CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Patel, we are in your hands.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, we are ready to proceed with the rest of the incidents for Mr Erasmus. For the record the matters that we are to hear now are incident 19 which relates to Vernon Berange, Incident 68 which relates to Goodman Mogami and if I may at this stage place on record, incident 67 which relates to Mr Madhav. My instructions are that he was out of the country, I haven't had an opportunity to make contact with him. My humble request is that the matter stand over to tomorrow morning. My instructions are that he is back in the country. I will endeavour to contact him by this evening.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS PATEL: Thank you.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And is it correct that as far as incident 2 is concerned, we'll have to deal with malicious injury to property, theft, but not attempted murder?
MS PATEL: That is indeed so, Honourable Chairperson and my learned colleague, Mr van Zyl, has indicated that the client will confirm that under oath. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Zyl?
MR VAN ZYL: As it pleases you, Madame Chair. Madame Chair, regarding to incident number 2, that of Alan Joseph, I believe that we are withdrawing our application for amnesty of attempted murder and in confirming so on record then the matter apparently will be referred to chambers, we're not to lead further evidence on that incident. Is that the way I understand it correctly? Good, may I then before calling Mr Erasmus and then regarding Section 20(b) and perhaps 20(f), is it necessary for me to continue leading evidence in that regard, Madame Chair, as the previous application I think should be sort of read in conjunction, those let's call preliminary evidence should be read in conjunction with perhaps our application here?
CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring to ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: The fact that he was an employee of the State.
Section 22(b), sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: Section 22(b) and 22.3 of the Act?
MR VAN ZYL: No, no, 22(f).
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VAN ZYL: Do you want me to lead that formal kind of evidence at this point in time? Lead that at this time and just go to the incident itself then?
CHAIRPERSON: I think you must conduct the matter the best way you deemed fit. If you want to lead evidence in relation to Section 20.2 (b) and (f) specifically in that regard you may do so.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But you will use your judgement.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, the only thing is that we heard that he was an employee of the State and he will confirm it but I don't want to go through the rigmarole of when did he start as a policeman, we've heard that now.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VAN ZYL: And so I think that evidence is clear now, it will come out that he did work in the scope of his employ. As it pleases. Then ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Is it not so that in his written application on page 1, he has provided details of ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: Of that, that is why I said I don't want to run through formality again like that. As it so pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if you however want to supplement anything with regard to paragraph 8(b) on page 1 up to page 2 of the written application you may do so otherwise we can take it as forming part of the evidence.
MR VAN ZYL: As read into the - the only amendment is the one that was done yesterday regarding that he was stationed at Bedfordview from January 1975.
CHAIRPERSON: 1985.
MR VAN ZYL: 1975.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, '75.
MR VAN ZYL: That amendment still stands, I believe?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VAN ZYL: And the rest here is all correct, okay. He confirms everything to be then with that amendment to be correct on page 1 and 2 up till the first incident there.
Madame Chair, do you still consider him under oath?
CHAIRPERSON: So you will be proceeding. Can you just confirm that Ms Patel's understanding is in fact correct, that we'll proceed with application ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: 19.
CHAIRPERSON: The incident number 19 which relates to the attempted murder on Ranon Duran?
NR VAN ZYL: Madame Chair, maybe there's something that I just noticed. The application only states, that is incident 19, that it was - on page 6.
CHAIRPERSON: That it was an assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
MR VAN ZYL: And we didn't amend it with our further particulars.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it not your instruction that it was an assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
MR VAN ZYL: It was assault, that is it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So it shall be incident number 19, that being the assault?
MR VAN ZYL: That would be assault, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: With intent to do grievous bodily harm?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And incident 68?
MR VAN ZYL: The attempted murder of Goodman Mogami.
CHAIRPERSON: Will that be attempted murder? Are those your instructions?
MR VAN ZYL: Those are my instructions.
CHAIRPERSON: On Goodman Mogami?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: And can you also confirm Ms Patel's understanding that the incident 67 relating to Deepak Madhav can stand down until tomorrow morning?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, before you proceed may I just indicate that the panel that will consider the applications that will now be heard is the same as the one that sat here yesterday and Mr van Zyl is on record as representing Mr Erasmus, the applicant and our evidence leader is Ms Patel.
MR VAN ZYL: As it pleases you. Do you consider Mr Erasmus under oath or do you want to reconfirm?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Erasmus is still under oath. Mr Erasmus, you are reminded that you are still under your former oath.
PAUL ERASMUS: (s.u.o.) I understand, Madame Chair.
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN ZYL: Then I call Mr Erasmus and I'll start to lead his evidence.
Mr Erasmus, incident number 2 is that of attempted murder of Alan Joseph. Do you confirm that we are withdrawing your application for attempted murder, is being hereby withdrawn?
MR ERASMUS: I confirm, Madame Chair.
MR VAN ZYL: Let us then now go to incident number 19.
JUDGE DE JAGER: I just wanted confirmation that lightning wouldn't affect our earphones.
MR VAN ZYL: May I relate a quick humorous incident here to the same thing? Years ago I bought my mother an electric toothbrush and she had fillings and she never used it because she thought she'd shock herself to death. Anyway, that was just funny.
Mr Erasmus, Vernon Berange, at the time of the incident, that is number 19 ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Are you now dealing with incident number 19?
MR VAN ZYL: I'm dealing with incident number 19, I'm leading evidence, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: And this is the assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm on Vernon Berange.
MR VAN ZYL: And illegal entry and illegal search of premises that actually goes with it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VAN ZYL: When did this incident take place, Mr Erasmus?
MR ERASMUS: 1981.
MR VAN ZYL: 1981. At that time you were still employed as per contained in the first eight paragraphs of your written application?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair, I was a sergeant, a detective-sergeant in the Security Branch of the South African Police.
MR VAN ZYL: Alright, now all the incidents - this incident here, did you at the time of breaking and entering and swopping the medicine which you will hear later, did all this take place in the scope of your employ?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.
MR VAN ZYL: Okay. Why do you say it was in the scope of your employ?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I think if you'll just give me a bit of levity to just explain the background of the Berange's, they were - I could stand corrected on this, they were either people that had been listed in terms of the then suppression of Communism Act or listed persons or banned persons. Mr Vernon Berange and his wife, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, was an attorney ex Johannesburg, had been involved in activities of the then banned South African Communist Party. They had gone into exile in Swaziland but were allowed by a very benevolent South African Government to re-enter South Africa as he required medical treatment. He had visited South Africa on several occasions. In the two or three years, certainly since I joined the Security Branch in 1977, I'd been sent to apply surveillance on them, never actually found that they had made contact with any people in South Africa, but there was a suspicion from Security Branch head office. There was information to the effect that they were trying to contact the then head or the replacement head of the South African Communist Party or other people that had been listed in terms of the then Security legislation.
