CHAIRPERSON: Mr Gary Leon Pollock, application number AM2538/96. The panel that will sit to consider this application consists of myself, on my right hand side Judge de Jager, on my left hand side Ms Sigodi. I'm going to request Mr Pollock's legal representative to place himself on record.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madame Chairperson, I actually requested the opportunity to introduce myself to the panel before but we didn't have the opportunity. My name is P J du Plessis and I'm from the firm David, Botha, Du Plessis and Kruger Inc. from Johannesburg, I'm appearing on behalf of Mr Pollock.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr du Plessis. We do understand that you were not given an opportunity to do so because we were busy with Mr Erasmus' application.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: On behalf of the victims?
MR KOOPEDI: Thank you. My name is Brian Koopedi, I appear before this Committee on behalf of the victims who are from Alexandra and perhaps I should at this stage name the victims?
CHAIRPERSON: How many victims are involved, Mr Koopedi?
MR KOOPEDI: There are four that I have instructions from. It is Mishak Nshlapo. The second one is Ntani Nduli. The third one is Ronnie Peto and the last one is Mrs Elizabeth Kunene.
CHAIRPERSON: Which incident are we going to commence with Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, I will refer to in the first incident what we refer to as conspiracy to murder Mr Eden Nshlambo. It is found in the papers ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: At page 64.
MR DU PLESSIS: At page 64(i), that is the first one and I believe the second one which will be dealt with then is on page 66(vii). May I then start with the first incident regarding Mr Mishak Nshlapo who was also known to my client as Eden Nshlambo. I believe my client will take the oath?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
GARY LEON POLLOCK: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Pollock, you apply for amnesty for several incidents. We are only going to deal with two of them as indicated to you. Before you start with this specific incident I would just like you, although it is contained in, to a certain extent, in your application to just give some background to the Committee regarding your involvement with the South African Police, when you joined up with them and which unit you belonged at the relevant time?
MR POLLOCK: Madame Chairperson, I was ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr du Plessis? You will see that we do have on page 62 under "General Background" at the fourth paragraph, information with regard to Mr Pollock's involvement with the Police?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is so, Chairperson. So need we not repeat any of those?
CHAIRPERSON: If you do have information which has not been included in this paragraph you may proceed to lead him if you want us to take account of further information otherwise you can take that information as having been read and he can simply confirm it.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson, I will then just proceed straight away to the incident itself.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Is he confirming pages 59 up to 64?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct, thank you.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, well ask him confirm it?
MR POLLOCK: Yes I confirm.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Pollock, let's then proceed to the specific incident. May I just say, Honourable Chairperson, that the statement itself has been amplified by means of "Further Particulars" which have been supplied to my learned friend during the evidence. I do not know whether it forms part of the papers before the Committee?
MS PATEL: It does, Honourable Chair, it's on page 74 of your bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could I also then ask you, Mr Pollock, whether you confirm on the first page of the further particulars the particulars then regarding the incident surrounding Mr Eden Nshlambo?
MR POLLOCK: Yes I confirm that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Fine, now ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think he may give evidence of the incident itself.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Because we have victims ...(inaudible) documents wherein the incident has been described by him.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Pollock, I think just briefly before you deal with the specifics of this incident, just kindly give us some background regarding the context in which this took place. You were a member of the Security Police stationed at Alexandra Security Police, is that correct?
MR POLLOCK: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And could you just then briefly deal with the context of what was happening in Alexandra and why did this incident happen before we get to the specifics?
MR POLLOCK: Okay, Alexandra was indeed a very volatile place at this point in time. There were numerous underground structures operating in Alexandra and our task was to infiltrate them and do whatever our officers told us to do. At one point in time ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: Are you referring to underground structures meaning - referring to which organisations?
MR POLLOCK: The ANC and more specific, MK - Umkhonto weSizwe. MK structures, underground structures.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, proceed?
MR POLLOCK: At one point in time Alexandra was considered to be the most dangerous place in the world. In fact London Road, one road adjacent to Alexandra was indeed said to be the most dangerous position on the planet at that point in time. It's in that context that we operated.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because of what? Why was it dangerous?
MR POLLOCK: There was massive violence and deaths between -conflict between the ANC and the IFP within the Alexandra Township and Mishak was, according to information, an MK member involved in this.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now you say involved in this, involved in what?
MR POLLOCK: There was large military - when I say large, for an urban suburb, there was military conflict taking place, there was mortars being launched onto the Zulu mens' hostel, it was called, there were handgrenades continuously thrown, we recouped handgrenades that hadn't gone off, we had anti-personnel mines, they're called ...(indistinct) Z. As I said, there were 60 mm mortars which were launched onto IFP installations so indeed it was a sticky situation, sticky place to be.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now what was the function of the Security Police in this situation and what were their objectives in getting involved in this situation?
MR POLLOCK: Well, at that point in time the IFP was a common ally against the ANC. The ANC was, as I said, was busy with this military thing and our structure, our ambit was to spur on the violence and to carry on with, you know, to get the government in a good negotiating position, so we were infiltrating ANC and things like that to enable the so-called National Party at that time to be in a strong position around the negotiating table.
MR DU PLESSIS: So you're not trying to create the impression that the Security Police was actually trying to keep the peace between the parties, you were actually complicating further in order to create an atmosphere of anarchy in which the parties involved in the struggle, the ANC for instance wouldn't be able to function properly, is that what you're saying?
MR POLLOCK: Absolutely, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: I want you then to proceed and specifically refer to Mr Mishak Nshlapo or as he is known, Eden Nshlambo, as he was known to you at that stage and exactly what happened?
MR POLLOCK: One of my job descriptions was to recruit and handle informers. I had recruited a man by the name of Louis Miame, his MK name was Louis Miame.
MR DU PLESSIS: His correct name you'll get in the papers on page 64 as Constant Phineas Vusi?
MR POLLOCK: That was his real name, yes. His MK name was Louis Miame. He was recruited by myself and he worked for the Security Branch. Him and amongst other people gave us information. I had up to some months 30, 34 informers and we constantly got information concerning Mishak Nshlapo whose MK name was Eden Mhlambo. Louis was quite close to him so we got a lot of information not only from Louis but from other informers who also knew Mishak about his involvement in this violence. I was told that he was trained as a technician and he'd received training oversees, etc. etc. So there was a constant flood of information coming through which was confirmed by other informers that we had that was handled by a W.O. Wessels also at our branch and it is in that ambit that we got information about him, we would constantly - we were looking for him in a township, we had information that he had handgrenades with him, that he was heavily armed. We had information - sometimes between 10 and 30 people in Alexandra a week would die and one of our informers would come to us and say to me that, you know, he spoke with Mishak, he bragged about it at a shebeen or he was responsible for four deaths and he used to walk around the township apparently with handgrenades clipped to his jackets and he had ...(intervention)
ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Du Plessis, could you ask your client to speak a bit slower because we've got to take the notes, otherwise we'll lose out on your evidence.
