted from another vehicle?

MR SEXWALE: It's not possible. He alighted from the same car with us, then you come to see the full faces of the people who have been in the car with you, who at the time you can't recognise properly.

MR ROSSOUW: How many people were in that car with you?

MR SEXWALE: We were four.

MR ROSSOUW: Four?

MR SEXWALE: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And where were they seated?

MR SEXWALE: Where were they seated? De Waal was driving. He was behind with me, so I can't miss him.

MR ROSSOUW: You can't miss him?

MR SEXWALE: Yes, and Billy Cox was sitting in front and he was sitting in such a way that he was always facing backwards, that was Billy Cox.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright, now the way that I understood your testimony was that because it was dark, you can't really say who assaulted you inside the car.

MR SEXWALE: I did say that.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, now tell me, if only Mr Zeelie was sitting at the back sea beside you, wouldn't he be the only one that could possibly have assaulted you?

MR SEXWALE: Well I say Bill as well, because throughout Bill was facing backwards, so they were hitting. You must understand I'm not sitting in the car. You know, these things are very difficult because today it's so, it's a very nice day and it's 24 years ago, it's not like I'm sitting like a good gentleman in the car, you are being beaten in the car, my hands are like that, things you are - that's what is happening, you are being physically dealt with inside that car. He is there, sitting next to me and Bill is sitting in front. As I got into that car, it's a rough and tumble situation, so you are bundled into the car and at that time I cannot attribute and say: "Well this is his punch, this is ...". At that time, as I indicated, it's a free for all type of situation.

MR ROSSOUW: Only two people, in other words, assaulted you in the car?

MR SEXWALE: Yes, yes, inside the car. They kept on hitting me in the car. Lieutenant de Waal at that time is driving, but when we got into the car, I was bundled by many, many people.

MR ROSSOUW: When you were bundled in the car?

MR SEXWALE: Yes, I was just bundled into the car by many, many of those policemen, but we ended up being four in that car. What I don't understand is why he would like to deny beating up a man in a car, when he agrees that he tortures people.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Sexwale, that's why we find it also strange, if the version is that he was not there and that's in fact the version by Mr Zeelie, why would he try and place himself away from that scene if he's admitting that he assaulted you. There's no dispute about that. He's not trying to distance himself from that. Now in the light of what you've said, that it happened 24 years ago, is it possible that you could be making a mistake?

MR SEXWALE: I'm not making a mistake about who was in the car with me. I said I didn't attribute a particular punch, a kick, those type of things, whatever parts of the hands they were using, I couldn't attribute to say: "Now I'm being beaten by Zeelie", in the car. At that time I didn't attribute anything, it was a general assault before I got into the car, from the room where I was arrested, as I got into the car you are being assaulted, you are just carried, you can't even walk on your feet. You get into the car, this goes on, it goes on inside that car, but you must understand you kept on being beaten. That time, I'm not sitting with my hands, you must understand, in that type of situation you are waiting for blows every time, so it is that, that's why I say that he was with us in the car and that's what happened.

MR ROSSOUW: Now alright Mr Sexwale, then I'm asking you this. Why didn't you tell us in your evidence-in-chief that it was these three gentlemen that were in the car with you? You didn't name them.

MR SEXWALE: Well, nothing wrong. I'm saying that now.

MR ROSSOUW: Well those are the three people that Mr Zeelie mentioned here today. Can you remember any other person by name who assaulted you?

MR SEXWALE: Who assaulted me? I said the other people I would know, it was a rough and tumble free for all in the room where I was arrested. I was being beaten up by many people as I come out, then I end up inside this car, these beatings continue inside the car. You are sitting with your hands like that. I don't know whether it's Bill who was hitting, but he's facing backwards. You get off, then I recognise who I am with, the people who take me out of the car.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Sexwale and you've said, correct me if I'm wrong, I might be mistaken about this, but you say that de Waal was with the group who actually arrested you inside the house.

MR SEXWALE: I didn't hear that.

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry. I'm saying I might be mistaken, but didn't you say that de Waal was part of the group who actually arrested you inside the house?

MR SEXWALE: De Waal was there and he's one of those policemen who arrested me.

MR ROSSOUW: You didn't know him at that time?

MR SEXWALE: No, but I - it's lit when I'm arrested, I know de Waal, so that policeman who arrested me, I knew him from that moment until today.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright. Now the question is this. If you knew him from that moment until today, or rather, when did you find out what is his name? Did he come and introduce himself to you at some stage?

MR SEXWALE: No, no, no, later, I don't know at what stage, I came to know this one is de Waal, this one is Zeelie, this one is Billy Cox. You come to know that much, much later. I cannot say precisely when I picked up the names.

MR ROSSOUW: Is it possible - in other words what you're saying, if I'm following you is that you only found out the names later and then by reconstructing it back to the events, you linked them to the people who assaulted you?

MR SEXWALE: In other words, I knew the faces of the people who assaulted me, but at the time when they were doing that I don't know who they are, I don't even know if they are policemen, these people. It's only when they are inside John Vorster Square, you realise what is happening and then later you come to know their names. I don't know how you pick up their names. Perhaps when they talk to one another, but eventually all of us, twelve of us, came to know who is who, which policeman is which policeman.

MR ROSSOUW: Now you see, why I'm asking you this, isn't it possible that over this period of time that you might be mistaken?

MR SEXWALE: I'm not mistaken about what I've gone through here and I don't think we should try to minimise what happened to me.

MR ROSSOUW: No, we're not.

MR SEXWALE: I am not mistaken at all about this.

MR ROSSOUW: Well, Mr Sexwale, I'm not trying to minimise it, what I'm putting to you is this. I'm trying to test whether it could be possible that you might be mistaken because Mr Zeelie said that he did not travel in the same car as you.

MR SEXWALE: Sir, I respect what you are saying. Your client has continued to have lapses of memory here. Many, many things he didn't remember. I remember what happened to me.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright, now Mr Sexwale, I'm just putting it on record that when he was cross-examined it was never put to him that he assaulted you inside a motor vehicle, from your arrest on the way to John Vorster Square. It was never put to him. He didn't have the opportunity to answer to that.

MR SEXWALE: He has the opportunity now. If my counsel did not ask - there are many, many things. It could have been put to him that they pointed guns at me when I was arrested. I didn't speak about those things. We are trying to make the story as simple as possible.

MR ROSSOUW: No, I'm trying to follow what happened and the fact is that if your counsel is going to argue that my client should be denied amnesty because he does not admit that he assaulted you inside a vehicle, then at the very least he should have been confronted with that evidence. He should have the opportunity to respond thereto. This is all I'm saying, I'm placing that on record. The Committee will decide on what the worth of that is. Now let's take it to John Vorster Square. Let me first ask you. Are you saying that you were never hit by Mr Zeelie with a broom stick?

MR SEXWALE: I was never hit by him with a broom stick?

MR ROSSOUW: Never?

MR SEXWALE: I was never hit by him with a broom stick. I am very, very surprised that he runs away from all the things that they did and merely makes an application on the basis of a broom stick.

MR ROSSOUW: Well, Mr Sexwale, I find that also very, very intriguing. Why would somebody admit that he assaulted you, if your testimony is that he did not assault you?

MR SEXWALE: I think that's a question you can put to him.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, well can you answer it, I'm asking it.

MR LAX: But hang on a second. His testimony isn't that he wasn't assaulted by the man, his testimony is that he wasn't assaulted with a broom stick. That doesn't mean he wasn't assaulted by him.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, sorry, Mr Chairman, if I'm not quite specific about it, I'm referring to this specific incident of assault. We'll deal with the others, we'll come to that. Why would somebody say that: "I assaulted you", in a specific manner, in other words incriminate himself in that manner if you say it didn't happen?