Just prior to this incident when it was reported to the Security Police, Security Branch head office at that time, that they'd once again be visiting South Africa, my instructions were to put them under 24 hours surveillance.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Who gave you the instructions?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I believe this came from a Col. Stadler at Security Branch head office.
CHAIRPERSON: Who?
MR ERASMUS: He personally gave me the instructions.
CHAIRPERSON: Colonel who?
MR ERASMUS: Stadler, S-T-A-D-L-E-R.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ERASMUS: I think he was a colonel at that time. I do know at a later stage he was a brigadier and possibly even a general.
MR VAN ZYL: What was the name again?
MR ERASMUS: Stadler.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he your immediate commander?
MR ERASMUS: He was not my immediate commander, my immediate commanding officer was Maj. J H L Jordaan, but head office were aware of this incident as they were aware of most situations relating to our work so I received in this case dual instructions. I was told to do the surveillance by Maj. Jordaan who informed me that I was to contact Col. Stadler at South African Police headquarters which I then did and telephonically informed me that this nonsense of the Berange's being given this freedom to move around Johannesburg had to stop and that in future we were to make them feel a little bit less welcome and in fact convey the message to them that they could go elsewhere for their medical treatment. I do recall his terminology was not phrased in such pleasant terms as I've recounted it, but I was under no illusion that I was to intimidate them, harass them and prevent them, as it were, from returning to South Africa.
MR VAN ZYL: He entered or you say you entered and searched his premises. What was the objective of doing so?
MR ERASMUS: The objective had several motives or there was an agenda, firstly to establish if indeed they had contacted or they were trying to leave messages to any people that were suspects of the Security Branch. The second objective was to obtain particulars of contacts that they might have had outside South Africa by way of examining address books.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, I don't understand it, as I understood your evidence they were living in Swaziland?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Now you entered the premises. Where were those premises, in Swaziland?
MR ERASMUS: No, the premises, Madame Chair, were in Johannesburg. They had come up for medical treatment and they rented, I think, for a period of 10 days or 2 weeks, I'm not quite certain, they rented temporary accommodation in Berea.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.
MR VAN ZYL: And it was at these premises that you entered?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.
MR VAN ZYL: When did that happen?
MR ERASMUS: We had placed - I had assembled a surveillance team and at an opportune moment when Mr and Mrs Berange left the premises, I used a skeleton key. It wasn't actually housebreaking in the sense that anything was broken, to obtain entry to the flat. I was accompanied by a very young member of the Security Branch who proceeded with a very methodical search. We actually obtained an address book and some pamphlets which were not of major security importance but nevertheless it could have been used at some time. I made some notes from it, pinched a couple of pamphlets, which I can't remember what they related to. We interfered with their clothing, we wanted them to know that this search had taken place and as an added benefit there was a cardboard box containing bottles of - I'm looking for the right words here, some of it was homeopathic medicine and some was medicine that they obtained from a specialist in Johannesburg.
If my memory serves me correct, Mr Berange had a heart condition or a stomach condition, something that he required ongoing treatment which was unavailable in Swaziland.
I then, as part of this plot to make them realise that they were not only unwelcome but that they'd had visitors, I took the labels, the ones that I could remove in the limit of time that was available to me and I swopped the labels around from as many bottles and containers as what I could.
CHAIRPERSON: You swopped the labels of the pills?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: How were these labels on the medication, were they not stuck onto the medication?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I recall that in trying to get some of them off I actually damaged them. There was some, though, that the labels were not easily removable but I could lift it very carefully from the containers, plastic or glass containers. With the passage of time I cannot recall how many, I should imagine off the cuff four or five of the labels. I recall that one of the bottles was titled "The Elixir of Life" which I found quite humorous at the time, it was obviously a homeopathic substance in the nature of a tonic or something. I managed to get that label off and swopped it around with one of the other concoctions, or one of the other mixtures.
MR VAN ZYL: Did you swop any of the contents without swopping the labels?
MR ERASMUS: We didn't have time to swop the contents although we considered it and I probably would have done it as I recall it because a lot of it was tablets and some of it was liquids and we couldn't quite match the labels around so that the deception would have been complete. As I've said, the message was that these people knew that they were some sort of threat in South Africa, they were unwelcome visitors and they were to be left under no illusion that they were not to return. I might just add, Madame Chair, that a second consideration that I had at the time was that apart from the few insignificant things that I removed, or stole if you will, we didn't steal any valuables, we didn't want them to be under the impression that this was an act of theft or criminality, we wanted them to be under the impression that this was from the intelligence community and in a way convey a message to them.
MR VAN ZYL: The swopping of the medicine, was that a direct order?
MR ERASMUS: My orders were never obviously to attempt to kill them or harm them, it was to in the best way possible, I was then given levity to act as I saw fit. It was to make them uncomfortable and I could decide to what extent this type of action would take.
MR VAN ZYL: Did you report this incident in full back to your superiors?
MR ERASMUS: I reported this incident by way of a written SAP67 report to head office. I referred to the telephonic communication with Col. Stadler. I gave a full resume of the surveillance that had been carried out over this, I believe it was ten days, what we had achieved which wasn't very much but nevertheless quite excited to receive a commendation for good work for the job that I'd done in this instance.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Zyl?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, thank you Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: The intention for swopping around the labels on this medication was to make them aware that somebody had interfered with the medication, is that no so?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: And so it would have been quite apparent to the person concerned that somebody had interfered with the medication and therefore he would have been quite cautious to take it?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.
MR VAN ZYL: But you also foresaw the fact that should they take the wrong medication it could cause them some harm?
MR ERASMUS: I obviously considered it at the time, I didn't have any particular feelings about it apart from - well, I felt very strongly about the Beranges by virtue of my training and my belief at the time. If I'm really honest, it wouldn't have mattered to me if they were injured or harmed but the basic departure that I operated from was to leave these people, especially with the medicine, under the impression that - or what I wanted to create was their belief that somebody had tried to kill them and it wasn't just a robbery. This was something more ominous or more awesome than that. That is, this was the South African Government or the intelligence services.
MR VAN ZYL: But yet it wasn't your intent to kill?
MR ERASMUS: No. No, if there was that type of intent to kill or if I had been given those instructions I would certainly have then gone the whole way with the medicines and replaced them with toxic substances which even at that stage of my career probably were available.
MR VAN ZYL: And how many times ...(intervention)
ADV. SIGODI: Sorry, Mr van Zyl. In other words when you swopped these labels, you did it in such a way that they would be able to see that the labels had been swopped and as the Chairperson has already stated, they would be cautious in taking that particular medicine?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.
ADV. SIGODI: You did not put any toxic ingredient in any of the medicines?
MR ERASMUS: I didn't place any toxins in the ingredients.
ADV. SIGODI: Thanks.
MR VAN ZYL: How many times did you do this kind of entry at the Berange's?
MR ERASMUS: Prior to this, with the passage of time my memory is a bit unclear, I must have given them attention of this nature on at least four or five occasions. I knew at the time that I conducted the search I knew exactly what they looked like, what their habits were, the books they read, what their luggage looked like, I knew everything about them.