MR POLLOCK: Sorry.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson. Yes Mr Pollock, you heard that. Could you just go a bit slower? Also, just on this point I want to ask you, you've referred to W.O. Wessels. So he also had informers who brought the same information?
MR POLLOCK: Correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: You didn't have direct personal information which could support your informers or did you?
MR POLLOCK: Well, it was confirmed by other informers. In other words what would happen is an informer would come to me and say to me there was a meeting, they had underground instructions ...(indistinct) meetings and that. One of them would come to me and say to me that he heard about - he was very notorious, Mishak, he'd heard that Mishak Nlhapo was one of the guys who attacked the hostel and I'd say okay, right, then you'd note that down from one informer. Then you'd meet another informer who would say the same thing. So you'd wait for - in order for information to be positive ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: A bit slower please? Yes?
MR POLLOCK: For information to be positive you'd get sources, you'd get four or five different sources confirming it before it's confirmed as reliable.
CHAIRPERSON: I think the question by Mr du Plessis is whether he personally confirmed from the various sources the information about Mishak.
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: You also had different sources?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, I had up to 30 different informers.
CHAIRPERSON: That you handled personally?
MR POLLOCK: Yes. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Wessels also handled his own informers?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: You were able to cross-reference?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, we worked at the same branch.
CHAIRPERSON: Information with Mr Wessels?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now what did you do with this information you obtained?
MR POLLOCK: This information was written down on a top secret document and given to our branch at John Vorster Square and they would selectively take out information that was relevant to other branches or to themselves as well and then distributed accordingly. For example ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: Just tell me, who was your commanding officer at that stage?
MR POLLOCK: Capt. Britz was at that time.
MR DU PLESSIS: And was this information also given to him?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: So he was aware of it.
MR POLLOCK: Yes. Weekly reports would be given. Every time we had an informer giving us information we would write the report about it.
MR DU PLESSIS: Fine and now after you gave this information to your commanding officer you also sent to John Vorster was that the main branch?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And what happened afterwards, did you get any feedback on what had to be done about the situation?
MR POLLOCK: Well obviously we would try - our primary objective would then be to arrest him, preferably with a weapon so that we could be arrested and locked up. That was our primary objective. Secondly he would be, because of the situation that Mishak was in apparently, it would have been a great idea if we could have recruited him as we had recruited other informers. We had information that he was bringing large quantities of weapons through to Ramathlabane, I think it was. One of our informers pointed it out to me. We actually went there and he showed me the routes. So our primary objective would be to arrest him and maybe even use him as an informer himself which had transpired to come.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes and what did happen?
MR POLLOCK: Well, an informer phoned me up as they often did. He was very evasive. An informer phoned me up and said he was at a shebeen and she gave me a full description of what he was wearing and myself and a couple of my colleagues, I can't remember how many we were, we went to the said shebeen and as we arrived then Mishak immediately - he was outside, sitting outside drinking a beer, and as he saw us he immediately got up and ran inside as I got out our bus and I eventually - we went through into the shebeen and I arrested him. I lost sight of him a few times. I wasn't sure whether he had a weapon on him or not, I can't say exactly if that was so but we arrested him and when we arrested him the shebeen, the people at the shebeen, the people who were frequenting the shebeen, got quite aggressive with us and we were forced to take him to the office. Then what happened then was ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: You didn't find any unlawful articles on him like firearms?
MR POLLOCK: No, no I didn't find firearms.
MR DU PLESSIS: So he was taken to the offices and then?
MR POLLOCK: He was taken to the offices and then it was decided that we were going to try and recruit him and because myself and W.O. Wessels had too many informers, we had to spread the load and a Sgt Row spoke with Mishak at length in his office and I was told by Sgt Row that Mishak was willing to work for us as an informer. Mishak subsequently made an appointment with Sgt Row at an undisclosed venue and the normal fee in those days that we used to give recruited informers was R500 and ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: R500 per or once off?
MR POLLOCK: Just as a signing on fee and then he would be paid accordingly as the information came.
MR DU PLESSIS: This is obviously all hearsay, what you got from Row?
MR POLLOCK: No, we were actually involved. Because of Mishak's involvement and notoriety, we weren't sure whether this was a ploy by the ANC underground structures to catch the Security Branch in an operation like that so we had extensive intelligence. The whole branch was involved in surveilling the place where Mishak was going to meet with Sgt. Row.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, what I'm actually after is, were you personally present, were you with these discussions between Row and Mishak?
MR POLLOCK: No, I was next door in my office.
MR DU PLESSIS: So you didn't overhear that, you got a report from Row?
MR POLLOCK: Yes. And then, as I said, we went to this meeting and Sgt. Row handed over R500 to Mishak and we were quite elated because one of the most notorious people in Alexandra was now going to work for us and we were going to get some valuable information from Mishak.
Mishak made contact again. I can't recall if he did pitch up or how many times he did pitch up for a sourcing meeting but at one time he didn't pitch up and it was a bit of concern because he never arrived for the meeting and within the next week or a few days in the Sowetan was a report saying that Mishak had been approached by myself and Capt. Britz and Col. van Huyssteen and an attempt was made to recruit him as an informer.
MR DU PLESSIS: So it turned out that he apparently never had the intention to be an informer for the Security Police and he actually led you into a sort of trap.
MR POLLOCK: It appeared like that, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you say that the reports in that regard appeared in the Sowetan Newspaper?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, now because of this whole situation, what transpired then?
MR POLLOCK: Well Col. van Huyssteen was a little bit - well, it wasn't very nice reading about this in the Sowetan Newspaper. I think it was at a time when things like this weren't supposed to be happening, where there was an agreement between ourselves, the government and the ANC that no more recruiting would be taking place, etc. etc. So it was an embarrassing situation and I believe there was a ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Just repeat your sentence?
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you say it was an embarrassing situation?
MR POLLOCK: Yes it was.
JUDGE DE JAGER: What was the role of Van Huyssteen? Where did he figure?
MR POLLOCK: He was the overall chap in charge at John Vorster Square. Alexandra was a sub-branch.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Of the Security Police?
MR POLLOCK: Of the Security Police, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So he was not the head of the unit that was ...(intervention)
MR POLLOCK: No, he wasn't the head, he was a section head. John Vorster Square was split into different sections and Louis van Huyssteen was the section head of the John Vorster Square where we operated under, Alexandra ...(indistinct) branch.