MR SEXWALE: You're asking for an opinion. I'll give you an opinion. Look, my opinion is that he doesn't want it to come out that he has been part of the torture on myself. Let me continue. You asked me a question and my further opinion is that he wants to make his involvement in our case in particular, to myself, as easy as possible, it was just a broom stick. I say I find it quite lacking in credibility to say that he has gone out of his way to make an application because he hit me on my stomach with a broom stick.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Sexwale, exactly, it's incredible why somebody would do that. Now let's deal with your perception that he's trying to remove himself from the torture, as you put it, that took place on you. I think there was some confusion as far as that's concerned, but I think it was adequately cleared up by questions from the Panel, that assaults did take place on the arrestees on the 10th floor and Mr Zeelie conceded that those assaults included the torture of shocking and suffocating. He did not try and deny that. What he says is that he can't say that he was specifically involved in any of those incidents relating to you. He says it is possible. He's not trying to distance himself from that. It's a matter of identification. Would you accept that was his evidence?

MR SEXWALE: I heard him say that it is possible that he could have met me earlier. I also heard him say that it is possible he could have seen me naked. These are all possibilities, there's no admission. I also heard him say it is possible that I could have been tortured with the kind of instruments that he says others used, he also used on others. I also heard him say that it is possible that I could have been beaten up by the other policemen. Now these are all possibilities on his part, but if these possibilities, through you right now he wants to amend to yes, it may have happened, I'll accept that.

MR ROSSOUW: No, no, sorry Mr Sexwale, I'm not trying to amend Mr Zeelie's evidence, I'm trying to place it in context for you. What he was questioned on, was that this happened. You were assaulted in this manner and he was part of it. He was part of it, so the indication is, you partook in it and he said it is possible. I'm not saying I'm denying it, I'm not saying it didn't happen. What he says is that I can't specifically identify that I did this to Mr Sexwale, or this to Jacob, or this specific person, it was a question of identification. So he's not denying it.

CHAIRPERSON: Other than the broom stick on the stomach, that he's specific about.

MR ROSSOUW: That he's very specific about.

MR SEXWALE: Well, on the question of - I hear that but I just want to say on the question of the broom stick, this is to show the - I don't know how to put it but it is not possible that a person as he said walks into a room, finds a coloured policeman as he says and another person he doesn't know, he said he doesn't know, standing in that room, lifts his hand as though threatening, picks up a broom stick, beats this person on the stomach. Let me tell you what that means. Who is this person? is it perhaps not a possible informer of the Government? Is not a potential witness? How do you just walk in, pick up something, beat up this person? What for? Why was he being beaten? There is a process before that. All I'm saying is that that particular episode of: "I walked into a room and I saw this man, I hit him on the stomach." "Who told you to hit him on the stomach? Who had told you that you must go into that room in the first place, you'll find somebody to beat up? Who gave you the instructions? What information do you want from him?" But also, is it really, during those days, credible that a Coloured policeman becomes the one who says: "No, you can't do this" and "Oh yes, it's acceptable, it can't be done"? I am saying that that story in itself dismisses Mr Zeelie's evidence where he says that he was not part of something that happened before. He didn't know who this person was. You walk in, you beat up a person, you don't know who he is, you have not been given instructions, you could not answer a question what is, is he wanted from this person, so that episode in itself and that evidence or allegation that he gave shows that he knew, if he did that and he didn't do that I can tell you, it's because he knew something was happening earlier, but I can tell you he didn't beat me up with a broom stick, it was much more serious than this and it took quite some time.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes. ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw may I just interpose here. Are you asking that question with this in mind, which was put by Mr Bizos, "Your version is false. He will testify that the three of you tortured Solly and wanted to know where Mr Sexwale could be found and out of the three you were the most vicious"?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'll deal with that statement. My questions deal with and Mr Sexwale, I'm not here to answer questions. I'm not going to respond. I'll argue on the probabilities, but it has been cleared up before this Committee that Mr Zeelie knew you were one of the people who were arrested, he didn't run into a room, into you by chance and thought you might be an informer or anything like that, he knew you were one of the people who were arrested, part of the operation, that's where his knowledge comes from, but be that as it may, I don't intend to deal with that, that's something for argument. What I would like to get at is this. The assaults that took place on you, or the torture that took place on you inside the room, you said that, or it was put to Mr Zeelie that he was the most vicious of the three of them. Now why do you say that?

MR SEXWALE: I think Zeelie himself answered that question. In the manner of the beatings, especially in the room upstairs, especially with the kind of threats, the kind of language, because people are talking and the kind of manhandling, he was the strongest of all. You will see Lieut de Waal, the day you see him, he's a tiny man. You will sill Bill Cox, he's tiny and a very short man. He was the one who was the strongest amongst them, as you fall, he's the one picking up, doing all sorts, so this - he was like I say, more in front, that's why the conclusion that he was the most vicious during that type of an assault.

MR ROSSOUW: What type of assault? Just describe that to us again.

MR SEXWALE: I repeat ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Or rather, let me - sorry to mislead you, was that while you were being tortured, shocked?

MR SEXWALE: I beg your pardon?

MR ROSSOUW: Was that while you were being shocked?

MR SEXWALE: Was that while I was being shocked?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes.

MR SEXWALE: Please understand, there's a lot of traffic behind, I'm sorry about this, I can't hear you very, very well.

MR ROSSOUW: No what I'm saying is, you referred to Mr Zeelie as being the one who was the most vicious. Do you say that with reference to the shock treatment that you received?

MR SEXWALE: To the manhandling long before the shock treatment, from the time we came out of the car to the manhandling, to the manner he pushes you around, to the manner he was tying me, together with Bill, to the chair, the manner of the threats, the aggressiveness. You are not sitting next to a lamb, Sir, times have changed, this many was very dangerous at the time, so I'm trying to describe what you never saw. He was the most aggressive of the three. I was being tortured, I know which one was the worst. The least dangerous of them and I could see that he was a bit squeamish, was Lieut de Waal, but the most aggressive person was your client.

MR ROSSOUW: Well, once again, he was not - you say you were manhandled and it was in the manner of his verbal threats and the manner in which he tied you to the chair?

MR SEXWALE: And the beatings, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes. And how did he beat you?

MR SEXWALE: These were fists, these were open hands and when you are beaten Sir, you don't stare, when it comes, your hands come first. You must understand. So I cannot say "then the punch, then ...". They came from him.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Sexwale, once again that detail of how it happened, was not put to him, but be that as it may, my question relates to the shock treatment, the torture that you received. Can you say that he actually performed that on you, Mr Zeelie?

MR SEXWALE: I will tell you what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do, Mr Sexwale, he said when he was tortured he could not see because he was blindfolded, he had a tube on him, so he cannot say, that he did say. I don't think that's a question that can be asked.

MR ROSSOUW: Then I won't take it any further Mr Chairman. Mr Sexwale I wanted to deal with the hood, because it would seem to me that you would place Mr Zeelie on the scene because you saw him there before the hood was placed on your head. Now what I'm trying to establish from you is your sense of what happened there and you've testified that you were disorientated, is that so? And you've testified ...(intervention)

MR SEXWALE: Disorientation as to what floor is this, what time is it, what date is it.

MR ROSSOUW: No, no, I'm sorry, I understood your testimony with reference specifically to while the torturing was going on, you said: "You know there are voices, lots of disorientation, don't know what is happening, don't know who is doing what.

MR SEXWALE: At the time when you are blindfolded Sir, you would not know that, yes, that is true.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright, so you can't say who did what to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Actually he repeated, because he said so.

MR SEXWALE: May I answer the question and I'm going to repeat. You know I'm going through a humiliation of having to prove that I was tortured.

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry, Mr Sexwale, may I interrupt you?

MR SEXWALE: May I answer the question Sir?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, you may, but may I just interrupt you because this is something which is not being put to you that you were not tortured. This is not something that is being put to you or you're asked to admit that, so there's no question of you being humiliated in that sense. Please understand my question.