MR VAN ZYL: Was this the first time, though, that you left visible traces?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct. The prior occasions were only to conduct surveillance on them and if possible find out if and who they were making contact with in the illegal political underground structures.
MR VAN ZYL: And all of these actions took place in 1981?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, I believe that after this incident the Beranges never returned to South Africa. I perused my case books which I have with me and I found no entries after this entry in my case registers relating to their return.
MR VAN ZYL: You didn't have a particular malice against the Berange's? A personal malice?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, by virtue of my training I certainly didn't like them but on a personal, on an objective personal level, no absolutely not.
CHAIRPERSON: You were acting on instructions, is it not so?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I was acting on instructions and it was an ideological divide between us more than anything personal.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but you were following instructions from Col. Stadler after Maj. Jordaan had instructed you to speak to Col. Stadler?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: From whom you received instructions as to what to do with regard to do with Mr Berange?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.
JUDGE DE JAGER: One question? Col. Stadler, he was in fact later the, or I don't know since when, it may be before this, the chief of Stratcom, wasn't he?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair no, he was a senior staff officer on the Security Branch and at one stage I believe in about the mid '80s he almost headed the Security Branch in the mid to late '80s.
JUDGE DE JAGER: When he retired round about? I know he's written a book.
MR ERASMUS: I don't know about that, Madame Chair, I do believe that he would have retired somewhere roundabout the change of the system in South Africa.
JUDGE DE JAGER: And I'm not sure whether, that's why I'm asking, but I had the idea that he was the head of Stratcom at one or other stage?
MR ERASMUS: Sir, in my experience of Stratcom, possibly in the very early years.
JUDGE DE JAGER: No, in the later years.
MR ERASMUS: In the later years. I wasn't aware of that.
JUDGE DE JAGER: No, maybe I'm wrong.
MR VAN ZYL: Madame Chair, I think that's the evidence I'm going to lead on that. Shall we proceed to the next incident now immediately or will we allow now for cross-examination?
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe it will be appropriate to afford Ms Patel and the Members of the Panel an opportunity to put questions, if they do have any, to Mr Erasmus before you proceed onto the next incident.
MR VAN ZYL: As it so pleases you, Madam, those are my questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ZYL
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, in light of the admission made by the applicant that there was no intention to harm Mr Berange and also that he had tampered with the medication in the way that it would be visible to Mr Berange I have no questions on this incident, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Judge de Jager?
JUDGE DE JAGER: No questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY JUDGE DE JAGER
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Sigodi?
ADV. SIGODI: No questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS SIGODI
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN ZYL: I then proceed to incident, Madame Chair, incident 68.
Mr Erasmus, we confirm your earlier testimony regarding paragraphs 1 to 8 of your application of amnesty and we are now proceeding to incident 68, Attempted Murder of Goodman Mogami. Approximately when did this take place?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, this particular incident took place in 1988.
MR VAN ZYL: No, no, no. Sorry, Mogami yes, 1988 that's right. Yes?
MR ERASMUS: At the time I was for the best part of my entire activities operating covertly.
MR VAN ZYL: And on whose instructions did you act at that time?
MR ERASMUS: I believe my commanding officer was later to become Brig. Alfred Oosthuizen.
MR VAN ZYL: Now what happened with Good Mogami. We'll retract a little bit more but just tell us the incident. What happened there with him?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, at the time I was like I say working covertly, in other words working under cover. I had false identities, so many in fact that I cannot - it was difficult to remember from which day to the next who I was and what role I had to play. Be that as it may, I had a reasonably, if not reasonably a very successful informer network. I was receiving information and in this particular operation contact had been facilitated by a registered Security Branch informer between Mr Goodman Mogami and myself.
MR VAN ZYL: Who was this informer? Can you remember?
MR ERASMUS: I remember the person, I don't know if it's in the interests of anybody to divulge the person's identity, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Is he known to you?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, absolutely. I can safely say that their informer registration number which would be traceable I presume.
CHAIRPERSON: What was the name of the informer?
MR ERASMUS: It was a woman, Madame Chair. Renee Hirshman.
CHAIRPERSON: Hirshman?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And where did Mr Mogami stay?
MR ERASMUS: I beg your pardon, Madame Chair?
CHAIRPERSON: Where did Mr Mogami stay?
MR ERASMUS: He was living in Hillbrow at the time, Madame Chair.
MR VAN ZYL: Did you personally know where he stayed?
MR ERASMUS: I went personally to his flat on one occasion, on subsequent occasions I had as befitted what my role was that I was a member of the ANC's special ops unit. I went somewhat disguised and I met him at various venues in and around central Johannesburg. Once in Joubert Park outside Darrock House, one of the meetings I recall very clearly, once in the vicinity of Khotso House. These meetings apart from the first time that I met him took place late at night. He believed and he'd fallen for the story that I was a terrorist, a commander in fact in a terrorist unit.
CHAIRPERSON: He believed that you were a terrorist?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he actually say - was that the term he used or he believed that you were an operative from ...(intervention)
MR ERASMUS: Well a freedom fighter, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: From the MK?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We would prefer that you don't use the word terrorist.
MR ERASMUS: I'm contextualising it or time phrasing into that period.
CHAIRPERSON: He wouldn't have believed you to have been ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: I saw you putting it in inverted commas but it's recorded what you say and the recording machine wouldn't put it in inverted commas, so it would convey a different meaning in the written document.
CHAIRPERSON: He must have believed that you were an MK operative, is it not so?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ERASMUS: And more specifically in the special ops or spes ops units which had several European members which is now well known.
CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean by European members, you mean Whites?
MR ERASMUS: Whites, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ERASMUS: Without being offensive, that is just the way it was at that time.
So to pick up where I left off, he fell for the story. On one of the occasions I met him at night was in Joubert Park. I showed him an AK-47 rifle. He expressed an interest in being armed himself, leaving South Africa illegally and going for military training.
I then, in conjunction with my superiors and with people at head office, embarked on a plan. Due to limited resources we could not put him under 24 hours surveillance. To do this type of surveillance takes a lot of manpower and a lot of effort. He was also not regarded as being - I think the term that we used at that stage was rocket scientist material, he was more a sort of lower echelon foot soldier, so we devised quite simply a plot that yes, if this was his inclination that he wanted to carry a weapon and kill people or engage in military activities on behalf of the ANC, we would then supply him with a weapon. But the only way that we could stop him, as we presumed, killing either colleagues of ours, policemen, or innocent people, was that if he did use that weapon or attempt to use it or test it, it would at the very least explode in his hand, either injuring him in which case he would be picked up and charged or the ultimate scenario is he would be permanently eliminated.
I was then to request - I obtained a firearm, a 9 mm Colt pistol, which I myself, I have a reasonable knowledge of firearms, filed away the firing pin and as an added measure to ensure that this firearm be used I arranged for explosive rounds from Security Branch head office in Pretoria. I did this via the office of Brig. Alfred Oosthuizen. I think it was two or three days and an envelope arrived, an official envelope and I had thirteen 9 mm rounds which contained plastic explosives. I believed at the time that - and I'm being as honest as what I can with the Commission, that if any one of those rounds with that quantity of plastic explosives had been triggered off, the rounds next to it would have exploded, it would probably have seriously injured at the very least or ultimately killed Mr Mogami. I may point out, Madame Chair, that I supplied him with a firearm, with a 9 mm, I supplied him with the rounds as part of the operation and to preserve my cover I also gave him money out of the secret fund. He was then told to lie low and await further instructions from me.
I must point out, Madame Chair, that this type of operation which we referred to as something of a sting, or false flag operation, had particular advantages. We could engineer this person into doing something which he might not have done under normal circumstances. If one knows and understand the intelligence community and the struggle at that time there were many possibilities. We could use him to eliminate or he could have been used to eliminate an activist that we particularly wanted out of the way by simply supplying him with a nonsense story. We could use a lot of propaganda or Stratcom value out of such a person as Mogami.
I supplied him with the money and the firearms as I mentioned and set a meeting place, I think once again for Joubert Park late at night, for a week afterwards which was pretty much the norm at that time. Went to the meeting place with backup and Mr Mogami never arrived. I made several attempts to find him after that. My superiors, that is Brig. Oosthuizen, was particularly perturbed that this man had just disappeared, we had invested a lot of time and effort in the operation. I went to where he was resident in Hillbrow and we lost trace of him totally. To this day I don't know what has happened to him. I recall at the time that we could not identify him positively in the sense that he might have used even a false name when he approached us or he approached the informer to make contact with us.
MR VAN ZYL: So is it possible that he could have been under special ops himself against you?
MR ERASMUS: Anything is possible. At that time and with an operation like this one had to consider each and every possibility.
MR VAN ZYL: At the time when you gave him the rifle and the ammunition, did you foresee the fact that he could be ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: It's a pistol.
MR VAN ZYL: Sorry, the ammunition and the firearm, did you foresee the fact that he could be killed in using it?
MR ERASMUS: Well if that - I did foresee it, if that situation did arise it would have, as we looked at it that stage, it would have been one less potential and once again I use the word "terrorist" (freedom fighter), it would have been one less person for us to either have to face one day in a war situation or in a combat situation. It would have been once less political trial if he'd ever been caught. So bet it, this was the only method that we could devise or that I could devise at that time of hindering this person from carrying out some or other military action.
MR VAN ZYL: Was that due to the lack of personnel or the lack of available personnel to do further surveillance?
MR ERASMUS: That would have formed a very big part of our thinking at the time. I may just add, Madame Chair, that I'm sure that a lot of people here today would recall that there were similar instances of doctored firearms and ammunition being - or arms caches being interfered with. A well known one was on East Rand where detonators time delays were changed. My first experience with those type of matters was in Ovamboland where it was general standard practise by the South African Police and South African Defence Force personnel to do things like that. I know for a fact that this type of operation was carried out by South African Special Forces in Mozambique in assisting Renamo against Frelimo and that it was done right through the history of warfare.
MR VAN ZYL: Right, okay. Now what you did was that in the course and the scope of your duties and your orders?
MR ERASMUS: Absolutely, Madame Chair
MR VAN ZYL: Can you specifically say who gave the final order or the initial order?
CHAIRPERSON: Brig. Oosthuizen.
MR ERASMUS: Brig. Alfred Oosthuizen.
MR VAN ZYL: Okay, so we're happy with that then, good. And you have then described the - what was the political objective of doing so again?
MR ERASMUS: To neutralise a - I wouldn't use the word perceived but most definitely threat from a person, namely Mr Goodman Mogami.
MR VAN ZYL: And it carried the approval of your superiors?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.
MR VAN ZYL: That is the evidence for the applicant, Madame Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ZYL
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
How did it come - I understand you state that Ms Hirshman facilitated the meeting between yourself and Mr Mogami. Can you give us a bit of background as to how that had happened? Why did this meeting take place?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, yes. Ma'am, this will take a while. Firstly, in fairness to Ms Hirshman ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: I'm a bit worried because she didn't receive any notice here and she's now implicated and well, I suppose we'll have to send her a copy of whatever evidence is given here.
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, may I just in that interest or serve as what you said, just give little bit of background about Ms Hirshman. I feel very strongly about having revealed her identity.
Firstly, Ms Hirshman never ever voluntarily gave assistance to the Security Police. I was blackmailing her from - I blackmailed her into becoming an agent. I think in fairness to her, in deference to her, I must state that.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it was something that was known to have been the work of the Police that set somebody up and you then demand that she becomes an informer failing which you would disclose certain information which she did not want divulged.
MR ERASMUS: Correct. In this case I would not only have exposed her but locked her up indeterminately. Sadly but that is a true account of what happened in this circumstance.
The second thing that I'd like to point out to Judge de Jager's concerns is that she never knew what actually happened with Goodman Mogami. She merely told me that she had met this man at a political rally, that he'd been making a lot of rash statements and asking people about how he could contact somebody important as in whatever which of course was bread and butter to a person like myself because here was a lot of opportunities.
Given another scenario, what I should have mentioned earlier one, was we could have used Mogami again as an informer, send him to carry out a variety of tasks.
CHAIRPERSON: When you first had contact with Mr Mogami, did you disclose to him that you were making contact with him pursuant to information supplied to you by someone with regard to who he was?
MR ERASMUS: I never divulged to him, ma'am, we were too circumspect to fall into that sort of pitfall. I just merely said to him that it had come to my attention that he was trying to make contact and as in many of these situations, played these little verbal games about "we heard" or "somebody said" or "you've been recommended" or something like this. The whole idea was almost akin to a fishing expedition where you put the bait on the line, you tie it on, you cast it out onto the water, the person nibbles at it, eventually they bite on it and you reel them in and once you'd reeled them in, well you could play the fish whichever way you wanted to.
CHAIRPERSON: What question did you want to pose to Mr Erasmus?
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. My question was merely what had led to the contact between Mr Mogami and Mr Erasmus via his ...(indistinct) but I believe he has already explained that.
Can you briefly just give us the nature of the discussions between yourself and Mr Mogami? What was Mr Mogami's intentions expressed to you? You know, you had quite a few meetings with him as you've stated. What were those discussions about?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, to effectively combat the ANC, our enemy at that time or the PAC, we had to almost become the - the standard tactic, I'm just trying to explain to you ma'am as briefly as what I can. I immediately after meeting him assessed that he wasn't, as I mentioned earlier, a very intelligent person. He'd certainly, if he had left the country if I managed to recruit him as an informer or be it directly for the Security Branch under false flag, would have left the country illegally and ended up just a weapon carrying cadre or liberation fighter. He was certainly not destined for our office in one of the banned organisations.
CHAIRPERSON: What was so important about him as an activist? Was he just an ordinary ANC activist, as you say who was not that intelligent and wouldn't have made it to the upper ranks of any ANC organisation or MK?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, that is why this avenue was decided upon, to rather supply him with a firearm and let him burn himself out very quickly rather than spend more time on resources and try and educate him better or turn him into the type of agent which we could allow to leave the country and would supply information having infiltrated at a more senior level.
CHAIRPERSON: Now apart from the fact that he was just an ordinary ANC activist, is there anything that influenced your decision to attempt to kill him by means of this false flag operation of providing him with a doctored pistol?
MR ERASMUS: Ma'am, his qualities, our assessment at the time we assessed him as being nothing more than cannon fodder, at best he would have just been a normal foot soldier, not a very intelligent one at that, he was very radical in the sense that he spoke the right language, said the right things, hated the South African Government with a lot of passion and that maybe this was the quickest and the most effective way to neutralise somebody like this by giving him the opportunity to burn himself out before somebody was hurt.
CHAIRPERSON: Am I correct in understanding your evidence to mean that he was not particularly a threat as a person?
MR ERASMUS: Intellectually he certainly didn't pose a threat. I think in a military sense, being as militant as what he was, his desire to get hold of firearms and start his own little war and contribution to the struggle of the liberation movement, I think he certainly posed a threat, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Was there any difference, you were obviously involved with the Security Police for quite some time, did he do anything different to what you would have expected of any young person during that time to have done to have this keenness to possess a firearm to use against the Police?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, with the benefit of hindsight, I have to reconsider, yes at this time I would have certainly had a lot of sympathy for him, he had no avenues to voice his political aspirations, he had a very sad background, his parents had been abused by the system, he had a very poor education with the compliments of Bantu Education. I can now understand his anger and have certainly some empathy for somebody in that situation.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he possess of any special training which he had received from any underground structure?
MR ERASMUS: That was one of the first aims of my meeting with him on several occasions, was to built up some sort of profile. In fact he used to do this in most cases, build up something of a personality profile regarding this person. No, he had no training.
CHAIRPERSON: So he was just a - how old was he, by the way?
MR ERASMUS: I would estimate, Madame Chair, I can't remember offhand, I did take as much particulars as I could at the time, I would say 20 maybe 21 years old.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so he was a young person who was eager to fight the system which he considered oppressive?
MR ERASMUS: Absolutely, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
According to your contact with him, did Mr Mogami have any contact with any other ANC or liberation movement activist at the time?
MR ERASMUS: No, apart from the meetings that he attended, he'd first appeared at an End Conscription Campaign meeting, there was one or two of the UDF meetings and the contact that he had made with my informer was at an organisation known as the Free the Children Alliance, FTCA or FTC, meeting which was held in, if my memory serves me correct, Central Methodist Church in Johannesburg.
MS PATEL: Alright, but he never had any contact really except his going to mass meetings, he never had any contact with ANC cells, etc. etc?
MR ERASMUS: No, absolutely not.
CHAIRPERSON: And in your experience was it not normal for all young persons to attend mass meetings, mass rallies or was it something peculiar?
MR ERASMUS: It was nothing unusual, Madame Chair, it was just an opportunity that presented itself.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS PATEL: Then I must confess, Mr Erasmus, I do not understand the extreme action that you took with him by providing him with a weapon that you foresaw would kill him under these circumstances?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, if I can maybe just elaborate on one or two of the points that I raised earlier on? His declared intention was to, I think I used the phrase "start his own little war", go on a spree and do his part for the liberation of the country.
CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't it your experience as a Security Policemen during that time that all young persons had this kind of declared intention to get ammunition and to engage in a war against the Security Police and the government of the day in order to gain liberation?
MR ERASMUS: Ma'am, in my experience, I must firstly point out that I worked for the best part of my career mainly with White suspects in organisations. The contact that I did have and if we look at that period circa 1988, the contact that I had was, I hate these terms, people of colour. But anyway, Black youngsters at that time.
CHAIRPERSON: I think we would appreciate if you didn't say people of colour again. If you were only talking of Mr Mogami for instance he was a Black person.
MR ERASMUS: He was a young Black man. Not all of them wanted to leave the country and go for military training but certainly the level of feeling against the apartheid State was at an all time high.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ERASMUS: That was abundant to all of us. In fact I could go further and say that it actually from 1986 to myself and many of my colleagues would talk in private and voice our fears to each other that how would we ever stop this. This was a wave that was going to, yes, ultimately liberate this country.
CHAIRPERSON: And the question put to you by Ms Patel is what made you really to take such extreme measures against Mr Mogami? He was no different from the many youths of the time, why did you have to go to such extreme measures against him?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I don't think these were extreme measures at all. That was the quickest solution to a potential problem, I think that was the way that I would look at it now and that was certainly the assessment that I made and which I conveyed to my superiors at the time. It cost us nothing. If I can just explain, I'm sure you would ask some sort of explanation. Firearms were available, "spook" or ghost firearms were available in abundance by that time. I could certainly get my hands on any weaponry that I wanted. The weapon in question here was already damaged, it was an old Colt 9 mm pistol. I damaged it further. The rounds were freely available, it was simply conveying them from head office to ourselves although I must confess that I had the knowledge and the ability to make them myself if I wanted to and the bit of contact that I had with him was not time consuming or it was reasonably cost effective and I gave him a hundred rand. Money was freely available out of the secret fund anyway.
JUDGE DE JAGER: What would the position have been if he'd gone out of the country, received military training and returned? Would he be a real danger to the - or a bigger danger to the country than he was before?
MR ERASMUS: He most certainly would have been a bigger danger. In the first instance, Madame Chair, was that he wouldn't have been carrying a doctored Colt pistol, he would have been carrying a safe weapon, that is safe from his point of view or from their point of view and certainly had better training. Yes, he would have been far more dangerous.
CHAIRPERSON: Now to come back to what you have stated before, you say that he intended to start his own war.
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Against the Police?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Without any kind of training?
MR ERASMUS: Without any kind of training, I might mention, Madame Chair, that it was general knowledge at that time in the Security structures that not everybody that was being trained militarily and hadn't in fact been for many years was leaving the country, the liberation movements, the ANC at that time, was training people in and around areas like Soweto, Johannesburg, all over the country, were given sort of something of an in-house or insight to training. A quick - I think they refer to them as crash courses.
CHAIRPERSON: Instant training?
MR ERASMUS: Instant training in weaponry and tactics.
CHAIRPERSON: Now was it your information that he had received this kind of training?
MR ERASMUS: No, no that was obviously one of the first things that I looked at.
CHAIRPERSON: So he did not have any kind of instant training?
MR ERASMUS: No.
CHAIRPERSON: And he was not an intelligible sort of fellow?
MR ERASMUS: No.
CHAIRPERSON: He did not have any hopes of being recognised if he left the country to be anything within the structures of the MK?
MR ERASMUS: I didn't think that he would have got anywhere.
CHAIRPERSON: He was not a threat at all, was he?
MR ERASMUS: Ma'am, conversely, he was a hot head, he couldn't think of what he was actually doing. I remember one of the occasions, in fact I think when I gave him the weapon, I still told him as an added insurance, I said under no circumstances was he to attack or hurt any - being White myself, I had to let him play this game that obviously I was protective of my own kind, as it were, and that the targets that he attempted to attack with me giving him this pistol, were only to be in extreme circumstances and that would be legitimate targets like SADF members. I think I even avoided the use of Police members. Our relationship with the army was never very favourable.
CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I'm asking these questions is because of the evidence that has been tendered before in many of the hearings that we have conducted by very senior Security Police officers who tendered such evidence in their capacity has applicants for amnesty wherein they advised the Committee that persons who posed a threat and against whom such measures would have been taken, were people who had received some kind of military training inside the country or otherwise or persons who were by virtue of the leadership positions they held in various organisations like a students' organisation, SASCO and such other related organisations. If they held senior positions they posed a threat and actions were taken against those persons or people who had been involved in consumer boycotts as activists, such action would be taken against them. The objective was pre-emptive in nature.
MR ERASMUS: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now I have found the person that you have described in the nature of Mr Mogami to have been no different from any other youth who was an ordinary person during that time who expressed some feeling of anger and would say something about him having to act against the government without having received any kind of training, without being in possession of any kind of weaponry and a person who did not have any leadership qualities. He did not pose a particular threat, within the meaning of the threat as has been explained to us in previous amnesty hearings?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, my assessment at the time was that if I didn't supply him a firearm, he would have gone to any lengths to obtain a firearm. Somewhere along the line he would have got hold of a gun. The second consideration was that he wasn't very intelligent, he knew all the right language, he knew the ANC's or the underground slogans, off by heart most certainly, he was not a person that was capable of tactical thought. I suppose if I had to relate him to somebody on the extreme right-wing it would have been a Barend Strydom type of guy that might have taken this gun and conducted some sort of reckless suicide mission or simply shot White people for the sake of them being seen by him as an enemy. I got quite a lot of self-satisfaction afterwards when this first meeting took place at the shock on his face when I arrived there with this big overcoat and a Balaclava on, the shock in his eyes when he realised that I was a White person and then my explaining to him about that I was in the specialised unit and the rest of it. That in itself might have disarmed him or made him just think a little bit deeply. He certainly wasn't very bright and considered, I think at that stage, I could safely say that to him the entire liberation movement was pitch Black and nothing but Black people.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if that was your perception of him, how did you manage to convince him that you were part of this liberation movement - you were White?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, I think by then with after the arrest of White liberation movement members, as we saw them terrorists, and the publicity they achieved, like Marion Sparg, whom I incidentally traced and arrested, Peter Marais, Rockland Mark Williams, it was sort of starting to get out, that the ANC was not an exclusively or to the rank and file, it was starting to be understood that the ANC was not an exclusive or racial organisation, that it was Black only, that there was White people. Not only in fact White people but Afrikaners involved in the ANC in the liberation movement.
CHAIRPERSON: So all you did was to simply explain that you were from the underground structure and he simply accepted your say so?
MR ERASMUS: He not only accepted it, Madame Chair, he accepted it one hundred percent and would have followed me blindly. I think that he was quite impressed.
CHAIRPERSON: Did it take you any length of time to convince him that you came from the underground structures? I'm asking this pursuant to what came out of your mouth that to him, he saw the liberation movement in terms of Blackness.
MR ERASMUS: It did take a bit of time. I had, as I mentioned, several meetings with him late at night. It was also part of the game that I had to convince him about who I was. I couldn't give too much away because conversely I also didn't know who he was and I could be set up, I could have went to any one of those meetings and found that he was involved with ANC special ops and here I was a soft target. I would have walked into something literally with no backup, Joubert Park in the middle of the night somebody could have shot me, put a knife in me and it would have been a victory for the enemy at that time. So it was very much, Madame Chair, a cat and mouse type of situation.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Once he had become convinced that you were indeed part of the liberation movement, what did he say was his intention?
MR ERASMUS: He desperately wanted to leave the country and he had this fascination for the AK-47 and everything that went with it.
CHAIRPERSON: Now at which stage did he say he wanted to leave the country, I thought it was not his intention, but his intention was to start his own war?
MR ERASMUS: Well, he appreciated and I think I led him understand that as well that it wasn't that easy to just walk through the borders of the country. As I've said, our whole assessment of the situation at the time was the quickest solution to Mr Goodman Mogami was to let him solve his own problem by hurting himself or at least stopping him in his tracks.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that how you actually acted against people who were like Mr Mogami?
MR ERASMUS: Not always, ma'am. My main role at that time in conducting operations like this was intelligence gathering, was the infiltration of informers into enemy organisations or bodies or anti-State bodies.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in your amnesty application you indicate here that Mr Mogami was in fact trying to join an ANC cell?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct. That is correct, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Now which of the reasons you have now given should we accept?
MR ERASMUS: I don't understand, Madame Chair?
CHAIRPERSON: You've indicated that you got interested in Mr Mogami because he was trying to join an ANC cell?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: In my question of you, you have stated that Mr Mogami intended to leave the country for military training, I suppose? You also have indicated that your interest was I think on Mr Mogami was because he wanted to start his own war against the Police, hence you intended to act against him.
MR ERASMUS: That is correct. Madame Chair ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I want to know why you acted against him, given all the reasons that you have now furnished?
MR ERASMUS: Madame Chair, to just correct my words there. There was no distinguishing between leaving the country, joining an ANC cell, obtaining military training outside the country or inside the country. My assessment, our assessment at the time was the person was a threat which had to be dealt with in the most convenient and easiest way and the most effective way possible.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I probably am not familiar with how you use the word cell because people joined cells inside the country for a particular reason and not necessarily because they intended to leave the country.
MR ERASMUS: Every situation, Madame Chair, as I understood it and in recollection now I think was different. Some of the cells were propaganda orientated, there were certainly some cells that had a military component or some of the members of that cell were armed. I think it's not easy to give a broad definition of actually how each cell operated or each cell would have operated.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you must have been informed by Ms Hirshman of Mr Mogami's intention, is it not so?
MR ERASMUS: She brought him to my attention, yes, by virtue out of the people that surrounded here was here was a young man with a lot of commitment, making the right statements, very militant and somebody out of that whole group and I used to monitor all the people around that she could identify was somebody that had to be given a bit of attention, hence the procession of events after that.
CHAIRPERSON: Was she the one who advised you that Mr Mogami intended to join an ANC cell?
MR ERASMUS: That is in substance correct. He was not just content to stay with the Free the Children Alliance or the UDF wherever he was going to these meetings, he wanted to take this whole process not just a few inches but a few metres further on.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it explained to you what kind of a cell he intended joining?
MR ERASMUS: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you able to explore that information with Mr Mogami as to the nature of the cell he intended joining?
MR ERASMUS: Ma'am, I had to work very quickly, I had to convince him that I was under some sort of threat which would have also made a big impression on him, it wasn't a type of situation where I could sit and intellectualise with him. Decisions and my words had to come very thick and fast, meeting late at night in the park. I was, and I admit it, under fear myself. I didn't know if the reverse situation was going to be pulled on me. I think I made the most reasonable and the best assessment that I could at that time and that the planning was at that time the best solution to the situation.
CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Mogami, in short, never confirmed that he intended joining any cell?
MR ERASMUS: He wanted to join the ANC, ma'am. He wanted to leave the country, he wanted to get stuck into this war and fight this evil system and as fast as possible.
CHAIRPERSON: And the cell which Ms Hirshman had apprised you of, was that a cell that existed within the country or outside the country?
MR ERASMUS: No ma'am, I'd just like to correct that. I'm sorry, I've maybe given you the wrong thing in this, Ms Hirshman was never involved in an ANC cell. She was ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: The information that Mr Mogami intended to join the cell, from where did it come?
MR ERASMUS: From Ms Hirshman.
CHAIRPERSON: From?
MR ERASMUS: From Ms Hirshman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ERASMUS: But she was herself never a member of the ANC or a member of a cell.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm aware of that. I just want to know if she informed you. Which kind of or where this cell that Mr Mogami intended to join was?
MR ERASMUS: No, no, she never conveyed that type of information.
CHAIRPERSON: She did not say that the cell was within the country or outside the country?
MR ERASMUS: No. No ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON: And you did not make any enquiries either?
MR ERASMUS: No, she wasn't that well versed about where ANC cells were, she was not a member of the ANC and not a member of the cell herself.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Patel we actually interrupted you whilst you were in the middle of your cross-examination. We apologise.
MS PATEL: All in order, thank you Honourable Chairperson.
Why were other alternatives not considered?
MR ERASMUS: I think, very briefly, that the situation at that time would become almost out of control.
MS PATEL: What do you mean by that? You had various draconian legislation in place at the time. We know of people who were detained for months on end. What do you mean there were no other options available or that things were out of control?
MR ERASMUS: Well, Madame Chair, all I can say is roundabout 1988 I, for one and I voiced my fears at that time, just one night drove into a so-called liberated zone which wasn't on the border that we had gone to in 1981 which was on the doorsteps of Johannesburg and I'm actually referring to Alexandra Township, recall reading written across the walls "The Border is now in Johannesburg". Some activist had sprayed this up there and that lesson wasn't learnt on us, it was almost like these floodgates were opening and it was an unstoppable situation. I must tell you that in 1988 I really wanted to leave the force for a lot of reasons. I really believed that we faced a full out war with the local population of this country and it was just around the corner.
MS PATEL: My question to you once again, Sir, why did you not consider other alternatives under these circumstances especially in light of your evidence that you stated that given your information about Mr Mogami that, to use your words he was just cannon fodder, he was no threat at all, he would have followed you blindly. Why were other options not considered in respect of Mr Mogami specifically.
MR ERASMUS: Ma'am, how would - to answer your question, Madame Chair, how would I have felt if I'd done nothing about or considered the wrong option and Mr Mogami had, like I mentioned earlier, gone and bought a firearm, which were readily available, the situation is not much different to what it is now, had not taken a doctored firearm from me, obtained an AK-47 and was shooting people? I made the best assessment that I could at that time of the situation and after dealing with him.
MS PATEL: Was detention not a reasonable alternative?
MR ERASMUS: Ma'am yes, on what grounds would I have detained him? Under the emergency regulations? Obviously that was considered. I would have possibly implicated my agent who was a very highly placed person. It posed too many problems.
The second consideration was here was somebody that could and that had the desire to go into a military role and here was a quick and easy way of stopping him and a way in which the Security Forces or the government would never be involved. Just another statistic, a man buys a firearm or has an illegal firearm, the forensics were never a problem, he goes and he tests it out maybe in Diepkloof out in the veld. He pulls the trigger, he either blows his hand off or he kills himself. It was a solution at that time, the best solution. I know now and believe that it was, terrible to say this, for a situation at hand.
MS PATEL: I will leave the matter for argument. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Was Brig. Oosthuizen - or may I just find out, what were your specific instructions from Brig. Oosthuizen?
MR ERASMUS: I believe that my relationship with Brig. Oosthuizen was such that he left me a lot to my own opinions and devices and the advice that would have given him from my assessment at the time, he would have given his comment and said to me well, what do you think, isn't this an option, isn't this an option? Brig. Oosthuizen, in fairness to Brig. Oosthuizen, obviously looked, was very intelligence orientated. He said what are the prospects of using this man as an informer in a false flag type of situation and my reply to him was that Mogami was not intelligent enough, the man was hardly literate, that was one of the things that I first picked up. He wouldn't have been able to write reports for me, he didn't see further than his hatred of the system, it was not somebody that we could manipulate easy, he was a hothead.
CHAIRPERSON: But what were his specific instructions to you in relation to this incident? You have given evidence that your conduct in relation to this incident was on the instructions of Brig. Oosthuizen and I want to know the nature of the instructions.
MR ERASMUS: When I first informed Brig. Oosthuizen about this matter, ma'am, it was opinion and rightly so that I should maintain contact with Mogami. There was a lot of considerations here that Mogami could have been somebody already in a cell that was trying to make contact with another cell in which case we would be in a win-win situation all round. I had to pick his brains obviously and play the sole intelligence role.
CHAIRPERSON: But at that stage were you not aware that Mr Mogami had nothing to do with any cell, it was only his intention to join a cell?
MR ERASMUS: Correct, we had to find out what was his intentions, what was his role, we had to identify, draw up a personality profile on the man, see what options presented themselves to him. The second consideration was, was he operating as a lone person, was he operating in conjunction with other young guys or whoever had similar feelings.
CHAIRPERSON: And what was your assessment?
MR ERASMUS: He was pretty much a hothead operating on his own.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ERASMUS: I recall, ma'am, now that you mention it, Ms Hirshman saying to me - me asking her who else he had befriended at the FCA. The people were somewhat scared of him, he was little bit too radical and too outspoken to go along with the rest of them. That was the reason that she singled him out to me.
CHAIRPERSON: But what instructions did you then receive from Brig. Oosthuizen?
MR ERASMUS: Brig. Oosthuizen obviously had to authorise various matters. His instructions to me were to make an assessment of the person, play him along, let's see where we could use him, supply him, which was his insistence from the word go. Literally was supplying him with a firearm but make certain that it's a firearm that would not end up killing one of us or killing a policeman or a soldier or whatever and then let's see how the situation developed.
CHAIRPERSON: Now he said you must supply with a firearm. To what purpose?
MR ERASMUS: Mogami, I think, wouldn't have been impressed with me at all if I was this hotshot unit commander in special ops that couldn't even give him a firearm. I recall at the time the standard weaponry of the ANC was obviously Tokorev or Makarov pistols.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ERASMUS: And me supplying him with this old Colt, which was an automatic pistol but certainly wasn't in very good condition, that Mogami was stupid enough, ma'am, if I may use those words, to accept that this was an effective firearm simply because it was quite a big automatic with these bullets. He loved this.
CHAIRPERSON: So you are dealing with a person who was almost an imbecile?
MR ERASMUS: I wouldn't say an imbecile, ma'am. How many Black people at that time had access or knew about military weapons? The training that I had, I would have laughed at a firearm like that. He was certainly very impressed. I recall the night that I gave it to him. I still showed him how it worked, how to put the magazine in. He was totally stupid when it came to mechanisms of handling a pistol.
CHAIRPERSON: Because he had not been trained at all, not so?
MR ERASMUS: Not been trained, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Was this operation ever authorised by Mr Oosthuizen?
MR ERASMUS: Absolutely, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON: In what way?
MR ERASMUS: Well it was a situation that presented itself to me. Oosthuizen was head at various time of intelligence and Stratcom, C1 and C2 or D1 and D2. The units and my training under Oosthuizen early in my career, the middle of my career and right up to the end of my career was that his two functions always had to operate in tandem. It was like a hand fitting in a glove. It wasn't just enough to identify Mr Mogami and put the word out that he should be picked up and detained under some security legislation or under the State of Emergency because we had to utilise these situations as they were presented to us and in Mogami's case here was certainly a situation that came our way.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he authorise you to use that doctored 9 mm pistol in order to kill Mr Mogami?
MR ERASMUS: That is one hundred percent correct, ma'am. He in fact arranged for the explosive rounds to be delivered to me.
CHAIRPERSON: And the intention was to kill him?
MR ERASMUS: I think neutralise him or eliminate him. If we are going to use semantic terms I would say yes, kill him. If he ever used that firearm in anger he would have killed himself, that is correct. Yes, we wanted to kill him in that sense, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Would he have not been killed by mere use of the firearm whether it had been used by him in anger or otherwise?
MR ERASMUS: The only way that that firearm could activate ma'am and even then I damaged it which was an irony in the situation, was the firing pin. Before I had given that firearm to Mr Mogami, I damaged - in fact filed with a file the actual firing pin down to half its normal length. It's doubtful and we talked about that afterwards, I actually saw that as a mistake. If we really wanted to neutralise him, there was a reasonable chance that the firearm would not have exploded if the trigger was pulled.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that deliberately done by you?
MR ERASMUS: I did that before the 9 mm rounds arrived, the explosive rounds.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that a deliberate act on your part?
MR ERASMUS: That was a deliberate act. My intention then, ma'am, was that the firearm wouldn't have worked at all. Assuming that I'd given him normal 9 mm rounds he might have run into any situation, pointed the weapon, pulled the trigger and it would have just gone click click click, ejected one round after the other, it was impossible to fire.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you through Ms Patel? Judge de Jager do you have any questions to put to Mr Erasmus?
NO QUESTIONS BY JUDGE DE JAGER
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Sigodi?
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV SIGODI
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Zyl, do you have any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN ZYL: Just the odd question, Madame Chair.
At that time, Mr Erasmus, were you under extreme stress in your work or not?
MR ERASMUS: I think I pointed out in my evidence yesterday, Madame Chair, that in 1998 I was on the verge of many things. Extreme stress, most certainly.
MR VAN ZYL: Did this impair your judgement?
MR ERASMUS: With the benefit of hindsight, looking back, I think it impaired my judgement in many, many situations which affect me to this day, most definitely.
MR VAN ZYL: Thank you. No further questions, Madame Chair. That concludes the application of incident 68.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ZYL
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel does not stand to lead any evidence. This matter is in fact unopposed. I don't know if there are any submissions you wish to make on behalf of Mr Erasmus?
MR VAN ZYL: Madame Chair, purely to say that it falls within the ambit of the Act. I can argue it for you further if you want to but I would lead it at that. The evidence was led and it can be slotted into the appropriate slots.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, do you have any submissions?
MS PATEL: I will leave it in your hands Honourable Chairperson. If I may at this stage indicate to you that Mr Madhav is present here. I'm not sure logistically how we are going to deal with that. Would you rather we hold it over to tomorrow or stand down for a short while for me to take instructions?
CHAIRPERSON: Is it not correct that you still have to take instructions from Mr Madhav and you are not in a position to immediately commence without specific instructions?
MS PATEL: That is correct, Honourable Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: And we therefore thing it would be appropriate that you be afforded an opportunity to properly consult with him in order to take proper instructions and that the matter be stood down until tomorrow morning at 9.30.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: 9.30 would be convenient for you, Mr van Zyl?
We will reserve our decisions in respect of the two incidents that have been dealt with this afternoon, that relating to the attempted murder of Mr Goodman Mogami and incident number 19 which relates to the illegal entry, illegal search as well as the assault on Mr Berange with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
MR VAN ZYL: As it so pleases you, Madame Chair. Madame Chair, just another thing on logistics. If, for any reason, there is no opposition and maybe no instructions that Mr Madhav wanted to proceed with the matter. I'm just thinking of the logistics. It's another day of expenses and costs for me to be here tomorrow morning. What if she gets instructions now that look, I've got nothing further. Isn't this a matter that can go to chambers then perhaps? I'm just looking at it, you see I'm from the Cape as Ms Patel is also, so if we could perhaps look at it with ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'm unable to say until Ms Patel has taken proper instructions.
MR VAN ZYL: But what I'm suggesting is could we then perhaps just adjourn for five seconds, hear what is the initial indication and then we can say, okay tomorrow we're here or maybe there's an indication that we won't be here tomorrow, then I could save the State some money.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can actually be around and speak to Ms Patel after she has taken instructions. As to how long it will take her to take the necessary instructions, it's an issue which is beyond my control and I can therefore not speculate whether she will be in a position to immediately advise you.
MR VAN ZYL: No, I accept that.
CHAIRPERSON: It's a matter that will ultimately turn into a non-gross violation in which case it will be referred to chambers or it's a matter that ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: As it pleases you, but what I'm trying to say is, if it goes to chambers during the course of the night, if that decision is made, must I return tomorrow morning or can I be excused perhaps, in a manner, if it's not going to go into hearing. I'm just looking at the State. I'm here ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if it will be a chamber matter you don't need to be here and therefore you don't need to be excused because you would not have been required to be here.
MR VAN ZYL: That's right, because then thing is then obviously I'll make arrangements to leave early and cost the State less. I have been booked for four days, so I am here if I'm needed.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it's better that you keep contact with Ms Patel. She will in fact phone you.
MR VAN ZYL: We've arranged that contact. Thank you, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9.30.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