MR DU PLESSIS: So Alexandra fell under John Vorster Square, Van Huyssteen's unit?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: You had your own commanding officer, Captain Britz?
MR POLLOCK: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And his immediate superior was then Col. van Huyssteen?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, that's the way it was.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, proceed?
MR POLLOCK: And a meeting was held between Capt. Britz and Col. van Huyssteen, I don't know who else was present and Capt. Britz came back from John Vorster Square after having this meeting and he discussed with us members at Alexandra what transpired at John Vorster Square and it was decided that Mishak, according to Capt. Britz, Mishak must be eliminated. At this point in time also ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: Just before you proceed? So this was a direct instruction from Capt. Britz?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: After he had meetings with his superiors?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, exactly.
MR DU PLESSIS: So this was not something which just originated at your unit, it came from higher up?
MR POLLOCK: Yes. It wasn't the first time that Col. van Huyssteen had appeared in the newspaper, he'd been in a few times and I think he was embarrassed, he was starting to take a bit of flack about this.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, now the instruction was that Mishak had to be eliminated, is that correct?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now just before we proceed with the particulars of that, now the question obviously will be whether this was something which was a bit of a private operation of a certain branch of the Security Police or whether there was some approval of this kind of conduct from higher up. Can you just fill is into the picture? Did you ever have contact with officers higher than Van Huyssteen in regard to this kind of thing and what the Security Police got involved in even after February 1990?
MR POLLOCK: Oh yes, we had many meetings with General du Toit and other generals, brigadiers ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: Rather mention the names. You said General du Toit
MR POLLOCK: General du Toit, General Erasmus just before that, Brig. Paulus, Col. van Niekerk.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes and what was the general message given through to you regarding the policy of the state security, specifically the Security Police?
MR POLLOCK: Well there was a divide and rule policy, we could do whatever we want - they could do whatever they wanted to limit the negotiating authority of the ANC at that time at Codessa and things like that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Were you actually specifically asked to do it by taking certain actions?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, it wasn't the first time I'd heard things like that. When, for example, for Hein Grosskopf we were asked to eliminate Hein Grosskopf for example.
MR DU PLESSIS: Should you find out where he was?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Alright let's then proceed with the specific facts of this incident?
MR POLLOCK: So I was told - there were a few of us at the meeting, Captain Britz and myself and Sgt Row and a few of the other chaps at Alexandra. They decided, they said well, John Vorster Square decided that Mishak must be eliminated. They also had information coming from our informers that Tokyo Sexwale as well had gone to Alexandra because he had also heard about the ill discipline of Mishak and apparently Tokyo had told Mishak, censured him and took away his weapons at that point in time. So they had that information as well. Capt. Britz said alright, we've got to eliminate him. That was discussed that my informer Louis was very close to Mishak and they visited each other very often and it was decided that Louis would attempt to eliminate Mishak.
MR DU PLESSIS: And how was it going to be dealt with?
MR POLLOCK: We had weapons, unlicensed weapons and weapons that the Security Branch and other branches would take off people, from criminals or armed caches and it was decided to give Louis a 357 magnum revolver. Because of the nature of the relationship between the two, our whole branch was involved in an intelligence and counter-intelligence operation so that no one caught us actually giving the weapon to Louis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now was the firearm in fact handed over to him?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, it was handed over to him and his instructions were to eliminate Mishak. About a week later, I can't remember exactly how long, but sometime after that I received a telephone call from Louis. He told me he was in Tembisa Hospital and that he'd been shot and I went and visited him and he told me that on a certain day, I don't know what day it was, there was - something happened between him and Mishak and he wasn't sure whether it was in fact Mishak, it was somebody else, but when he wanted to eliminate Mishak, he was shot in the leg.
MR DU PLESSIS: If I understand you correctly he couldn't say whether it was in fact Mishak involved in the wounding of himself?
MR POLLOCK: No, he couldn't tell me.
MR DU PLESSIS: And what happened to this whole project, so to call it?
MR POLLOCK: Well, obviously that attempt, or if it was an attempt, had failed. So we were still continuing to look for him. We briefed our informers to let us know exactly where he was in the township and when he was in a position that we could have arrested him. From all the information that we had about him, we were pretty certain that when we did eventually confront him in the right position he'd have weapons with him and he'd put up strong resistance and he would be eliminated that way anyway.
MR DU PLESSIS: But you did not encounter him as it turned out?
MR POLLOCK: No, I never saw him.
MR DU PLESSIS: And what happened to the firearm which was handed over for the elimination?
MR POLLOCK: We eventually got that back from Louis. He handed it back to me and that was given back to Capt. Britz.
MR DU PLESSIS: So in the event in anything, in any way you say that you were not involved with any further actions against Eden Nshlambo?
MR POLLOCK: No, I wasn't involved, I continued to get information, intelligence from informers, but that's as far as it went with him.
MR DU PLESSIS: Fine. So Chairperson, that concludes the evidence in chief regarding the first incident. May I then proceed to deal with the other incident? We are going to deal with the assault on Alexandra Residence?
CHAIRPERSON: I think I will be guided by Mr Koopedi in view of the fact that he is representing victims in both incidents. Mr Koopedi, would you prefer that you cross-examine in relation to each and every incident separately?
MR KOOPEDI: On the contrary, Madame Chair, I would appreciate if he gives his entire evidence and we cross-examine thereafter. I think it will be easier on him.
CHAIRPERSON: You may then proceed, Mr du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I know that, Mr du Plessis, it's five past one which is our usual time to take a lunch adjournment particularly because we have interpreters who must be given a little break because they do a very difficult job. May I suggest that we take a lunch adjournment? Until what time, Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: I'm in your hands, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Until 1.45, if that will be to everybody's convenience. Mr Koopedi, you have people with you, will that be sufficient time for you to organise lunch for your clients?
MR KOOPEDI: The time will be sufficient, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll reconvene at 1.45.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis, you may proceed.
GARY LEON POLLOCK: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: (cont)
Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
Mr Pollock yes, let's then proceed with the second aspect and that is several assaults on residents of Alexandra Township.
CHAIRPERSON: Will that be on page 66?
MR DU PLESSIS: On page 66, Honourable Chairperson.
Now is it correct as it's stated there that unfortunately you do not have any record of the names and identities of the victims?
MR POLLOCK: That is so, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you just give us a brief background then?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, it would be difficult, we would have to fix it to say a place or a time period at least.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.
JUDGE DE JAGER: We can't grant general amnesty sort of, so try and concentrate - narrow the incidents as far as possible.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Chairperson. Indeed we'll do that as far as possible.
Mr Pollock, you've heard what was said, could you place us in the picture? What time frame are you talking about and what exact incidents?
MR POLLOCK: These assaults would have started from about 1989 to 1992 in the ambit of my duties at Alexandra to really, really give you a month and a specific month I did this to somebody, really it's impossible for me to say.
MR DU PLESSIS: You have mentioned, though, that there were specific dockets opened. Is it all of the instances or only in some of the instances?
MR POLLOCK: Only in some of the instances were dockets opened.
MR DU PLESSIS: But there were specific dockets opened against you?
MR POLLOCK: Yes there were.
MR DU PLESSIS: For these assaults?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now do you have any access to these documents?
MR POLLOCK: No I don't. In fact I would imagine that a lot of those dockets have gone missing.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now what do you mean by that?
MR POLLOCK: Destroyed.
MR DU PLESSIS: By?
MR POLLOCK: By the people who administered them because most of the dockets that were opened up were, as I have mentioned here in evidence, the person investigating the assaults were accomplices, if I could say that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now were you specifically named in those dockets?
CHAIRPERSON: If we may just make a follow up? I recall having read, Mr Pollock, in either your original application or supplementary application, that you've mentioned there was interference, deliberate interference, in the prosecution of the criminal charges laid against the Police who committed these assaults by the victims. The Police interfered with those investigations and that people within the criminal justice system, prosecutors also assisted?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, that is so Madame Chairperson. What happened was, when a docket was opened up against a member of the Police Force, it would go to a certain section and there was a retired brigadier, I cannot remember his name, at John Vorster Square, who would take possession of these dockets and then continue investigation. As far as it going to prosecutors, I would imagine quite honestly that that would have happened, I don't that about the prosecutors as such, I wouldn't doubt that at all but as far as this certain brigadier was concerned, when he'd got the docket he'd discuss with us how he would investigate it. For example if I specifically was mentioned and described as the person who assaulted the victim, he would say if I had to be there at that time, he would say right, shave your beard off and he'd give us two weeks or a notice period in which he was going to have an identification parade. Then I would take a colleague's glasses or anybody, I'd wear thick glasses at this identification parade, I'd change my appearance and so would any of the other co-accused and in that manner the victims were very, very rarely able to point us out on an identification parade. Also, he would tell us the date and the times and things like that and our offices would for example sign the leave forms and it's impossible that Gary Pollock assaulted this man because he was on leave that day, or whatever. So in that regard yes, absolutely that took place.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you still have the name of this retired brigadier?
MR POLLOCK: I wish I could remember, ma'am, I really can't.
CHAIRPERSON: But was this general practise because when you state that an officer would also complete your leave form?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, it was general practise.
CHAIRPERSON: It was general practise within the Security Police?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And was this known to senior officers like Mr Britz? Was he aware of this practise?
MR POLLOCK: Definitely.
CHAIRPERSON: And to your knowledge was Col. van Huyssteen aware of this practise?
MR POLLOCK: Definitely.
CHAIRPERSON: And the person who was heading Section C?
MR POLLOCK: Definitely. If I can just elaborate, Capt. Wilkin investigated our arson attack on Barbara Hogan, Capt.
Wilkin was a member of the Security Branch at the same time, on the same floor as Col. van Huyssteen. I think he even reported to Col. van Huyssteen. So how far do you think the investigation went?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, the Barbara Hogan aspect or incident had been already dealt with by another Committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is that correct?
MR POLLOCK: Yes that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And just to make one thing clear is that you cannot specifically say that members of the Department of Justice had been involved, they may have just acted on information contained in the docket and bona fide for instance withdrew the matter?
MR POLLOCK: Yes I think most of these dockets never reached prosecution because i.e. the victim alleges I assaulted him. Firstly, I was on leave. Secondly, the identification took place and no one was able to point me out. So there's not foundation.
MR DU PLESSIS: So the prosecutor wouldn't necessarily enrol the matter because of, we can actually say, the fraud committed previously during the investigation?
MR POLLOCK: Absolutely.
MR DU PLESSIS: This specific unit investigating the matters, if one had to trace that specific brigadier, this was the internal investigation unit of the South African Police at John Vorster Square?
MR POLLOCK: That is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: At the time?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: So one will only have to go back to that period to see. Was he the commanding officer?
MR POLLOCK: He was the commanding officer, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: But will you say he was retired?
MR POLLOCK: He was retired. He actually had photographs taken of all of us, he had a photo album there.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes?
MR POLLOCK: And he used to also when the victim of ...(indistinct), he told us when a victim would come to him he'd arrange the photographs in such a manner. In other words the guy would say it was a tall, big policeman with a full beard, then he'd arrange my photograph with a beard amongst -on a page or with other policemen or with other people with beards.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but in anyway the actual question is now, obviously couldn't have been a commanding officer because he was retired?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, he was retired so I don't know if he was a commanding ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: What was his function, just administrative to assist with investigation and identity parades, etc?
MR POLLOCK: Yes. I don't think he was actual commanding officer or not.
MR DU PLESSIS: Now let's just proceed, just refer to the actual assaults. The Committee would obviously have to decide on what basis they could deal with the matter. If you cannot identify specific people and specific dates and incidents, but just try and get the context right here. You say those assaults took place since about 1989, from about '89. Now in what context, why did you assault these people? What did you do?
MR POLLOCK: What would happen is, we'd get information, for example like Mishak was living at a place or an MK insurgent was at a place or an activist, underground structure person was - 14th, 11th Alexandra for example and it would be considered valuable information or positive information, we would do house penetration whereby if it was really hot information, if it was Mishak's house then we would just go in and kick the door down and do a proper house penetration where people would get thrown around, you know, we would imagine that there was weapons and trained people on the premises. So in that we would kick the door down or if the door was open already we would go in, whoever was there you'd grab them and forcibly push him to the ground and put a gun against the head and make sure that the house was safe. So in that kind of operation or instance, yes, more excessive force would have been used. If the person had escaped or the person wasn't there and somebody was sitting there and it was this chap's brother and you needed information between eleven of us, whoever, you know the whole unit, how many people were there, we'd give the guy a few slaps, assault him or threaten him, put a gun against his head and all kinds of things to try and elicit information as to where the weapons are or where this person is that we're seeking. So that was the context in which these assaults happened.
MR POLLOCK: So that was in order to trace, for instance, ANC activists or MK members who you were looking for in order to try and get information about illegal firearms?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: That happened, however, according to your statement not only before February 1990 but also after that after up to 1992?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: In that period?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, it was a contentious issue that weapons weren't handed in by the ANC. MK cadres were not instructed to hand weapons in and there was a lot of ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: That was now after the unbanning of the ANC?
MR POLLOCK: That is correct, yes. After I think it was February.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes of 1990.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes after the Pretoria Minute was signed and so there was a flood of weapons in the townships, so one of our major tasks was to recover weapons and that's what we did.
MR DU PLESSIS: So that is now during the general duties which you did in the township regarding the recovery of firearms etc, on investigation these assaults would take place?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: But you would admit that those who were assaulted, you had no rightful reason to physically attack these people as you did?
MR POLLOCK: Absolutely, I agree with you.
ADV SIGODI: Surely, Mr Pollock, you would know who you targeted in the townships?
MR POLLOCK: Yes we did know. If we had information that a certain person was in a house, we would have positive or good information that he had weapons or not so we treated as such, you know, whether it was a dangerous, volatile situation, so ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: But I think what the Honourable Chairperson means is, do you not have specific names of people you targeted at a specific address?
ADV SIGODI: Yes.
MR POLLOCK: Oh, it was long ago. Just about all the activists ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you mention specific names? I think let's start at the people Mr Koopedi is representing except Mr Mishak Nshlapo now, there are names here, Ntuli Pitso and Kunene, the surnames, does it ring a bell?
MR POLLOCK: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: Those two not ring a bell?
MR POLLOCK: No, I don't recognise their faces, I must be honest.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you mention specific people?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, at one time there were people that were released and replaced under house arrest. Kekane, Paul Mashitili who is the MEC of - those kind of people, I don't know whether in fact they were assaulted but most of the prominent activists and MK people in the township were all targeted, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: But you cannot today, thinking back over the years, mention specific names, addresses and dates of importance?
MR POLLOCK: No I cannot.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you obviously accept that in terms of the Act the Committee may not be able then to grant specific amnesty if you cannot mention a specific incident?
MR POLLOCK: Yes I understand.
MR DU PLESSIS: So ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you ever attack people other than activists?
MR POLLOCK: No your Honour, no.
JUDGE DE JAGER: If you rush into a house, how would you know whether this one is an activist or the next one?
MR POLLOCK: Oh yes, no in that context definitely.
CHAIRPERSON: As you have just explained.
MR POLLOCK: Yes, if you went into a house and there was somebody coming out the room you wouldn't know whether he was the one that you were looking for or not. Even if you did know, I mean Lucky Matoti, Paul Mashatila, we knew exactly what he looked like. So I know it's not Paul but you don't know whether he's got a weapon or not so you immediately forcibly bring his body under your control and there were like eight or eleven of us so you've got this guy and you put him down on the ground and your colleagues go into another room and they go into another room and they surround the house, so yes. So people that I didn't know would also possibly have been assaulted, I agree.
CHAIRPERSON: In fact not only would you hold him down you would actually assault him in order to extract information as to the whereabouts of the suspect you were looking for?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Even though that person might not have been an activist.
MR POLLOCK: What we would do, if it was a family member then we'd say "where's your brother" or you know, in that context yes, we would assault him.
CHAIRPERSON: And there were instances where family members have no interest in politics and you knew that?
MR POLLOCK: Not all the time, Chairperson, not all the time.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's why I'm saying there were instances where family members were not active in politics at all.
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But then your interest would have been to try and extract information about the whereabouts of the person that you were looking for?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Notwithstanding the fact that the person was an activist or not and you were not concerned about his political affiliation, you were interested in obtaining the information about the activist you were looking for?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, that's true.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. Perhaps just to get clarity on this, would you have specific information that a specific person at the house of an activist or where an activist may have been hiding, whether this person had a specific political affiliation or not?
MR POLLOCK: There were instances where it was like that. A lot of the MK especially lived together so by association they were involved.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, well you just took it for granted, you didn't know that the person was an activist or not or whether the person was politically active or not?
MR POLLOCK: No.
MR DU PLESSIS: You went from the premises, you acted from the premises that this person was, per se?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And a political activist although you didn't have any specific information to back you up?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, that's true.
MR DU PLESSIS: Would that be correct. So you mentioned a couple of names here and if I understand you correctly, you cannot specifically say that you did assault those people or can you?
MR POLLOCK: No, I can't say that I specifically assaulted those people.
MR DU PLESSIS: So you would have to stand by your evidence that you cannot identify the victims of your assault?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, that's true.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it not true, Mr Pollock, that if you had assaulted Paul Mashatali, he was an extremely prominent member during those days, you certainly would have known if you had assaulted him?
MR POLLOCK: Oh yes, but Madame Chairperson I'd used him as an example.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. I think that concludes your evidence on these incidents. Is there anything else you would like to add in conclusion?
MR POLLOCK: Yes. Firstly I'd like to unconditionally apologise, especially to Mishak sitting over there. I apologise profusely. I wish I could turn the clock back but I can't. What I planned and what was planned to happen to you, I apologise for my part in it. I really, I please ask you to accept my apology and on the same token with Louis, how he was used, a friend of yours, to do that to you, in his absence I apologise. I know exactly how it feels like to be used by people. So I apologise to you and I pray that you will accept my apology.
As well as to those people, these unfortunate people that I cannot recall or remember who I assaulted, I wish it was not so but it was so and all I can say is I deeply regret my actions at that point. I wish in hindsight that it never happened but it did and I can only apologise.
MR DU PLESSIS: Perhaps you can just tell us now with the advantage of hindsight, living in a new and democratic South Africa, what is your view and were your actions really at all times necessary and the way you acted?
MR POLLOCK: I'm actually very encouraged, if I may say something, I'm very encouraged that despite our differences and despite our very sad history that people like Mishak can come forward here and that people like him are so receptive towards this process and in hindsight it's heinous that we were actually enemies like that and I appreciate the fact that they are so willing to accept a hand in apology from myself.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, that concludes the evidence in chief.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr du Plessis. Mr Koopedi, do you wish to put any questions to Mr Pollock?
MR KOOPEDI: Only a few, Madame Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, Madame Chair.
Mr Pollock, why was the decision made to kill Mishak? Why the decision to kill him or eliminate him to use your words?
MR POLLOCK: Well the decision was made by my officers, I can only try and understand what their thinking was. Mishak, according to all information that we had, was a very dangerous person and was responsible for very many deaths in Alexandra and because of the fact that he was very elusive. As I said he was purportedly trained as a tactician, he was very, very elusive and it was very hard to pin him down. It was very hard to actually catch him with a weapon and imprison him like that. So I can only say that from that point of view it seemed, I suppose, to them a viable proposition to have him eliminated.
MR KOOPEDI: So you were not present when this decision was made?
MR POLLOCK: Not when the decision was made but the decision was told to me by Capt. Britz and then it was decided on how it would happen.
MR KOOPEDI: I won't ask any further on that part, if you were not present when the decision was made.
CHAIRPERSON: He was acting on instructions from Col. Britz.
MR KOOPEDI: That is indeed so, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Capt. Britz.
MR POLLOCK: Capt. Britz, yes. Col. van Huyssteen and Capt. Britz.
MR KOOPEDI: And is it Capt. Britz who was mentioned in the Sowetan Newspaper?
MR POLLOCK: Yes, Capt. Britz, myself and Col. van Huyssteen I think.
MR KOOPEDI: It is because the impression I got was that the decision to eliminate came about because of this article?
MR POLLOCK: Yes.
MR KOOPEDI: Not because of the victims' political activities or anything of the sort?
MR POLLOCK: No, I think that was part of it, I think that was the final straw if I could say that, that you know the hassles we had with Mishak and the final straw was the article in the Sowetan.
MR KOOPEDI: Now at a certain stage when you were looking for Mishak and other activists, his house was broken into. Walls were broken, the floors were dug up. Do you know anything about that incident?
MR POLLOCK: No, I tell you we looked for Mishak's house for many, many months. Mishak never slept at the same place twice according to our information. We actually never ever found out where Mishak stayed.
MR KOOPEDI: So you don't know if a house which he stayed in where he had his belongings was broken into and the floors were dug up?
MR POLLOCK: No I don't, I really don't.
MR KOOPEDI: Now when Mishak was arrested, my instructions are he had some money on him and this money he refers to as operational funds. Did you find any money on him when you arrested him at this shebeen?
MR POLLOCK: No, not at all.
MR KOOPEDI: Did you search him?
MR POLLOCK: Yes I searched him for weapons. There was no money on him.
MR KOOPEDI: My instructions are he had an amount in excess of R3000.
MR POLLOCK: Oh no, no.
MR KOOPEDI: Which was money for operations. Your comment on that?
MR POLLOCK: No, not - I searched him and there was definitely no money on him. Definitely not.
MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Maybe then let's stray to the assault on Mishak Nshlapo - not Mishak Nshlapo rather Mishak Gunene. Mishak Gunene is deceased, Chairperson, and since I'm not going to lay evidence, I will whilst I ask questions lay some background. Mishak Gunene is deceased. Now, do you know or can you remember a police officer, a Black police officer by the name of Alex?
MR POLLOCK: Yes I do.
MR KOOPEDI: My instructions are you were always in his company and you worked together and did you, Alex and the other police, or your colleagues, use a mini-bus with registration numbers CJJ?
MR POLLOCK: There were three mini-buses and the mini-buses that we used all had false registration numbers on, they were changed constantly, so yes we had a cream Toyota, we had a white Husky and we had a blue Ford bus, but as to the registration number I can't tell you.
CHAIRPERSON: What colour was this mini-bus with the registration number you've put to him?
MR KOOPEDI: My instructions were not that full I must say, Chairperson, I was not given the colour of the mini-bus, I was only told that the numbers were CJJ, not even the other numbers of letters could be recalled.
Mishak Gunene is one of the people who laid an assault charge against you which charge did not go anywhere.
CHAIRPERSON: When was this charge laid, Mr Koopedi?
MR KOOPEDI: This charge was, according to my instructions, laid between 1989 and 1990, early 1990. And you say you do not recall this person?
MR POLLOCK: I don't recall the name, no.
MR KOOPEDI: The name?
MR POLLOCK: It's possible, it's possible but I don't recall the name.
MR KOOPEDI: Now during 1990 and the early parts of 1990, my instructors cannot remember the correct date, Chairperson, there was a welcome rally in Alexandra where Alfred Nzo and other people were welcomed. Were you in Alexandra on that day?
MR POLLOCK: I was at Alexandra in 1990, I can't remember if I was, I probably was present there that day.
MR KOOPEDI: My instructions are that you were present and that Alex was present and on this day Alex shot and killed Mishak Gunene.
MR POLLOCK: Is that the guy who was shot in the eye?
MR KOOPEDI: I believe so, he was shot at.
MR POLLOCK: No, I wasn't there, I wasn't at Alexandra at that time. I think it was earlier than that. I remember there was a whole inquest docket and a whole lot of things happening there. I actually wasn't present at that time.
MR KOOPEDI: So you were not present at that place?
MR POLLOCK: No, I wasn't, no.
MR KOOPEDI: Okay, we'll go to another incident.
MR POLLOCK: But I can, if you'd like further information, you're welcome to ask me because I can remember some things about it.
MR KOOPEDI: Maybe because you were not there it's not proper to take it up in here, we might wish to, you know, take you on your offer outside this hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: We appreciate that attitude Mr Koopedi.
MR KOOPEDI: Thank you, my lady.
Now, one of my clients, Ronnie Pitso, Ronnie Silva Pitso who is present here, says that he was an MK activist, he left the country together with Mishak, Mishak before me and another Rufus. Now my instructions are that you and your other colleagues tortured his mother. From time to time Police would go into her house, harass her, want to know where her son is, if her son made a visit and would assault her at random. I am mindful of the fact that you do not recall your victims but having mentioned the Pitso name, do you recall ever assaulting Ronnie Pitso's mother?
MR POLLOCK: What was his MK name? I worked with MK names more than anything else. Maybe that would help me.
MR KOOPEDI: Chairperson, may I have an indulgence and consult for a second?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR KOOPEDI: I'm advised his MK name was Norton Mangweng.
MR POLLOCK: Norton?
MR KOOPEDI: Norton Mangweng.
MR POLLOCK: And where did he stay?
MR KOOPEDI: Alexandra.
MR POLLOCK: Yes, what was his address?
MR KOOPEDI: The address I have now is of East Bank so he definitely didn't stay in East Bank then.
MR POLLOCK: It's possible, I don't recall the name at all, I must be honest. But it is possible, yes. As I described that would happen from time to time.
MR KOOPEDI: You know, my instructions are further that when Ronnie came back from exile, I think a month or so when he arrived his mother had died about a month or so and it is believed that the cause of death was the assaults, you know, and he wanted me to put this question to you that according to him, he has information that you were part of the group that would from time to time harass his mother and his mother then died as a result thereof. Could you give me a comment on that?
MR POLLOCK: As I said the name certainly doesn't ring a bell, that MK name and I can't say that I could remember going consistently going back to somebody's house like that, especially a lady and doing things like that. I really, as I said, most of it happened on the spur of the moment and as it was common practise, the MK people very, very rarely stayed at their houses. So, you know ...
MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Ntali Ntuli. Ntali Ntuli was a UDF activist who was arrested who did not have an MK name because he was UDF, who was arrested by, you know, your group from Alexandra. I'm told that there was a person called Professor in your group. Do you know that person?
MR POLLOCK: No, they used to call us the A Team.
MR KOOPEDI: Yes, I have an A-Team here and I'm told that there was a person called Professor. You might not know that name? I'm also told that there was another one of you guys who was limping. Do you know him?
MR POLLOCK: Limping?
MR KOOPEDI: Yes he had, as he walked he would limp.
MR POLLOCK: No, not from where I worked. This is the Security Branch?
MR KOOPEDI: Yes.
MR POLLOCK: No.
MR KOOPEDI: Or rather he was present when Ntali Ntuli was arrested, so I do not know whether he would have been in the Security Branch. I was hoping I would get names from you of these people. But were you involved in arrests that took place around Bezuidenhout Valley?
MR POLLOCK: No, that would have been John Vorster Square, that's probably why I don't - John Vorster Square would have done that, we were just ostensibly in Alexandra.
MR KOOPEDI: Okay. Well my instructions are that he was arrested at Bezuidenhout Valley but taken to John Vorster, he was then sent back to Alexandra and handed over to Security Branch in Alexandra and he says he was assaulted by Alex in your presence on his ear and you did nothing about it. His ear bled, bled and bled.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say this person was arrested in your presence, are you specifically referring to Mr Pollock as an applicant or are you referring to members of the A-Team?
MR KOOPEDI: I am saying he was assaulted, not arrested.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, assaulted.
MR KOOPEDI: Assaulted in - my instructions are that Mr Pollock was one of ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pollock was present.
MR KOOPEDI: Not only him but the other members of the A-Team were present when this happened.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I want to know if he was specifically present?
MR KOOPEDI: Those are my instructions, Chairperson.
MR POLLOCK: It's possible, yes.
MR KOOPEDI: And that he bled through the ear, he even had to be taken through to some doctors to attend to him?
MR POLLOCK: That is possible.
CHAIRPERSON: When was this?
MR KOOPEDI: This happened towards the end of '87, beginning of '88.
MR POLLOCK: I was, in 1987 I was at Intelligence Johannesburg. I got to Alexandra in about '89 so that could have been before I was there.
MR KOOPEDI: I am certain that it is also possible that even my victims could be making mistakes on the dates and on the years, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: It's important that we are precise with regard to dates specifically because the evidence, as is, is that Mr Pollock was involved in many assaults during the period 1989 to 1992 and he doesn't remember the victims. So it would actually help this Committee if you had precise instructions with regard to the period because otherwise it wouldn't take any enquiry further in putting questions about assaults that occurred before 1989.
MR KOOPEDI: I should say, my lady, that I tried my best to get the precise dates knowing that you would need very strong indications as to the incident, the place and the date and the closest I could get to giving you a precise date was, you know, end of '87 beginning '88. That's the closest I could get on this. And Chairperson, I have no further questions for this witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KOOPEDI
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: No thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager?
NO QUESTIONS BY JUDGE DE JAGER
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Sigodi?
NO QUESTIONS BY MS SIGODI
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, do you have any re-examination?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no re-examination, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And can we move to oral argument? Can you give your submissions?
MR DU PLESSIS IN ARGUMENT: Yes, thank you Chairperson.
With regard to the first incident ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Can we just indicate that with regard to the first incident we not necessarily hear you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Chairperson.
Then I move then to the assaults. It is unfortunately so that Mr Pollock does not have any full particulars regarding the dates, places and identity of the victims except to say that there were approximately ten dockets opened against him. Now unfortunately because of irregularities committed by the South African Police it does not seem as any of those documentation is still available. Therefore we cannot submit the full particulars which would be required in terms of the Act to this Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: And that being the case, do you think this is a matter that we can be in a position to exercise our minds whether amnesty should be granted or refused?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Honourable Chairperson, if one looks at the Act, Section 21 specifically, I would submit that as far as requirements in 21 (a), (b) and (c) is concerned, the applicant did comply with that. My only submission in this regard would be that should, for instance, the State prosecute the applicant for an assault, a person could be charged with assault on a person unknown to the State. If one takes the case, for instance, of the dog attacks on certain people which were captured on video, if those people for instance could not be found but you had other evidence of an assault, the State would be fully entitled to charge of assault or attempted murder on a person unknown to the State. So in that regard I would say that because that is the situation, if the accused fully disclosed his conduct and the fact that he assaulted various people for instance for whom dockets or which people opened dockets as complaints against the accused, that the accused could be granted amnesty in those terms, that he is granted amnesty for assaults perpetrated against certain people unknown to the Committee, which people did lay charges against the accused, formal charges, because then one would have certainty. For instance, if such a docket would surface at a later stage, one would then be able to say but this falls under the period 1989 - 1992, it was a docket for assault opened against the accused and therefore it must fall under the order made by the Committee. I cannot take it further than that because I respectfully submit that one would have certainty there as to the specific person even if his identity is not known, the fact of the matter is that such person did, according to the accused, open a docket against him and although that docket cannot be traced at the moment, it may surface at a later stage and one would then be able to say this is one of the dockets the applicant referred to in his application for amnesty. But other than that I cannot take it further. If that is not sufficient to the Committee then obviously I understand that blanket amnesty cannot be granted and therefore he would not be entitled to be granted amnesty through this Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because my impression of the evidence tendered by Mr Pollock is that one, he is unable to be placed in possession of facts that would assist in determining the nature of the victims assaulted. We don't know whether he did the - the persons that were allegedly assaulted were the persons that he has referred to particularly on page 76 of his supplementary application, as persons who would have attacked SAP, that's the South African Police or the IFP. Assaults were committed on a cluster of persons.
MR DU PLESSIS: That is so.
CHAIRPERSON: Various clusters of persons and this would include almost the entire Alexandra community. If you look carefully at the cluster of persons mentioned by Mr Pollock.
MR DU PLESSIS: I agree.
CHAIRPERSON: And could definitely amount to a blanket amnesty?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes that is correct, that is why my argument is only that on this application regarding the assaults on page 66(vii), the Committee would only be able to go as far as to say that he is granted amnesty regarding specific charges laid against him, that is formal charges brought against him by victims unknown to the Committee because my submission is that those people, should those dockets now come forward at a certain stage one would be able to say this is a charge for assault brought against the applicant during a certain period 1989 to 1992, that is within the time frame described, it is a case for assault and it was a formal charge brought against the applicant. So my submission is that those dockets or those instances could be described accurately enough for amnesty to be granted but the rest mentioned, where he cannot give the identify of the person and the time and place of the assault, I there respectfully agree that the Committee would not be able to grant amnesty for those.
JUDGE DE JAGER: So your submission is, it should be limited to the time period 1989 to 1992?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
JUDGE DE JAGER: It should be limited to the area Alexandra and it should be limited to the charges already laid during that period and not a charge laid yesterday or maybe later perhaps?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is indeed so, Honourable Chairperson, that is my request because those can surely be that it is accurately described, when if a person, say for instance, tomorrow goes and lays a charge against him for something which happened during the period 1992, obviously it wouldn't fall under the amnesty granted because that person couldn't be identified and the applicant couldn't describe the address and the incident itself specifically. But those for which formal charges were laid during that period at Alexandra and for the area of Alexandra, if such a docket should be brought to light at any stage then one would be able to say this is one of the instances for which he applied for amnesty for and he made it clear that for all those instances what his political was and what the political objective was.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pollock mentioned that the dockets had since been lost?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well it disappeared because of the actions of the South African Police, we couldn't trace any of those.
CHAIRPERSON: Were attempts made to locate the dockets?
MR DU PLESSIS: We did enquire but there are no records which could be provided for us and Mr Pollock is not a member of the South African Police any more.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: So he hasn't got access to any of the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Was this enquiry with your assistance, Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is so, it was.
CHAIRPERSON: And when was this enquiry made?
MR DU PLESSIS: This was during the - I would say it's about, this is a number of years ago, just after the application was done.
CHAIRPERSON: Around 1997/1998?
MR DU PLESSIS: In that region, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And you were informed that they could not locate the dockets?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct because it should be remembered that this took place in the period '89 to '92. I do not know whether my learned friend who is assisting the Committee could perhaps or did perhaps make any attempts but we were just told that there's no possibility that those could be traced.
CHAIRPERSON: I think this is as far as you can take it?
MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot take it any further than that.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, can you give an indication what kind of notice was served or what attempts were made to advise the victims of Alexandra about Mr Pollock's application?
MS PATEL: Certainly, Honourable Chairperson. Given the vagueness of the information that we had at hand, an ad was placed - I'm just trying to locate a copy of the ad, I believe it was placed in the Sowetan, for any persons who might have been assaulted by Mr Pollock during that relevant period to come forward. It is as a result of that ad that Mr Koopedi's clients in fact came forward and most of those who did come forward, I believe according to my instructions from the office, were members of the Alex Youth League at that time. Do you want a copy of the ad?
CHAIRPERSON: I would appreciate just having sight of the advertisement. When was this advertisement made? When did it appear in the Sowetan?
MS PATEL: It appeared on the 22nd, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: 22nd October?
MS PATEL: November.
CHAIRPERSON: November?
MS PATEL: Yes. I might just explain that the ad was also placed late because we were also waiting further particulars, more particulars on who the victims might have been at the time. Also in terms of my enquiries with the investigative unit, they indicated that it would be virtually possible to go looking for dockets on people that really we had no idea who we were looking for. I wish also to place on record, our investigative capacity at this stage is also severely limited.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm aware of the limited investigative resources. What I cannot understand is why people were not given a reasonable time to respond to your advert. The advert only appeared in the Sowetan newspaper on the 22nd and the matter was set down for the week of the 27th. Would you submit that a reasonable time period has been afforded to those who wish to respond to your notice, to so respond?
MS PATEL: Well, unfortunately Honourable Chairperson, I can really take the matter no further than this, bearing in mind also that, you know, we're coming to the end of our period of work and people are severely stressed at the office in terms of what we need to finish with and unfortunately I do agree that a greater time period should have been allowed and I can only apologise for this.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Ms Patel, perhaps something in your favour. I don't think anybody would today go back and look at advertisements that appeared on the 22nd. It's probable that that advertisement would have an effect on the 22nd or the 23rd round about but after that it would be an old newspaper and if they haven't read it on the 22nd or the 23rd or say the 24th and if they've read it, I would imagine they would pick up the telephone or whatever and respond at least soon thereafter.
MS PATEL: If I may also just place on record that my personal cell number is also on the ad and I've received no calls from anyone from the time of the placement of the ad to date.
CHAIRPERSON: May I sight of your advertisement?
MS PATEL: Certainly.
CHAIRPERSON: I think we know that we are dealing with persons who live in Alexandra, who most of them do not have telephones in their houses, so it is not something that can be taken quite lightly that if a telephone call has not been made to you on the day of the publication of a newspaper, that would be sufficient indication that persons do not wish to make contact with your office. That place is just riddled with poverty. To make a telephone call which probably can be taken to be an easy thing by other persons and I speak with sufficient knowledge of the situation in Alexandra, making a telephone call can definitely be a very expensive act on the part of the persons who wish to approach your office. I therefore do not think that the fact that persons did not respond within a few days immediately after the ad would be an indication, a sufficient indication, that they do not intend to respond to the advertisement. I'm saying this mindful of the fact that Mr Pollock would not have made an application like this if there were no assaults that he committed to the extent that he has indicated he did. So there must be people who have been affected by these incidents. Some of them might have died, some of them might have left the area to live in other areas but I don't think enough time has been given to enable potential victims to respond to the advertisement. It would have been very useful that in addition to the newspaper advertisement that a radio announcement in the many African languages should have been made. We are aware that many persons in Alexandra are not educated and therefore do not read the Sowetan.
MS PATEL: Unfortunately, Honourable Chairperson, I have already placed the position of the staff and the events that led up to the advertisement. I cannot take it any further than that. Perhaps then it is appropriate that the matter be adjourned to next year and that the endeavours that you have alluded to then be made by the offices in terms of proper ads being placed and we then come back next year? I cannot take it further than this.
CHAIRPERSON: May I see the parties in chambers?
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) made by Mr du Plessis on behalf of Mr Pollock and having listened to Ms Patel with regard to the notification that was made in terms of Section 19.4 of the Act advising the victims to urgently contact her with a view of being present to this hearing and having noted that the said notification which appeared in the Sowetan only appeared on the 22nd November, it is the view of this Committee that not sufficient notice has been afforded to the victims to indicate the intentions of whether they want to tender any evidence before this Committee or not. It is therefore our decision that we'll adjourn these proceedings sine die in order to enable Ms Patel to make a radio broadcast in the Alexandra community radio station within the course of this week inviting any victims or victim to come forward before the 13th December to indicate whether he or she wishes to adduce any evidence before this panel. The matter is therefore adjourned. Thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: As the Committee pleases.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