MR SEXWALE: It's a very difficult thing. It's very difficult. You must understand my position when a tortured person has got to be tortured again by being told that it didn't happen, or if it happened, the person who was there, you didn't see it. Sir, listen to me very, very carefully, I'm trying to answer your questions as best I can. When they tied me and he's part of those people, you must understand, when you are put on a chair you are being tied, you are being slapped, it's not like you are going into a dentist's chair, you are being beaten, you are being kicked, you are being subdued and I'm jumping, I don't want to be tied also, but in the end you are going to be tied onto a chair. We fall together with them, they hold you, it's a whole rigmarole of this type of thing and then suddenly you hear a jolt. The hood is there. I don't know which one of them put the hood. If you want to say that at the time they put the hood, after your client had tied me down he went away and somebody did that, I don't know, maybe he did that. Maybe there is a torturer that he prepares for, but then he prepared for that torture. As to who switched on whatever machine that was there, I don't see this machine, I feel it in my body, Sir, it's my body that was being torn apart on those days. I don't know who is switching on what.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Sexwale, that is not ...(intervention)

MR SEXWALE: I do not know whether your client is switching, I don't know whether he's the one who is putting this thin, I don't know who is pulling what, I don't know what hits me on the head, all I'm gasping for, is for air.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes. Now ...(intervention)

MR SEXWALE: But the hoods come out in the end, they are still there, you hear their voices.

MR ROSSOUW: You hear their voices?

MR SEXWALE: But if he says when the hood was on, I did nothing, who am I to deny that?

MR ROSSOUW: No, Mr Sexwale, that was not Mr Zeelie's version. Mr Zeelie's version was that he can't specifically say that he was present or that he carried it out, any of the actions that you've now described.

MR SEXWALE: He must have tortured many people not to remember me.

MR ROSSOUW: Well, there were other people they detained as well there on the 10th floor and interrogated and tortured there. Do you agree with that?

MR SEXWALE: Yes, I agree that he has tortured many people.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, no from your group that was arrested that night?

MR SEXWALE: Yes, yes, there were people who were arrested in my group, but I add to say he has admitted he has tortured many people. He has admitted that he doesn't remember who, where and so on, so if he says it's possible that there were many people, he doesn't remember specifically me, I cannot jolt his memory, I'm just staring at him.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes. Mr Sexwale that's exactly the point that I tried to make. He's not denying it, he's not saying that you are telling lies, he's saying: "I will accept it as a possibility. I can't deny it, but as far as identification is concerned, I've got a problem here. I'm not denying that I did those things." That is the version. Now let us move on. For what it's worth and there was also no opportunity for Mr Zeelie to respond thereto. Mr Chairman, just one second.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry, Mr Sexwale, my instructions are that in a specific torture where people were shocked and I'm not talking about you specifically, I'm talking about the practice in general that existed, my instructions are by Mr Zeelie that a hood or a blindfold will not be removed because that would defeat the purpose of not granting the person who was assaulted, the opportunity of identifying the people who actually tortured him.

CHAIRPERSON: He testified to the effect that this, Mr Bizos wanted to know specifically and he said it was just removed that "I could breathe, but not my eyes". That's the evidence before us, so I don't think your question would take it any further, because he said, because Mr Bizos wanted to know if he identified the people, am I right? And then he says: "No, just up to my nose, my nostrils, that I could breathe" that's all.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, it was quite clear that what I put was that there was a presumption of continuity, that if you tie a person up and you put a hood on his face and you tie him up and then a person is shocked, that there may be a presumption of continuity in the absence of an explanation to the contrary. That is the basis upon which we identified the witness, or rather the applicant in relation to that matter.

MR SEXWALE: Well Your Honour this, I think the Commission is not getting the accuracy of this thing. I do accept when Mr Zeelie says that it will defeat to put on a hood because it protects the torturer. No, no, this is not what happens in this case and in many cases, like the Boonzaier case in Cape Town, it's not the protection of the identity of the people who are with you who are doing that, the hood is wet, it's a method, it's not to cover the eyes in order for me not to see them. It's wet in order - because if it's not wet, you can still breathe through it. It's one of the methods of torture that had been established to exist, it was started by the Gestapo, this thing, it has been inherited by the previous people. The objective is to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Suffocate.

MR SEXWALE: Yes, it's a suffocation method, not a blindfold and then when I say they opened, the opening here is to let you breathe for a while and I must explain something about torture, you are not to be tortured because they are killing you, no, and they also realise, this is my summation, they realise now, this person he may be going, so you are given a chance. You breathe and they keep on asking questions at the time, because you can't answer questions when this thing and it's partly for you to speak, but also it gives you that reprieve, then they threaten also. It's also "Praat. Nee, stop praat" that type of thing and they were taking it back. It's a suffocation thing, but if it was a blindfold, they wouldn't make it wet because you would still continue to breathe. So in this particular case it was not to protect the identity, but to suffocate.

CHAIRPERSON: To suffocate. Thank you.

MR LAX: You can rest assured, I understood you exactly as you had intended.

CHAIRPERSON: The way I was putting it is that when they were removing it for you to breathe, they were not removing it up to the eye level that you could see who's in the room because your testimony was that some came in and out, but you couldn't say who's applying what at that stage. Did I understand you correctly?

MR SEXWALE: You are very correct. You see, there's another thing, you hear them talking and there's concern amongst them that: "Wag, wag, dis bietjie sleg, hy gaan", that type of thing, so they also hold back which can, and it's an opinion, which leads me to a conclusion that some of the detainees were being tortured with electricity and they died, which when they applied and they don't stop, they don't realise the cut-off time, so there is that. We have now subsequently, I'm now speaking with the benefit of hindsight. The foresight was not there. The hindsight, we have spoken to Security Police, we have had drinks with them and they've explained that some of them tortured and they could not stop. They don't know your heartbeat at the time, because the heartbeats are not the same and that's how some people worked, so in my case I could feel that they're holding back also. There is concern, you can feel that they are concerned in a ...(indistinct). It is that type of - then when they think you are still strong, then they will say: "This one is tough, go back". It's that type of a thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We're sorry to have taken so long.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, I appreciate that because I may have misunderstood because the evidence as it came through to me was when you see the people still there. I thought it was see, when the hood was removed from time to time. That's not the case, then you've made my point for me. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Sexwale, then there's really very little that I need to deal with, with you, apart from saying that were you still blindfolded at the time, or was the hood still over your head when you had to take off your clothes?

MR SEXWALE: When I had to take off my clothes?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes.

MR SEXWALE: To be naked, I didn't have a hood at the time. The hood is put as I'm tied to the chair. You feel something going to your head, you don't know what's happening. The hood is put at the time, not when I'm standing.

MR ROSSOUW: Ja, but the point is, was it removed, were you able to see?

MR SEXWALE: At a later stage?

MR ROSSOUW: No, when you were asked to remove your clothes because this was, in your testimony, subsequent to the shocks that you received.

MR SEXWALE: No, no, you must understand what happens. When I come in, when I remove my clothes I don't have a hood, the hood is put as I'm being tied to the chair. I don't have a hood at that time.

MR LAX: Let me explain the confusion.

CHAIRPERSON: He says at first you were choked, or electrocuted whilst you had your clothes on.

MR SEXWALE: Oh no, that time there's no hood. That time they have not yet applied this thing. The seriousness, that's when they started wetting this thing and the hood. ...(indistinct) I was being choked. I'm beaten up, you're wearing clothes at the time. When they said: "We are taking you to the next stage"

CHAIRPERSON: Stage two.

MR SEXWALE: Yes, that's when now they do all kinds of things to you and that's when the hood starts - but otherwise electricity, that type of thing, started there, the hood is a second ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you get it now?

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry, Mr Sexwale, are you saying you were shocked while you were still fully clothed, without the hood?

MR SEXWALE: I didn't have a hood when I was wearing clothes.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes.

MR SEXWALE: Right, when they said: "Take off your clothes", they are actually trying to take off my clothes and I was resisting, I took them off in the end, I mean you see what is happening around you and you are being beaten up. You must understand, when I answer these things, don't think that it's like I'm undressing in the bedroom, it's a very bad situation.

MR ROSSOUW: No, I appreciate that, I'm just - maybe I followed your evidence-in-chief incorrectly, but my note says that you were tied to a chair: "de Waal, Cox and Zeelie were there, other policemen came in, a hood covered my head. De Waal, Zeelie and Cox were in the room at the time when the hood was placed over my head." The next question by Mr Bizos was: "Were you still wearing your clothes?" You said: "I was still clothed. I felt the jolt, fell on the right side of the chair."

MR SEXWALE: If I said that, it's a confusion. By the time they put the hood- if I say that it's a mistake, the hood is put on me as they are getting into the second stage. When I was being electrocuted whilst wearing clothes, I didn't have this. If I said that, it is a mistake and the hood doesn't make any - the hood was used.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, no, no, we're not denying that it was used, just trying to determine at what stage and whether you were wearing clothes or not, because as I got it, you were first electrocuted, fully clothed, with the hood on, then you were said: "Take off your clothes now." Now my question was, at that stage when you had to remove your clothes, on the version that I've put, did you take off the hood first?

MR SEXWALE: I don't take off the hood, remember. I say if I said the hood was on, it's a mistake. But I must also correct, I'm not allowed to take off that hood. It was not yet there. It's the second stage, this thing of the hood, a wet hood.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's a genuine mistake. I've got a note here to say hood, when you had your clothing on and I've just confirmed with my Panel, you did mention that.

MR SEXWALE: No, no, that is a mistake. This comes subsequently, when I'm naked that's when the hood comes.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright. Now Mr Sexwale, why do you think would Mr Zeelie come and give you, or come and give testimony with so many of the correct facts? is he just sugar coating the truth here, trying to hide it, talking about the other people who were involved, naming them? They didn't apply. Jacob Motaung, he mentioned him, the ring which you've now conceded his version is basically correct.

MR SEXWALE: Jacob Motaung is late.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, but that he was there. Mr Zeelie said there was a Jacob arrested in your group.

MR SEXWALE: No there were two Jacobs, there's Jacob Sathsulu and then there's Motaung.

MR ROSSOUW: Which one - did both of them for part of the group?

MR SEXWALE: Well, you mentioned Jacobs, so the one I was arrested with immediately is the late one, Jacob Motaung, the one who was in the other bedroom, so I knew he was arrested later when I saw him at John Vorster Square. There's also Jacob Sathsulu, he referred to Jacob Sathsulu as well.

MR ROSSOUW: I think he said there was a Jacob in your group, he couldn't really identify, he didn't know the person's surname. Now the question that I'm putting to you is, why would Mr Zeelie, if he's lying about, or trying to distance himself from the assault and torture that took place on your person, why would he come and give those facts that are in fact correct? You've corroborated them.

MR SEXWALE: Such as?

MR ROSSOUW: The people who were arrested with you, the ring?

MR SEXWALE: Let me say, why would he - I don't understand the question properly. Why would he admit to those things?

MR ROSSOUW: No, no, why would he, if he's out here to lie, simply to lie, why would he give facts that are in fact the truth, correct, as you've corroborated them?

MR SEXWALE: I think it's a very interesting question. Why would he give selective facts? Serious things he doesn't remember, non serious things he remembers.

MR ROSSOUW: Well, Mr Sexwale, would you have been prepared to admit that a person's memory can fail him after a period of 24 years?

MR SEXWALE: I will be the first one to say yes, it could happen to all of us.

MR ROSSOUW: Well, will you then concede that that might be as far as Mr Zeelie's evidence is concerned, on his version, of identifying you, because you were covered, your head was covered while these torture took place.

MR SEXWALE: What are you saying Sir? Are you saying - are we going back to Mr Zeelie was not involved in my torture?

MR LAX: No, no, I think the question that's being put to you could possibly have been put in a different way and I think, correct me if I'm wrong, are you trying to put to Mr Sexwale that in as much as his memory could be failing him, that's the reason for the discrepancies rather than the sugar coating, have I put it correctly?

MR ROSSOUW: That would be the first part of it, it would be correct yes, Mr Chairman. The second part, Mr Sexwale, what I'm suggesting is that

MR SEXWALE: Shall we go back to that first part, I didn't catch it properly.

MR ROSSOUW: If there are discrepancies, I'm asking you if you will be able to, willing to concede, as you've said that there might be a problem with somebody's memory after a period of 24 years, I'm referring to Mr Zeelie, not to you. Will you be prepared to concede that those discrepancies might be as a result of the lapse of time and the failure of memory on his part?

MR SEXWALE: I wouldn't argue against that.

MR ROSSOUW: Right. Now the second part. If he says: "I've got a problem admitting to the torture that I, Mr Zeelie, was involved in this torture on Mr Sexwale, would you concede that that might possibly be so because you were covered, your head was covered at the time when the tortures took place? It's a question of identification, it's not a question of denying it.

MR SEXWALE: That I would not accept absolutely for the following reason. I think Mr Bizos gave an insight into that. When you get involved with a process of - he beats up the person, you are part of the tying down, the hoods and things come, unless he says and I would accept if he says after doing those things they move out and Mr Dracula comes and does things, or another tough man whom they know, I would accept that, but my impression and understanding is based on the fact that they are with me, I hear these voices, much as I'm twisting, gyrating, being torn by pain, the last people who are doing this thing is themselves. If he says he went out during these things, possibly in my case or any of the cases alleged, that I will not dispute, but that he was there when these things started happening, whether my eyes were closed or not, that, if he says he was not there, I think that is not correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Well, he's not saying that. Rest assured. Now Mr Sexwale, I don't know how sensitive this might be, but my instructions are and the testimony here was that you did co-operate and from the information that you gave to the Security Branch, further arrests followed.

MR SEXWALE: I think he is trying to cover the witness, the man who ...(indistinct) in our court who led to the arrest of more than 50 of us, that is Ian Duel Kgwatla. I don't know why he's keeping Ian away from this. The fact of the matter is that Mr Zeelie was never a friend during detention and I think that is something - it's an old Security Police trick, why he does this thing I do not know. He's trying to make me out - no we were friends we even had a ring. That ring quite clearly, it became very clear, it's a ring - look if somebody takes your clothes, your freedom, everything and he says: "Can I have your ring?", of course, I gave him the ring. I thought at the time it's the humanity, I thought it's a sign there's some human in ...(indistinct) - people who were doing these things to us. Subsequently it has become very clear that that ring was going to end up and it is true, it was going to end up being used as evidence that it was the hand that threw the hand grenade. So what I thought, in other words, it's a trick that he played. A trick that: "Can I have this?", that's how the ring ended up in court. My point is that he wants to give an impression that he was dealing with a patient, we were friends, we were co-operating. It was a dangerous situation Sir.

MR ROSSOUW: I accept that Mr Sexwale. What I'm putting to you is that you are also reconstructing and making deductions because you don't know when Mr Zeelie either asked you for the ring, whether he knew about the piece of evidence, about the ring that was actually seen by the policeman inside the Land Rover and his testimony was he didn't know about that, so how could he then have this plan about getting the ring because he's going to introduce it as evidence?

MR SEXWALE: No, all I'm saying, that he took the ring. He asked me for the ring and by the way it's a pipe, it's something that has been made out of, I think it's a copper pipe or something like that. It's not like a real something great and that ring which he took ended up being used as evidence that it was from the hand that threw a hand grenade. We even disputed that Sir and it is on record, that the policeman who said that a hand - he knows that, he agrees to that, the policeman who says they saw a grenade being thrown into a car, could not even say what happened on that day. There was no way they were going to see a ring on a finger of one of the four people sitting on the back of the car. That was disputed in the court. When he, after he had taken the ring, at that time he's taken very very nicely, that ring which was taken from me, was used as evidence to try to strengthen the case of: "It is the hand that threw the hand grenade."

MR ROSSOUW: Well, Mr Sexwale, I ...(intervention)

MR SEXWALE: What I'm saying is that for some reason he has twisted these things to cover himself. I thought there's some humanity and by the way, I even said to him recently when he was here: "Where is that ring?" He gave the same answer: "I don't know, it has been taken by the Courts" and I said: "Now that we are in Government, I think I must go and get all these things, try to get the things that I - I told him that, try to get, to pick up all those things that belong to us. I don't know why he would now try to say: "No, no, it was because he was corroborating." I think what he's afraid to say is that he doesn't want to admit that he beat up Tokyo Sexwale and tortured him. He wants to make it as minimum force as possible. That's what I think, so that it's not easy, it's easy to kill a Bopape, you think he was not, he's no longer here. It's easy to admit on some people who are not known, but it's difficult for him to leave here and say: "I beat up Tokyo Sexwale", I think that is the only problem.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Sexwale ...

MR SEXWALE: May I add Sir, he came to apologise in my house and may I also add, Sir, because he doesn't seem to have told you these things, he came to apologise to me here: "Tokyo I'm very sorry about what happened". Apologising for what? For the broom stick? Sir, do not be deceived by your client please. Lambs today, what is lambs to you, was a tiger yesterday.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Sexwale, thank you for that speech. What I'm trying to put to you is that my client is not denying torture, or assaults on you and ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Well, Mr Chairman, that is an interpretation of the evidence with which, with respect, I beg to disagree with that interpretation of the evidence and I don't know, it has been put at least three or four times to Mr Sexwale, I don't know whether we are going any further. It's a question for the Committee to decide what is the effect of the witness's evidence and not to try and get an admission from Mr Sexwale as to what the effect of the evidence may have been.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you would put to Mr Sexwale what do you agree on and what you don't agree with, but the last question, that's why it took us, I timed it, ten minutes and it took us nowhere.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, I agree, that is an interpretation of the evidence. I'm just trying ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Then we cannot invite a witness to come with that type of interpretation, we can cover that in our argument.

MR ROSSOUW: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Because then we have to make up what weight to place on such interpretation.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you. Mr Sexwale, the last thing that I need to canvass with you is simply this, if indeed it is the situation where - or rather, let me just put it to you. In summary I'm just going to put this to you and in all fairness this is what I will argue. Mr Chairman, I don't think I should go into that. Just shortly I'm going to put to you that Mr Zeelie was not granted the opportunity to respond to the allegations of assaults inside the motor vehicle, or up the stairs to the torture room. He's not denying that he possibly assaulted you, rather tortured and assaulted you at the 10th floor. He specifically remembers you with regard to the specific assault of the broom and it's also - I'm putting it to you it's in dispute that the ring was taken from you with the...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I just stop you there? We are going to get a garbled response if you put compounded questions to the witness. For instance if he says yes, I wouldn't know what that yes is striking at. Rather put it fact for fact.

MR ROSSOUW: Well, Mr Chairman, I thought I was just giving a summary of everything that I've canvassed up to now.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I'm avoiding the situation where - I allowed it because of this process. We wouldn't you know be as strict as we are in Court, that this is a process of its own nature and we are lax, to an extent, but why Mr Sexwale spoke for ten minutes, is precisely of this compound questions you're putting to him.

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry, Mr Sexwale, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR SEXWALE: Mr Chairman I think I would like to ask you to - we are reliving pain in this process and I think it's wrong for counsel to describe such real pain in answer to a compound question that he puts, making a speech.

MR ROSSOUW: Well, Mr Sexwale, all I'm putting to you in summary and I'll ask you to respond to that either in the manner of I agree, or I don't agree, is that the allegation, the testimony, the evidence that Mr Zeelie assaulted you inside the motor vehicle, was not put to him.

CHAIRPERSON: He conceded to that. He said he came in later and you put it quite earlier, you said that was never put to Mr Zeelie under cross-examination by his counsel and he said: "I don't know what my counsel was doing or why my counsel did not, but I came in after he had testified for a long time".

MR ROSSOUW: Similarly, the same would apply to the assaults that took place and the manhandling that took place up the stairs to the 10th floor. Then I'm putting it to you that Mr Zeelie is not denying assaults and torture on you on the 10th floor. He's not trying to distance himself from that. Fourthly, I'm putting it to you that he's admitted to the specific assault with a broom stick on the 9th floor and lastly, I'm putting it to you that his version or rather your deduction why he took the ring from you as to introduce it to evidence, is not correct, in the light of his evidence that he didn't know about that piece of evidence about the hand with the ring throwing the hand grenade. That is what I'm putting to you.

MR SEXWALE: I'll try and remember some of the things you've just said. When you say he was not given a chance to respond to the other things, I was here when he was cross-examined. In answer to that I said: "Well I'm here" and "he's here" rather and can answer to that. I don't think that the technicality that he's in trouble, he goes to jail because he was - he can answer to that. That he says he was not part of the torture, but he admits to part of the beatings and the torture in the office, that is true. He took part in that. Why he selectively goes for that and not the other, I don't know. I don't understand why a man can't say: "I beat him up in a lift, I beat him up in a car", but he's prepared to say: "I agree that I tortured him:. These are things that you yourself put. All I'm saying is that I came here Sir to relive an experience and to try to help your client to come to terms with what happened to me and consequently to himself because my screams are left on his mind, the pain I've gone through, he's seeing it again, here I am. I came here to co-operate with regard to that and simply could put -if you say that he's not denying this, it does appear there's something that has gone wrong with Zeelie. Zeelie doesn't remember other things. He doesn't remember Jacob Motaung, doesn't remember somebody he used to speak to, Naledi Tsiki, accused number two, who was facing as much as serious offence like myself, and maybe Zeelie doesn't remember all those, there's twelve of us, there's Paulina Mohale, we were all there. 25 years have passed Sir. If he doesn't remember other things, I cannot find him guilty, I cannot press charges on him because he doesn't remember.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Sexwale. Then let me just make this clear on a personal note, Mr Sexwale, this has also been very difficult for me and I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but your response that I should not be deceived by my client or that he's not truthful to me, it's also an insult to me.

MR SEXWALE: It was advice, Sir. I went through what your client has not told you. It was just simply an advice. I have very high regard for what you are doing. You have been put by the State in the position where you are to defend people like him. It was an advice.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw, I don't think that you can take up with client. I understand precisely what type of question you put to Mr Sexwale, you were not against Mr Sexwale per se, or that you had malice against Mr Sexwale, I accept that, you don't have to put it to Mr Sexwale. Mr Sexwale is not trained as you and I are trained. I understand perfectly, so until I say something to the contrary, accept it that I take it in good faith all the questions you asked.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. I'm just merely putting that with specific reference to the fact that my client didn't inform me what happened over the lunch break, he was under cross-examination, so ...

CHAIRPERSON: Before you take the final bow, I see your client is frantically wanting to speak to you, please take the last instructions and switch your mike off, I don't want to hear it.

MR ROSSOUW: I will take the very last instruction Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Sexwale, just a couple of last things that I'm going to put to you and you can respond thereto if you want to. Firstly my instructions are from Mr Zeelie that you were fully clothed at the time when he assaulted you with a broom stick on the 9th floor. I know there's a dispute about that. My instructions are to put that to you in the context of your evidence that you were taken naked down to the cells.

MR SEXWALE: Are you expecting my answer, Sir?

MR ROSSOUW: There's a dispute about that, so if you don't want to, we accept there's a dispute about that.

MR SEXWALE: Well, your client has conceded that many things he doesn't remember, I was not aware of that and of course, during the cross-examination he fell back into an area of "I cannot remember", many things he has said he cannot remember. What is never in dispute from your client, Sir, is that he tortured me, I think that is a fact. It is not in dispute and he says that yes, he could have done it. That is not in dispute and whether one was clothed here or not is no longer the issue.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright thank you. The secondly, the second thing that I was instructed to put to you is that the interrogation session could not have lasted on your for three days, as far as Mr Zeelie's involvement is concerned, because my instructions are that he was part of a team and that was his evidence also, that went out and arrested other people. Sorry, the person that you've mentioned, Naledi Tsiki.

MR SEXWALE: Yes, I said Naledi Tsiki.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Zeelie instructed me that that specific person was arrested on information supplied by another person who was arrested, not yourself and the arrest took place you know before three days and he was part of the arresting team, he went out and did that. I'm just putting that to you in the light of his evidence.

MR SEXWALE: I cannot dispute what he says about how he arrested Naledi and so on.

MR ROSSOUW: Alright. So you will accept that he was part of that team?

MR SEXWALE: I don't know.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rossouw. Mr van den Berg, I don't think you have questions, but I should ask you as to whether you have any.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I don't have, Mr Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: I had, Chairman, but I forgot them, so I don't have any. We've just been here too long.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: I have nothing, Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination?

MR BIZOS: No re-examination, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you very much Mr Sexwale for having come and testified. You are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling any further evidence Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van den Berg, are you going to lead any evidence?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Koopedi, are you going to lead evidence?

MR KOOPEDI: No Chairperson, we are also not leading any evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No evidence, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Gentlemen and lady, I think we are in a position to argue. Are we?

MR BIZOS: I am.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: I am also, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I have instructions in respect of argument, so I'll be two sentences.

CHAIRPERSON: I would love that. Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Our intention is to leave it to your discretion, Chairperson, so ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, you are in the position that we finalise?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll start with you Mr van den Berg. Mr Rossouw, sorry, not you Mr van den Berg, I'm terribly sorry.

MR ROSSOUW IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I just inquire, for the sake of brevity, the only issue that I intend, unless you specifically wish me so to deal with, is full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's full disclosure because you should have taken cue from the questioning by Mr Bizos in respect of Mr Sexwale. He never went into the political background per se.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes. Thank you Mr Chairman. Then the formal requirement, 20 (1) of the Act, I submit 20 (2) (b) and 20 (2) (f) would be the relevant sections covering Mr Zeelie as far as he is being an employee of the State is concerned. Mr Chairman, this is in fact a very difficult application because first of all there are generalities for which I know that the Amnesty Committee is of the view that unless there are specifics supplied, amnesty cannot be granted as a blanket ...(indistinct) amnesty. I concede that, Mr Chairman, but those specifics that were supplied here, I would submit a full disclosure was in fact made. Now Mr Chairman, I don't know what my Learned Colleagues Mr Koopedi and Mr van den Berg are going to argue to you, but I would submit that you must consider this application in the total of what was placed before you and what was placed before you, Mr Chairman, as far as I would submit to you, is that the evidence on the assaults on both Mr Martin and Mr Sibanyoni, are not in dispute as to what happened there and that a full disclosure was in fact made, Mr Chairman. I think concessions were rightly made where memory was jogged. It is a long time ago and I would submit that you can take cognisance of that fact that memory will fail people, but Mr Chairman, there's no indication that Mr Zeelie is trying to distance himself. He is in fact the only one who has come forward and has given testimony as far as this is concerned. Now that, Mr Chairman, I would submit to you counts in his favour as far as his bona fides are concerned. Why would he come and implicate himself if he's the only one, who is going to be the State Witness when he is going to be prosecuted? He's not running away from prosecution Mr Chairman, he's applying for amnesty and once again this should also be seen in the light of his total amnesty application where he is invited to make a full disclosure as to all relevant facts.

Mr Chairman, if for instance he's applied for the Stanza Bopape incident and he's being confronted about assaults in this manner, Stanza Bopape died as a result of shock treatment, he's being confronted about the use of this method, there would be serious doubt on his credibility. Why didn't you apply for those other instances as well?

CHAIRPERSON: But in respect of these specific incidents, doesn't he say: "I'll come forward, I can't remember specifically, but if my mind is jolted about certain assaults, I will admit them"?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Chairman, those, not the specifics. You must remember that the specific three gentlemen who were represented here today, were mentioned by Mr Zeelie, it was not people who came forward and confronted him, he mentioned them of his own accord, so those were these that he was able to recall and to the best of his ability, I submit, he's given you the relevant facts pertaining to, firstly, the arrest, the circumstances, the information that was sought from these people and the actual events of assault that took place. Mr Chairman, the dispute as to the assault on Mr Sexwale, I would submit its - what Mr Bizos wants is: "Yes, I did it." What is tendered is: "It is possible."

CHAIRPERSON: I think in your address, tell us the possibilities we should look at, because I don't think you should concern yourself with Mr Bizos. Tell us what you think we should do. Mr Bizos will say whatever because whatever you think about Mr Bizos, we may not in deliberation to come to a decision, so tell us what you think we should come to.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I would submit that you can come and your Committee can be satisfied that Mr Zeelie is not trying to distance himself from the torture and the assaults that took place on Mr Sexwale. I submit that your Committee can be satisfied that any reasonable person will have memory failure and Mr Chairman, and I submit that there is clear evidence on which you can accept that there will be and then by necessity would have been an identification problem as far as the torture on the 10th floor at John Vorster Square is concerned, because of the hood, Mr Chairman and Mr Chairman I've specifically dealt with the inference, or rather I tried, I thought it was direct evidence but now it's emerged that it was really an inference of identifying the perpetrator because he was there at the beginning and then these events took place.

CHAIRPERSON: But even then, wouldn't it fall within the - I'm trying to just get - no, no, when we look at it, wouldn't we say if he was there and he was aware that this type of torture was going to be happening, that we could say he's a perpetrator like the rest?

MR ROSSOUW: Well, indeed Mr Chairman and in fact he has said: "I did perpetrate those things on the group that was arrested." he did say that, that is the evidence Mr Chairman. He's not denying that. He's given you the detail. He's told you that there was shock treatment and suffocation, the tubing, was used on the group that was arrested. Now Mr Chairman, he says that there were more than five arrested, there was more than one person arrested, all these people were kept at the 10th floor, or were being interrogated there. Mr Chairman and now the question is: "Did you assault all of them? Did you torture all of them, all the arrestees?" "No, four or five", that's the evidence. Now from that four or five, you must say if Mr Sexwale was one of them. He says it's possible, it's possible. He's not saying he didn't do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what do you make of this in the cross-examination because this was asked specifically where the vicious part came in.

MR ROSSOUW: The Martial Arts, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No, where Mr Bizos says, this was the tenor of that where he said: "Your version is false. The three of you tortured Solly Khumalo and wanted to know where Mr Sexwale could be found and out of the three, you were the most vicious", something to that effect.

MR ROSSOUW: Well, Mr Chairman, I would submit let's first of all deal with ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You see the opening statement, "Your version is false".

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, that the version is false. Mr Chairman, it can only be false if Mr Zeelie is denying any assault or torture and he's not doing that and I think that is his - we were at great lengths Mr Chairman, to try and explain that. Now secondly ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just by the use of the word any, do you mean all?

MR ROSSOUW: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I'm ...

MR LAX: In other words it can only be false if he's denying all the assaults.

MR ROSSOUW: All the assaults yes.

MR LAX: In other words assaulting Mr Sexwale at all.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Chairman, and he's not doing that, but more than that, it's not false because he's giving a version which Mr Sexwale is denying, the broom stick, as the only assault, because he's also not saying to you, and that was not the evidence that the only assault in which he took part was the broom stick assault. That's not the evidence, Mr Chairman. He has conceded that he was part of the group who tortured the arrestees on the 10th floor and now he was asked to select from that group Mr Sexwale himself, which was a whole group of which he admits he was involved and he's asked to say now specifically with regard to Mr Sexwale. Mr Chairman, that clearly, in my mind, comes back to a question of identification and if you take into account that there was - Mr Sexwale was hooded at the time when he was tortured, then I submit that it's reasonable that this could have happened, also taking into account that there was more than one there. Now Mr Chairman, the fact of the matter that the statement was put that it was the three of them, de Waal, Cox and Zeelie, they were the ones, Mr Chairman, the evidence was that other people were coming in, other voices were heard, Mr Chairman and at that stage the witness was blindfolded, or the hood was over the witness, Mr Sexwale was hooded at that stage, Mr Chairman, so just on the probabilities, only three people involved in the assaults and torture of a whole group of arrestees on the notorious 10th floor of John Vorster Square, even I find that improbable, Mr Chairman.

There was more than one Security policeman involved in the arrest. What happened to them? Did they just go home? Mr Chairman, it's very improbable. This was obviously a well-planned operation which was carried out and now these people just all leave and go home and we know that the Commanding Officer is there, because we heard that Mr Sexwale heard Mr Muller's voice, so that would be at least four, but from his evidence we know there were other people as well, so to say that these three were the only three, Mr Chairman, it's just improbable.

MR LAX: That isn't what he said in his testimony, so I'm not quite sure why you're arguing it on the basis that that is what Mr Sexwale's evidence is.

MR ROSSOUW: No, no, Mr Chairman, sorry, I'm dealing with a statement that was put to Mr Zeelie which the Chairperson referred to, that those were the three involved. When I'm saying that it's improbable, I'm referring also to the evidence by Mr Sexwale that there were other Security personnel as well. I'm not saying that his evidence is improbable, Mr Chairman, I'm referring to the statement that was put to Mr Zeelie and then Mr Chairman, as far as the fact that Mr Zeelie was the most vicious of these three is concerned, Mr Chairman, we don't know what Mr de Waal or Mr Cox did. We don't know specifically. They're not here to tell you, so it's difficult to say. How are your going to judge that?

MR LAX: Does it even matter?

CHAIRPERSON: ... know they are leaner.

MR LAX: I mean does it even matter if your client was the most vicious? It doesn't have an impact on what he's applying for.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Chairman, all I'm saying - I agree with the Panel on that, it doesn't matter Mr Chairman, Mr Zeelie has told you what he's done. He's described to you the horrendous things that were done to people and Mr Chairman, he's not distancing himself from that, so if that's the perception of somebody subjectively, then I will concede to that. I don't have a problem with that. All I'm challenging here, Mr Chairman, is the following and I'm asking you to take that into account, that question why it was said that he was the most vicious, reference was made to the assaults in the car and the manhandling up the stairs, Mr Chairman. All I'm saying is that might be so, it might be a perception, I'll concede to that. It might not even matter, Mr Chairman, that was not something which Mr Zeelie was given the opportunity to respond to, that's all I'm saying.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Rossouw I think the strong language used was also added to why he was perceived to be the most vicious and if I remember correctly, perhaps you can deal with that. Did your client not admit to having used strong language all along?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, that was indeed his evidence. I concede that. Well, that's in fact so.

MR LAX: Isn't the objective fact simply this, your client was new at John Vorster Square, he'd only been there at this stage, six months, he was a young policeman who might have been trying to impress his superiors for all we know, it's the sort of behaviour one would expect from a young Security Branch policeman, to be a little bit more ...(indistinct) and a little bit more willing to go the extra mile than the older guys might be.

MR ROSSOUW: That is a possibility, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: ; It's consistent with that sort of probability, isn't it?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, I would concede that, Mr Chairman. That I would submit would be so. Mr Chairman, unless there is something specifically, those are my submissions as far as Mr Sexwale is concerned. As far as Mr Martin is concerned, there's obviously no evidence before you to contradict the version of Mr Zeelie, the same for Mr Sibanyoni, Mr Chairman, I would submit that from the probabilities, sorry from the cross-examination you can be satisfied that he has given you a full disclosure of the facts and there was no indication that he was trying to hide what he did and he described to you the actions that actually took place and he's admitted to that.

Mr Chairman, and on those concluding remarks I would submit that taking into account the probabilities that I've mentioned, the fact that it happened 24 years ago, the assault on Mr Sexwale in particular, I would submit that you can be satisfied that he has given you all relevant facts pertaining to these assaults.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, may I start with you?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR BIZOS IN ARGUMENT: This argument that has been advanced will not, in my respectful submission, given any consideration in granting amnesty to this applicant and it is necessary in view of this argument, Mr Chairman, to deal with some fundamentals.

The first is that an applicant has got to say for what offence or delict he is applying for amnesty, not merely in the technical sense of saying: "I'm asking for amnesty for assault", but "I am asking for amnesty for assault in that this is what I did" taking the words of the section as to what has to be pleaded and in relation to the full disclosure, what it is that I did in performing this act. Now here we have a clear case. The applicant says in his evidence-in-chief: "I assaulted Mr Sexwale with a broom stick on his stomach". He does not say that I, I'll avoid using the word electrocuted because I was pulled up by ...(indistinct) Judge that an electrocuted person is dead, shocked. He doesn't say: "I shocked him", he doesn't say that: "I tortured him", but in cross-examination where the version is put to him, he says: "It's possible that it happened." That is not an admission of fact that it happened. He does not accept that he committed an offence or a delict, other than the one that he said in his evidence-in-chief, the rest he leaves as some sort of possibility in the air.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Bizos, sorry for interrupting you. Doesn't he go a little bit further and say: "I have committed a torture such as described by Mr Sexwale, but I cannot definitely say that it was him". Isn't it also an issue of identity?

MR BIZOS: Well, identity, he cannot, with respect, be believed on and I will give you reasons for that. He remembers very well that he hit him with a stick. He concedes the possibility that he might have tortured. Let us deal with it not as a theoretical possibility but whether or not he is speaking the truth in relation to the facts of this case. He is dealing with a Senior Commander of Umkhonto weSizwe. His importance to the Security Police may be reasonably inferred by the rugby team that came down to the cell as soon as he was identified as Tokyo Sexwale. He takes a ring from him. He participates in the trial. He remembers the broom stick, but doesn't remember the electric shock and the suffocation. To look for excuses for the applicants with selected memory is not, in my submission, a proper administration of the provisions of this Act. We cannot just slide over it and say: "Poor Mr Zeelie, he tortured so many people that he's forgotten that he did this to Sexwale. This wasn't an ordinary run of the mill case. This was a case in which some of the leaders of Umkhonto we tried, Sexwale, ...(indistinct) and others. He couldn't have forgotten about what he had done to him, but it is not permissible, with respect, for someone who says: "I hit somebody with a "kierie" on his back. I want amnesty for that and when it was put to him that he stabbed him a couple of times on the chest, if he says: "It's possible that I did it", that he can be held to have had put before you a proper application and that he has made a full disclosure by saying: "I stabbed so many people that I may be mistaken about this one." It theoretically may be possible, but on the facts of this case, it just does not fit.

About being a young policeman, it's not an excuse of the facts of this case and the fact that he admitted that he used strong language, is not an admission or rather it doesn't enable the Committee, with respect, to find that there was a properly identified offence or delict on the papers or in his evidence-in-chief, or that he made a full disclosure by saying: "Well, now that I am faced with what apparently is going to be a credible witness, that he was tortured".

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Bizos, I don't want to introduce new argument or side-track you, but the question in regard to this strong language was asked with a reference to the allegation of particular viciousness.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: So it's no more than that.

MR BIZOS: But also in connection with identification, the identification of the people whilst he was hooded.

ADV BOSMAN: Ja, let's not take that argument further.

MR BIZOS: So that I submit that you would not grant amnesty to a person that had kept quiet about two stab wounds and who only conceded that there was a possibility that he may have inflicted them. Yes, I don't know what the position would have been if Mr Zeelie, confronted by the evidence of Mr Sexwale said: "I'm sorry, he's speaking the truth. Yes, I did these things. I didn't disclose them for this or other reason." I don't know what the position may have been then, but that is not a position that we have here.

What we have here is the Security Force's double talk. The Security Force's double talk, whenever you confronted them with the evidence of another witness in an obvious contradiction, they say well, it's possible. That lets them off, both of them. They say: "Well, if its possible, it's neither yea or nay, please just ignore it and let's proceed as if... this is our excuse." A finding has to be made on the probabilities as to whether these assaults took place of not. Clearly they took place in the manner in which it has been described by Mr Sexwale. Even without taking into consideration "dit is moontlik" by the applicant, he has to satisfy the Committee that he has made full disclosure as to what he did in relation to this matter and I submit that he cannot be believed when he says that he does not remember what he did to Mr Sexwale. He cannot be believed. How can he remember accurately better than Mr Sexwale as to the time when the ring was handed over? How can he remember that he was clothed when he says that he was - he hit him with a stick? How can he remember the details that he gave? He cannot be believed when he says he cannot remember and if he cannot be believed in that, it's an additional ground why it should be refused. How many senior Commanders of MK did he torture that he doesn't remember Sexwale? There must be a reason why. There are coincidences here. Mr Zeelie managed to find three cases in which to apply for amnesty, for all the horrendous acts that he commits that he has committed in relation to this which, on his version, were minor assaults. They probably did not amount to gross violations of human rights. I don't know whether a hit with a broom stick on a young, fit person is a gross violation of human rights, as defined, that is. It may be tremendous indignity.

MR LAX: It would be in the sense that it was a torture, because the person's in custody in that context, but that's ...

MR BIZOS: Borderline.

MR LAX: It is borderline, but that's how we've interpreted it.

MR BIZOS: Ja, no obviously, I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been there, but it's borderline. The one is borderline, the others are also common assaults, if I understood the evidence correctly. How does it come about that a torturer who cannot remember how many people he has tortured, comes to remember only three instances in which there were minor assaults and comes to ask for amnesty? I would submit that this, the way this application was conducted and I'm not referring to my Learned Friend, we all build houses with the sort of bricks that we are given, it's not a criticism of my Learned Friend, but the manner in which this application for amnesty was conceived and presented, borders on lacking the realisation of the intelligence of the Committee, with respect, that you can come here and say that: "I've tortured so many people that I don't remember, but it's possible, that I may also have done it to Sexwale. It's only got to be stated in order to be rejected. Why should he be believed, however many people he may have tortured, but that is also the other aspect, the probabilities. On his version he has confronted a person, in his own words he doesn't know his name. How probable is it, that he would have been assigned this task without having the sort of information that Mr Sexwale actually gave evidence about, that there was information that there were arms, that there was information that Sexwale was involved and that he did not know the identity of Sexwale when he confronted him, irrespective of what the confrontation may have been and when the reason for the torture is to try and find Sexwale, it is almost an ironic thing making a good one act play, so to speak, that you are torturing a person to disclose the identity of a person, when he has to do nothing more than identify himself in order to put an end to the torture. Dramatic irony in this sort of situation. Now that's not denied and it's said: "Well, it may be." If that is so, then where is the basis for believing, or the probabilities?

My Learned Friend has made much of the fact that I didn't specifically put that there were assaults from the time of the arrest right up to then. Yes, I didn't. In self defence, I may say, because of the gravity of the offences committed by the witness, the preliminary things in the motor car were not put in the statement. Mr Sexwale arrived in the middle of my cross-examination, but where is the prejudice to this person? His response to that is, if I understood my Learned Friend's cross-examination, that he doesn't deny these things, except possibly being in the same car. He doesn't deny these things, but he wasn't given an opportunity to actually deal with them, so that you may reasonably infer that even if I did have the information and I did put it, the answer wouldn't have been any different to what it was in relation to the torture.

I submit that this applicant, accustomed to misleading the judicial process in the past as he was, has attempted to perform yet another act before this Committee. I am faced with strong evidence from Mr Sexwale that: "I tortured him, I will not deny it, I will merely concede the possibility that it might have happened." That, with respect, is not enough to get amnesty. If one had to be technical, is that if the assault with the broom stick was admitted by Mr Sexwale, he may have been entitled to a minimum - to an assault on a minimum basis, which has actually happened in a case in the Cyril Jones case which was heard by another Committee, I don't remember whether any member of the Committee was on that, where there was an application for amnesty for assault on Mr Cyril Jones, the companion of Mr Steve Biko at the time of his arrest.

The applicant denied the assaults, but he conceded to some minor assault complained of by Mr Jones. He was granted amnesty for that which that minimum assault that was admitted because he wanted Mr Jones to talk, but he was refused amnesty in relation to the other matters and that is the situation here, with respect. There is no admission that the assault with a broom stick took place. There is no unequivocal admission that a torture took place. There cannot be a finding on the applicant's evidence that he committed those acts. He therefore cannot get amnesty.

The particulars of the amnesty have got to be set out, haven't they? What do you write down? For assault, what sort of assault - with a broom stick which is denied and it's highly improbable that it took place? How do you articulate the amnesty that he is asking for? That he was tortured, which he is not prepared to make an unequivocal admission in relation to? It just doesn't fit into the Act. It's not in accordance with logic. His evidence is completely contrary to the probabilities and highly improbable. He is in fact an untruthful witness and an untruthful witness is not entitled to amnesty.

A man who has committed so many violations of fundamental human rights, to get amnesty for the minutia that he is prepared to admit, isn't within the spirit of the Act and does not formally comply with the requirements and I ask that this application for amnesty be refused.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos. Mr van den Berg, you promised two sentences. Could we note them down?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, Mr Martins has been a person who has been involved in the amnesty process. His instructions to me are to leave this decision in your hands, he neither opposes nor supports Mr Zeelie's application. As the Panel pleases.

NO ARGUMENT BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van den Berg. Mr Koopedi?

MR KOOPEDI: Thank you Chairperson. I was instructed to give a very brief submission.

MR KOOPEDI IN ARGUMENT: I will start by saying, Chairperson, that it is important for us to mention that it has appeared throughout this application that the applicant has forgotten a lot of things, including my client. He had forgotten that he had assaulted my client at any stage, even gone to his house, he only remembered him when he realised that my client is a member of the Amnesty Committee. My instructions are also to mention that it is surprising that on all the things he had and has forgotten, he seems to remember a piano, the music that came from it and the result thereof, but a lot of things he does not remember and to take it further, Chairperson, my

instructions are that we do not oppose the granting of amnesty to the applicant. However, this granting of amnesty should be limited and should be limited to assaulting my client at the SB Offices, Security Branch Offices in Sandton and insulting him at that office and perhaps also forcing my client to pose for a picture pointing at a tin trunk. Should there be any other offence or delict that flows from this, I am referring for example to unlawful arrest, any other thing, amnesty should not be granted on that because the application is not based on that, it's only based on what he conceded to have done. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koopedi. Mr Mapoma.

MR MAPOMA: I leave it in the hands of the Committee Chairperson.

NO ARGUMENT BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw, it would appear you've got, if you do reply, only in respect of Mr Sexwale, if you have any reply.

MR ROSSOUW: I have no reply, Mr Chairman, maybe just simply to say that the - no, I have no reply, Mr Chairman.

NO REPLY BY MR ROSSOUW

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This brings us to the end of the application of Mr Charles Alfred Zeelie. I may mention from the outset that we are enjoined by the Act to give our decision in writing, so in that respect, we are reserving our decision, but I want to thank the legal representatives firstly, that you have given us invaluable assistance, that in our deliberations we would come to a decision. We thank you very much.

I must thank you again for having co-operated to sit this late, I see it's 6.30. I'm really grateful and I say that I see two young legal representative, they should take a leaf from the more senior, who would bend backwards, I know everybody has got something to do, but to accommodate this process.

Let me start with you Mr Bizos. I want you to say to Mr Tokyo Sexwale we are very grateful for him to have come forward to grace this process. We know it was difficult for him through what happened to him in the past, but he had the courage to come forward and as a member of the African National Congress that proposed this process, that he supported it to the end, we thank him very much for that.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I place my appreciation for the patient hearing that we've had and also your extending the period particularly for our convenience in order to finish this matter. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Zeelie, thank you for having come forward. We appreciate that you have taken part in this process. The decision that we will give, it will be in writing, it shall be forwarded to Mr Rossouw, who would give you a copy. Thank you very much.

Let everybody drive back home safely. Thank you. We adjourn for the day.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS