CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today we'll be commencing with the hearing of Messrs Smith, Pollock, Erasmus and others. Before we start I'd like to briefly introduce the Panel to you. On my right is Advocate Francis Bosman, she's a Member of the Amnesty Committee. She's an Advocate and she comes from the Cape. On my left is Mr Jonas Sibanyoni, also a Member of the Amnesty Committee. He's an attorney, practising in Pretoria. I'm Selwyn Miller, I'm a Judge of the High Court, attached to the Transkei Division of that Court, and I'm also a Member of the Amnesty Committee.
CHAIRPERSON EXPLAINS TRANSLATION EQUIPMENT
At this stage I would request the legal representatives to kindly place themselves on record.
MR McASLIN: Clinton McAslin, representing Paul Erasmus.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr McAslin.
MR ALBERTS: George Alberts, instructed by Weavind and Weavind, representing Mr Eric Goosen.
MR POLLOCK: Gary Leon Pollock, I'm representing myself at this point.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if you could just repeat.
MR POLLOCK: Gary Leon Pollock, no representative at this point.
MR DU PLESSIS: I'm Roelof du Plessis of the Pretoria Bar, instructed by Strydom Britz Attorneys, and I represent Mr Smith.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR BIZOS: My name is G Bizos, Mr Chairman, together with Mr Kabelo Lengane of the Legal Resources Centre. I represent Mrs Joyce Natalie Aggett, the mother of the deceased, Dr Michael John Aggett, the brother of the deceased, Neil Aggett, and Mrs Elizabeth Jill Burger, the sister of the late Neil Aggett, represented by Mr Khalik, K-h-a-l-i-k Mayet, of Cheadle Thompson and Haysom. I would ask that you turn to page 28 of the application, so that we can save the trouble of writing the names down, Mr Chairman.
I will announce the names of the persons for whom I am appearing, on the instructions of Mr Mayet. The first one is Prima Naidoo, on page 28. The next is Shirish Nanabai, Mr Michael Jenkins, Ms Barbara Hogan, Dr Liz Floyd, Mr Jabu Ngwenya, Mr Monty Narsvo, Mr Samson Ndeau (e-a-u, Mr Chairman), Mr Firoz Cachalia and Mr Azhur Cachalia, Ms Elaine Mohammed, Mr Allan (not Alex) Fine, Mr Morris Milthers (and not the way the name appears) and Mrs Penelope Mason, in relation to the application of Mr Goosen, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence.
Chairperson, perhaps if I may at this stage, if it's appropriate, just place on record that the applicant, Mr Bosch, has withdrawn his application in respect of this hearing. I have received a letter to that effect from his legal representative, Mr Rossouw from Rooth and Wessels.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, are all the applicants legally represented here?
MS PATEL: Except Mr Pollock, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pollock, are you aware of your rights regarding legal representation? That you are entitled to legal representation and it's your choice.
MR POLLOCK: Yes I'm aware of that. I might make use of it at a later stage, but at the moment I'm satisfied, thanks.
CHAIRPERSON: You're quite prepared to proceed representing yourself?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, I am.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel, with regard to notification to the victims, that's all been dealt with, implicated persons, etcetera?
MS PATEL: Yes, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Alberts?
MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The first application to be heard is that of Mr Goosen. It appears in volume 2, page 345 and further. Mr Goosen is Afrikaans speaking and he'll give his evidence in Afrikaans as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
ERIC GOOSEN: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Alberts?
EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Goosen, you are applying for amnesty for a specific incident that you mentioned in your application, I&J, is that correct?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: Will you please look at pages 345 to page 388 of the bundle marked volume 2, this is the introductory section of your application before specific incidents are dealt with for which you have applied for amnesty, is that correct?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.
MR ALBERTS: Are you aware of the contents of those pages?
MR GOOSEN: I confirm the contents thereof.
MR ALBERTS: Very well. Can we then go to page 389 of your application where you deal with this specific incident. When did this incident take place?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, it was approximately March/April of 1983.
MR ALBERTS: Can I just ask you, what does I&J stand for?
MR GOOSEN: It's Intelligence Johannesburg.
MR ALBERTS: Is this how it was known in the police ranks?
MR GOOSEN: This specific component fell under the Head Office and the general term, if you refer to it, was I&J.
MR ALBERTS: What was your involvement at I&J? How long were you involved?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, for a time of approximately two months.
MR ALBERTS: How old were you at that stage?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, I think I was 22.
MR ALBERTS: Where were you stationed permanently?
MR GOOSEN: During my activities at I&J, I was stationed at the Security Branch in the Northern Transvaal in Pretoria.
MR ALBERTS: At the bottom of page 60 and 61 you deal with the fact that you worked there for two months. In the introductory section of your application and more specifically on page 358 to 360, you in short made mention of it, is that correct?
MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is.
MR ALBERTS: That is paragraph 5.2, is that correct?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: Will you now give an indication to the Committee what your activities entailed while at I&J.
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, the activities of I&J was mainly the observation of suspects and the prosecution of such people.
MR ALBERTS: You mention on page 390 of your application that you received your training there, is that correct?
MR GOOSEN: I was seconded from the Security Branch for this period of time. In general terms you would say it was in-house training.
MR ALBERTS: And you mention that this training was of a covert nature.
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: Were you aware of the names of the people who were involved at I&J?
MR GOOSEN: No, Mr Chairperson. Those whose identities were known to me was the former Commander, Maj Heymans, as well as a Lieut Botha.
MR ALBERTS: And the other people who were active or working there, how did you know them?
MR GOOSEN: The rest of the personnel Mr Chairperson, if I can refer to them as operators, functioned under aliases whose true identities were not known to me.
MR ALBERTS: And why would this be so?
MR GOOSEN: I would say the principle of compartmentalisation was upheld.
MR ALBERTS: To now get to the details of this specific incident.
CHAIRPERSON: What was your alias, Mr Goosen?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, myself and Chris Putter who received this training with me, they did not provide us with aliases, we were known as Sgt Goosen and the other member was called by his true name or real name.
MR ALBERTS: Was this because you were only there for a certain period of time?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: You were not a permanent member of the unit?
MR GOOSEN: No, Mr Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: If we can now come back to page 390 of your application, can you just in short then deal with the deeds that you committed while you were at I&J, and for which you applied for amnesty.
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, various suspects who were identified by I&J and who we created files on ... and the person whose name I can recall was Carl Niehaus and his fiancée of that time, I think she was a Lourens, Dr Beyers Naude and others, whose identity is not known to me now. The activities were then to deployed after a briefing session in the morning, they would deploy the vehicles, the suspects will be observed when they left their homes or residences. We kept contact with each other. The sign would then be given that the suspect has left his or her residence and then seven to nine vehicles will, on a rotating basis, will follow this vehicle of the suspect.
MR ALBERTS: And were you then part of this team of vehicles, if I can call it that?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: And in this way you kept up to date with the movement of the people who you followed or observed?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. And more specifically we had to find out who they made contact with at the safehouse in Eastgate. There was a person with an incident book, where he would write down all the monitoring that occurred on the ground and if the suspect parked in the centre of town and went into a building, we would follow on foot. If the suspect would enter an elevator, three or four members who followed him would go into the elevator as well. They would then take notes of the number of the floor level which the suspect would press. One member would get off at that level before that, one member would get off on the same level and one member on a later level.
MR ALBERTS: And all this information that you obtained in this way, would this be recorded?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, once again the incident or case book at the safehouse in Eastgate would be used for this purpose.
MR SIBANYONI: Can I just pose a question here? I notice you refer to these people you were monitoring as suspects, what is the purpose of saying suspects?
MR GOOSEN: In the context of my application as it is contained here, I refer to it that these people - if you read my introduction to my application I refer to suspects, it is just a term that I used to create the background that these people were seen as enemies of the State and where they were seen as suspects by us. They were not suspects in a criminal case, it was just terminology used in the police, in the context of these actions.
MR ALBERTS: Well let us stop at Mr Carl Niehaus, what was he suspected of at that time?
MR GOOSEN: At that time we suspected that he was part of certain sabotages and because of those reasons we observed Mr Niehaus.
MR ALBERTS: You also mention Dr Beyers Naude.
MR GOOSEN: That is correct. Mr Chairperson, the activities of the Security Branch, of which I&J is part of, but a covert unit here in Johannesburg, theologians, the South African Bishops Council as an organisation, individuals within these types of organisations were seen as potential suspects and that is why a person like Dr Beyers Naude was also then placed under surveillance.
MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen, as I can understand your evidence thusfar, you merely took part in the surveillance, observations of people who were involved in public, is that correct?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, at no stage did we ... for example, we never peered through their windows or in any way entered a house.
MR ALBERTS: So it was only limited to the people or just observing them as such?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Then you make mention of another incident of damaging of property, can you just give more details concerning this.
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, during my time at I&J, the person who was known to me under the codename of Harvey, approached me and requested me to accompany him to the house of Penelope Mason. At that stage I was unaware of who this individual was. We went to the residence of the suspect. We drove there. What was made known to me by the operator who was known as Harvey, was that her husband was released after he was detained on charges of defeating the ends of justice or treason. He suggested that we damage the vehicle of the suspect by throwing a brick through the window of the vehicle and also through the windows of the caravan. This action was indeed executed. I threw a brick through the Renault vehicle's window while Harvey threw a brick through the window of the caravan.
MR ALBERTS: So did you throw this brick on the instructions of the person known to you as Harvey?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Was he a permanent member of I&J?
MR GOOSEN: He was a permanent member of I&J.
MR ALBERTS: Was he also your senior?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: What was the purpose of throwing these bricks?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, my inference was that it was intimidation of these individuals.
MR ALBERTS: And you say as far as you know of what was told to you, these people were opponents of the then government of the day?
MR GOOSEN: Yes, it was presented to me in that way, that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Goosen, if you could just explain something to me. You say that this was an operation against Penelope Mason and then you also said that her husband had just been released after being detained. Now why do you say it was an operation against Penelope Mason and not the Masons? Why not mention the husband as being one of the targets?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, when we moved to the house of the Masons, the name of the wife was mentioned to me after the operation. The fact that the husband was released on a charge of treason was only mentioned to me then and as I compiled my application I wrote down the wife of Mr Mason.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Alberts.
MR ALBERTS: Would you please look at page 391 up until page 394 of your application. Have you read the contents of these pages?
MR GOOSEN: Yes, Mr Chairperson, and I also confirm it.
MR ALBERTS: So you are now applying for amnesty for "moontlike skending van privaatheid en vir opsetlike saakbeskadiging", is dit korrek"?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: And any other delicts that may flow from these actions?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: How do you know that this vehicle belonged to Penelope Mason?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, the following day an article appeared in the local Johannesburg newspapers and if I can recall correctly it was in The Citizen, that dealt with the act of the previous evening.
MR ALBERTS: And did you determine from that that it was Penelope Mason's vehicle?
MR GOOSEN: From the article I became aware of it, yes, and also Harvey, the operator, told me that this was the vehicle of Mason.
MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen, the conclusion of your application does not appear in the bundle, but the application is in the Committee's possession. Do you also ask the Committee, for the purposes of the Judgment of your application, to take that into consideration?
MR GOOSEN: Yes please, Mr Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Alberts. Mr McAslin, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Goosen?
NO QUESTIONS BY MR McASLIN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pollock?
NO QUESTIONS BY MR POLLOCK
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Did you ever find out who Harvey is or was?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, after my return to the Security Branch in the Northern Transvaal, I did not have any contact with the members of I&J at all. Because it was a covert structure I did not go through the trouble of making certain open enquiries in the Security Branch concerning this unit. It was presented to me that it was a covert unit and that aspect was respected by me and I did not want to compromise that.
MR BIZOS: Yes, but once the regime that you served was about to come to an end and there was some openness in our society, did you not try and find out who was the person that gave you instructions to commit this act?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, there was no way in which I could find this out. When I was at I&J for the in-house training I did not have any contact with any of the members again. As Mr Bizos just referred to it, I was not in the position to make contact with any of these members when the politics in the country changed. I do not even know if they're still in the Police, where they are, who they are, I've got no frame of reference to place these people in.
MR BIZOS: Well, are you still a policeman?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR BIZOS: What is your rank now?
MR GOOSEN: Superintendent.
MR BIZOS: Have you not been concerned to try and find out in the interests of truth, who this person was or who your colleagues were in this secret unit?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, I did not have a starting point to start this enquiry. I do not know if this unit even exists anymore. If I had a Force number it would be very easy to identify this person, but he was presented to me as a person called Harvey. I had no further contact with these individuals.
MR BIZOS: Well did you only meet him once, or were you at the same offices or on the same premises?
MR GOOSEN: We worked from the same premises, we also resided at the Eastgate house, but once again I only knew them by their aliases.
MR BIZOS: For how long did you live in the same house with this person?
MR GOOSEN: Approximately two months.
MR BIZOS: Well didn't he give you any idea about his personal circumstances, whether he was married or whether he had children? You must surely have had a, been able to give a full description of what he looks like.
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, while I lived at this house in Eastgate, I did not interact with Harvey on the level where it became known what his real name is, if he was married or not. All the members who were at that stage stationed at I&J, were not married, because after hours, and they worked on flexi-hours and one of the prerequisites was to be single.
MR BIZOS: What about a description of him?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, if I have to think back 17 years ago I would say he was about 1.8 metres tall, light long brown hair. I cannot recall if he had a moustache or not. He was thin. Age, I would estimate - I would speculate if I would guess, I would say 27/28.
MR BIZOS: You say he was your senior, did you know what his rank was?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, I was told at the first meeting at the offices, by Maj Heymans - I was then promoted to the rank of Sergeant, I was informed that most of the members at I&J were my seniors and I had to respect them.
MR BIZOS: Where is Maj Heymans now?
MR GOOSEN: I do not know at all, I do not know where Mr Heymans is.
MR BIZOS: Well, are we to assume that he was a member of the Police Force, seconded to this special unit?
MR GOOSEN: I just know that at a later stage he was transferred to the Free State, I do not know where in the Free State, I do not know if he is still in the Force, he may be on pension, he may be - I've got no further contact with him.
MR BIZOS: What was his first name?
MR GOOSEN: It was not applicable - a junior officer like myself, it was not my place to know the first name of a senior officer, specifically because I came from the Pretoria Security Branch and he was stationed at I&J and he was introduced to me as Maj Heymans and I would never have dared to ask what his first name was.
CHAIRPERSON: It's not so much a question - sorry Mr Bizos, it's not so much a question of asking, I mean many, many policemen know the first names of their Commanding Officers, without going and asking them, it's just generally known. Didn't you hear what his name was?
MR GOOSEN: No, Mr Chairperson, I came from the Security Branch in the Northern Transvaal, he was never my Commander before or afterwards and he was just introduced to me as Maj Heymans.
MR BIZOS: Was the name Heymans a real name or an assumed name?
MR GOOSEN: I cannot comment on that Mr Chairperson, he introduced to me as Maj Heymans.
MR BIZOS: You see, can you explain why you didn't take any steps when you realised the futility of this operation, similar operations, to find out who it was that led you into this criminal conduct?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, the principle of such an operation and such a unit is based on the need-to-know basis. He was introduced to me as Maj Heymans and I had no reason to question him to ask him if it was an alias or his real name. What was known to me was that the operators' names, or all of them used aliases.
MR BIZOS: Did you join the Security Police, or did you continue with the Security Police after this two month sojourn at the safehouse?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, after the two months I returned. I was only seconded from the Security Branch Northern Transvaal for training and after I completed my training, after the two months, if it was six or eight weeks I cannot recall, but it was longer than a month but definitely not twelve weeks, I returned back to the Security Branch in Transvaal.
MR BIZOS: What rank did you eventually achieve in the Security Police?
MR GOOSEN: Superintendent.
MR BIZOS: In the old terms, what were you in 1990? What was your rank?
MR GOOSEN: In '99?
MR BIZOS: 1990.
CHAIRPERSON: 10 years ago.
MR GOOSEN: Then I was a Warrant Officer.
MR BIZOS: You say that you were trained, trained to do what?
MR GOOSEN: To follow the principles of surveillance, vehicle surveillance and to convey this to the Security Branch in Northern Transvaal when the need arose to follow a suspect of the Security Branch.
MR BIZOS: Was this the only active participation that you had in relation to the Mason vehicle? Did you not commit any other crime during this period of two months, approximately two months?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, in this time the surveillance and the incident of the Masons, these were the only actions in which I was involved.
MR BIZOS: Now if your training was merely to learn how to follow people and take part in a surveillance, did you not question this so-called Harvey: "Why if we are only to servile people, why must we damage the car"?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, when I was placed at the Security Branch in the Northern Transvaal and in the run-up to the training at I&J, as I explained it in my application, I was involved in various other incidents, break-ins at Khanya House, Unisa and at various offices at Unisa, and at that stage my limited understanding was that this was practice in the Security Branch to be involved in such actions. I would not have questioned it, I was a junior member, I was the junior member and I was there for training. I was also unaware if these actions were cleared up with his Commanders, and I was under the impression that this was an official and legal instruction. If we can call it official and legal today.
MR BIZOS: Yes. What did you hope to achieve, here was Mr Mason, an accused on a serious charge, he was - if convicted, he would probably have received a very heavy sentence, rightly or wrongly the administration of justice had set him free on bail. Why did you who took part in this, consider that further intimidation was necessary?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, I did not decide that further intimidation was going to follow, I saw this act to intimidate the suspects and that's how I understood it at that stage and that was the reason for this operation. I did not see that further intimidation should take place, I just participated in it.
CHAIRPERSON: If I could just ask a quick question.
Why did you think that it was intimidation, I mean it was an act that could have been committed by any vandal who was walking past their house? What made you think that that would be intimidation? And if you did think it was intimidation, who did you believe they would think that the intimidation was coming from? Did you leave any trademark, did you leave any mark to indicate who it might be from, or what?
MR GOOSEN: No, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it just a straightforward act of vandalism?
MR GOOSEN: No, Mr Chairperson, no messages were left behind so it can be traced back, but such an action would be perceived by such a suspect as actions from the police and more specifically of the Security Branch. I think the newspaper article also immediately referred to it that it is possibly the actions of the Security Branch.
MR BIZOS: What was the reaction to this statement in the paper that he Security Police or the police may have been responsible for this?
MR GOOSEN: I did not show any reaction, I also did not discuss it with another member and I also did not discuss this with Harvey.
MR BIZOS: Well did, for the public record, did the Security Police admit or deny that they were responsible for this act of vandalism?
MR GOOSEN: I cannot talk for the police, but I&J and Harvey did not take responsibility for it in public, and I was unaware that the police commented on this article.
MR BIZOS: Usually they put out a "dekstorie", didn't they, in this sort of situation, that it must have been divisions within the political movement or it must have been someone else and that the accusation that the Security Police had done it was merely to besmirch the good and honourable name of the Security Police?
MR GOOSEN: I must speculate. If a cover article was placed, I can only speculate, I do not know of any such article.
MR BIZOS: I want to take the question asked of you by the Chairman of the Committee, unless you admitted it, there would have been no purpose, would there?
MR GOOSEN: I don't understand the question. The purpose here was, as I see it, the intimidation of the suspects and the mere fact that in the article they referred to the Security Branch, was in itself already serving the purpose.
MR BIZOS: What did you hope that Mr and Mrs Mason would do or forebear from doing as a result of this act of vandalism?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, I would like to once again make it very clear, I was not the brain behind this action or operation, what the purpose was, as it was put and asked of me now, is unknown to me. If it was a long-term purpose with the committing of this act, I was unaware of it.
MR BIZOS: But in committing a crime of this nature, did you not exercise any personal discretion? Didn't you question whether it would serve any useful purpose, even within the framework of the Security Police or the specialised unit?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, I was a footsoldier, if I can use that terminology, at that stage as a very junior officer, it was not my place to find this out.
MR BIZOS: Yes. But there wasn't any footsoldier on the other side to shoot back at you or throw stones at you, were there?
MR GOOSEN: As I have said in my application, in various other circumstances and in other neighbourhoods it was the case.
MR BIZOS: No, we're talking about this incident.
MR GOOSEN: In this incident, no Mr Chairperson.
MR BIZOS: Did you expect Mr Mason to plead guilty as a result of your intimidation, or did you expect to get any benefit out of it?
MR GOOSEN: Once again as I have already mentioned Mr Chairperson, it was not my plan, my initiative, I do not know what the purpose was of it, I just knew that in the context or the limited context in which I understood it, it was that they wanted to intimidate the suspects. For the rest I cannot comment on, I do not know what the long-term effect was supposed to be and if there was supposed to be an effect at all.
MR BIZOS: But you know if you intimidate somebody the purpose is to get them to do something which you want them to do, or to stop doing what you don't want them to do, what was it here?
MR GOOSEN: Once again Mr Chairperson, if I planned this operation and was fully informed about what the long-term goal was for Mr Mason to do whatever, I would be able to comment on this. I was merely used as operative in this with a very limited background.
MR BIZOS: Well in retrospect, do you think that it helped the cause that you were serving at the time in any way?
MR GOOSEN: I personally believed that at that stage, yes.
MR BIZOS: But now, do you think it's helped in any way?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, with hindsight of my total application, I think that I spent a lot of time and energy and money unnecessarily in activities, and today I will not again, if I could turn back the clock, become involved in such actions, because I do not think we succeeded with the activities that we launched.
MR BIZOS: Did you know that Mr Mason was a Minister of religion?
MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, I was not aware of that. I would just like to state that I did not know the suspects or the profiles of the suspects which were held at the offices. I knew the suspects who I've set out in my application very well, but when I got there, there were new names and new individuals that I did not know. I did not know precisely what their activity levels were on a daily basis, I did not know that he was a Minister of the Church.
MR BIZOS: And Penelope Mason, did you know anything about her?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, except that she was the wife of Mr Mason, for the rest I didn't have any further background on her.
MR BIZOS: Did it occur to you that you going to the home of people at night and damaging their motorcar, on your basis that they would have known that it was the Security Forces that did it, did you consider what the effect would have been, not only on Mr Mason, but what the effect would have been on his wife and the family and everyone else, the trauma it would have caused about their safety?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, if I were to respond to that I would say yes, I would have known that it would have had an effect on the rest of the family. And as I have stipulated in my application, the primary objective of intimidation was not only to intimidate the suspect, but also to intimidate his immediate acquaintances, colleagues and friends.
MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos. Ms Patel, do you have any questions you'd like to put?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, just very briefly.
Mr Goosen, after your training, was there anybody that you needed to report back to, in Transvaal, in Pretoria, in terms of your activities and your training?
MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, for the two months I served or resorted under the direct command of Gen Heymans for the training, upon my return to the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, I fell under the command of the Divisional Commander once again. It was not necessary to make a report, with the exception that the training and recruitment had been conducted successfully and that the principles which had been learnt during such training would be successfully implemented in the division Northern Transvaal. As already indicated, the I&J component resorted under Head Office, so for all practical purposes if any report had to had been made by me, it would have been to Head Office, but I was not stationed at Head Office. No, it wasn't necessary for me to make a report regarding any of these activities to my Commander at the Northern Transvaal Security Branch.
MS PATEL: Alright. And then finally, in respect of the incident for which you have applied, was Maj Heymans at all times aware of your activities?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I'm unaware whether Mr Heymans knew of this action pertaining to malicious damage to property. My sentiment at that stage and the impression that I had, was that it was a cleared and approved action, there was no necessity for me to question it. But I am not aware that the instruction was verbally given to Mr Harvey, I didn't hear it and I don't know about it.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Alberts, any re-examination?
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?
ADV BOSMAN: One question, thanks Chairperson.
Mr Goosen, you state that you are applying for the potential violation of privacy, it is not clear to me with regard to who you make such an application.
MR GOOSEN: With the new legislation regarding human rights and the Human Rights Bill, and at the compilation of my application it may have been the violation of the privacy of an individual by surveilling such a person, by observing such a person, and for this reason I also applied for that possibility.
ADV BOSMAN: You don't really understand my question. My question is regarding who, whose privacy did you violate, in possibility? It isn't clear from your evidence.
MR GOOSEN: Mr Carel Niehaus, his fiancée Dr Beyers Naude, and the other individuals who were under observation whose particulars are unknown to me. I must just mention that Mr Mason, I don't know how he looks, I don't even know if he is seated in this room today, I have no idea.
ADV BOSMAN: Did you personally survey Mr Carl Niehaus?
MR GOOSEN: Yes, I was involved in the surveillance of Mr Carl Niehaus.
ADV BOSMAN: And the same is of application to Beyers Naude?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV BOSMAN: Can you not give us any particulars regarding what you did specifically which would violate their privacy?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, we monitored their residences from within the vehicles. When they left their residences and moved to other places such as the city centre, they would be surveilled. If they entered a building they would surveilled. So I think that that would affect the privacy of a person.
ADV BOSMAN: Yes, that is a question for argument perhaps. I just wanted further particulars pertaining to this, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni, any questions you'd like to put?
MR SIBANYONI: Just one question, Mr Chairperson.
Was intimidation part of your training?
MR GOOSEN: Intimidation, Chairperson, was part of the Security Branch' broader strategy, in combating suspects and their activities, not only within this context but within other contexts, as it has been sketched generally in my application. It was a standard tactic. Intimidation.
MR SIBANYONI: So you say you were trained to do both surveillance as well as where it's necessary to do intimidation?
MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, the intimidation which is at hand in the situation pertaining to Mr Mason, was not regarding the training of the implementation of intimidation, I was trained in surveillance and counter-surveillance.
MR SIBANYONI: The Mason incident was an isolated incident which occurred during your training?
MR GOOSEN: I would just like to repeat a section from my application, or at least to illuminate that this incident may possibly be isolated. Whether I&J was involved in similar actions before or after this incident, is unknown to me, I don't know if it was practice within their activities. I cannot comment on that. And I have also stipulated this in my application, I've stipulated that I'm not aware if prior to the incident or after the incident the same tactic was followed by them.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Goosen, you said that during this period that you were with I&J you stayed at a safehouse in Eastgate and also that Harvey stayed there, did all the members of the special unit stay at that safehouse at Eastgate?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. This safehouse to which I have referred was a double-storey residence. With the exception of one or two rooms which were used as conference and office facilities, the rest of the rooms were bedrooms. We ran our own mess in the building and if I refer to that I mean that the house itself had to provide for meals of those residing there. Because it was a covert unit and because we made use of Secret Fund vehicles, we were instructed not to go to well known police stations or police institutions with these vehicles and certain individuals, so we stayed, slept and ate in the house and we operated from there.
CHAIRPERSON: And approximately, or exactly what was the size of this I&J unit?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, at that stage they possessed nine to ten vehicles and with the surveillance sometimes we would use two to three persons within one vehicle, so I would estimate 15 to 20 persons, possibly, including men and women.
CHAIRPERSON: You all stayed at that house?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it a huge house, or did you sort of pack the rooms like dormitories?
MR GOOSEN: No Chairperson, it was large double-storey house with a large kitchen, a large lounge which was converted into a conference room. In the room where I slept were five of our members sleeping on beds. It was spacious enough for all of us. We also had wardrobes in which we could hang our clothes. It was not cramped in any sense, we had enough room, it was a large house. It was behind the Eastgate shopping centre.
CHAIRPERSON: And can you think of any reason why you weren't given a codename, that you were known by your own name, and was it Sgt Putter or something, you said?
MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Why weren't you given a codename?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I understood because we were not permanent members of the unit such codenames would not have been assigned to us, and these persons must certainly have been informed of our training which had to be presented and who we were. I can only imagine that there must have been a prior screening of ourselves before the time and as such our identities would have been known to the members. Whether the members knew one another amongst one another according to their real names, is not known to me, I did not know them according to their correct identities.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any questions arising out of questions that have been put by Members of the Panel? Mr Bizos?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
What is the address of this house?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, I have got no idea. If I must go back now, I mean I was only there for about two months. I know more-or-less where the house is but if I will be able to get there, I doubt. I am from Pretoria and since then I was stationed in Pretoria up to 1998 and since then I've been back in Johannesburg. I have visited the Eastgate area, but as far as my recollection of 17 years ago I cannot find the house. I just know that it was a large double-storey house, it was partly exposed bricks and the rest was painted.
MR BIZOS: Is it on the southern side of Eastgate?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, if you drive past Jan Smuts, I do not highway it is, and you see the Eastgate shopping mall on your left-hand side and after the shopping centre you will turn left, then it's in one of those neighbourhoods behind the Eastgate shopping centre.
MR BIZOS: Yes I don't know whether that isn't really confusing me, let's just have a compass point. When you speak about Jan Smuts, you speak about the road to Jan Smuts airport as it was then known?
MR GOOSEN: Yes, that would be the Jan Smuts highway. As you drive from the airport towards Johannesburg, then the Eastgate shopping centre would be on your left and it's one of the neighbourhoods in that area of Johannesburg.
MR BIZOS: Was it behind or the side of the shopping centre?
MR GOOSEN: It was not directly behind or next to it, it's a little way off. The beacon that I can recall was the Eastgate shopping mall and it was in a neighbourhood in that area. From the house you would not be able to see the shopping centre, it was not close to the shopping centre. The shopping centre was just a beacon for me to orientate myself.
MR BIZOS: Are you prepared to make an attempt to identify that house?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, I'm once again willing to do it, I have done it before.
MR BIZOS: Well subject to the Committee's approval, are you prepared to go there with an Investigator of the Committee, to point that house out to them?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, I'm willing to do that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we won't stand in the way of that being done, Mr Bizos.
MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS
CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions arising? No questions, okay thank you. Do you wish to say anything Mr Goosen, I see you're speaking to your legal representative.
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, I do not know if Mr Mason is present in this room, if so, I would wish to apologise for my actions in this. I think that it was a very devious deed, on reflection of the change in politics. If we reached a goal at all, I doubt that, and because of that reason and personal reasons I would like to apologise for any inconveniences that it may have caused to his family or to himself. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, neither Mr Mason or Mrs Mason are present and it is perhaps an appropriate stage for me to say that our instructions are not to oppose the application for amnesty. Even though we may have some reservations about the identity of the people which may have not been disclosed, our instructions are that Mr and Mrs Mason, in the spirit of reconciliation, do not oppose this application. They could not be present for personal reasons. We will convey the applicant's expression of regret to them, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos. Mr Goosen, thank you, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MS PATEL ADDRESSES: Chairperson sorry, if I may at this stage, before the next applicant testifies? I've just received a few telefaxes from Mr Jan Wagener, who is instructed by some of the implicated parties and I beg with your leave, just to read the gist of the contents of the letters into the record.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly Ms Patel, thank you.
MS PATEL: In respect of the implicated person, Gen P J Coetzee, Mr Wagener indicates that his client denies having committed any criminal offence or unlawful acts in this regard.
Then in respect of the implicated parties, Brig W Loots and Brig R Crause, he indicates that his clients deny ever being involved with Mr Smith and also deny all allegations made by him.
Then finally, in respect of the implicated person, Mr L Prins, similarly Mr Prins denies all allegations made against him.
And I might, just for the record, indicate that they aren't statements or affidavits, they're merely letters by Mr Wagener, on behalf of his clients.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Patel, the fact that they're just merely letters and not statements, I still think if you could have copies made, just for record purposes, for all the parties please.
MS PATEL: Certainly, I'll endeavour to do so during the tea break.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just be afforded the opportunity to come in here. Mr Loots and Mr Crause were both not mentioned by my client, Mr Smith, in these applications.
CHAIRPERSON: So therefore, the denial that they were ever involved with Mr Smith doesn't mean too much.
MR DU PLESSIS: It doesn't mean too much.
CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't mean anything.
MR DU PLESSIS: It may be, Mr Chairperson, there was another application by my client where Mr Crause and Mr Loots were both applicants too, and it may be that it has some bearing on that, but then the denial is not correct, because they have also applied for that incident, together with Mr Smith. I think that's where the confusion arose. So I may just mention that and I think that's the only important part, is that they weren't mentioned by my client in respect of any application before you today.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Have the applicants agreed in which order they're going to be testifying?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I think my client is next. Thank you.
MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, might I just interpose at this stage? Mr Goosen, I believe, has no further involvement in any of the further applications that the Committee will be hearing. I would request the Committee at this stage to excuse me, if that were possible, subject to submissions that the Committee might want to hear concerning Mr Goosen's application itself. If that were possible I would appreciate it.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to make submissions now?
MR ALBERTS: If you are prepared to hear me, please Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Alberts you mentioned this earlier and as indicated, we won't have a problem with that, but if Mr Goosen could be - I don't know if Mr Goosen is going to stay on for the rest of the hearings or not himself, but if not, if he could be on standby to come back and also with regard to the point raised by Mr Bizos, if he's prepared to assist any of the Investigators here in trying to locate the house, if he would be prepared to do that.
MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen will be prepared to do that, as he's already indicated. I might mention to the Committee that at the moment he's on vacation, he's interrupted his holiday to attend this hearing, we didn't really anticipate that this incident would be set down for hearing, since it doesn't involve a gross violation. But nevertheless, he's prepared to give all the co-operation that is required of him, however, for present purposes I submit that I don't foresee him having to come back as a result of any further evidence that might be led here.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's just that our experience of hearings is, sometimes the unexpected does crop up and that's why we always release people from further attendance, with the proviso that they be on standby just in case something crops up.
MR ALBERTS: Certainly Mr Chairman, that will present no problem.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, if you then could make your submissions in respect of these incidents.
MR ALBERTS IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, I'll be as brief as I possibly can.
As I have already stated, the offences for which Mr Goosen applies for amnesty don't constitute gross human rights violations as defined in the Act. In my submission Mr Chairman, I think there's only really one offence for which amnesty is required in this instance and that is for intentional damage to property. I don't know whether in view of the evidence he's conveyed, there really was an effective breach of anyone's privacy. It seems that all his acts were committed in public and I don't think a delict has been committed. The application was, as a matter of caution tried to cover, obviously, or traverse as wide an area as possible, but in my submission I don't think that there was any criminal conduct insofar as the surveillance was concerned. The same doesn't go for the damage to the vehicle. And also any delict, that obviously the damaging of the vehicle equally constitutes a delict and I would submit that he qualifies for amnesty in that regard as well.
Insofar as the technical requirements of the Act are concerned, I submit that Mr Goosen has satisfied all the requirements and I would request that amnesty be granted to him in those terms then. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Alberts. Any submissions Mr McAslin?
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR McASLIN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pollock?
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR POLLOCK
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?
MR BIZOS: As indicated, Mr Chairman, we have instructions not to oppose the application. What I would suggest on the basis of the famous quote: "What must be done, let it be done and let it be done quickly", but I suggest that once the applicant is here, that arrangements are made so that we are told, possibly for further investigation purposes in relation to ...(inaudible) and the disclosure of the full truth, that that should be done today, so that we can get the matter behind us, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about the pointing out? Yes. I think we'll take the tea adjournment, I'm just going to ask Ms Patel whether she's got any submissions to make before we ...
NO SUBMISSIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: And then perhaps an arrangement can be made right away now. I see it's not quite eleven but it's close enough, and we'll take a 20 or 25 minute tea adjournment, then perhaps arrangements can be made with you, Mr Goosen, regarding the pointing out of that large house. Thank you. We'll take the tea adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
