Amnesty Hearings

MR CORNELIUS: I beg leave to call Andries van Heerden. That's the next application. This will cover there matters Mr Chair, it will cover the Cafe Zurich incident, where we'll beg leave for ...

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, just a moment.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, before we commence, in this particular incident we have Mr Tony Richards acting for the victims. I understand he's not here now. I don't know where his whereabouts are and I will ask just for a short adjournment to find out his whereabouts before we start.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, we'll take a five minute adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chair. I call Mr van Heerden.

ANDRIES VAN HEERDEN: (sworn states)

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I think just before we begin, this applicant will testify on a matter called "Cafe Zurich" and he will therefore then apply for amnesty for assault.

CHAIRPERSON: That's on the top of page 8?

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct, yes. And he will also testify in an incident on page 24, the second paragraph, which is an assault on a man called Lucky Mahlangu. I think that is where my learned colleague, Mr Tony Richards is interested in. And then he will also testify further on the Assault of Mr Edward Mokati, which is reflected on folio 29. As far as the supply of weapons to the IFP is concerned, I still want to reserve my attitude on that, Mr Chair, I'll make a final decision between one and two what our approach will be there.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr van Heerden, your application appears on page 15 of the bundle as it is placed in front of the Committee, correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Your background you describe on page 20, 21 and 22 of your amnesty application, do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you also confirm what your political motive was at that stage.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: I will take you to page 23 of your application. At this stage when this incident took place, the assault of Lucky Mahlangu, you were in the South African Police?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, I just joined the Security in John Vorster Square.

MR CORNELIUS: Who was your Commander at that stage, can you recall?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I think it was Brig Hennie Muller.

MR CORNELIUS: You were transferred from John Vorster to Diepkloof in Soweto, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, from John Vorster I went to Diepkloof Unrest Unit, from where I was transferred to the Security Branch.

MR CORNELIUS: It was just after the '76 unrest.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you mention on page 23 that in January 1977 you were transferred back to the Security Branch.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What was the general nature of actions if you interrogated suspects?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, at that stage the interrogation of suspects was about the identification of people and the finding of people in order to arrest them successfully.

MR CORNELIUS: Were people assaulted or tortured?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, it was an everyday occurrence or principle way of action as I was taught as a young policeman.

MR CORNELIUS: This was accepted, no disciplinary actions were then taken against you?

MR VAN HEERDEN: They never took any disciplinary action against me in my career as a policeman.

MR CORNELIUS: On page 24 you make mention of an incident of Lucky Mahlangu, it was only one paragraph. Just tell the Committee what was the Gogh Street incident.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, this happened - a shooting incident in John Vorster Square where three former ANC members apparently entered a panelbeating business and started shooting the people inside. Two of the members of the group of three were arrested at the scene and one of the members escaped after the shooting.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you know what the political motives or the objectives were of these people?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, at that stage when we arrived at the premises we were told that they were ANC terrorists and that they had weapons, which were also found at a later stage.

MR CORNELIUS: Were you at the scene?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the purpose of leading this, the Gogh Street thing, is that because I've asked a question about it, or is it related to this incident you ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: No, it leads directly to the assault committed on the victim. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Very well. Were people then arrested after the Gogh Street incident?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Two people were arrested.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you recall their names?

MR VAN HEERDEN: As I refer to it, Lucky Mahlangu, I can recall his name and there was another member with him.

MR CORNELIUS: Another person?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you do then with the suspects?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, just to give you some background. What happened on that specific day is that we arrived at the Security Branch and there was chaos when they reported that terrorists shot people so close to John Vorster. The second incident of chaos occurred about where is Gogh Street was, nobody knew where it was although it was very close to the police station, or was adjacent to the police station.

Everybody was commanded to drive to the scene because they thought that the person who got away was still on the premises. With our arrival the two people were there.

MR CORNELIUS: Were they arrested?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, they were arrested at that stage. We were given instructions to go and find the person who got away. Because of this instruction I slapped on of the two and also hit him with the fist to try to find out where the other one was. I do not know which one of the two it was however.

MR CORNELIUS: I see in your application you mention that

"I recall Lucky Mahlangu who was assaulted by me"

Is that how you recalled it?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, the surname Mahlangu or the name Lucky, this is the person that was given the death sentence at a later court case.

MR CORNELIUS: Is this the person who you assaulted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I'm not quite sure who it was. There were two and they sat next to each other, I assaulted one of them.

MR SIBANYONI: I'm sorry Mr Cornelius. Maybe before he proceeds to shed some light, if you turn to page 39 you find an appendix 4, which is part of the ANC submissions and then under 1977 you get there a date: "Unplanned Action - Skirmish with SAP", and obviously the names which are mentioned there is that one of Monty Motloung, the one who was beaten and suffered brain damage and the other name is Solomon Mahlangu, who was hanged. Which means Lucky Mahlangu is the one who eventually escaped. The one who escaped, was he ever captured?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, no, Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: So if I think in ...(indistinct) that the one who was eventually hanged in 1979, is Solomon Mahlangu.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's right. The only other thing I could remember from the two is that one of the two members, Lucky and the other person, one of them was beaten over the head with one of the scorpion weapons that was found on him and his head bled a lot. So it could have been the other person and it could be then that I assaulted Lucky. I do not know if you understood me.

I explained that there were two members arrested, the one member of the two was bleeding heavily on his head and he was apparently one of the people in the warehouse, grabbed a weapon from him and he hit him with the weapon over the head. So that could have then been the other person, that I then did assault Lucky Mahlangu, but I didn't assault the one that was bleeding heavily from the head.

MR SIBANYONI: What eventually happened with the one you assaulted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I gave him two or three slaps and I hit him with the fist and asked him where did the other person go, he said he doesn't know, so we then left the warehouse to search the adjacent warehouses, then we went to Park Station, as well as to the taxi rank. They were then taken to John Vorster Square and I never ever had anything else to do with them.

MR SIBANYONI: Yes, but I'm just trying to correct this, it cannot be Lucky, because Lucky was never arrested, he escaped.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I'm not sure which one of the two, that's ... but one of the two members was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think what my colleague is putting to you, there were three people?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Two were arrested ...

MR VAN HEERDEN: One got away.

CHAIRPERSON: The one turned out to be Monty Motloung, he suffered brain damage. The other one was Solomon Mahlangu, he was convicted and executed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Then it must have been Solomon.

CHAIRPERSON: And then there's another person, a third one, which my colleague suggests would be Lucky Mahlangu. I don't know whether it was Lucky Mahlangu, or even a Mahlangu, but maybe you've got information that points to a third person being Lucky Mahlangu.

MR SIBANYONI: Yes, a person who escaped who was never arrested, yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I assaulted one of the two members that was arrested.

MR CORNELIUS: So to clear it up ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And in all probability that would be Solomon Mahlangu.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The one who was later executed, because you told us you didn't assault the person who was bleeding ...

MR VAN HEERDEN: That was hit over the head.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and who presumably received damage to the brain during this assault.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and if you look at page 42 of the bundle you'll see there's a statement, reference CA0182, they also say there

"One of the cadres who was with Solomon and Monty, a Lucky Mahlangu, escaped."

MR VAN HEERDEN: Then it's correct as they reflect it there, Mr Chair.

MR CORNELIUS: So it's possible that you did assault Solomon Mahlangu?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you give the Committee a bit more detail about the assault, how did you assault him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, because I'm capable of speaking a black language I was also asked to do the interrogations. I just asked him where the other person was, I slapped him then and he hit him with the fist.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you recall how many times you slapped him in the face?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was two or three times, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And with the fist?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I would also say two or three times.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you hit his body or his head or face?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I slapped him through the face and hit him with the fist in the face.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you get a reaction from him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He just said the person left and he does not know where he went.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you go any further in your actions against the suspect?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That was the last time that I ever had any contact with them.

MR CORNELIUS: Who did you hand him over to?

MR VAN HEERDEN: We did not hand them over, we were then given the instructions to go and look for the other person who escaped.

MR CORNELIUS: He was then placed under arrest and your other comrades or colleagues took him to John Vorster Square.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, I took the two members to John Vorster Square.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you at a later stage participate in further assaults on this person?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That was the last time that I had anything to do with the two members.

MR CORNELIUS: You did not have personal feelings of malice towards this person?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you think that you were acting against the so-called enemy of the country, or who did you think you acted against?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I was acting against the enemy of the country.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any reward for this action against this person?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you testify in the High Court?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Were any disciplinary actions taken against you?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You apply for amnesty for assault, apart from the assault itself, or the fact that you assaulted Mahlangu, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chair, I think I'll complete the full amnesty application, are we going to finish this in portions to make it easier?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you could proceed with the full application.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

I will now take you to page 26 of the documents in front of the Committee and this entails the so-called attack on Cafe Zurich.

During this incident you were part of which unit of the Police?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I was then part of the Investigative Unit of the Security Branch at John Vorster Square.

MR CORNELIUS: After the Cafe Zurich bomb explosion, you already applied for amnesty and you are awaiting the Judgment of the so-called Why Not Bomb incident which was an act of revenge, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: When did this incident take place?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was July 1988.

MR CORNELIUS: And according to the information that you received, what happened at Cafe Zurich?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, Capt Zeelie was the investigating officer in this case, I was seconded to go and assist him in the investigation and interrogation of suspects.

MR CORNELIUS: According to your information who was responsible for the explosion at Cafe Zurich?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was a trained ANC member, Mr Chairperson, called Peter Dlamini.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you tell the Committee, according to your investigations, what explosive devices were used?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was a handgrenade that was detonated with a mini limpet mine detonator.

MR CORNELIUS: And can you recall where this handgrenade was placed?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was first placed on a table in the restaurant and afterwards it was placed under the counter by the waiter after Peter Dlamini left the premises.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you at a later stage ascertain what the waiter's name was?

MR VAN HEERDEN: His name was George.

MR CORNELIUS: During the explosion were people injured?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, if I recall correctly the owner and her son were injured.

MR CORNELIUS: Was anybody killed?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Nobody was killed.

MR CORNELIUS: To further your investigation concerning Peter Dlamini, what did you do?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, various interrogations took place with George.

MR CORNELIUS: You did inform the Investigative Unit of the TRC concerning George, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And the investigative officer who investigated this case, was he informed about George?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, he was informed about him.

MR CORNELIUS: And they indicated that they will attempt to find him in order to appear in this case, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you inform the Committee what your action was against George, the waiter.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, it came to light that George protected Peter Dlamini, in that he did not tell us that he knew him and knew where he lived, and because of that he was then detained under Section 29, after which I assaulted him to get the truth out of him.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you indicate to the Committee what method of assault did you use on this waiter, George?

MR VAN HEERDEN: There were various methods, he was physically assaulted. We used a shocking device ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What physical assault?

MR VAN HEERDEN: This was kicking and slapping.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you recall how many times you hit him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was various times, several.

MR CORNELIUS: With an instrument or?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, it was with fist and the flat hand.

MR CORNELIUS: Where on his body?

MR VAN HEERDEN: The whole body, his face, his back, his body.

CHAIRPERSON: Did this happen on one occasion or was it over a day or a few days?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was over a period of, I would say six hours.

MR CORNELIUS: This George, did he have clothes on?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, after I assaulted him by slapping him and hitting him, we undressed him, took his clothes off.

MR CORNELIUS: Where did this assault take place?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was in a toilet in John Vorster Square.

MR CORNELIUS: After his clothing was removed, what did you do then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: We poured water over him and applied a shocking device.

MR CORNELIUS: Where did you apply the shock device?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I applied it to his toe.

MR CORNELIUS: Did the suspect bleed?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, he was bleeding from his mouth and nose.

CHAIRPERSON: Because of what, what was the cause?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I would say because of the assault on him.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this not related to the shock device?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: This shock device, is it a machine that you turn like a telephone device?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: It is not an electrical current, or is it a current that can kill?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson, it doesn't kill.

MR CORNELIUS: Because of the assault on the suspect, did you get any information?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: What information did you receive?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He accompanied us to a flat in Berea.

MR CORNELIUS: Did he give any indication who owned this flat?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was two cousins and himself that owned this flat.

MR CORNELIUS: Could you get any information concerning Peter Dlamini?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He did provide us with information concerning who Peter Dlamini was and that he was a trained MK member, that he knew him and that he did place the handgrenade in Cafe Zurich.

MR CORNELIUS: This specific Peter Dlamini, according to your knowledge where did he live or reside?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was in Dube in Soweto.

MR CORNELIUS: And the Peter Dlamini who is present here today, do you know him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I do not know him at all, as well as the real Peter Dlamini to whom I refer, I have never seen him before.

MR CORNELIUS: At the previous sitting of the Amnesty Committee you spoke to Peter Dlamini and he indicated that it's not him.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The Peter Dlamini who is sitting in front of the Committee now comes from Tembisa and the cases in which he is involved in, this person does not know anything about them.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you not have knowledge of?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, this person Peter Dlamini sitting in front of me, he doesn't know anything about them.

MR CORNELIUS: I understand. With your arrival at the flat in Berea, what did you find there?

MR VAN HEERDEN: There were two ladies, Nomsa and Phosa, they were arrested.

MR CORNELIUS: Who arrested them?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Capt Zeelie did.

MR CORNELIUS: Were the women assaulted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, not at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your answer, were they assaulted at a later stage?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Were they removed from the flat?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Before they were removed we searched the flat and after the search we found the detonator, similar to what was used in the explosion. We found it in the speaker box of the flat.

MR CORNELIUS: Was this a hi-fi system?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, it was the intercom system that you can find in the older flats, an intercom that was built in the wall.

MR CORNELIUS: Similar to which we can find about us now?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, it was in the wall with a cover.

MR CORNELIUS: It was a speaker?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Who found it there?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Capt Zeelie found it.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: From there we went to John Vorster Square.

MR CORNELIUS: With the two arrested ladies?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, with the two arrested ladies.

MR CORNELIUS: And then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: With our arrival there we started with the interrogation of the two women in order to find out where Peter Dlamini was.

MR CORNELIUS: I can see in your application you say that another person was assaulted, who was kicked and slapped and a shock device was also used. What do you say about that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, there I refer to George and not to the two females.

MR CORNELIUS: And you will agree with me that if you look at your application it creates the impression that they were hit like that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Is it not so?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, it's not true, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Would you like to correct that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I'd like to correct it in that the person who was shocked, hit with the fist and slapped, was George and not the two woman.

MR CORNELIUS: Were the two women assaulted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I slapped them once or twice and furthermore I did not do anything else, I did not assault them further.

MR CORNELIUS: Both of them?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, both of them.

MR CORNELIUS: With the open hand?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, with the open hand.

CHAIRPERSON: Did other people assault them?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: What part of the body?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was in the face.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you succeed in getting information?

MR VAN HEERDEN: They immediately co-operated and took us to the house of Peter Dlamini in Dube, as well as other houses in Orlando and I think it White City where Peter Dlamini could have been.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you then launch a further investigation?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, we went as far as Hazy View in Nelspruit, where we looked for Peter.

MR CORNELIUS: This slapping of the women, did you at any stage assault them again?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, I'm not a coward to kick or slap a woman, after those two slaps and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But you did do it.

M VAN HEERDEN: I'm talking now of cruel assault. I did slap them but I did not assault them as I would assault a man.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you assault them again?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, never again.

MR CORNELIUS: Were any criminal charges laid against you?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I think George was a State witness in this case.

MR CORNELIUS: Was this according to the Act on Terrorism?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you know if he was convicted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I think yes, he was convicted, there were some convictions.

MR CORNELIUS: This Peter Dlamini, according to you knowledge, what happened to him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, after I left the Police in 1991, I heard that he was arrested by the Boputhatswana Security Police in Boputhatswana.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that there was a conviction, who was convicted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I think it was Nomsa and two of ladies were prosecuted.

MR CORNELIUS: And you say as far as you know there was a conviction?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Just for clarity's sake - Mr Chairperson, I've got two bundles, one is marked Cafe Zurich, which was given to me at a previous opportunity and there's an annexure that I'd like to refer to, it is marked page 37 of the bundle, it is a presentation to the Human Rights Violations Commission.

What I'd like to ask Mr van Heerden, in section 3 on this page - if I can make it available to the Committee, they specifically asked:

"Can you identify the perpetrators?"

and then he says:

"It was Boerman and Engelbrecht"

Did you see that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, did see that.

MR CORNELIUS: And that is apparently the assault that took place on the other Peter Dlamini.

MR VAN HEERDEN: It is possibly so, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: But not this Peter Dlamini?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: So you apply here for amnesty for the assault on the waiter George who worked at Cafe Zurich, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you also apply for amnesty for the assault on Phosa and Nomsa, in that you slapped them a few times?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: I would like to refer you to page 29 of the application Mr Van Heerden, under paragraph 5 you see

"The Arrest of Edward Mokati in 1988"

Can you see that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you indicate to the Committee who Edward Mokati was.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Edward Mokati was a trained ANC member.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you tell me if he was involved in any activities?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Mr Chairperson, he was involved in two bomb explosions in Vanderbijl Square in Johannesburg.

MR CORNELIUS: Were you part of the investigative in those specific explosions?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: What type of explosives were used?

MR VAN HEERDEN: They used limpet mines. They were placed in concrete rubbish bins.

MR CORNELIUS: Were people injured?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Various people were injured.

MR CORNELIUS: According to the information that you had at that time, who was involved in these explosions?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was Edward Mokati and another trained ANC member with the MK names of Silver.

MR CORNELIUS: Silver?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: This Edward Mokati, was he ever arrested?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, he was arrested by the askaris from Vlakplaas?

MR CORNELIUS: Were you involved in the arrest?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: After his arrest where was he taken?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was taken to the Sandton Security Branch, to the investigative offices.

MR CORNELIUS: What was the purpose of it?

MR VAN HEERDEN: To question him concerning the pointing out of members who operated with him.

MR CORNELIUS: Were you present when he pointed it out?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you seize any items?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct Mr Chairperson, he took us to a house in Soweto, where there were two limpet mines that he handed over to us and where he also locally pointed out trained people.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you act against the people who were pointed out?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, people were arrested.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you follow this up and interrogate the arrested people?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you recall the names of the people who were arrested?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson. There were a number of them, I'm talking about seven or eight people who were identified and who were arrested.

MR CORNELIUS: Edward Mokati was one of them?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you assault ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He was arrested beforehand?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And because of his identifications you arrested a further seven or eight people?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, and he also handed over limpet mines that he had in his possession at the house in Soweto.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to the seven or eight others?

MR VAN HEERDEN: They were arrested and taken to Sandton, where they were interrogated.

CHAIRPERSON: And?

MR VAN HEERDEN: And some of those members were also assaulted.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you participate in the assault and interrogation?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you do?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, if I can recall correctly I assaulted the male members who were arrested, I physically assaulted them by kicking, hitting and hitting with the fist.

MR CORNELIUS: Were there females arrested?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you assault the women?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I did not.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you assault all the other male members?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Some of them, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you assault Edward Mokati?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Edward Mokati was never assaulted because he was already recruited as an askari and he gave his full co-operation right from the start.

MR CORNELIUS: The other members, did they participate in the assaults?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Some of the members participated in the operation. I do not know what all of them did. The people who were arrested were divided in groups and you had to interrogate this person and he had to interrogate that person. They were interrogated by various different members.

MR CORNELIUS: Did this occur in different rooms, or was it in one room?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, it happened in different rooms.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you testify and tell us what happened in the other rooms?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I cannot say what the other members did.

MR CORNELIUS: How many did you assault?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I assaulted two of the men.

MR CORNELIUS: Now I understand that at a certain stage Edward Mokati did lay a charge of assault against the police.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Was this heard?

MR VAN HEERDEN: During his court case the point was that I assaulted him and it was mentioned.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then in the court? This was the High Court in Witwatersrand?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that's correct Mr Chairperson, and his defence apologised, in that they laid a false claim of assault against me.

CHAIRPERSON: How was he charged, he then gave his full co-operation right from the start? He was recruited as an askari, how was he then charged?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, I will not be able to answer you on that. What I can recall is that the search was for MK Silver who was his Commander, and if the Security Branch would have arrested Silver, Mokati would then have testified against him, but because we could not find Silver, he was the only person who was arrested for the act, the explosion at Vanderbijl and he was then charged with it. I'm now saying what I heard, the reason why he was charged.

MR CORNELIUS: During the assault - I'm now back at the group of seven or eight, can you recall who was present there?

MR VAN HEERDEN: There were members from John Vorster Square Security Branch, there were members from Alexandra Security Branch, there were members from, I think Soweto Security Branch.

MR CORNELIUS: So it was a large group?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, it was a large group of members, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you recall the names?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I cannot Chairperson. If I have to give you a name, then I might give you an incorrect name. These were large groups of members Chairperson, I think the members of the Unrest Unit were also there to penetrate the houses.

CHAIRPERSON: But who was the Commander, who gave you instructions?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I think it was Col Neels van Wyk.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he present there?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I believe he had to be present there the whole time.

MR CORNELIUS: Was there an incident where the people were threatened with firearms or not?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, there was a charge laid against me at some stage, that I in Soweto during the search of a house, had pointed a firearm on a person.

MR CORNELIUS: Were you convicted of it?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I was never charged with it because I never did it and Col Neels van Wyk put the firearm into the person's mouth, not I.

MR CORNELIUS: But this sounds to me like another incident that is not relevant here to your amnesty application, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And I see this incident is mentioned on page 31 of the documents, but as I see it now this is another incident that has nothing to do with Mokati.

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, this is still part of the search of Mokati, the pointings out that Mokati did in Soweto.

MR CORNELIUS: Give us more detail there. Was this during the arrest of the other group of people that the Neels van Wyk firearm incident took place?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you are saying that you were falsely charged there?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So I assume you do not request amnesty for that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So here you apply for amnesty for the assaults on the two persons of whom you cannot remember the names.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You cannot recall their names?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you are telling the Committee that you did not assault Mokati?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I did not Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we just get particulars. They were assaulted at John Vorster Square?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, at Alexandra Police Station. Not the police station, a sub-branch of the Security Branch had their office there and they were taken there after they were arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give us more particulars of this exact place.

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was in the industrial area, Chairperson. The Security Branch worked in Soweto, a section of theirs had their office in the industrial area.

MR CORNELIUS: And you are saying that this was two men?

MR VAN HEERDEN: From the group I only assaulted the two men, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Their ages, if you can recall?

MR VAN HEERDEN: They were young, they were young boys, I would say 18/19, maybe 17. These were young boys.

MR CORNELIUS: Were they bleeding, were they injured because of these assaults?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: They did not bleed?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: That is the evidence of the applicant up to this point, Chairperson. I would just like to reserve my rights with regard to the issue of the provision of arms, because I need to take an important decision there. I think we can conclude the evidence now and commence with the cross-examination and then later I shall tell you what the position is with regard to the provision of the arms. Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Who will start?

MR NYAWUZA: Chairperson, I think Mr Cornelius has left - there's an application, I think on page 34

"Bomb Explosion - Springs"

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, one day I heard on the radio, or someone told me that, I think Col de Kock gave evidence that we had already received amnesty and that this was done in chambers, this specific amnesty. I am not entirely certain, but something tells me that we had already received amnesty for that incident. No-one was injured, it was just damage to a house.

MR CORNELIUS: May I just mention Chairperson, that I was not involved in all the applications of this particular applicant, I only later entered the fray.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Cornelius, you must make sure what the position is, if nothing has happened in this regard, we would like to hear as many of these things as possible or get information about them and conclude them if we can.

MR CORNELIUS: I shall contact the previous legal representative, Chairperson. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Will we then rule that this would be standing down and you'll get further information about this one? On page 34

"The Bomb explosion at Springs"

MR CORNELIUS: I will do so, I will make a phone call. Thank you, Judge.

MR NYAWUZA: It's okay with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we would start with cross-examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: I'm more than happy to start.

Mr van Heerden, you used electrical devices to administer electrical shocks to your suspects, is that your evidence?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I did that and that was a common use by many policemen.

MR RICHARD: Now could you please tell us in simple terms, that if a shock was administered to somebody's wrist, what sort of marks or evidence would it leave behind?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, no marks, there will be no marks, because it was a fine copper threat that one just places against the person's skin, but there are medical tests that later

prove that copper was attached to the skin if one goes to a doctor, but there will be no physical mark or injury.

MR RICHARD: So there wouldn't be a blister or a scar?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Because I have Ms Shezi in the gallery, who will say that she has scars on her wrists. Would you like to examine the scars on her wrists?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could you tell us, that would be?

MR RICHARD: The Mokati.

CHAIRPERSON: Nomsa or ...?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, my answer to that is if it's injuries to her wrist, then it could be from when she was wearing handcuffs. That is the most general incident that I have come across in my career, that handcuffs were attached to a person's wrists and this could cause chafe marks or injuries, but not the copper wire, no.

MR RICHARD: And if I produced expert evidence to say that blistering and scarring can occur, may occur, I don't say it always occurs?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I shall not deny that but during my incidents and in my knowledge of this, there were no marks.

MR RICHARD: So in other words Ms Shezi, you say is not telling the truth if she says that?

CHAIRPERSON: No, he's saying that could have happened he can't deny it, but he's got no experience of that.

MR RICHARD: However, you have extensive experience of what happens as a result of shocks?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: Now Edward Mokati incident, now which ANC structure were you investigating, was it MK or was it SYCO, or was it a cell of the ANC's political ...

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was the ANC. The specific investigation was Edward Mokati's involvement in the bomb plantings at Vanderbijl Square that was investigated.

MR RICHARD: And you had reason to believe that John Itumaleng Dube was the Commander of that cell? Silver.

MR VAN HEERDEN: If you refer to Silver, yes.

MR RICHARD: Do you know Silver's full names?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson, I only know him as Silver.

MR RICHARD: Now what made you suspect Edward Mokati?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, Edward Mokati was arrested by the askaris while he was in possession - he had the safety pin of a limpet mine in his bag.

MR RICHARD: Now why would the safety pin be in his bag and not with the limpet mine, because if you've taken the safety pin out it would have detonated the limpet mine?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, just to facilitate this and just to point this out to the defence, I think we are talking about something here that could be sorted out quite easily. I think it was a day or two after the second explosion at Vanderbijl, Mokati was arrested at Park Station while in possession of the limpet mine's ring, the safety pin, when he went to show a friend of his where he planted the limpet mine. So the ring that was found on Mokati, was found one or two days afterwards, not immediately at the explosion.

MR RICHARD: Now while questioning him, what information were you asking him for?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I can highlight a few questions to you of who he was, where he came from, what training he had undergone, how he had entered the country, what structure, who is Commander was and what his instructions were.

MR RICHARD: And did you ask him questions as to who else was in his cell, who else worked with him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, as I have said previously, Edward Mokati gave everything to us voluntarily without him being assaulted, because the promise was made to him that he could become an askari and that he would not be charged if Silver was arrested.

MR RICHARD: Was he charged?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Eventually he was charged and convicted.

MR RICHARD: Now did he reveal the names of the other members of his Mdeni group?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly what he said at that stage, but he did bring out Silver and other members whom he pointed out to us that evening, that they had trained locally here. The only two externally trained members were him and Silver, the rest of the members that he pointed out were persons that they had trained locally in Soweto.

MR RICHARD: And do you recognise Ms Shezi in the back of the hall?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Sir, I don't recognise her.

MR RICHARD: Now if she were to give evidence and were to say that some five or six people, not seven or eight people, were arrested as a result of Edward Mokati's information, would you disagree or agree? - including her.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Five or six?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That could be so, I'm not sure, that's why I said seven or eight. I'm not sure how many people were arrested or detained that evening.

MR RICHARD: Sir, speak Afrikaans, you don't have to switch to English.

Do you remember the physical condition of Edward Mokati when he took you out and pointed out various places and people in Soweto?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And you say he was uninjured?

MR VAN HEERDEN: As far as I could he was uninjured, he didn't have any injuries to his body at the stage when we went out.

MR RICHARD: And you would disagree that his face was visibly damaged and swollen?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I will deny that, because that would have been obvious.

MR RICHARD: Now where did you take Ms Shezi and the others that you arrested, where did you remove them to?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson as I've said, if my memory serves me correctly, after they were arrested they were taken to the Security Branch office at Alexandra.

MR RICHARD: And there you had a similar purpose in questioning them, and that's to find out who else they knew, where other members or the unit or cell were?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now did you know anything of a relationship of a personal nature between Silver, Mr Dube, and any of the people that you arrested?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, the only thing I know about Silver was that he and Edward Mokati planted the two bombs at Vanderbijl and that he was the Commander of his unit.

MR RICHARD: Now did you know anything about a relationship between any one of the persons who you had arrested and Silver, personal?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I have no idea what the gentlemen is referring to, I don't know about it.

CHAIRPERSON: He's asking whether you know whether any of the person arrested was his girlfriend or not.

MR RICHARD: Did you know that Ms Shezi was his lover, his girlfriend?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I didn't know about that.

MR RICHARD: Because I put it to you that you're lying, that she will say that she was questioned for hours on that point, as to where he was, by you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I think the learned friend across here is also lying, because in my evidence I said that I never questioned the woman in the second group, I was involved with Edward Mokati. The night after the people were arrested that were pointed out, I questioned two men, not the women.

MR RICHARD: Do you admit or deny that she had electric current applied to her so as to induce pain and suffering?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, if she was electrocuted or shocked, it was not done by me. I cannot say whether she was shocked or not, but it was definitely not done by me.

MR RICHARD: Yes, but you admit that members of the Security Forces did shock women.

MR VAN HEERDEN: But Sir, then don't call me a liar, say who electrocuted and don't say it was me. I said categorically to you I never touched any female from the second group. I was involved in assaulting two males, not the female.

MR RICHARD: And then how would you explain that scars consistent with electric shocks still appear on her arms?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, it may be, what he's saying is he didn't do it. I don't think he stated that other members of the Security Police couldn't have done it.

MR RICHARD: I think we've established that. I understand that the witness has said that he doesn't dispute that it might have happened and it might have been done by somebody else, but he knows nothing about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And as they say, the question has been asked.

Now tell me, when you applied torture, for that is what it was, to a suspect, was the objective to get a confession?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, a confession without proof didn't work, to me it was about I wanted the other people or the equipment that they had used and thereafter a confession would be relevant with regard to what the people would say in court.

MR RICHARD: So you accept that then the purpose of the torture was firstly, to get the information and then secondly, to get the confession in such a way that they mutually reinforced and corroborated each other?

MR VAN HEERDEN: If you state it that way, yes.

MR RICHARD: In other words, if Edward Mokati was found with a detonator ring in his possession, you had a circumstantial piece of evidence? Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: And then if you got him to confess to putting a landmine, limpet mine in Vanderbijl bus terminus, you would have the right sort of combination of circumstantial evidence, physical evidence and the confession, so that means the confession would be believed?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, Edward Mokati's case it was not as the learned friend here states it, Edward Mokati told us everything voluntarily. He told us he placed the bomb at Vanderbijl, we did not know he placed the bomb there. He had the safety pin. He told us that he placed the two bombs there. He told us Silver was his Commander. He told us that he would take us to Soweto to find these people. I cannot even recall whether Edward Mokati made a confession before a Magistrate, I cannot recall that.

MR RICHARD: I never said he made a confession, I gave you a proposition as to how the combination of circumstantial evidence and confession based evidence could be useful to your investigation and prosecution.

MR VAN HEERDEN: But Sir, you were implying that assault was at the leading of everything.

CHAIRPERSON: Whenever you reach a convenient stage we could take the lunch adjournment, but if you want to finish this point, carry on.

MR RICHARD: I'm quite happy to adjourn at this point and I'll carry on the point after lunch.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn until 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ANDRIES VAN HEERDEN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: I've noticed that - well it happened that you haven't placed yourself on record and for whom you're appearing in this matter, so would you kindly do so on behalf of the victims, both of you.

MR NYAWUZA: My name is Oupa Nyawuza, I represent the victims in the Cafe Zurich matter and I was also instructed on the Springs Bomb, which we've been advised will be postponed pending a follow-up thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, you're appearing for the victims, who are they?

MR NYAWUZA: The first it's Nomsa Raraza and Mr Peter Bafana Dlamini.

CHAIRPERSON: Nomsa Raraza, is she alleging that she's been injured, that she's been assaulted?

MR NYAWUZA: She was involved, not necessarily in the Cafe Zurich matter, but - in fact, in my consultation with her, her instructions are that she was arrested for a matter that does not relate to the Cafe Zurich matter. So she was not injured or tortured for the Cafe Zurich matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in this matter, why would you suggest that she's a victim, in terms of the Act?

MR NYAWUZA: I would withdraw that, I don't see her being a victim in this matter, because she doesn't know anything about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. And Mr Peter Dlamini?

MR NYAWUZA: Mr Peter Dlamini's testimony, in fact in my consultation with him as well, he contends that he's not involved in the Cafe Zurich matter, there's nothing that he knows about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the police assault him in this - well not the police, this applicant, did this applicant assault him in any way?

MR NYAWUZA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Not in the Cafe Zurich matter?

MR NYAWUZA: Not in the Cafe Zurich matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Now will you kindly address us on what your interests would be in this matter and why you say you're appearing on behalf of victims in this matter?

MR NYAWUZA ADDRESSES: As it pleases the Committee. Committee Members and the Honourable Judge, my interest in this matter relates to the consultation that I had with Mr Dlamini. Mr Dlamini was assaulted by the police and Mr Dlamini can't with certainty say Mr van Heerden was not part and parcel of the people that tortured him. And having gone through the bundle and having names of Nomsa Raraza and Virginia and Mr Dlamini, Mr van Heerden's matter correlates to some extent, because in my consultation with Mr Dlamini, I was advised by Mr Dlamini that there were two women that he was working with. In fact, when they fled they started by arresting Nomsa and they came and arrested him in the mountain where he was exercising. So that to some extent will correlate with what Mr van Heerden has testified today, that there were two women involved and they were looking for a certain Peter Dlamini, who at the time was a husband to Nomsa Raraza.

The only dispute, you know, the difference that we have is where these people were arrested and where they were tortured, because my instructions are that they were arrested somewhere near the border of Swaziland, taken to Badplaas and tortured there. From there they were taken to Tembisa Police Station where they were further tortured, taken to Kempton Park Police Station, further tortured and charged on Monday, with attempted murder, which incidents did not at all relate to the Cafe Zurich matter and they were subsequently acquitted.

CHAIRPERSON: You see the trouble is, you're entitled to be here if you're an interested or an implicated person. Now you're not implicated in the sense that you were a co-perpetrator with the applicant, you didn't assault anybody, you're not a co-policeman.

MR NYAWUZA: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: You might have been a victim, ja, of a perpetrator, but now we'll have to decide that this perpetrator assaulted you, in order for you to be a victim in this particular application, because if he isn't the person who assaulted you but Mr X, then you should be at the hearing of Mr X and not at this hearing.

MR NYAWUZA: Ja I follow that, Honourable Judge. I think in the light of what he said and in the light of what I have after my consultation, my submission would be that I don't see Mr Peter Dlamini being a victim herein.

CHAIRPERSON: You see we heard the evidence too of the applicant that he had a conversation with your client and I understood it that it's been agreed that he didn't assault your client.

MR NYAWUZA: Exactly, I agree with that as well. Those are my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if he didn't assault your client and he wasn't - well you can't say whether he was involved in assaulting Nomsa, for instance, because on his evidence he did assault Nomsa.

MR NYAWUZA: Yes, I agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: But not your client.

MR NYAWUZA: Ja, but not Mr Dlamini.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I leave it in your hands, but you should consider your position in this one and tell us whether you're proceeding with, whether you've got a real interest in this one.

MR NYAWUZA: Honourable Judge, I don't see why I should I proceed, in that I think the definition of the victim in the Act, is clear, that one has got to have been assaulted. So my client has not been assaulted and thus cannot fall within the ambit of the definition of the victim as defined in the Act. So in the premise thereof, I think I won't be proceeding.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but we don't want your client to be sort of ousted out these proceedings if he feels that he indeed has an interest here and that he should be heard. So you should decide on that and make sure that you're ad idem with your client.

MR NYAWUZA: My instructions are clear, Honourable Judge and Committee Members, my client was assaulted by Engelbrecht and a certain Boerman, those are my instructions, that "I don't remember Van Heerden assaulting me". And if we try to look at the applicant's version and what my client's version is, the only connection that one can bring to the whole thing is that there's mention of Nomsa and there's mention of Virginia Phosa, and unfortunately he doesn't remember the name of the other women that they were involved with. So that's the only correlation that we have. But as regards the bombing of the Cafe Zurich and him being arrested for Cafe Zurich, he doesn't know about it, so there is no meeting point besides the names.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I leave it in your hands, if you want to be present and proceed, then you're welcome to do so, but if your client feels that he hasn't got an interest in this matter, then we'd like to have clarity on that.

MR NYAWUZA: Can I quickly take instructions from him?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

ON RESUMPTION

MR NYAWUZA: ... Committee Members, I'm indebted to the Committee. Mr Dlamini is not going to proceed with this matter, in fact he doesn't see himself as a victim. I said to him he could address the Committee on that, if he feels that there's anything that he can tell the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Well perhaps you could assist us. You've been married to Nomsa, is that correct?

MR DLAMINI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: She's not present here, could you perhaps assist us where we could find her? Because it seems as though she has a real interest here and that she's been assaulted.

MR DLAMINI: I do not know where to find her.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, if I may intervene there. We do know what her address is, in fact she was served with a notice through her employer at her workplace, so we know where we can find her.

CHAIRPERSON: And she's previously attended I believe, at a previous postponement of something.

MR MAPOMA: Well I'm not sure about the previous hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: But she's been served and she didn't turn up.

MR MAPOMA: Ja, she did not. And actually, Chairperson, I do have a statement here in the working file of the Investigator, Mr Calitz, where she was consulted by our Investigator, Mr Calitz, and she made a statement. I've got it here, I can hand it up to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Did she indicate where she wishes to oppose the application?

MR MAPOMA: No, she says actually

"I was informed by Mr Calitz of the TRC, Johannesburg, that Mr van Heerden applied for amnesty regarding an assault on me and Phosa. I do not want to oppose his application for amnesty. I wish to attend the hearing."

That's what she says in the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: But if perhaps you could somehow tell her, well the hearing is - if she wants to attend the hearing, she will have to make arrangements to be here in a very short period of time.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Then you're not proceeding. Thank you for attending and thank you for your assistance in trying to clear up this, I don't know whether it's cleared up yet, but it's an obscurity how it happened, because the links are there, in fact that Nomsa must have given the Dlamini name to the police as far as we can see and that would be your client's name and not another Peter Dlamini's name, because she was in fact married to you or you were her husband at the time. Thank you. Okay Mr Richard, could you then proceed.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I may as well - I think it would more prudent to hand up this statement because interestingly, in this statement Nomsa places herself in almost the same position as Mr Dlamini, because in this statement - perhaps I may have to read it into the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, because I don't we've got enough copies to give everybody a copy. Could you read it into the record then.

MR MAPOMA READS STATEMENT OF NOMSA RARAZA INTO RECORD: Yes. She says

"During 1988 I was married to Peter Bafana Dlamini. Since divorced. Myself, Peter and a friend Virginia Phosa were visiting Peter's sister, Lindiwe, at Klazane. near Badplaas.

At Lindiwe's place the there of us were arrested by three black policemen and taken to Badplaas Police Station. There we met up with two white policemen dressed up in private clothes. They wanted to know if I had any information regarding Peter, because he was a comrade and apparently involved in criminal activities. I denied having any knowledge of that.

Myself and Phosa were assaulted at Badplaas Police Station. I was kicked by booted feet and punched by their fists. I was tortured and electrically shocked with an instrument. From Badplaas we were taken to Tembisa Police Station, where they continued torturing, assaulting and pointing firearms at us.

I was informed by Mr Calitz of the TRC, Johannesburg, that Mr van Heerden applied for amnesty regarding assault on me and Phosa. I do not want to oppose his application for amnesty. I wish to attend the hearing."

And then it goes on, she takes an oath. That's where it ends.

CHAIRPERSON: Could I pose this problem. According to the evidence of Mr van Heerden, they were arrested in a flat in Johannesburg or Hillbrow.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Chairperson. If I may just assist here, Peter's wife, I do not recall whether it was Nomsa or what her name was, she lives in Orlando West, we arrested her at her house in Orlando West. That is close to Mrs Mandela's house. She lived with her mother when we arrested her. And then at some stage before the explosion at Cafe Zurich, she worked at IGI in Nugget Street. That is why I'm saying I last met Mr Dlamini and his wife in Pretoria and something does not correlate here. It's exactly the same names, Peter Dlamini and Nomsa, but the people and the names that I refer to are not the same people.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you present when they were arrested?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson. The Peter Dlamini that I'm referring to, I was present when he was arrested in Berea, but when they were arrested in Badplaas ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am referring to the Nomsa that you arrested in ...

MR VAN HEERDEN: In the flat in Berea, yes. And then thereafter we arrested Peter Dlamini's wife in Orlando West, where she lived with her mother. It's not the same people, we have the same names but it wasn't the same people.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, if one name was the same, then it could be coincidence, but the name Nomsa and the name Peter Dlamini and the fact that they were married, it appears that the coincidence goes a bit too far.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's why I'm saying I cannot understand it, the names and everything else is the same but the persons, we cannot reconcile the persons and the names. When they were arrested, according to what the witness says before you, they were arrested in Badplaas and I was not even in the Police any longer. In April 1991, I retired from the Police.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know when they were arrested at Badplaas.

MR NYAWUZA: They were arrested in 1988.

CHAIRPERSON: 1988? At that stage you were still in the Police Force.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct yes, that is when we arrested the other people in Hillbrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, could we proceed and see what's happening further on, I don't know.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: (cont)

Thank you, Chairperson. For the sake of the record I will account who I represent at the moment. My first client is Ms Themba Shezi, one of the "verdagtes" arrested by the applicant in the Edward Mokati matter. My grouping of clients ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment, arrested Edward ... According to your client was she arrested after being pointed out by George?

MR RICHARD: Arrested after being pointed out by Edward.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, thank you.

MR RICHARD: The other grouping is what can be termed the Gogh Street Shooting. There there's Mrs Mahlangu, that's the mother of Solly Mahlangu. Then there's Anna Mahlangu, that's Lucky's mother. Then there's Martha Motloung, she's the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Lucky, I believe Lucky himself he's also present.

MR RICHARD: He's also here present.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you appearing for him too or not?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And for his mother?

MR RICHARD: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR RICHARD: And then there's a Petrus Mahlangu, who is Lucky's uncle who was also arrested, and then there's Absolom Hlatshwayo, who was also arrested and tortured. And I believe for the time being that's the list of people that are here. Now the basis in both incidents of the opposition is that the applicant's evidence should be disbelieved as uncredible and therefore he should fail the test of full disclosure. Dishonest evidence can never be full disclosure. And so as not to take the Committee or my learned colleagues by surprise, if there are conflicting situations regarding the facts, many of those that I have already listed will give evidence to assert their version.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Thank you.

MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I'm sorry, just before Mr Richard proceeds, I note Chairperson, that the names of Lucky Mahlangu and his uncle and his ...(indistinct) they are being put here as victims on whose behalf Mr Richard is acting. If I understand it, Mr Lucky Mahlangu is not a victim in this application at all, because he's the person who escaped. He may well be a crucial witness but not a victim as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, he may be an interested party.

MR MAPOMA: Oh yes, oh yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If you had his name and his address you would have given him notice as an interested party, because he's being implicated in an offence that's been committed, but he didn't suffer any damage as a result of the actions of the police, as far as we know up to this moment.

MR RICHARD: It's not alleged that he was injured or harmed by the police in either of the incidents that I'm concerned with today, but he is an interested party. Mr Mapoma is quite correct in his observation.

CHAIRPERSON: The mother of Solomon may be a victim.

MR RICHARD: Correct, her son was executed as a result of ...

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: (cont)

Thank you. May I proceed?

Mr van Heerden, sitting on my left is Ms Shezi, have you ever seen her before?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not recognise her, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Mr Shezi will shortly stand up and point to scars on her ankles and her wrists, some of which she will say were caused by handcuffs, others were caused by electric shocks and she will say and give evidence that you personally and no-one else administered the electric current to her body. Do you persist in denying that you administered the shocks?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I deny that I assaulted her in any manner, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: She will also say that during the process of her interrogation she was raped. She will not be able to implicate any person because she had a sack over her head. Do you have any knowledge of whether she was raped by, specifically, the South African police? Because she accuses the police of raping her.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I have not knowledge of such an incident, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And she says at all material times you were in and near the environment where these things happened to her. Do you deny that you were near where she was interrogated?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, as I have already said earlier, when the people were arrested and brought to Alexandra, they were detained in an office or in some place of detention where we went in and out and some of the people were then left to some of the members of the Force, to be interrogated. I never spoke to this lady or questioned her or nothing. Possibly she can say who took her statement and who undertook her interrogation, then we can get clarity with regard to who assaulted her, because I did not work with her.

MR RICHARD: My question was far simpler than the answer I received. From your evidence it's common cause that those who were arrested as a result of what Edward Mokati said, were interrogated, in fact you admit shocking and beating some of them.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I think the learned friend of the court has the wrong end of the stick, I never said that I interrogated or shocked any people of Edward Mokati's.

MR RICHARD: Were you part of the arrest?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct.

MR RICHARD: Did you transport people to wherever the questioning and interrogation took place?

MR VAN HEERDEN: You want to keep on questioning and asking me questions, but you don't even know where it was.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't want you to get involved in a scrap between you two, please answer the questions and please put your questions straightforward to him, so that he could answer them. I'm not going to get involved in a battle or words here.

MR RICHARD: Did you transport people who were arrested to where they were interrogated?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I was part of the group that went to Soweto to go and arrest people who Edward Mokati pointed out. I did not transport any specific persons in my car, we were all in a group.

MR RICHARD: Were you where they were interrogated?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I was at Alexandra where the people were interrogated.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now if I called expert evidence which is to the effect that scars on Ms Shezi's body are consistent with shocking by electric current and torture in that manner, would you admit or deny that expert evidence?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, as I have already told you earlier, in my experience of applying those shock devices I never left any mark on a person or I never saw any mark on any person. If the witness says that there are marks, and as I have said earlier this could be caused by handcuffs that were placed on her wrists, but for the electrical shocks to cause such a mark, I do not know of anything like that.

MR RICHARD: In the circumstances, am I incorrect when I say that you deny that such expert evidence would be correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I did not say I deny it, I say it's improbable, because I have never seen any such marks where a person was shocked.

MR RICHARD: Very well. Then to revert to where we were immediately before lunch. I had put a hypothesis to you, I had never said to you that Edward Moraku(?) had signed a confession. What I had put to you was, is it true or not true that you as an investigating officer attached to the Security Branch or investigating such matters, would like to have both a confession and evidence other than the confession which supports the confession?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now I would then carry on to say that when you tortured somebody, one of your very specific objectives and purposes of administering the torture was to find out facts which would corroborate a confession.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now in the process of torturing somebody, is it not also correct that you would have your theory, your hypothesis as to how that particular crime or instance had been committed?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, hypotheses have never proved a case in the Security Police.

MR RICHARD: Would you have a theory, would you have a line of investigation that you were going down?

MR VAN HEERDEN: To prove whatever had happened on the scene of the crime, yes. It depends on what the person was involved in.

MR RICHARD: So you would have a theory as to what to investigate.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I'm telling you there is no theory, if a person planted a bomb he planted the bomb, you investigation the explosion at the premises. If there was a shooting incident one would investigate the shooting incident, one cannot place any hypotheses ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think what is being put to you is, if you start questioning him then you have in mind that he may be involved. That is your theory that because he was, for example in the vicinity, he may be involved and then you will put questions to try to prove that he was involved. There's nothing sinister in the issue that you would have had a theory, the only thing that is being put to you now is that you followed a certain line, because you regarded him as a suspect for some or other reason.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now what I find interesting is if I look through pages 8 onwards of your application, there you admit to being a party to people who attempted to spread aids, who planted bombs in night-clubs, who blew up Indian gentlemen's homes. May I ask a simple question? Why did you commit those particular acts for which you now apply for amnesty?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, at the time of the previous National Party's government who was in power, there was indoctrination from all sides on members of the Security Forces, I refer to the Army, to the Police, to Correctional Services, to the normal common SA citizen, insofar as it went to promote their political objectives or to promote the specific political party. The churches were involved in this propaganda of the National Party to incite everyone against the ANC and to label them as the devil, the dragon or whatever existed. I believed, similarly to any other MK member when he joined the ANC, that what he was doing was right. I am not saying today that what I did was right and I am not saying MK members, what they did in the past was right. My feeling today is that both of us were lied to by the politicians.

MR RICHARD: However, during this period 1988, your evidence then, if I understand the rhetoric that you've come back with, is that you believed in what you were brainwashed to believe and you were totally brainwashed yourself, is that not what you're saying?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Just like any other normal member of the police or a person who did not believe in the ANC, who was propagated against the ANC, I believed in what I did, that it was correct.

MR RICHARD: And you similarly believed it was correct to go and spread aids amongst innocent people in Hillbrow.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I did not spread aids. I withdrew that application of aids, because it was an incorrect interpretation of what happened there. I did not assist in the spreading of any aids.

MR RICHARD: And you admit to blowing up the Why Not Night-club.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, I did that Chairperson, and I testified before you.

MR RICHARD: And I put it very specifically and in both blowing up the Why Not Night-club, spreading aids, you as a subject of personal ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, in all fairness, he's just stated he withdrew the allegation because there was no evidence, he didn't spread it and now you're putting again to him that he spread aids.

MR RICHARD: I'm putting it to him that he thought things like blowing up the Why Not Night-club, were permissible and correct things to do to terrorists.

Is that true or not?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I'm not entirely certain what the learned friend is asking of me, I do not know how to answer him, I do not understand his question.

MR RICHARD: Did you believe, you personally were committed a good act when you blew up a night-club?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I was instructed to blow up the night-club, Sir.

MR RICHARD: What did you believe?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I was instructed to blow up the night-club.

MR RICHARD: Did you have a belief?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I believe it was revenge against the ANC for planting the bombs at Vanderbijl Square.

MR RICHARD: And did you believe it was the correct thing to do?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Without a doubt, Sir.

MR RICHARD: Sir I put it to you, you would have believed it quite correct to pervert a confession to get a conviction against a terrorist.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I take offence to this remark that the learned friend has now made.

MR RICHARD: Because that is what my case is, that you did things like that.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Who, me personally?

MR RICHARD: Yes, you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Me personally?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I deny that, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now to move on, do you know who Petrus Motloung is?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know him, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Do you know who Martha is?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not know her, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, repeat the name. Martha?

MR RICHARD: Martha M-o-t-l-o-u-n-g.

That's Monty Motloung's mother. Do you know who she is?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not know her, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Do you know Anna Mahlangu?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know her, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: That's Solomon's mother. You still don't recall her?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't her at all, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Then Petrus Mahlangu?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know him, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: He at that time was a member of the South African Police. Does that help your memory?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Where? Where was he stationed, Chairperson? I don't know that person.

MR RICHARD: Then Absolom ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well could you assist him? Where was he stationed? That may assist him in recollecting the person.

MR RICHARD: He was not stationed with you, he was stationed, if I remember correctly, and here I stand corrected if I err, on the East Rand.

Then Absolom Hlatswayo? He was a neighbour to the Solomon Mahlangu's family.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know those people.

MR RICHARD: Now did you follow in the investigation into the Gogh Street shooting?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, as I have said earlier, I was a young police officer, I don't even believe I was at the Security Branch two months yet. When this happened we only played a role, we all went out there, we were instructed to look for the person that had escaped. Other than that I never had anything to do with the whole investigation Gogh Street shooting or with any of those people or witnesses or accused or anything. I had nothing to do with them furthermore.

MR RICHARD: So to be very quick and to the point, if Petrus Mahlangu were to give evidence to say that he saw you on the evening of the event, what would you say?

MR VAN HEERDEN: The evening of the same event?

MR RICHARD: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: It could be possibly with the search where we searched places and houses, but furthermore, as I've said Park Station taxi rank I cannot even recall what we searched, we were instructed to look for the person who had escaped, but with the physical investigation I had nothing to do with it.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were on the terrain anywhere or looking for someone, anybody could have seen you and that's what he's putting to you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot recall. I looked for this man as I have said, but ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: Did you go to Absolom Hlatswayo's place of employment and fetch him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not recall that, Chairperson. I know I was sent to Park Station and at North Street, at the taxi rank, I went there. I cannot recall going anywhere else.

MR RICHARD: Did you go anywhere else?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I can't remember. I can remember that I was instructed to go to Park Station and to the taxi ranks, I can't remember going anywhere else. It's possible that they've told us to go to something else, I don't deny it, but I can remember that I was at the taxi rank and at the Park Station.

MR RICHARD: Now I've heard your evidence but I'm giving you an opportunity to hear what will be said against you.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you perhaps put it us, so that I could know to, where did Petrus see him?

MR RICHARD: Petrus will say he saw him at John Vorster Square.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's where I worked, I was stationed at John Vorster Square, that was where the Security Branch was at John Vorster Square.

MR RICHARD: Now did you torture anyone other than who you said earlier on, that day of the Gogh Street shooting?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: What injuries did Monty Motloung suffer?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, as I have said earlier I do not know which one was Solomon. The other one who was also there at the scene had an injury to his head which was bleeding profusely and at the scene I understood that he had been struck on the head with a firearm. The Scorpion that he carried, one of the people at the scene grabbed the firearm and struck him on the head. That's the only thing I know about that person.

MR RICHARD: Could he talk at that stage?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't believe I spoke to him. I spoke to the one person that I have asked where is the other guy, not to the other one.

MR RICHARD: Would you know anything about how this particular person suffered a broken jaw?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I only saw the person at the scene and I didn't see him elsewhere, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Did that person have a broken jaw when you saw him on the scene?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know.

MR RICHARD: But his head was bleeding.

MR VAN HEERDEN: His head was bleeding.

MR RICHARD: And you've pointed to the top.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Ja, one of the persons' head was bleeding. On the top of his head there was an open wound.

MR SIBANYONI: Who struck him with the weapon? You said one ...

MR VAN HEERDEN: One of the people that was in the warehouse when the attack took place, grabbed the weapon from him and hit him with the weapon. I think it was a Scorpion, if my memory serves me right.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it a policeman?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, no, the people that were in the warehouse when it was attacked, grabbed the weapon from him and hit him with the weapon.

MR SIBANYONI: Was that told to you or did you notice that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That was what I was told.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR RICHARD: Now are you aware of the basis - excuse me, let me rephrase that. When Solomon Mahlangu was put on trial, were you aware that a confession was tendered?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, as I have said, at that stage I was a young policeman, I did not even know what a confession was at that stage. I was never involved in the investigation, I don't know how the investigation was undertaken. I cannot answer you on that question.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever party to the giving of a confession by Solomon Mahlangu?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Not even at the trial or in any way was I involved with Solomon.

MR RICHARD: Because a version that I've been instructed on is that a confession was given, as a result of severe torture which resulted in him both confessing and giving evidence, by pointing out, showing people where things were. Were you not part of that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I was not part of any other further investigation except for that which I have mentioned.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, at this point I don't believe it's productive through particular points, because the general denial is that what the witness is content to give ... and view of the fact that an amnesty hearing has many characteristics of an enquiry rather than a court case, it is my suggestion that I call the various witnesses to give evidence right now, but reserve my rights to resume cross-examination afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you put it - if one of your witnesses would say: "I was present and I saw this man doing this or the next thing", the facts, let's have the facts where he was involved, put it to him and give him the opportunity to deny or admit it, and then you could call your witnesses if he's denying facts contrary to your instructions.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, in that event what I'm going to request is a ten minute adjournment, because many of the witnesses only came at lunchtime and I've only had twenty minutes to make sure of what I need to put to them. May I have a brief adjournment? I believe in would, in the long term, shorten the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for ten minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ANDRIES VAN HEERDEN: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: (cont)

Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr van Heerden, apropos Ms Shezi, did you give evidence at Mokati's trial?

MR VAN HEERDEN: At Edward Mokati's trial I did give evidence.

MR RICHARD: Did you have exhibited to you there, certain photographs of blisters and injuries to a woman?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Not as far as I can recall, Mr Chairperson, it was about the fact that I assaulted Mokati.

MR RICHARD: Did you see Ms Shezi at that trial?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot recall that.

MR RICHARD: She will say that she gave evidence while you were there in attendance, about torture on her.

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson. If I recall correctly she testified right before I did. She testified just before me.

MR RICHARD: And she will say that photographs of the scars and the injuries were exhibited to that trial.

MR VAN HEERDEN: No.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if she gave evidence before you, would you have been present in court while she gave evidence?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I can recall the incident, Mr Chairperson, that she testified before me and the court adjourned because she started crying in the court and I can recall that they adjourned and I then entered to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vermeulen, I've only asked you if you were present in the court while she testified.

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the procedure that the next witness that will testify will wait outside while another person is testifying?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would not have been in the court when she was shown photographs?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No photographs were shown to me that I know of and when she testified I was not in the court, I was outside.

MR RICHARD: Were you the investigating officer in that case?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson, I just testified as one of the people who were present when Edward Mokati had made certain identifications and when people were arrested. I was not the investigating officer.

MR RICHARD: Would you know who the State witnesses were versus the Defence witnesses?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I cannot recall who was for the State and who was against the State.

MR RICHARD: Because it is a very simple situation, Ms Shezi didn't give evidence for the State, you did, she gave evidence for the Defence.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is why I say I do not know who testified for the State and who testified for the Defence.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the point is that if you testified for the State and she for the Defence, then you testified before her and not after her.

MR VAN HEERDEN: There was a lady that testified before me, one who would have testified before me, but then they adjourned because she was upset and she had to leave.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr van Heerden, but you said it was her.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I'm not sure if it was her or not, there was a lady. I accept that it was her because the legal representative said she was there when I testified.

MR RICHARD: Now on my left I have Mr Petrus Mahlangu. Now he was a Detective in the employ of the South African Police, stationed at Springs. Do you recognise him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not recognise him at all, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: On the evening of the Gogh Street shooting he was approached by the Springs Security Branch and requested to go across to John Vorster Square, where you were. Do you remember anything?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I cannot remember that.

MR RICHARD: He was taken to Solomon Mahlangu's cell where Solomon was lying on a blanket and said he should question Solomon as to what mission he was on.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not know of such an incident, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now further on my left I have ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, would Solomon say that the applicant was present in the cell?

MR RICHARD: Petrus Mahlangu will say that Mr van Heerden was present.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I deny it, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Petrus Mahlangu will also say he did speak to Solomon Mahlangu and Solomon Mahlangu reported that he had been tortured.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot comment on that, Mr Chairperson, because I was not present when that occurred.

MR RICHARD: Was there any basis on which Solomon Mahlangu might have made such a statement?

MR VAN HEERDEN: If your client says that he did and he was taken there, it could be, but I wasn't present and I do not know of any such an incident taking place.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now the next gentleman on my left is Absolom Hlatswayo, have you seen him before?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not recognise him.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember who you arrested that day?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I never arrested no person, Sir, because the person that we were looking for we could not find.

MR RICHARD: Did you go to Mr Absolom Hlatswayo's place of employment and arrest the person on my left?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I did not arrest anyone on that day, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And what would you say if Mr Hlatswayo says that you personally tortured him by applying electric current through his body, and he also still bears scars?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, I will deny this in totality, and I would also like to ask a question or to state the following. I am a hundred percent willing and I will carry the costs of a polygraph test that will prove my innocence and if the learned friend from the court's witnesses are also willing to do it I will carry the costs, to show that I am innocent, that I never assaulted any of them or was involved in it. I'm willing to take the polygraph test.

MR RICHARD: Unfortunately polygraph tests are rejected as completely unreliable and irrelevant.

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Sir, that suits your point of view now, but a polygraph is not so inaccurate. It's not ...(intervention)

MR RICHARD: I'm not interested in your comment.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, it's not for you to comment either, Mr ... Ask him the questions, that is your function, and you've got to answer the questions, that's your function, and we'll decide whether it's relevant or not relevant.

MR RICHARD: So your evidence is that you have no knowledge about a Mr Absolom Hlatswayo and deny ever having any dealings with him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now the next lady on my left is Monty's Mahlangu's mother - Motloung's mother.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not recognise her. I do not know her, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Have you ever had any dealings with her?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, never.

MR RICHARD: Now the next one is Anna - sorry, not Anna, Anna Mahlangu. Have you ever had any dealings with her?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not know her, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Would you be aware that she was detained for over a month?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not know of it, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And you've never spoken to her in your life?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, never.

MR RICHARD: The next one is Martha - Miriam. Have you ever had any dealings with her?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Have you ever spoken to her?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And that's Lucky's mother - Lucky's grandmother. Have you ever seen her?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not know any of the witnesses and I have never had any dealings with them before.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr van Heerden, let me be clear once again, who are these persons that you assaulted and in respect of whom you seek amnesty?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is for George, Nomsa and Sonto in the Cafe Zurich incident and then the people in the Edward Mokati incident that was pointed out by Edward Mokati, the two gentlemen.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment. You apply for?

MR VAN HEERDEN: For George, in the Cafe Zurich incident, as well as the two women, Nomsa and Phosa.

CHAIRPERSON: In Cafe Zurich?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that's in the Cafe Zurich incident.

CHAIRPERSON: And then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: And then for the Edward Mokati assaults that happened there.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was on two unknown ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: It's two separate incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but in that case you apply for amnesty for the assault on two black men?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Now where is George, do you know?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, during the previous evidence or testimony when we were called to Pretoria, George was not there and then Peter Dlamini, the previous Peter Dlamini was there. I do not know where George is. I saw him before I left John Vorster and before the case came up. I never had any contact with him further.

MR MAPOMA: After you arrested George, was he ever prosecuted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, as I have said before, if my recollection is correct I was not at John Vorster when this case appeared, but I think George was a State witness in this specific Cafe Zurich incident.

MR MAPOMA: And is there somebody who was convicted in respect of ....

MR VAN HEERDEN: If I recall correctly one of the women, I think it was Peter Dlamini's sister or cousin who was arrested in a flat in Berea and one of them was found guilty.

CHAIRPERSON: The investigating officer in that case was Mr Zeelie?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, in Cafe Zurich it was Capt Zeelie.

CHAIRPERSON: So he will probably know.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: And that person who was convicted in respect of that Cafe Zurich, was neither Nomsa nor Phosa, am I correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not know which person was found guilty.

MR MAPOMA: You have given evidence here saying that you did torture people and execute electric shocks, do you recall that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: And you would do that when you want relevant information from those persons.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes.

MR MAPOMA: And when you assaulted Solomon Mahlangu, you assaulted him because you wanted him to tell you of the whereabouts of Lucky Mahlangu. Is it so?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I smacked him in the warehouse where they were, to ask him where is the other person that got away.

MR MAPOMA: And the reason why you assaulted him is that you wanted him to tell you about the whereabouts of Lucky Mahlangu?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, the person that got away.

MR MAPOMA: Why did you not torture him to tell you the whereabouts of Lucky Mahlangu - as you usually do?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, I was never involved in the investigation and the further follow up on information concerning these people, I was tasked to go to Park Station and the taxi rank to go and look for the other person who got away.

MR MAPOMA: I find it strange that your normal course of events was not followed, your normal way of conducting this was not follow in this case of Solomon Mahlangu. How do you ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, as I have testified before, I was for two months at the Security Branch at that stage, or I came from the uniform branch and I was transferred to the Security Branch and did not have any knowledge or background or experience in the investigation, if I can call it this, in terrorist matters or security matters. I was a very simple young officer that came from the uniform branch and went over to the Security Branch.

MR MAPOMA: You said you did not torture Edward Mokati.

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Sir.

MR MAPOMA: Why did you not?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Because he gave his co-operation right from the start, with the purpose that he would later be recruited as an askari.

MR MAPOMA: And he was a trained MK cadre?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: You were present when he was arrested for the first time?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, I was not present when he was arrested, he was arrested by the askaris and at that stage I was at Sandton. When he was brought to Sandton I saw him for the first time and then he had already been arrested.

MR MAPOMA: To you knowledge was he ever tortured at all?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Not as far as I know, Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Is it not strange for a trained MK cadre to be arrested and then just simply said that: "I will cooperate", without even being assaulted? Was it not strange?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, under the circumstances concerning him, it is strange, but I'd like to explain this to you. He was arrested by colleagues of his who were with him in Angola for training and certain promises were made to him, that he will not be prosecuted, that he will become an askari, that he will receive a salary, so I believe that they convinced him to join, because that was done to various other askari members before.

MR MAPOMA: No, no, those were not his colleagues, those were askaris, they were colleagues of the Security Branch.

MR VAN HEERDEN: But they were his colleagues when they were outside, Sir.

MR MAPOMA: Yes, I'm saying it's incorrect to say that he was arrested by his colleagues.

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I said they were his former colleagues.

ADV SIGODI: Are you saying that when he was arrested he was first, before he was taken to the Security Branch people, he was first interrogated by his former colleagues?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That I don't know, I cannot answer that Mr Chairperson, I was not there. I saw him for the first time when he arrived at the Sandton Police Station.

ADV SIGODI: And that is when he stated saying that he would cooperate and give all the information freely?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Now from the developments that we've had at this hearing, I'm going to suggest to you that you do not qualify for amnesty in respect of assault on Nomsa Raraza and Virginia Phosa. What is your comment?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know why I would not qualify, Mr Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Because you said these are completely different persons, these are not the persons that you arrested and dealt with. That's what you said.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The people who I arrested with the same names, those who I arrested in Berea, whose parents were in Dube where Dlamini was, these were the people who I arrested and they were charged in the Peter Dlamini case. I cannot understand that you can tell me that I cannot qualify for amnesty if I now just clarified the whole issue concerning Peter Dlamini's wife who worked at IGI and her parents live in Orlando West. I did not hide anything in this case that will prevent me from qualifying for amnesty. I did not keep quiet about anything, I revealed the truth and told you what happened.

MR MAPOMA: No, let me just get this clear. Are you saying that a Nomsa and Phosa, whom you apply for amnesty for, are those who were charged in connection with the Cafe Zurich bombing?

MR VAN HEERDEN: If my recollection is correct, these were the people who were charged.

MR MAPOMA: Now if it turns out that Nomsa Raraza and Virginia Phosa are not the persons who were charged in respect of that incident, I put it to you, you don't qualify for that. What do you say to that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not understand what you're trying to put to me.

MR MAPOMA: Please understand me, I want you to understand me, it's important. I am saying, if it turns out that Nomsa Raraza and Virginia Phosa are not the persons who you arrested and turned out to be tortured, I mean to be prosecuted in respect of the Cafe Zurich incident, then these are surely not the persons in respect of whom you are applying for amnesty.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, the people who I'm applying for amnesty for are people who I arrested with Capt Zeelie, in the Cafe Zurich incident. The confusion here is between the two Dlaminis and the two Nomsas and I cannot explain this. We arrested people in this specific case.

MR SIBANYONI: Can I come in maybe here and ask this question? Is it possible to confuse names of people, link different people to an incident which does not relate to them, is it possible?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, in this specific case it will not be that easy for me because I just arrived at the Security Police and it was a specific investigation. Peter Dlamini and the Cafe Zurich case is a specific case, because I worked on it for more than a year. I do not believe that I will make a mistake to mention a Peter Dlamini and a Nomsa and give names concerning a specific incident and confuse it with another incident. I do not believe that I will make that mistake.

MR SIBANYONI: When you were applying for amnesty, were you recalling this event out of ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: The Cafe Zurich specific incident, yes Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: My question is, ... out of memory or are you referring to some records?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Out of memory, Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you. Thank you, I'm sorry Mr Mapoma, you may proceed.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Sir.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, if I can just comment on Mr Sibanyoni's question concerning the memory. My evidence in front of the Truth Commission, and I think we've explained it before, I testified in front of the Goldstone Commission, where I in one evening had to provide information about my whole career for the Goldstone Commission, without any consultations or any other references. I think it was in March 1994 where I testified in front of the Goldstone Commission.

MR SIBANYONI: But would you concede that during the Goldstone Commission the attitude from the Police was, you people should not disclose the truth?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, at that stage I was scared for my life, if I talk I could have been killed and that is why the Goldstone Commission placed me under the Witness Protection plan.

MR SIBANYONI: Now wouldn't you be, for example, confused about what you said before the Goldstone Commission and let it stick in your mind as a truth when it was just a story which was created for the Goldstone Commission?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, with regards to the Cafe Zurich incident, the names and what happened there, I'm a hundred percent sure about what happened there.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you taken out of the country?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You testified against Eugene de Kock?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were a State witness for the Attorney-General in their prosecution?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct.

MR MAPOMA: Is it your evidence that of all these persons whom you say Edward Mokati pointed to you and whom you say you tortured, you don't remember a single one?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, in this specific incident we went out and shortly afterwards, I think it was a week later, I was transferred from Sandton to Pretoria, Vlakplaas, that is why I cannot recall the names, because I had nothing to do with the Edward Mokati case, in the investigation or anything else. That evening in Alexandra I questioned people, but I did not have anything to do with it further.

MR MAPOMA: You see, you remember the statement I read to you about the torture of people? I mean the statement about Nomsa Raraza. I just wanted to refer to Nomsa Raraza again. She describes how she was arrested at this place Badplaas, and was tortured and was electric shocked, you never ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: I do not even know of such an incident, Mr Chairperson, I was never involved in such an incident where people were arrested at Badplaas.

MR MAPOMA: And you never even tortured a woman?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Who was arrested at Badplaas? No, never.

MR MAPOMA: Apart from that now, you never tortured any woman?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Sir, smacked yes, but not torture.

MR MAPOMA: And you never used any electric shocks on a woman?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Sir.

MR MAPOMA: Why?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was unethical for me to assault a woman.

MR MAPOMA: But it was the exercise, was it not, in the Security Police?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Sir, what other policemen did is their business, I followed my ethical standards, I never tortured a woman. I would slap a woman, but I would not torture a women.

CHAIRPERSON: But is that not also against your ethical standards, to slap a woman?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It is, but to an extent a slap is not as undignified as torturing a woman.

MR SIBANYONI: Were you not supposed to carry out instructions? If your superiors say: "Torture this detainee", you have got to comply?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, I never and I will never torture a woman.

MR MAPOMA: No, no, what I was saying to you was that it was a normal exercise in the Security Police, to torture women, am I correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: As I have said before, it was a general practice in the Police, that people would be tortured, they could torture women yes, but I did not do it.

MR MAPOMA: So in this regard you are saying your personal ethics now changed in the exercise that was done in the Police Force?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Every policeman has got his own principles. Why would I lie about such an issue to say that I assaulted a person, if I've already admitted that I shocked other people or electrocuted other people or tortured them? Why would I now not mention another person if I did do it? I have committed very serious offences that I've already testified in front of the Commission about, to come now and lie about a very small incident, in that I would have assaulted a person. I cannot also understand that this learned colleague across from me can make me out as a liar, now that I have revealed everything and testified in other matters and must now say something against, or something untruthful for the first time.

ADV SIGODI: Have you ever been present when a woman was tortured?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I've seen - I did not sit by, but I have seen where somebody tortured a woman, yes.

ADV SIGODI: The woman being tortured in the same room in which you are?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I just saw where it happened, it was not in the same room where I was.

ADV SIGODI: So in all your experience as a policeman or as a member of the Security Branch, you have never been present when a woman has been tortured? I mean just standing by watching when a woman is being tortured?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No.

MR SIBANYONI: Can you maybe briefly tell us about the one you saw, how was that woman tortured?

MR VAN HEERDEN: She was kicked and slapped.

MR SIBANYONI: Kicked and slapping ...

MR VAN HEERDEN: Kicked and hitting with the first and slapping.

MR SIBANYONI: Now I understand you making a difference between assault and torture, what do you regard as torture, kicking and slapping?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Torture is when somebody is tied to the ground and he's tortured or kicked, assaulted over a long period of time.

MR SIBANYONI: I find the difference being very confusing, because it includes kicking and what will be assault, what do you regard as assault?

MR VAN HEERDEN: If I walk towards you and slap you, that is assault, but if a person is hit, slapped, thrown to the ground, kicked, that would be torture.

MR SIBANYONI: So the woman whom you witnessed was thrown onto the ground?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Where was that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: At John Vorster Square.

MR SIBANYONI: Who was doing that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I cannot recall the name.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it on the 10th floor?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I just want to think about it. You see there was three floors that the Security Branch used at John Vorster Square, it was the ground level, the 9th and the 10th floor.

MR SIBANYONI: What we've heard in some of the hearings is that the 10th floor was where people were mostly tortured.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is where in the old times, in the specific case of the learned friend of the court, Solomon Mahlangu case, then it was on the 10th floor where the investigative unit operated and at that stage I was on the ground floor of John Vorster Square, I was not on the 10th floor. When I started at the Security Branch it was the 9th and 10th floor and the ground level.

MR SIBANYONI: And the 10th floor is a floor which was referred to as the Timol floor.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The Timol floor, that's right.

MR SIBANYONI: The Timol flats, after the incident where Timol fell from the 10th floor.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct and that was before my time also, Sir. I wasn't at the Security Branch at that time also.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR MAPOMA: That is all, Chairperson, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

ADV SIGODI: In the Cafe Zurich incident when you were torturing George, in your evidence, I think it was in your evidence-in-chief you said "George removed his clothes", why did he do that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: The reason why her clothes were removed was we had to attach the shock device and it's more effective if the person is naked and if water was poured over him.

ADV SIGODI: Did he remove his clothes himself or did you remove his clothes?

MR VAN HEERDEN: We told him to take off his clothes.

ADV SIGODI: And how far did he take his clothes, did he take off his underpants and all that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was completely naked.

ADV SIGODI: Why was there a need to make him completely naked?

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was standard practice that if it is done the person's clothing is removed. We just told him to remove everything.

ADV SIGODI: And where was this shock device applied when he was naked?

MR VAN HEERDEN: To his toes, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Why specifically to his toes?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Because the thin wire could be attached around his big toe and then he could be shocked.

ADV SIGODI: Were his genitals never touched?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Thanks, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr van Heerden, you said Capt Zeelie was present when you were assaulting the two women, did I understand you correctly?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, I was alone, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: When was he present?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was only present when we go out on investigation, he was never present when I undertook the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: But you told us he was present at the arrest.

MR VAN HEERDEN: At the arrest that evening at the flat, yes.

MR SIBANYONI: During the arrest these people you arrested were never assaulted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Not at the flat, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Where were they assaulted?

MR VAN HEERDEN: At John Vorster Square, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: And you say you were not present when they were assaulted there?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I did the assault, but Capt Zeelie was not present.

MR SIBANYONI: Where was he by then?

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was in his office, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: When you arrived at the warehouse, what was the situation, were these two people, that is Solomon Mahlangu and Monty Motloung already captured by the people, or what was the position when you arrived there?

MR VAN HEERDEN: They had already been detained, I do not know whether it was policemen or whether it was the people in the warehouse themselves, because there was total chaos there. The two people were sitting in the warehouse, there was the Security Branch, there was uniform people, there were dogs, it was a total mess there, everybody was running around and screaming there.

MR SIBANYONI: Don't you find it strange that an ordinary civilian will disarm a trained soldier or a trained cadre of a weapon?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, what I heard after the thing and as I testified, we were informed about it that one of the persons in the warehouse when the shooting took place, grabbed the firearm from one of the people and struck him on the head with the firearm. That is what I was informed and that is what I said. That is the knowledge that I have of what exactly happened there.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, on that point. Was this a trap that was set, the people at the warehouse? What did they do there, how did this thing start?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, what I was informed was that in Bree Street the three persons apparently came to a taxi and they climbed in the taxi, an informer of the police at that stage asked them what they had in their bags and on this these people jumped out of the kombi and started running away and this informer then followed them, which caused them to run into the warehouse and start shooting. That is what I was informed and that is how I understood the story, Chairperson. So the whole shooting was unplanned, it was something that happened on the spur of the moment there.

CHAIRPERSON: So there were not a lot of police officers present in the warehouse when they ran in, they ran in there because the informer followed them?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what I understood, Chairperson. And as I have said, because there was total chaos at John Vorster, because no-one knew where Gogh Street was and all the time it was the street just behind us.

MR SIBANYONI: The ANC submission, a copy of which appears on page 39, says

"Monty Motloung beaten so badly by the SAP, he was brain damaged"

What do you know about that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, as I have said, after I saw the two persons at the warehouse I never again spoke to those two persons. I cannot say whether they were assaulted or not, I cannot say whether they were tortured by the police or not, I can only tell you what I saw at the warehouse and where I saw those two persons for the last time, and that was at the warehouse.

MR SIBANYONI: On page 41 there is a statement, apparently by the parent of Solomon Mahlangu, because it starts by saying

"My son, Solomon ...(indistinct) Mahlangu"

on paragraph 3 thereof, the second sentence says:

"Solomon was shot on the left foot"

Did you notice that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't even know about that incident that one of them had been shot in the foot, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: It also says that two white people were killed, are you aware of that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: There were people killed. I don't know how many people were killed in the workshop, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: On your arrival they were already dead?

MR VAN HEERDEN: There were people killed, but it was chaos. If I may explain. If I was in the warehouse for more than five minutes, that was long.

MR SIBANYONI: Now are you saying under those circumstances and atmosphere, two white people being killed, two terrorists being captured, you were able to contain yourself just to merely slap them, or slap him three times with a hand and hit him three times with a fist?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, as I have said I was a young policeman who had just joined the Security Branch, I didn't know anything like that, it was something that I did not know. And the second point was that when we arrived at the scene, the senior members of the Security Branch told us, because we were young guys, we have to go to Park Station, go to the taxi rank to see if we can find the person that had run away. We had nothing else from the warehouse - I didn't even have the knowledge of an investigation to be of any use in such a situation.

MR SIBANYONI: By they way, you said when you joined the ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: About two months before the incident I joined the, I was transferred to the Security Branch.

MR SIBANYONI: From where?

MR VAN HEERDEN: From the Soweto Riot Unit in Soweto, at Diepkloof.

MR SIBANYONI: Capt Zeelie appeared before this Committee something like last week, he gave a picture of saying the torture, the assault was an order of the day, not only in the Special Branch, but also in the ordinary police.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: So the fact that you were new from the Police Force, makes no difference because even in the Police Force torture and assault was an order of the day.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I knew that people had been tortured and stuff, but because I was new at the Security Branch they told us to go out. This was in general. I think in the De Kock trial I said that they asked me about a policeman who didn't tube and then I said he's not a policeman then. It was a standard principle thing that if you arrest somebody and he doesn't cooperate, you torture the person until he co-operates. It was standard thing, that's how I grew up in the Police.

MR SIBANYONI: So why did you choose to be lenient on the question of women, because that's what you were told to do?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I did not. It was not right for me to torture a woman, a woman cannot defend herself against a man.

MR SIBANYONI: This propaganda or brainwashing was to in ...(indistinct) that you hated any person who was a supporter or a member of the ANC, and worse, who has undergone military training.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's what we were told, Sir. We were told that any person that was an MK member, that - and the ANC, as I said, would be the absolute unholy in the country, they will murder out the whites, they will cause chaos, that was what I was taught.

MR SIBANYONI: Do you know who were the police who continued with the investigation of the Solomon Mahlangu case or matter?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, this is years back and there's a bell that rings somewhere - Cronwright, I cannot say it was him but something in my mind tells Capt Cronwright or something like that. I can recall something like that, but I cannot recall any more.

MR SIBANYONI: Well in the Court Judgment, Conraad's name is mentioned, as well as De Waal. Do you know De Waal?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: In the trial Solomon Mahlangu refers to some extensive torturing on several times, do you know anything about that?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't know anything about that, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: He talks about Capt Cronwright, Lieut Struwig, Lieut De Waal. Are these persons known to you?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Struwig is known and Cronwright, ja, but De Waal I don't know at all.

MR SIBANYONI: What is the reason you would be ignorant about this nature of the torture which was taking place?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Because were not - we were sitting on the ground floor at John Vorster and the investigators were on the 10th floor and being youngsters at that time, we just never went there, we were never called to participate in the investigation or whatever they were doing with the case.

MR SIBANYONI: Why would some of these witnesses say you arrested them, some of them, you tortured them, if that didn't happen?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chair, and I say it again with all honesty in my heart, that I was never ever involved in the Solomon Mahlangu trial or as these people refer here that I've arrested them, I've got no knowledge about that.

MR SIBANYONI: You are aware of the requirements of the Act, that no matter how gruesome the conduct you did is, as long as it is connected with politics and you tell the whole truth, you would qualify for amnesty, but if you withhold some of the information, then in that case you shall not have made a full disclosure.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, as I have just said a little while ago, I am prepared to undergo a polygraph test, or whatever you deem necessary, because why would I jeopardise my future with the Truth Commission, because of a simple assault or a torture? If I have admitted to things that are much worse and where people were killed, why would I deny a torture? I was not involved in a torture. I will not jeopardise my future by denying something like that. At all the places where I was involved and what I did, I have in all my evidence before the Amnesty Committee, said what I had done, what my involvement was in the incident and everything, I have never held back anything from the TRC. And that I now would jeopardise my future with the TRC about an assault or a torture, I would not do something like that.

MR SIBANYONI: You spoke about your personal ethics, is it not maybe part of the reason that you wouldn't disclose the gruesomeness of your conduct, you would like to minimise whatever involvement you had?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Sir. At all cases where I testified I disclosed everything that I was involved in. The fact that I said that I did not assault that woman, I did not assault her. I did admit that the other two ladies from Cafe Zurich, I did assault them by slapping them, yes, I did that, why would I deny it if I had tortured a person? I do not see the wisdom in it, that I would place myself in a predicament with the TRC about a smaller thing, if I have already confessed to much more serious incidents.

MR SIBANYONI: And you are saying it's not a question of the lapse of time that maybe you might have forgotten details of these incidents?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Which specific incident, Sir?

MR SIBANYONI: Having arrested Mr Mahlangu, having tortured some of the witnesses who will be called by Mr Richard to testify?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, what is noticeable to me and that I am now being made out to be a liar, I think I'm the only person who applied for the Solomon Mahlangu incident. I don't know of other people who did so. If I could get back to Khotso House, I applied and even the politicians said: "We don't know anything about Khotso House" and then Mr Vlok eventually came and admitted it. There are other instances that I could indicate where I said I was involved in this, that and the other and then it was always said: "We were never involved" and then eventually people will come forward and admit it. Why would I now, if I mentioned Solomon Mahlangu in my statement, why would I deny it that I assaulted him? It does not make sense to me. Why would I lie about it? If I did it, I did it and I have always played open cards with the Truth Commission. If we Moses Nteleng, I played open cards with the Commission, where I did a much more serious thing than was the normal torture, as is now alleged against me. Why would I deny this if I admitted to those things?

MR SIBANYONI: Whom do you feel is making you out to be a liar?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Sir, I don't know what the belief is and who is making me a liar, but my point is just that I came with the truth from day one that I testified to the Goldstone Commission, and in all my evidence that I have given in court and here at the TRC, it's the first time that somebody is calling me that I'm lying and declining my amnesty application. I can't see why that comes out, because nobody ever spoke about Solomon and now because I'm admitting that I knew about Solomon and that I was there, I'm the one that's being sacrificed now. Why don't they sacrifice, why don't they call the people that investigated, that prosecuted Solomon, to come and explain here? Why am I the one that's getting beaten now?

MR SIBANYONI: Lastly, you said you had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation which led towards the Solomon Mahlangu trial.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Absolutely nothing, Sir. And I will repeat it, I had absolutely - other than seeing them in the warehouse, I had absolutely nothing else to do with the whole investigation.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Five short questions, thank you Chair.

You then indeed intensively gave evidence against Eugene de Kock.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And because of your evidence it led to - because your evidence and other evidence, it led to a conviction of Mr de Kock on various charges.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: The incident that you mentioned of Moses Nteleng, an amnesty hearing served before the Amnesty Committee, where a man was so-called tubed until he died in the bar of Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And I think a Judgment has already been passed with regard to that. You also gave your full co-operation to the investigative team of the TRC.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: If all the people who were involved in the Solomon Mahlangu incident applied for amnesty, how many applicants would there have been?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, there must be quite a few of them, all of them who were at John Vorster Square, all of them who were involved in the investigative unit.

MR CORNELIUS: And you were the only applicant here?

MR VAN HEERDEN: As far as I know I'm the only person that disclosed it that I had knowledge of what happened to him.

MR CORNELIUS: And Edward Mokati? If there was a complete application before the Amnesty Committee, how many would there have been?

MR VAN HEERDEN: There would have been quite a lot, all the people who arrested him.

MR CORNELIUS: And you are the only applicant?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, as far as I know I'm the only applicant.

MR VAN HEERDEN: If we have regard for the evidence that Shezi gave, is it possible that photos could have been handed in, but you were not in court at that time?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's possible, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And Solomon Mahlangu could apparently have been assaulted by the investigative team after you assaulted him?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's possible Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Then it's also possible that he could have told Petrus Mahlangu that he had been tortured?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's possible, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He indeed gave evidence in court and he did not say that you assaulted him but he gave the names of Cronwright, De Waal and Struwig, as the persons who assaulted him.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I have no knowledge. Today for the first time I saw these documents that are attached with regard to the court documents about this case. I have absolutely no knowledge of what happened there.

MR CORNELIUS: But what the Judge is saying is that there is evidence on record that he was indeed assaulted, so it's possible that he could have told Petrus that he was tortured.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: To get clarity, the submission and the statement that you prepared for the Goldstone Commission, did you have much time to prepare it? Did you have days or weeks?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, in one night, in a matter of four hours, if it's that long, I had to give a report of my whole life, of everything and everything that I had been involved with.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you at that stage realise ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But did you not later, while you were in Sweden, give a more complete statement?

MR VAN HEERDEN: The statement that I drew up there was evidence that I gave on the record before Judge Goldstone.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not later give any other statements?

MR VAN HEERDEN: There was one amendment where something had to be corrected, I think it was Moses Nteleng, where I just gave a summarising statement to the investigative team of the A-G of Pretoria.

MR CORNELIUS: But you also understood clearly that if you did not give a complete statement there, the Attorney-General would have had a poor view of you and could have been charged for that? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR VAN HEERDEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you also mentioned to me that you feared for your life and you were afraid that previous or former, or at that stage, existing Vlakplaas members would eliminate you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is what would have happened and that is what I believed would have happened.

MR CORNELIUS: So you were under the Witness Protection programme for quite some time.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Almost three years, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And then a final statement. Adv Sigodi asked you why it was necessary to remove all the clothing of the one person, George, was this a method of breaking someone's moral, or ... it must have been for a reason.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, it was breaking the morality and the demoralisation of a person.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: May I just ask one question, it's merely for information.

Do you know what eventually happened to Monty Motloung, the other person who was captured at the warehouse?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, at some stage I heard that such a person, I think he was declared a State President's patient. I would assume something like that, that I heard that had been declared a State President's patient.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Any further witnesses, Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no further witnesses, thank you. I see my colleague has got a multitude.

MR RICHARD: Yes, Chairperson, may I start?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RICHARD: My witness is Ms Themba(sic) Shezi. She has no objection to taking the oath.

THEMBA SHEZI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Ms Shezi, in and during 1988, what were your political allegiances and what were your activities?

MS SHEZI: I was a member of Soweto Youth Congress at Mdeni branch.

MR RICHARD: And now John Itumaleng Dube, also known as Silver, did you know him?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: And what was he in your life?

MS SHEZI: He was my boyfriend.

MR RICHARD: Now Edward Moketi, what was he, who was he?

MS SHEZI: He was a person that I used to know in the township.

MR RICHARD: Was he part of the Mdeni SYCO?

MS SHEZI: No, he would come and attend some of the meetings.

MR RICHARD: Now in and during September or August, which month of the year? Do you remember the month?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR RICHARD: Which one?

MS SHEZI: It was September 1988.

MR RICHARD: Now how that presented itself to you was that Edward came into where you were with other people, could you tell the Committee how it developed.

MS SHEZI: At about 1a.m. we heard the doors banging, people were knocking and they identified themselves as police. When I went to open the door, I realised that it was police. They asked who Thandi was and we told that Thandi was not there. They couldn't pronounce the name, they said Jangi, they couldn't say Thandi, and the other black officer said the correct name was Thandi. They told us to get out of the house and there was a big lamp that was on and they asked from a person who was in the car, whose name was Edward Mokati, and they asked the person to identify Thandi and then he pointed me out ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Go a little bit slower, so that they could interpret and we can follow what you are saying.

MS SHEZI: After the family was taken out of the house a person who was in the car, Edward. He was asked to identify Thandi and then he pointed me out and that's when they started assaulting me. They kicked me there as I was lying on the floor and they were whipping me with firearms and my mother asked them not to kill me there. She told them to go and kill me somewhere else. I was put into the van. We went to fetch Jabu and the others. We were five.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember any particular person amongst the police who came to your house?

MS SHEZI: The person that I'll never forget is Mr van Heerden. Though I did not know his name at that time, but at least his surname stuck on my mind. Even I still have his picture in my mind.

MR RICHARD: Now what was he doing at your house?

MS SHEZI: As they were kicking the doors there was my cousin who was sleeping on the floor, who was handicapped, he was also kicked and my other cousin Nontlanhla was also assaulted and they were destroying everything in the house. They were looking for Silver.

MR RICHARD: What was Mr van Heerden doing?

MS SHEZI: What I can say is that he's the one who was playing a leading role, because he's the one who was questioning.

MR RICHARD: Did he do anything to you at the house?

MS SHEZI: As I was being assaulted lying on the floor, he's the first person to slap me and the others followed suite, all of them they kicked, but the first hit was from Mr van Heerden.

MR RICHARD: Now when he hit you, did he hit you with the balled fist or the open hand?

MS SHEZI: He was hitting me with the open hand.

MR RICHARD: And where did he hit you?

MS SHEZI: He hit me on my face and I fell and as I was there on the floor all of them came to me.

MR RICHARD: Now how often did Mr van Heerden hit you, once, five times?

MS SHEZI: What I realised is when he was hitting me with the open hand, I'm not sure whether he continued as the others were hitting me, because I was protecting my face by then.

MR RICHARD: Now you said you left your house where you stayed with your brother and your mother, in what sort of vehicle did you leave and who was with you in the vehicle?

MS SHEZI: I was put at the back of the police van, the yellow vans.

MR RICHARD: And were you alone?

MS SHEZI: I was alone, but when we got to the final destination there was five of us in the van.

MR RICHARD: And you've given the list of five names. Can you list those five names again?

MS SHEZI: It was Jabu, it was Sibongiseni, I cannot remember, the other one was a brother of the other person that they were looking for, but they couldn't get that person, they took the brother with.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you mentioned the name now of Jabu and then, Modisani, or what was the second name? Can you repeat the second name please. You mentioned Jabu and then somebody else.

MS SHEZI: Jabu, Sibongiseni.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, who else, the other two or three?

MS SHEZI: I cannot remember the other people's names. I found Sipho there when we got to that place, he was arrested with Edward.

MR RICHARD: Which place did you get taken to?

MS SHEZI: We were taken to a police station that I cannot remember whether it was John Vorster or something else. We were separated when we got to that police station.

MR RICHARD: What happened at that police station?

MS SHEZI: When we got to that police station, Mr van Heerden gave handcuffs to a black officer whose name was Sam, to cuff me and my feet were also cuffed.

MR RICHARD: Now we go back ... the black policeman was given the handcuffs and the leg irons, and who put them on?

MS SHEZI: It was Mr van Heerden and Sam took a white sack, put it over my head and it was tied at the back of my neck.

MR RICHARD: And where was Mr Heerden when the sack was being put over your head?

MS SHEZI: He was present.

MR RICHARD: Then once you were blindfolded and handcuffed and leg-ironed, what happened to you next?

MS SHEZI: I was taken by Sam, he uttered some words in Zulu and then he asked me to tell the truth, so as to avoid the assault. I was taken to a certain room where I was questioned about Silver's whereabouts. I told them that I do now know any person by the name of Silver, I only knew John Dube as ...(inaudible). As I was still responding to the questions a bucket full of water was poured over me. After that some object that looked like needles were put to me, were administered to me in order to shock me.

MR RICHARD: Now when you say they were like needles, how do you know that?

MS SHEZI: Each time they would administer those on my body I would jump and even the marks verified that those were very tiny objects, because I have marks that were caused by those objects on my body.

MR RICHARD: Now where were they attached to you? To your ears or your ...?

MS SHEZI: They were administered on my hands, here on my wrist as I'm pointing here, on my breasts, on my thighs. They would put them wherever they wished.

MR RICHARD: Tell me, did this application of electric current leave marks?

CHAIRPERSON: Well she didn't say anything about electric current leaving marks, she said she felt something like needles, very tiny objects. Let her describe what happened, what was the result of those needles.

MR RICHARD: When they applied these things to you, what happened?

MS SHEZI: As they were applying these objects I was shaking, my whole body was shaking as if they were administering electric shocks. As I was trying to breath, I would suffocate because of the sack and whenever I tried to breath through the mouth, I would bite my tongue. As a result of that my tongue was injured after that.

MR RICHARD: Have you ever by accident before that incident, had an electric shock by using a faulty appliance or, in other words, do you know what an electric shock is?

MS SHEZI: Yes, I know what that is. Sometimes I would experience such things.

MR RICHARD: Now when they applied current, for how long did they apply it? For a very short period, or would they keep the application of the current for an extended period?

MS SHEZI: They would administer that method and they would take a break. As I was shaking they would take a break and then they would ask me about Silver again and they would start over again.

MR RICHARD: Now you say the word "they", that's more than one, who was "they"?

MS SHEZI: There were two of them, people who were questioning me.

MR RICHARD: And in what languages were they questioning you?

MS SHEZI: They were speaking in Afrikaans and English. I would hear them saying "Waar is Silver". The other would say something else like "Jy wil nie praat", in Afrikaans.

MR RICHARD: Now did you recognise any of the voices?

MS SHEZI: Because of the extent of the assault I couldn't recognise their voices.

MR RICHARD: You now say in your instructions that Mr van Heerden applied the electric current to you, why do you say that?

MS SHEZI: I am saying it is Mr van Heerden, because he's the one who instructed someone to cuff me and he's the one who also instructed a person to put on a sack and he also instructed someone to take me to this particular room.

MR RICHARD: And was he in that room?

CHAIRPERSON: She was blindfolded.

MR RICHARD: There are other methods of ...

CHAIRPERSON: Could you recognise who was in the room with you?

MS SHEZI: I last saw him when they were putting the sack over my head and the cuffs. When I was taken to this particular room I was blindfolded.

CHAIRPERSON: And could you recognise anything there?

MS SHEZI: I couldn't see anything in that room.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you hear anything?

MS SHEZI: I would only hear the questions that they were asking.

CHAIRPERSON: And could you deduct from that who were the persons asking questions?

MS SHEZI: As I've already said, due to the extent of the assault, I couldn't identify anybody's voice there.

MR RICHARD: Now while you were blindfolded, besides being electrically shocked, did anything else happen to you?

MS SHEZI: After being taken out of that room, I was taken to another room, blindfolded still. When I got to that room I was just shoved in. I fell. My hands were still cuffed. I remained there alone for a short while and four people came thereafter, police officers. When they got in they started talking saying that because I do not want to reveal anything, I did not want to cooperate with them, they were going to make sure that I hate a white person for the rest of my life. The method that they used in making sure that I hate a white person ...

MR RICHARD: What did they do?

MS SHEZI: They raped me.

MR RICHARD: When you say "they", how many people?

MS SHEZI: Four of them.

MR RICHARD: Did you ever lay a complaint with the South African Police?

MS SHEZI: Yes, I did that, I laid charges with a legal representative, Krish Naidoo, but the response from the Police Commissioner was to the effect that because there were so many policemen there I cannot identify a single policeman, they couldn't anyone liable for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Krish Naidoo with whom you laid the complaint, when did you see him?

MS SHEZI: I saw him after I was released, just after the detention.

CHAIRPERSON: How long were you detained?

MS SHEZI: Six months.

MR RICHARD: And were you ever interrogated again during your detention?

MS SHEZI: No.

MR RICHARD: And for how long did the rape and the torture go on, was it one hour, five hours? Or can't you remember?

MS SHEZI: I cannot remember, because that is something that I would like to forget.

MR RICHARD: Now I go back to that part of that evidence you've given. When you were about to be blindfolded, who gave the instruction that you be tortured?

MS SHEZI: It was Mr van Heerden.

MR RICHARD: In what words did he give the instructions?

MS SHEZI: He spoke in Afrikaans.

MR RICHARD: And what did he say?

MS SHEZI: This is something that took place some time ago, I cannot remember if I'll be able to quote him verbally, but he uttered something in Afrikaans, though I cannot remember the exact words.

MR RICHARD: But what was the effect of the words?

MS SHEZI: He had handcuffs and instructed Sam, the police officer who was black, he instructed him in Afrikaans to cuff me and he instructed him to take me to a place that was called "The Waarheidskamer", Truth Room, that is.

MR RICHARD: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

That night when the people arrived there what time was it? At your house.

MS SHEZI: It was 1a.m.

MR CORNELIUS: It was dark?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you have electric lights in your house or candles or lamps?

MS SHEZI: There were electric lights.

MR CORNELIUS: Was there a light outside the door, or outside?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Was the light on?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Weren't you all sleeping at that time of the night? Why were you all awake?

MS SHEZI: We heard the people banging, kicking the doors and knocking, we switched on the lights and we opened the door.

MR CORNELIUS: Is it a big house, a four roomed house, a two roomed house?

MS SHEZI: It was a four roomed house.

MR CORNELIUS: And the front door, does that lead into the one room?

MS SHEZI: When you open the front door it was leading to the dining room.

MR CORNELIUS: They weren't people sleeping there?

MS SHEZI: They did not use that door, they used the one from the kitchen. My cousin who was handicapped, was sleeping in the dining room, the one who was kicked.

MR CORNELIUS: Oh I see, so they used - did they kick the kitchen door or dining room door?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: What, which door?

MS SHEZI: The kitchen door.

MR CORNELIUS: Fine. Did they first knock, shout and say open the door, or did they just break in?

MS SHEZI: The way they were knocking they were just kicking the doors because you could see that the doors were breaking. Even now you can still see that these doors were being kicked. Even today they are still not repaired.

MR CORNELIUS: So they kicked the door down?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: So was there really time to switch on lights?

MS SHEZI: We all jumped because we were scared, we did not know what was happening. I switched on the light in the bedroom and the dining room and the kitchen and I went to open the door, because the door was locked.

MR CORNELIUS: No, but didn't they kick the door open?

MS SHEZI: No, because that was a steel door.

MR CORNELIUS: Oh, so they couldn't succeed in kicking the door down?

MS SHEZI: No.

MR CORNELIUS: So you went and unlocked the door.

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Who did you see?

MS SHEZI: I just saw Mr van Heerden there, the gentleman next to you.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, I know you saw Van Heerden, but was he alone?

MS SHEZI: He was not alone, there were many of them but the person who was asking questions was Mr van Heerden. That is why I can still remember him and his face. There were so many people, the others were just on top of the toilet, there were other police on the street.

MR CORNELIUS: Just answer my question. How many other people were there?

MS SHEZI: I couldn't count them, there were many people. If I say many it means it's more than one, about ten or eleven of them got inside the house.

MR CORNELIUS: Were there black people as well? Other white people and black people?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: How many other white people?

MS SHEZI: You mean white people who were present there?

MR CORNELIUS: Obviously who were present there, where else?

MS SHEZI: I am telling you that the other people were outside and the other people were standing next door. I cannot say for sure how many people were there, but a person who got inside there, a black person who corrected Thandi's name, there was only one person who came into the house and said the person that they were looking for was Thandi.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but how many other white people were there?

MS SHEZI: There were many white people there.

MR CORNELIUS: Ten? Ten, five, six?

MS SHEZI: Some were there, ten or more.

MR CORNELIUS: White people?

MS SHEZI: Yes. There's only one black person who got into the house, I'm not sure whether there were other people, black people who were outside.

MR CORNELIUS: So there could have been more black people outside?

MS SHEZI: Yes, that is possible.

MR CORNELIUS: Now couldn't you recognise the black person that spoke and asked for Thandi? Wouldn't you be able to recognise him?

MS SHEZI: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Why not?

MS SHEZI: He just for a short while and said they were looking for Thandi and then he left and then Van Heerden was left in the house, who asked me where Silver was and he also wanted to know where the weapons were.

MR CORNELIUS: Now since this terrible day up until now, is this the first time you see Van Heerden again?

MS SHEZI: After that fateful day I'm seeing him for the first time here.

MR CORNELIUS: We're talking twelve years later, Ms Shezi, on what do you recognise him?

MS SHEZI: No, I apologise, I'm not seeing him for the first time, I saw him during Edward Mokati's trial.

MR CORNELIUS: When was that, 1989?

MS SHEZI: When Edward Mokati was arrested, I cannot remember the year when he was taken to court.

MR CORNELIUS: I put it to you that in 1989 the trial was, so this is the first time you see him in eleven years.

INTERPRETER: Can the speaker please repeat the question.

MR CORNELIUS: This is the first time you see him in eleven years following the Mokati trial.

MS SHEZI: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: On what do you recognise him?

MS SHEZI: If a person has done something gruesome to you, you'll never erase the picture of that person from your mind.

MR CORNELIUS: No, on what physical features do you recognise this man?

MS SHEZI: His face, even if I was about to retire for the day I would see his face. It took me time to remove his face from my mind. I had to go for counselling before I could forget about that.

MR CORNELIUS: Now let's take this point a bit further. When was your blindfold removed, after the rape or before the rape?

MS SHEZI: It was removed after the rape.

MR CORNELIUS: And did you see policemen there?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Obviously their faces would be burnt into your memory, you've just been raped by the police. Even a worse situation than Van Heerden was in - allegedly.

MS SHEZI: You can say so, but after the incident of being assaulted you wouldn't remember much and after that if you say I saw their faces, I only saw them after I was taken to another room where Sam brought the toilet paper to wipe blood out of my mouth. I am not sure whether those were the people who were there in the room, or there were some other people.

MR CORNELIUS: But that is exactly the point, Ms Shezi, you've just been brutally raped, shocked, attacked, beaten, those faces would burn into your memory and you can't even remember one.

MS SHEZI: Even if I could see them, I did not know their names and surnames, the only surname that stuck on my mind was Mr van Heerden's surname.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but you said every night you see his face, it's burnt into your memory. Why didn't your lawyer attend for ... why didn't he arrange for an ID parade, it's the easiest thing in the world?

MS SHEZI: I am saying the correspondence that I received was from Adrian Vlok and it stated that there were so many Van Heerden's and there were so many policemen who were involved, because I did not know their names, I did not know his name particularly. During those apartheid years, if something was done by police, that would be covered up.

MR CORNELIUS: Why didn't your lawyer arrange for an ID parade? He's a legal man, he corresponded with the Commissioner, why didn't he insist on an ID parade?

MS SHEZI: Perhaps it's because to me I realised that it was not a good idea to frequent the court seeing the faces of the people who had done these things to me. Maybe I'm the one who decided to stop all this because it was quite painful for me.

MR CORNELIUS: But now today you decide and elect to testify and say Mr van Heerden, this man that you see eleven years later, he's the major perpetrator. That's what you're trying to say to us today.

MS SHEZI: Yes, this is why I decided to come here today and see this person after so many years. It's not solely because I hold a grudge against him, but just to see him after so many years and ask him what came to his mind before he could do all this.

MR CORNELIUS: Tell me something Ms Shezi, how did you get to know his surname, how did you know he was Van Heerden? At the house when they bust in there, how did you know this was Van Heerden?

MS SHEZI: I memorised his name when he was called by somebody else, when somebody said something in Afrikaans, when he said: "mnr Van Heerden". He was talking to another person while they were at my home, that's when I got to know his surname.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they call him Mr van Heerden?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Not Sergeant or Constable or whatever?

MS SHEZI: He only said mnr Van Heerden.

MR CORNELIUS: That is very unlikely Ms Shezi, because he was a Constable at that time, he would have said Constable van Heerden, ...(indistinct) call Mr van Heerden in the Police Force.

MS SHEZI: I do not know why he was addressed in that manner, but that's what I heard.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. And what's furthermore, he's called by a nickname, if they do call him, called Brood.

MS SHEZI: I do not know that, I did not hear that.

MR CORNELIUS: I put it to you that it's highly unlikely Ms Shezi, that somebody would have called him Mr van Heerden, when they're busy breaking into a house, kicking down doors and assaulting people.

MS SHEZI: Please listen carefully, I said he was addressed as Mr van Heerden in the house when I was already identified as Thandi.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you have anything to say about the fact that he's called by a nickname, Brood, or don't you have any comment?

MS SHEZI: I cannot comment about that because I did not know that in the Police Force they are called with their nicknames, I only heard him being called Van Heerden, that is all.

MR CORNELIUS: No, you said Mr van Heerden, not Van Heerden. Mr van Heerden. Is that correct?

MS SHEZI: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you tell your lawyer, did you say: "But the chief perpetrator is Mr van Heerden, initiate a Disciplinary Inquiry against this man"?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Did your lawyer do anything about it?

MS SHEZI: I had already mentioned that I realised that this was further hurting me, I decided to discontinue with the case.

MR CORNELIUS: Ms Shezi, you just cried in this Tribunal, you were brutally assaulted, you were shocked, you were raped and you just decide to leave the matter, although you know who the chief perpetrator is.

MS SHEZI: For me to cry here in this Tribunal, it's not because I did not know who did this to me, I am only crying because if something had happened to you and you are now talking about it, that particular day will come to you as is, you'll remember that particular day as it was.

MR CORNELIUS: Alright. So if we had to arrange an ID parade today, you'd be able to identify the other perpetrators as you've identified Mr van Heerden eleven years later?

MS SHEZI: As I've already said, I cannot identify the others, but I can remember him very well because I'm the one that he was talking to face to face. Even if the others were talking but they were talking from the sides, but I was faced with him.

MR CORNELIUS: Didn't Sam stand right in front of you?

MS SHEZI: It is easy to identify Sam, because Sam has got a burn scar on his face and Sam did not do anything bad to me, what he did was to put a sack over my head.

MR CORNELIUS: Isn't that bad? He takes away your vision, he puts a sack over your head, he attends while somebody's cuffing you, subsequently you're shocked and raped and you say Sam didn't do anything?

MS SHEZI: Sam was given instruction by his seniors.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but why didn't you say this to your attorney, that he can identify Sam, he's got a scar on his face? "I can identify these people. No matter what Vlok says, I can identify them."

MS SHEZI: What I told my legal representative is exactly what I'm saying here today and I'm the one who told him that I would like to discontinue with this whole matter because it was further hurting me.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. Were you taken to John Vorster or to Sandton? where were you taken?

MS SHEZI: The gentleman next to you will be in a position to tell you where I was taken.

MR CORNELIUS: Ms Shezi, we are sitting here at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, there's no need to make little remarks. I'm asking you, you're here to answer my questions.

MS SHEZI: I am saying the person who is better placed to tell you the answer to that question is the gentleman next to you. That is no remark. He is the one who can tell you. And I'm respecting him by saying "the gentleman next to you".

CHAIRPERSON: No, I know he could tell us, but can you perhaps also tell us? Could you assist us in telling us whether it was John Vorster or Sandton or wherever?

MS SHEZI: I think it was John Vorster, though I am not sure of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you think it was John Vorster? What makes you think it was John Vorster?

MS SHEZI: I thought I was taken to John Vorster, because I thought there was something like a bridge and the car was parked behind the building and we proceeded up to the offices.

MR CORNELIUS: You see it's important that you answer the questions, because Mr van Heerden denies ever assaulting you, arresting or assaulting you.

MS SHEZI: Even if he denies assaulting me, he can do that because he testified to the effect that he was a man who was against assaulting women, but I know that he did that to me and I'm witness to that.

CHAIRPERSON: What did he do to you exactly?

MS SHEZI: I said initially, after I was identified, he hit me with the open hand and I was taken to this place where he had handcuffs and instructed someone to cuff me and the sack to be put over my head and then I was taken to some other room, where I was shocked with electric shocks and the other things happened thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. And now you've been with him, he's talked to you, you became accustomed to his voice, he talked to you in the house and at the police station, is that correct? And he talked to Sam, is that correct?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And after you've been blindfolded, did he accompany you to the other room, or don't you know?

MS SHEZI: I cannot say, because I was blindfolded at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear his voice again at all?

MS SHEZI: Their voices are the same, you cannot identify them. You cannot differentiate between their voices.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know whether he was present at the second interrogation or at the rape, the next time you actually saw him was at the trial of Edward?

MS SHEZI: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Were you able to identify if Sam's voice was present at the room where you were shocked?

MS SHEZI: I could hear Sam's voice, because he was speaking in Sotho, but Sam left me there in that room and then he told me to tell the truth whenever they are asking me anything, so as to avoid further beatings.

MR SIBANYONI: You said four white men arrived and raped you, but I understand you were still blindfolded, how do you know they were four?

MS SHEZI: They were four of them and they were talking, you can actually tell if this is not the person who spoke initially and the way they were changing turns, you would actually tell that this was not the other person.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: What language did Mr van Heerden speak to you in?

MS SHEZI: He was speaking in Afrikaans.

MR CORNELIUS: Now you that is highly unlikely, because Mr van Heerden testified before this Committee that they used for interrogations, due to the fact that he speaks the black languages.

INTERPRETER: Can the speaker please repeat the question.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr van Heerden testified before this Commission that they in fact used Mr van Heerden to interrogate, due to the fact that he speaks fluent black languages.

MS SHEZI: Perhaps they were using him for other purposes, but when he was asking me about Silver, he was speaking in Afrikaans, he said: "Waar is Silver"?

MR CORNELIUS: Were you blindfolded at that time or not?

MS SHEZI: When? Do you mean the time when he was asking me about Silver?

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

MS SHEZI: I told you Sir that when I arrived there I was put into this room where I was asked about Silver. It was just before the blindfold. I was only blindfolded when I was about to be taken to this room where electric shocks were administered.

MR CORNELIUS: This is contradictory to your evidence-in-chief, because in your evidence-in-chief you said the white sack was put over your head, tied behind your head(sic). Van Heerden was present. You were taken by Sam. Words uttered in Zulu. And then you were questioned about Silver.

INTERPRETER: Can the speaker please repeat the question.

MR CORNELIUS: Your testimony in-chief you said that the white sack was placed over your head and tied behind your back, can you remember that?

MR RICHARD: I have a low level objection. I think to say that she was first asked about Silver at the stage of being tortured or the sack over ... is not correct, her evidence-in-chief was that she was asked about Silver from immediately after the first raid on her house. I'll leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I've got the ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike.

CHAIRPERSON: I've got the sequence Mr Cornelius is referring to, I'm just looking back to see whether there was a previous occasion. Previously he asked you who was Thandi. And then you said

"They destroyed everything in the house. They were looking for Silver. Van Heerden was questioning me. He was the first one to assault me. First one to slap and others followed."

So Mr Cornelius, it may be that she didn't mention the name Silver at the beginning, but he asked about ...

"They were looking for Silver"

and he was doing the talking at that stage.

MR CORNELIUS: I will leave it there, thank you Mr Chair.

Who eventually took your final statement when you did give a statement to the investigating team?

ADV SIGODI: Which investigating team, the TRC or?

MR CORNELIUS: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Advocate Sigodi.

At that night after the rape, did you in fact then give a statement?

MS SHEZI: No, I couldn't because I was injured, my tongue was injured. After the electric shocks I was taken to the doctor.

MR CORNELIUS: When did you give a statement?

MS SHEZI: I did not compile any statement. After a doctor's visit I was taken to Sun City Prison, I was detained under Section 29.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you eventually give a statement?

MS SHEZI: I made a statement after my detention when I was laying charges against the apartheid government.

MR CORNELIUS: Oh I see. And in that statement - who did you give that statement to?

MS SHEZI: To Krish Naidoo.

MR CORNELIUS: Didn't you give a statement to the police as well, regarding your knowledge?

MS SHEZI: No, not at all. I could do that, I was not a position to do that.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but following your Section 29, didn't you ever give a statement to the police?

MS SHEZI: Well I remember very well on the day of my detention I was taken to John Vorster. I cannot remember the name of the person who I sat with, who asked me questions about the incident. I cannot remember the person's name.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you give a statement?

MS SHEZI: Yes, he was asking me questions and I was relating the story to him.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you sign a written statement?

MS SHEZI: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Voluntarily? You gave a voluntary statement, you weren't ...

MS SHEZI: Yes, I can say it was voluntary because I was not forced.

MR CORNELIUS: How long was that after this attack on you?

MS SHEZI: I said after six months, on my day of detention - on my day of my release.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you give full details regarding the attack on you?

MS SHEZI: Yes, as far as I can remember, perhaps I left out some of the things, but as far as I'm concerned I mentioned everything.

MR CORNELIUS: Did your attorney ever approach the Attorney-General and insist on prosecution of Mr van Heerden?

MS SHEZI: I bear no knowledge about that, but all I can remember is that I instructed him to discontinue the case.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you know who raped you?

MS SHEZI: You asked me that question more than once, I have told you that I was blindfolded but all I know is that it was four white people.

MR CORNELIUS: But you can't say it's Van Heerden, obviously?

MS SHEZI: No, I cannot say that.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you want to be declared a victim?

MS SHEZI: I do not know on which basis you are asking that question, because I'm the one who was humiliated, I'm the one who was victimised. I do not know what definition you attach to a person who is humiliated.

MR CORNELIUS: The question is easy Ms Shezi, because there might be possible financial gain if you're declared a victim. That's the reason for the question.

MS SHEZI: Financial gain, even if I can get the whole world or billions or zillions, they will never bring my life back, they will never erase what happened to me. Money to me is nothing compared to the pain that I endured.

MR CORNELIUS: Can I confer with my client just one second? Well just to sum up I put it to you that my client denies assaulting you, applying electrical shocks and obviously, raping you. You say it is him?

MS SHEZI: He's got a right to deny that but it happened to me and it's part of my life because I'll even die knowing that. Whether he says yes or no, that is for him and his God. I'll never judge him and I'll never hold any grudge against him, he will answer for himself to God.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You told us that you made a statement to the doctor and told him about the assaults on you. Is that correct?

MS SHEZI: I never made a statement to the doctor, because when I was shocked with electric wires I couldn't speak because my tongue was injured, I couldn't talk to the doctor. The only people who talked to the doctor were those who had taken me to the doctor.

CHAIRPERSON: When were you taken to the doctor?

MS SHEZI: I was taken on that very same day when I was to be taken to Sun City Prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that after you've been raped?

MS SHEZI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the doctor in any way made aware of the fact that you've been raped?

MS SHEZI: I do not know what they told the doctor, because I couldn't speak for myself, I had a severe headache and my tongue was injured. I couldn't talk to the doctor, as a result I do not know what they told the doctor, but the doctor gave me tablets and thereafter I was taken to Sun City Prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Couldn't you speak at all at that stage?

MS SHEZI: I think if your tongue has got some injuries, you cannot talk. As a result, when I got to Sun City the prison warders referred to me as "stukkende mond", because my tongue was swollen and I couldn't talk for three weeks.

CHAIRPERSON: What caused your swollen tongue, the slap and the hitting with the fists or what?

MS SHEZI: I said when there were administering electric shocks on me I would suffocate when I would try to breath and when I would try to breath through the mouth I would be shaken and bite my tongue.

CHAIRPERSON: They never applied the instrument, the shocking instrument directly to your tongue?

MS SHEZI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SIGODI: Can you remember where this doctor was?

MS SHEZI: No, I cannot remember.

ADV SIGODI: Was it a private doctor or was it a doctor in hospital?

MS SHEZI: I think it was a private doctor, because we went to his surgery.

ADV SIGODI: You can't remember the name?

MS SHEZI: No.

MR SIBANYONI: Could it have been a District Surgeon, not a doctor of your choice?

MS SHEZI: It was not the doctor of my choice, I was just taken there.

CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions by anybody? Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: About four questions, short ones.

When were you first aware when they came to your house, that they were looking for Silver, John Dube?

MS SHEZI: When they got to the house they said they were looking for Silver and I knew John Dube as Patrick Zwane at that time. They were looking for somebody that I did not know. I did not know that Silver. I knew only Patrick.

MR RICHARD: Now who asked about him, was it Mr van Heerden or one of the other policemen?

MS SHEZI: It was Mr van Heerden.

MR RICHARD: Next question, did the police have their own lighting outside your house, did they bring any search lamps or floodlights or ...(indistinct)?

MS SHEZI: Yes, they had a very big lamp that would actually disturb our vision when it was put in our direction.

MR RICHARD: Now what was the official response that your attorney, Krish Naidoo got from the South African Police?

MS SHEZI: The correspondence that he received, if my memory serves me well, first of all my sister organised Krish Naidoo after looking for me all over the place and Krish Naidoo wrote a letter to Adrian Vlok, telling him that there was a person like me who was detained but they did not know anything about my whereabouts. Then they were told that I was in Sun City and after that I was released and I laid charges against the SAP, concerning the assault, and the response came stating that there were so many Van Heerdens and as I did not even know the names of these people, the State decided that no-one can be held liable for that.

MR RICHARD: Now tell me, as at '88/'89, what was your attitude to the police, did you have contempt for them or respect? Did you trust them or distrust them?

MS SHEZI: I hated them.

MR RICHARD: Did you believe they would properly investigate your case and take it seriously?

MS SHEZI: That is one of the reasons that I decided to discontinue the case, because there would be so many cover-ups.

MR RICHARD: Now when you were travelling away from your house, could you see out the back of your yellow van that you were being taken in?

MS SHEZI: I couldn't see, but I could see on the sides of the net.

MR RICHARD: Then when Edward's trial came up, who called you to give evidence?

MS SHEZI: I was called by Edward's legal representatives.

MR RICHARD: And were you cross-examined on the fact that you were tortured and raped?

MS SHEZI: Yes, I was asked to testify about the assault, because they were totally denying the fact that Edward was assaulted and electrocuted. I was called to testify and even the marks on my body were still visible and that was the proof in court. Because Edward did testify to the effect that he was being assaulted, that's why he admitted to everything.

MR RICHARD: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD

MR RICHARD: May I proceed to the next witness?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we'll finish in any event today and the staff had a long day, I think it's unfair to the Interpreters to continue, I see it's half past five already. So we'll have to continue tomorrow. What time would suit you?

MR RICHARD: I'm quite happy with 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Half past nine is the proposal, would that suit everybody?

MR CORNELIUS: That will suit me, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We stand down until half past nine tomorrow morning. Perhaps the Interpreters should remind me next time about the time.

MR RICHARD: We have been known to go to six or seven.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS