CHAIRPERSON: Can we go through the formality of identifying ourselves on the record, for the sake of those preparing the record. The Committee consists of myself, Judge Wilson, Adv Sigodi and Mr Wynand Malan.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am Patrick Falconer, I am an Attorney and I act on behalf of the applicant, Frank Sandy Bennetts.
MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson. My name is Christo Nel, I am also an Attorney and I am acting on behalf of a number of implicated persons in this matter namely the following, Mr André Fivaz, Mr Christiaan de Jager, Mr Rowan Fernandez, Mr Shaun Fourie, Petrus Coenraad Nel and a person called K.P. Niemand, Mr Niemand. Thank you Sir.
MR KUBONI: I am W.S. Kuboni, I am representing one of the victims, Mr Siphiwe Kenneth Hlozi.
MS MOHAMED: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am Ms Mohamed from the firm Dehal Incorporated, assisted by Ms Mare. We are on record for a number of victims in this matter, namely Ms Gertrude Mngadi, Prince Jabulani Ngcobo, Cecil Keshla Nala, Ms Olina Octevia Nxumalo, Loretta Mkhize, Duma Masikane, Theresa Mthembu, Elizabeth Nkosi, Doctor Sandile Gwala, Mr William Xaba, Mr Joseph Xaba, Allan Kiri, Stimbisu Mswelo, Paulus Mtwala and Tulasizwa Fongobi. Thank you.
MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chairperson. My name is Thabile Thabethe, the Evidence Leader for the TRC.
CHAIRPERSON: Before we commence, Mr Nel, is Mr Fivaz here, is he still able to remain with us?
MR NEL: Yes, Mr Chairman, I have asked Mr Fivaz to stay in attendance. He is at the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: He will tell us if he has any problems?
MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, if I may call the applicant, Frank Sandy Bennetts.
MR MALAN: Mr Bennetts, are you Afrikaans- or English speaking Sir?
MR BENNETTS: English speaking Sir.
FRANK SANDY BENNETTS: (sworn states)
MR MALAN: Thank you. You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bennetts, is it correct that you are the applicant in this matter and you are seeking application for amnesty in respect of certain matters that are going to be dealt with in detail in your application?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I am.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, in support of your application for amnesty, is it correct that you signed an affidavit on the 13th of December 1996?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, I did.
MR FALCONER: Do you confirm the correctness of the contents of that affidavit and the application for amnesty?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I do.
MR FALCONER: Is it further correct that after seeking legal advice in regard to your application for amnesty, you deposed to a further statement on the 18th of May 2000?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I did.
MR FALCONER: And do you confirm the correctness of the contents of that affidavit?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON: When was the first affidavit?
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, you will find the first affidavit in the most revised set of papers.
CHAIRPERSON: In which set?
MR FALCONER: In the recent set, Mr Chairman, unfortunately the particular bundle does not appear to be marked as such, but it is on page 8 thereof. If I might have leave to show you the bundle I am referring to, Mr Chairman, it might be of assistance.
CHAIRPERSON: That is the first bundle? What I've got at page 8 is the annexure?
MR MALAN: It is page 1 - 7?
CHAIRPERSON: Signed by him?
MR FALCONER: That is correct Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: That is not an affidavit?
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, it forms part of the application for amnesty which you will find at pages 1 - 7.
CHAIRPERSON: Which was sworn to?
MR FALCONER: Correct and ...
CHAIRPERSON: He can just confirm it under oath.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, do you confirm the contents of the statement which appears on page 8 of the first bundle, I will refer to it, as being true and correct?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I do.
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, just for purposes of clarity then, the second affidavit to which I referred, can be found in the supplementary Bundle B, from pages 1 onwards.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so the first bundle is A and then we have Bundles B and C? Oh, no, sorry, they have marked the other one A, the transcript.
MR FALCONER: I wonder if we shouldn't refer to the one with the applicant's first affidavit as C or D?
MS THABETHE: Bundle 1?
CHAIRPERSON: Surely it should be A, and we can change it and we can refer to the Section 29 transcript as D?
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bennetts, is it correct that you testified before a Committee on gross human rights violations of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee on the 13th and 26th of November 1996?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct yes.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, in doing so, what did you understand that process to be part of at the time?
MR BENNETTS: I understood it to be part of my amnesty application.
MR FALCONER: How is it that you came about making application for amnesty and deposing to the first affidavit to which we have referred to, or the first statement on the 13th of November 1996?
MR BENNETTS: At the end of the second day of the hearing, I was advised by the Chairman that I should possibly seek amnesty. It was only then that I realised that it was a totally separate issue.
MR FALCONER: And you were appraised of the cut-off date of the 14th of December 1996?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is correct.
MR FALCONER: At what stage were you advised that it would be in your interests to supplement your initial application with further information?
MR BENNETTS: Only after I had spoken to an Attorney.
MR FALCONER: That then gave rise to the affidavit which you deposed to on the 18th of May this year?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, I would like to just for the benefit of the community and members of the community, I would like you to give some information as to briefly your personal circumstances and your history. When did you first join the South African Police Force as it was then known?
MR BENNETTS: Initially as a National Serviceman during 1981.
MR FALCONER: And where did you receive your training?
MR BENNETTS: At the Police College in Pretoria.
MR FALCONER: And thereafter?
MR BENNETTS: Thereafter I was posted to C.R. Swart Square in Durban.
MR FALCONER: What was the nature of your duties whilst you were a member of the Police Service at C.R. Swart Square?
MR BENNETTS: Mainly charge office or guard duties at the gate, and I also spent some time in the towers there.
MR FALCONER: In the towers?
MR BENNETTS: Guard towers.
MR FALCONER: Upon the completion of your national service years, what did you decide to do?
MR BENNETTS: Well, it wasn't actually on the completion of it, it was about six months before I was due to complete, I decided to make the Police Force my career and I went to the Recruiting Office, did the necessary and joined up as a permanent member.
MR FALCONER: Where were you then engaged in your duties once you had signed up as a Permanent Force Member?
MR BENNETTS: Still exactly the same thing, at C.R. Swart Square in uniform.
MR FALCONER: How did your career then developed?
MR BENNETTS: From 1983 I went over to the inquiry staff, or the Uniform Investigations as it was at the time, I was there for just over a year and from there I went to the Riot Unit.
MR FALCONER: What was the nature of your duties that you were required to discharge there?
MR BENNETTS: At the inquiry staff?
MR FALCONER: Correct?
MR BENNETTS: It was petty offences, investigation.
MR FALCONER: Is it correct that it was during your time as a member of the inquiry staff that the Riot Unit as it subsequently became known, was established?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, yes.
MR FALCONER: And is it correct that you thereafter became a member of the Riot Unit?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, yes.
MR FALCONER: Could you just briefly describe to the Committee the circumstances that gave rise to you joining the Riot Unit?
MR BENNETTS: Basically I had an argument with an officer at the inquiry staff, and I got transferred.
MR FALCONER: Who was your Commanding Officer in the Riot Unit?
MR BENNETTS: Well, it varied, but mainly during the period involved here, was Warrant Officer Kruger.
MR FALCONER: Was he your immediate superior as it were?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is correct.
MR FALCONER: And as such, would he be the person from whom you would receive most instructions and to whom you would report back on activities?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR FALCONER: Could you describe to the Committee the primary functions of the Riot Unit and how it subsequently became more involved with the activities of crime investigation?
MR BENNETTS: Basically the functions at the time were trying to keep peace in the townships, but as the townships became more and more inaccessible to the normal Police, CIDs, etc, etc, we took over a lot of their functions in so far as tracing of suspects, etc, were concerned.
MR FALCONER: When you say that the normal Police, it became more inaccessible to them, could you describe why that was?
MR BENNETTS: Basically, it was unsafe for them to go in, they were attacked.
MR FALCONER: So the Riot Unit of which you were a member, you say, became more and more involved in Policing activities of investigative nature?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, more involved in the tracing of the suspects and things.
MR FALCONER: Just to complete your chronology of your career whilst you were a member of the Police Force, is it correct then that you were seconded to the Security Branch of the South African Police?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is correct.
MR FALCONER: Do you recall when that was?
MR BENNETTS: I am not hundred percent certain, 1987 or 1988.
MR FALCONER: And your secondment to that Branch, did it require any additional training on your part?
MR BENNETTS: No.
MR FALCONER: And if you will please describe briefly then to the Committee, the nature of your duties whilst you were a member of the Security Branch.
MR BENNETTS: Initially we were just involved with what they called investigation of "landverlater" files, it was following up on information of persons who had been suspected of having left the country to receive training, approaching the family, trying to get information on the persons. There was a form we had to have completed and handed over to a family member. Basically that was it, initially.
MR FALCONER: And thereafter?
MR BENNETTS: Well, later on we did, I was involved in the very low scale nature with some of the investigations, basically assisting the investigators. Later on I ended up working on The Farm with Col Taylor, here in Pietermaritzburg.
MR FALCONER: Would you please describe the nature of your duties whilst you were employed on The Farm?
MR BENNETTS: Basically just a run-around, go-getter and a caretaker. I slept there at night, that was basically it.
MR FALCONER: Now, Mr Bennetts, just to place everything in context, how long were you a member of the Security Branch?
MR BENNETTS: Probably about three years I think, two or three years.
MR FALCONER: Whereafter, where were you posted to?
MR BENNETTS: Then I spent about six months at Mayville, back in Uniform and then I was transferred to Thornville at my request.
MR FALCONER: What capacity did you hold at Thornville?
MR BENNETTS: I was the Branch Commander.
MR FALCONER: Is it correct then that of the three categories or three incidents for which you are seeking amnesty, two of them relate to the time whilst you were a member of the Riot Unit and the third, which relates to the murder of a member of the Pan Africanist Congress in Inanda, whilst you were a member of the Security Branch?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, yes.
MR FALCONER: If you could please then refer to the first category of offences for which you are seeking amnesty, which Mr Chairman, one will find at paragraph 17 of the affidavit and onwards. Would you please for the benefit of the members of the community, read on to the record the contents of paragraphs 17 through to 27 of your affidavit.
MR BENNETTS: Okay.
"... It was during this period 1985 - 1989 whilst I served as a member of the Riot Unit that I was involved in numerous unlawful acts where individuals were unlawfully interrogated and assaulted by applying electric shocks to them, or a technique colloquially known as "tubing" or the application of a wet bag over the head of the victim, whereby victims were deprived of air for substantial periods for the purposes of extracting information ..."
ADV SIGODI: Sorry, could you ask the applicant to speak slowly for the benefit of the interpreters?
MR FALCONER: Certainly.
MR BENNETTS: Sorry.
MR MALAN: Before you proceed, can you just assist us, in your evidence up till now you said you were seconded to the Security Branch in 1987 or 1988. You start off paragraph 17 by referring to your being a member of the Riot Unit up till 1989. What is the correct position?
MR BENNETTS: For a period while I was actually working with the "Landverlater" files, I was actually still stationed at the Riot Unit, although we were working and assisting the Security Branch at that stage.
MR MALAN: Were you a member of the Riot Unit or of the Security Branch then, were you seconded or were you not seconded?
MR BENNETTS: I was seconded, but we were still, the station, my station as such was still at the Riot Unit, although we were working with the Security Branch and from their offices. We weren't transferred until later on.
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, just to be of assistance, this was an issue that I was intending to visit with the witness, as through the passage of time, he is unfortunately unable to recall precisely the dates when he was with certain units and when the transfers took place. Maybe you could just clarify that for the members of the Committee?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, as far as I recall it was probably roundabout 1988 that we, the entire unit that I was working with, the Section from Chesterville, and another Section from Lamontville, we were just told to go and report to the Security Branch offices and see Major Andy Taylor. When we got there, we were told we would be working with them from then on, still using the Riot Unit vehicles and things, and doing these investigations of persons who had left the country. We were there for over a year, on paper, we were still stationed at the Riot Unit, it was only later on that we were transferred.
MR MALAN: You were not physically at the Riot Unit quarters?
MR BENNETTS: No, we were not physically at the Riot Unit's offices, we were physically at the Security Branch offices, but we hadn't physically been actually transferred on paper.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MR BENNETTS: Shall I start this again?
MR FALCONER: Just where you got to.
MR BENNETTS: All right.
"... whereby victims were deprived of air for substantial periods for the purposes of extracting information from them in regard to the whereabouts of firearms, ammunition, explosives and information pertaining to persons suspected of participating in criminal activities, the activities of the liberation movements and general criminal conduct. Another act that I recall was carried out, was the insertion of ice blocks in the anuses of victims. Victims would also at times perform an act known as (that should say) "ride an aeroplane". This is described as an act whereby the victims' hands would be handcuffed behind his back and his ankles tied together. Thereafter a pole would be placed through the hands and feet of the victim and the victim lifted into the air, with the ends of the pole being placed onto objects such as desks, thereby suspending the victim face down. In this position, the victim would be most uncomfortable and unable to breathe freely. During this period of 1985 - 1989, such acts would take place on a regular basis in Chesterville and on some occasions between three or four times per week. Due to the frequency of such acts, I am unable to recall with any degree of accuracy, the specific events or acts that transpired on each and every occasion and where they took place. These acts would be carried out on individuals in motor vehicles, at deserted areas and on a few occasions, at the CID Branch, Mayville in Ridge Road, Durban. It follows that the persons were forcibly removed and kidnapped to such destinations. Other acts perpetrated on members of the Chesterville community from time to time, included the harassment of the residents of the township and on occasions the discharge of teargas in the direction of groups of inhabitants or their places of residence. I recall that most of these incidents took place in the presence of Warrant Officer Kruger, our Commanding Officer, and others who I can recall now to have been Cons Fourie, Cons van Loggerenberg, Cons Porter and Cons Graaff. Others were also involved, however, I cannot now independently recall their names. Warrant Officer Kruger was actively involved in such activities, and it was upon his instructions that we continued to carry out these unlawful acts upon individuals for the above-mentioned purposes. We would independently act upon information extracted by these means and furthermore same was fed onto the Security Branch, through a Sgt Durr, who was the conduit."
MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, just explain to me what you intend saying with "we would independently act"?
MR BENNETTS: On occasions we wouldn't pass the information on to the CID's, or anything, to follow up, we would follow up on it ourselves. If during one of these interrogations, we got information for example that X had firearms, we would go ourselves to whichever location, wherever, and go and look for them ourselves.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MR BENNETTS
"... As such incidents took place throughout the period 1985 - 1989, I am unable to furnish this honourable Committee any details of victims who were interrogated, nor the dates, times and places of such interrogation. We were instructed by our superior Officer, Warrant Officer Kruger, to conduct such activities, not only to extract information that may lead to positive results in the investigation of crime, but also to assist in destroying the moral of the supporters of the United Democratic Front and thereby result in the loss of support or followers to that organisation. In doing so, Warrant Officer Kruger informed me that such activities were conducted upon the instructions of his superiors and the Security Branch and that such activities formed part of the overall plan to destabilise and destroy the forces of the anti-liberation movements. At this juncture, I point out further that particularly initially most of these activities were conducted in the presence of Warrant Officer Kruger and other persons in the Riot Unit, who initiated and encouraged such activities. I was particularly encouraged to continue with such activities when the same resulted in the acquisition of positive intelligence, that resulted in the recovery of firearms, ammunition, explosives and successful prosecutions in criminal courts. I further point out that our activities in this regard, were selective, in that we specifically targeted the supporters of the United Democratic Front who were active in the Chesterville area. We did not target the grouping known as the A-Team, which were a group of Inkatha Freedom Party affiliated supporters, who conducted certain activities in the Chesterville area. We were furnished with specific instructions not to target the A-Team as their political aspirations were perceived to be beneficial to the overall policies of the ruling National Party government."
CHAIRPERSON: Who gave you these specific instructions?
MR BENNETTS: Warrant Officer Kruger, Sir.
"... I did not every supply members of the A-Team with arms or ammunition or any other means to attack or kill members of its opposition."
MR FALCONER: Before we move off this category of offences for which you seek amnesty, you joined the Riot Unit in 1985, according to your evidence, is that correct?
MR BENNETTS: I think so, yes.
MR FALCONER: So, that would mean that you had been in the South African Police Force for approximately four years at that stage?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir, that is correct.
MR FALCONER: What rank did you hold in 1985?
MR BENNETTS: I was still a Constable.
MR FALCONER: Did you ever receive promotion from the Constable level?
MR BENNETTS: I held a rank of a Lance-Sergeant for some time while I was in the Riot Unit, but that was just a temporary rank. I only became a Sergeant once I got to Thornville.
MR FALCONER: So for the entire duration of your period as a member of the Riot Unit, you are telling us that you were a Constable?
MR BENNETTS: A Constable and then later on, a Lance-Sergeant.
MR FALCONER: As a result of your activities, as a member of the Riot Unit within the Chesterville community, did you receive some form of notoriety or prevalence amongst the members of your Unit?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I did.
MR FALCONER: Could you describe to the Committee how this manifested itself?
MR BENNETTS: During the course of these activities, I became referred to by the victims as such, as Sgt Frank, that would have been after I had become a Lance-Sergeant.
Basically we became notorious because of the results we were having, we were getting firearms out and yes, a lot of the other guys also started to say that they were Sgt Frank.
MR FALCONER: Are you saying that you heard of instances where members of the South African Police Force would call themselves Sgt Frank whilst perpetrating these acts?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is correct.
MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, you mentioned earlier that you temporarily held the position of a Lance-Sergeant?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: And for a brief period?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: How long was that?
MR BENNETTS: Well, it was the remainder of the time that I was at the Riot Unit.
MR MALAN: I asked you about a duration?
MR BENNETTS: About two years or three years, Sir.
MR MALAN: Why do you say three years is a brief period, temporarily?
MR BENNETTS: Because it is a brief period to me, Sir. It was, you see, the Lance-Sergeant was only a temporary rank. I got no money for it, we got nothing for it, and when I got transferred to the Security Branch, I actually reverted back to a Constable.
ADV SIGODI: You mentioned that other members of the Police referred to themselves as Sgt Frank, can you give us the names of those people who referred to themselves as Sgt Frank?
MR BENNETTS: I only know of one, where I can actually give you a name, I think his first name is Johan, but his surname is van der Merwe, he was with us in Chesterville at that time. He is currently a Captain at the, I think it is still the Riot Unit, I don't know, at Pietermaritzburg.
ADV SIGODI: Why did they refer, why did they choose to refer to themselves as Sgt Frank?
MR BENNETTS: I am assuming that it is because of the effect that it had on the people that they picked up. I am not trying to say that, I am not trying to get away from the fact that I did commit these offences, but what I am trying to say is that there were certain of these offences that were not committed by me, they were committed by other policemen, who also used my name. I am aware of that.
We chose to do nothing about it, because it had the effect. Basically what we were trying to do was getting the stuff out, people were talking. I wasn't at that time going to run around and start saying to the other guys "don't use my name".
MR MALAN: You were asked by your Attorney why you, how it happened that you became to be referred to simply as "Sgt Frank", and notoriety and you said you were notorious because of the results?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: Are you serious about it, or was it about the methods that you employed?
MR BENNETTS: Well, I mean by the methods and the results we got, within ourselves, well, both I assume, yes Sir, results and methods.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, you have testified about incidents that took place through a passage of time, which would possibly straddle a period of four years, namely from 1985 to 1989 and you also mention in your evidence that incidents of this nature would take place on a regular basis, three to four times a week. We are going to come back later in your evidence to deal with specific statements that have been made by victims who claimed to have been victims of assaults and other unlawful activities, could you describe to this Committee the task that your mind is faced with when you try and recall with any degree of specificity the details of those particular incidents at this stage?
MR BENNETTS: They all overlap, I cannot remember anyone specific. There are one or two incidents that stick out in my mind, but it just became a general thing, one assault was another assault, one guy getting shot, was another guy getting shot.
MR FALCONER: Do you independently recall any names of any of those victims?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, I do not.
MR FALCONER: But from what we see in the statements of a lot of the victims, you do find that those events are most likely to have taken place in your presence?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is correct, yes.
MR FALCONER: We will deal with that in more detail later on. Mr Bennetts, I would like to turn to the next matter for which you seek amnesty and that pertains to the necklacing of a male person in Chesterville, in the vicinity of the High School as you have described it.
Would you please read from paragraph 28 of your affidavit, through to paragraph 33?
MR BENNETTS
"... I recall that during the period 1985 - 1989 ..."
MR FALCONER: If I could stop you there, can you at this stage recall with more accuracy, precisely when this incident took place?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir.
MR FALCONER: Continue.
MR BENNETTS
"... I was requested by my then Commanding Officer, Warrant Officer Kruger, to accompany him to a house in Road 24, Chesterville at approximately one a.m. in the morning. During the trip from the police station, Chesterville, to the intersection of Roads 7, 24 and 25, Warrant Officer Kruger informed me of his intention to frame a particular individual as an informer to the community. He intended to do so by delivering an envelope to him. Other motor vehicles from our Unit, had accompanied us to the aforementioned intersection. Warrant Officer Kruger and I alighted our motor vehicle and left the others at the intersection and walked to a house in Road 24. Upon our arrival ..."
MR FALCONER: Maybe you should, Mr Chairman, if I can ask the witness just to slow his testimony down a bit, so that we can ensure the proper translation for the members of the community.
MR BENNETTS: Sorry.
"... Upon our arrival at the particular house, Warrant Officer Kruger knocked on the door, which evoked a response from a female voice within. I assumed that the female from within, had established from Warrant Officer Kruger's heavy Afrikaans accent that he was a member of the South African Police. She then opened the door slightly ajar and peeped out through the gap. Warrant Officer Kruger then requested to see a person whose name I cannot recall. He was informed that the person requested was not present. He then handed an envelope to the female, and requested that it be delivered to the person with whom he had requested to speak. I recall after we left the house, that he mentioned to me that there was a sum of money in the envelope and if I remember correctly, the sum of R500-00. I did not see whether there was any money in the envelope and nor was I acquainted with the person who was supposed to receive same. Thereafter possibly a few days later, I heard about the death of a person in the vicinity of a nearby High School, near Road 18 by the way of necklacing. Warrant Officer Kruger then informed me the deceased person was in fact the same person for whom the envelope was intended and that as far as he was concerned, he had achieved a successful result by delivering the envelope. I somehow recall that the woman who had received the envelope had identified herself as the sister of the person for whom the envelope was intended. It follows that if Warrant Officer Kruger's theory was correct, and that the deceased person who died by necklacing was one and the same person, such person's identity who purportedly receive money from the Police, was made known to those who perpetrated the necklacing by the deceased's sister."
MR MALAN: Why does that follow?
MR BENNETTS: Well, she was the only one who knew that the money had come from the Police.
MR MALAN: Well, he might have received it and told people about it?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, I don't believe that he would have told people he received money for being an informer.
MR MALAN: Well, he might have told his colleagues that he was being set up, that he believed that he was being framed and they didn't believe him, there could be thousands of reasons?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is possible Sir, it is possible.
MR MALAN: Are you adamant that it follows that the sister was responsible for his necklacing?
MR BENNETTS: No, that is my assumption, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Of course, he might not have told people, but as my colleague has said, his sister in all innocence, might have handed the envelope to him in front of a group of people?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is correct Sir. Look, I cannot say what happened after that, anything could have happened, anything is possible.
MR MALAN: The question is why are you implicating the sister in his death and this is a strong statement, why are you doing that?
MR BENNETTS: Well, I cannot see any other way that the community would have heard, but bar from the sister, she is the only one that we spoke to.
MR MALAN: We have given you two alternatives now, can you still not see any other way?
MR BENNETTS: I do see another way Sir, I do, as you have said, but at the time of making the statement here, it was the only assumption I could come to.
MR MALAN: And there was no need for you to make that assumption, was there an effort to implicate the sister?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir.
MR MALAN: You may proceed, Mr Falconer.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Could you carry on and complete paragraph 33?
MR BENNETTS
"... I also remember Warrant Officer Kruger informing me that he had performed this operation upon instructions given to him from superiors. I am however, unaware of the identity of such superiors."
MR MALAN: Can you tell us on what basis do you make that statement, that you remember firstly Warrant Officer Kruger telling you that he was framing this person, secondly that he told you that it was that specific person, and thirdly especially, that he was doing this at the instructions of his superiors? Why do you remember all this so specifically, if you can't even remember the identify of any of the people tortured?
MR BENNETTS: Well, this is, the thing is Sir, after the necklacing took place and Warrant Officer Kruger then made that statement to me, only then did, in my mind, did I think back to the drive and the walk up Road 21 and the visit to the house. I didn't specifically remember those incidents at that time, until after the necklacing and only after Warrant Officer Kruger had told me that the deceased at Road 18, was the person whose house we had gone up to in Road 24. And then like I say, ten years down the line, here I am trying to put things together in my mind, and it is extremely difficult to do so.
MR MALAN: When did he tell you that he framed this person at the behest of his superiors?
MR BENNETTS: After coming away from the scene of the necklacing, we actually visited the scene of the necklacing, and after coming away from there.
MR MALAN: But when you went out originally to hand this envelope to the person or to his sister then as it transpired, he did not tell you that he had instructions from his superiors?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir.
MR MALAN: He only told you that after the necklacing?
MR BENNETTS: No, he only told me after the necklacing. At the time, when we left the police station, I didn't even know what was going on. We spoke in the car, between the police station and this intersection which is a matter of like two or three minutes away.
MR MALAN: You see what I find strange is that he would take you along, on this exercise, to frame an individual, but not tell you that he has instructions from his superiors to do so. Then you find a person necklaced, that person is linked to the person he intended to frame and he says it is the same person, and then for no apparent reason he tells you "I did this at the instructions of superiors", but you cannot remember the name?
MR BENNETTS: Of the superior, no Sir. No, he didn't give me a name. I didn't know who he was answering to.
MR MALAN: Why would he have told you that he did this on instructions from above?
MR BENNETTS: I don't know, Sir.
MR MALAN: But you are pretty certain he did tell you and then?
MR BENNETTS: I am pretty certain, yes, I cannot tell you if he said it to me on the way back from the house or he told it to me after the necklacing. I don't recall Sir.
Like I say, I have sat down and I have tried to get the order in - these things happened and I have tried to remember it now, and like I say it is one of the incidents that stuck out in my mind, out of a whole lot. But to sit down, ten years down the line and to try and actually remember what was said during which course of the events over a one week period, it is for me extremely difficult.
MR MALAN: Sorry, am I understanding you correctly that you are now saying that he could have told you this on the way back from the house, that he did it on instructions of superiors?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, he could have on the way back from the house, yes Sir.
MR MALAN: Could he have told you this on the way to the house?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir.
MR MALAN: When he said I was going to frame this person?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, because on the way to the house, he didn't give me too many details. He just said to me "we are going to frame someone" or "there is a chap we have to go and frame as an informer and I need to go and deliver an envelope to the house". We drove to the intersection, myself and him walked from where the vehicles were left up to the house, most probably about five or six houses up from the intersection, I cannot recall, I know it was on the left hand side.
He knocked, he spoke, he identified himself as a member of the South African Police, banging on the door - "amaphoyisa", whatever he said, I don't know, he was an Afrikaans chap. The lady answered, he asked for a person by name, I don't recall the name. She said he is not here and he simply passed the envelope to her and said "give him this" and we walked back.
MR MALAN: Did you now say that he identified himself as a member of the South African Police?
MR BENNETTS: I don't recall Sir.
MR MALAN: No, but you said this now? You have said that now?
MR BENNETTS: I am saying he knocked on the door and he spoke, he spoke in Afrikaans.
MR MALAN: No, that is what you said when you read your statement. Now when you repeated that incident, you said he identified himself?
MR BENNETTS: No, Sir, I don't know, I am sure I have said, or I meant to say that I don't know what he said, I know he knocked and he spoke and he spoke Afrikaans. I said he bashed on the door, I am assuming that they would have assumed that he was a policeman, because he spoke with a thick, a heavy Afrikaans accent.
MR MALAN: In other words he did not identify himself?
MR BENNETTS: I don't know if he did or he didn't. I don't think he did.
MR MALAN: So why do you say then "I assume that the sister knew that he was a policeman because of his accent", why didn't you say in your statement you don't know whether he, you cannot recall whether he identified himself as a policeman or not?
MR BENNETTS: Because Sir, at one o'clock in the morning, a chap speaking, a white chap speaking with an Afrikaans accent in the location?
MR MALAN: Mr Bennetts, that is not my question. My question relates to your making a statement under oath, that you assumed that she would have recognised him being a policeman by virtue of his accent, that is what you said in your statement?
MR BENNETTS: That is what I say, yes Sir.
MR MALAN: You are now telling us you don't know whether he identified himself or not.
MR BENNETTS: No, I don't.
MR MALAN: My question is why do you put a certain version there, why do you even refer to it at all? What was the intention again?
MR BENNETTS: No intention at all. No intention at all, simply to state what I assumed at the time, what I am thinking back now.
MR MALAN: You may proceed Mr Falconer.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bennetts, why do you think it was that Warrant Officer Kruger requested you to accompany him to deliver the envelope?
MR BENNETTS: Just to make sure he was safe up and down the road.
MR FALCONER: So you were there to escort and make sure he was all right?
MR BENNETTS: That is all, yes Sir.
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, I am not sure whether you would like to take the long adjournment?
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if there is anybody in here who can tell me whether arrangements have been made for food for all of you? It sometimes happens, it sometimes doesn't.
MS THABETHE: I don't think any arrangements have been made, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't think so?
MS THABETHE: Usually the victims are given money for lunch and the legal representatives have to see to their lunch.
CHAIRPERSON: They have to go to go and see to it themselves?
MS THABETHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Then I will not make the adjournment as short as I was going to, you have to go out and - what time would you suggest, gentlemen?
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, I am not sure if two o'clock would be suitable?
CHAIRPERSON: Two o'clock? Very well, we will take an adjournment until two o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
FRANK SANDY BENNETTS: (s.u.o.)
EXAMINATION BY MR FALCONER: (cont)
Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Bennetts, we will now traverse the evidence pertaining to the third incident for which you seek amnesty, namely that of the murder of a member of the Pan Africanist Congress in Inanda. Would you please onto the record, the contents of paragraph 34 to 41 of your affidavit?
MR BENNETTS
"... During or about the period 1991 - 1992 and whilst I was a member of the Security Branch of the South African Police, stationed at Devon I re call an operation that resulted in the death of a person, believed to be a member of the Pan Africanist Congress in Inanda.
I was called to attend a meeting of the Reaction Unit at the Riot Unit, Durban. I recall that upon my arrival with Shaun Fourie, a colleague of mine in the Security Branch, a meeting had just ended and had been attended by Warrant Officer Fivaz, Chris de Jager and Tony Fernandez. I am not sure if Piet Nel had attended.
Members of the Reaction Unit were also present, the names of whom I cannot recall. Fivaz told me that the meeting was concerned with the planning of an operation to eliminate a person identified as being a member of the Pan Africanist Congress. He had been identified by an askari informer, operating in the Durban area.
It was also stated that the particular victim would have to be killed, failing which he would be in a position to identify the askari who had furnished Fivaz with the victim's details."
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, if you could pause there for a moment and just look back, you state in that paragraph that you are not sure if Piet Nel had attended. What is the relevance of that statement?
MR BENNETTS: Piet Nel used to work closely with Warrant Officer Fivaz, with this PAC operative. That is the only reason, I don't know if he was there or not, I cannot recall.
MR FALCONER: Continue.
MR BENNETTS
"... As I arrived late for the meeting ..."
MR MALAN: Just before you proceed please, Mr Bennetts, I just want to make doubly sure that the reference on page 35, this was an operation of the Riot Unit, it is not an operation of the Security Branch?
MR BENNETTS: No, it was an operation of the Security Branch, but the Reaction Unit were to have done a house penetration, that is what they did, but it was an operation of Warrant Officer Fivaz, but the meeting was held, the planning meeting at the Reaction Unit offices at the Riot Unit.
MR MALAN: Was Fivaz in the Security Branch?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: Under Andy Taylor?
MR BENNETTS: Well, under C-Section, yes.
MR MALAN: And all the other members here were members of the Security Branch, not of the Riot Unit?
MR BENNETTS: Chris de Jager was Security Branch and Tony Fernandez was Security Branch and Piet Nel was Security Branch.
MR MALAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Falconer, you may proceed.
MR BENNETTS
"... As I arrived late for the meeting, I was presented with the plans of the operation as a fait accompli. Put briefly the plans involved members of the Reaction Unit who would penetrate the building and who would shoot the occupant of the building and make the scene appear as if he had endeavoured to resist arrest in some way.
My role was to supply a dud handgrenade which would be planted on the scene if necessary. Fernandez was aware that I had in my possession two handgrenades with no detonators or explosives in them which I kept as mementoes. I was requested to attend on the scene with one of these handgrenades.
I recall that at the time the operation was carried out, I was amongst the group who remained outside the premises in the vicinity of the motor vehicles at the time the Reaction Unit members penetrated to declare it safe to enter. I recall that Tony Fernandez and Sgt de Jager entered the house. Shortly thereafter I heard members of the Reaction Unit shouting "grenade" as they are required to do in the event of a grenade being found, presumably when the same had been pulled or activated and was about to explode.
A number of shots were then fired and whilst this occurred, I noticed Tony Fernandez jump through a door of the house and rolled down a bank, screaming "grenade". Thereafter Fernandez re-entered the house. He then came out and requested me to contact an ambulance and the Duty Officer. We then proceeded to my vehicle and called for them on the radio. While at the vehicle, I handed to Fernandez the grenade as requested, and he returned to the house."
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, if you could pause there. The Duty Officer, which station would you be referring to there, or which Unit?
MR BENNETTS: Uniform Branch Duty Officer, Radio Controlled would have dispatched a Duty Officer, not from Security Branch.
"... When I later entered the house with the Duty Officer, I noticed a handgrenade which I assume was the one I had supplied, had been placed on the floor next to the victim, who had been fatally shot. I am unaware as to what occurred to the handgrenade thereafter. I do not recall the details of the deceased and nor can I remember the address of the premises where this incident took place. This operation had however been carried out, so I was told, to protect the identity of the askari informer."
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, you state there that you had had two handgrenades with no detonators or explosives in there and you have explained what you had done with the one. The second handgrenade, what ever became of that?
MR BENNETTS: At the time of the hearing, the previous TRC hearing, or I think just prior to that, when I was subpoenaed, it was handed to ...
MR FALCONER: Was this before the Committee on Gross Human Right Violations?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir. It was handed to Capt George Hardacre who was then an Investigator with, I don't know who.
MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, I just want to come back to the names of the people that you mentioned here in paragraph 35. You say they were all Security Branch. Were they Security Police or were they seconded in the same way as you were seconded?
MR BENNETTS: Shaun Fourie was seconded, but I think by that time, we were all permanent members at Security Branch. But Shaun Fourie had been one of the chaps who went over with me from the Reaction Unit. Warrant Officer Fivaz, Chris de Jager, Tony Fernandez were all permanent members of the Security Branch.
MR MALAN: And they were never members of the Riot Unit?
MR BENNETTS: Not with me, whether they were elsewhere, I don't know, but not with me, Sir.
MR MALAN: Okay, thank you.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, at the time of this incident, what rank did you hold?
MR BENNETTS: Constable.
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, this now takes me to the point where I intend to lead the applicant in regard to the specific statements made by the various victims, and I have spoken to my learned colleagues who represent the victims, save for Mr Kuboni, I couldn't locate him during the lunch break. What I propose might be the best course, Mr Chairman, is for the representatives of those victims to read the statements onto the record before Mr Bennetts provides his response, failing which, there is going to be a vacuum for those people who haven't had an opportunity to read the statements.
I am not sure if that will assist.
CHAIRPERSON: At the moment you have really made out no case, have you, for your first application for amnesty, it is for you to do so.
MR FALCONER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: We do not grant blanket amnesty?
MR FALCONER: Correct Mr Chairman. I intend to come to further evidence in concluding, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: well, lead that evidence.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, would you please have regard to paragraph 53 of your affidavit. Would you please read onto the record, the contents of that, the following paragraphs?
MR BENNETTS
"... In concluding, I wish to reiterate that the above-mentioned incidents for which I seek amnesty, took place within the context of the unfortunate Apartheid scheme that prevailed in the Republic of South Africa at the time and which had resulted in vast political violence that had escalated to such an extent that in the province of Natal and the kwaZulu areas, there was virtually a low intensity civil war.
It was also a time when many policemen were killed and their homes burnt down. At the time, the African National Congress and its allied representative, the United Democratic Front was considered by the then Nationalist Party government as being not only anti-government or anti-State, but also the enemy.
The South African Police and particularly Units thereof such as the Riot Unit and the Security Branch were the foremost instrument in the combating of unrest and the maintenance of law and order within the political sense of the word at that particular period of the unfortunate history of our country.
As members of the South African Police Force, and particularly as young persons susceptible to influence and indoctrination, we were educated with a counter-revolutionary strategies against the total onslaught which was being conducted by the United Democratic Front."
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, if you can pause there, you mentioned earlier in your evidence that you underwent your initial training in Pretoria. Would you state the nature in which such education and indoctrination in your mind, took place?
MR BENNETTS: I did as part of the normal training, a border course, a COIN as they call it, a counter-insurgency training at Maleoskop. Later on we also did a six week course in, a Riot course in another base up near the Waterberg, I cannot remember what it was called.
When I say educated, it wasn't as such sitting in a classroom with a chap telling you that is the way it was, that is the way it was, but it was very, very subtle in so far as, thinking back, one of the famous comments were, when you were training on Riot Course was obviously to follow the procedures of using teargas first, etc, etc, and then telling (indistinct) to take out a leader of the crowd or something, it was always worded in such a way that it was "shot number one, one shot to the man in the red shirt" on the course. But in the field, when you were doing the training and that, the man with the red shirt was often referred to as the kaffir with the red shirt.
Sitting with the guys afterwards, whether you were having a beer, whether you were having a braai, the comments were passed. How can I say it, it was very, very subtle, yes, but to me, looking back now what occurred in that period, I believe it was an education and an indoctrination. It just became the common, the accepted. As youngsters listening to the older guys, that is the way it happened.
MR MALAN: I don't follow your argument, are you saying the indoctrination was in racism, not referring to a man now, but to a kaffir in the red shirt? What indoctrination are you talking about?
MR BENNETTS: I am talking about us as young members in the Police Force, Sir. Yes, your blacks were referred to as "kaffirs", often enough that, I am sorry, I thought you were going to say something, often enough that it became acceptable to me personally, I speak for myself here, that the entire attitude of us as young policemen was influenced by the senior members in the way that this was said to us, in the way that it was spoken to us, in the way when you were driving in a location as a youngster, originally in the back of the vehicle, I am going back to like the 1982 period with the old Mobile Unit, sitting at the back of the vehicle and the guys, the senior guys and the older guys sitting with you, talking about "kom ons gaan uit en ons gaan skiet nou die kaffirs", and all this sort of thing.
Yes, it did, it had an effect on me. It certainly did, Sir. That is what I mean by indoctrination and education.
MR MALAN: My question really relates to exactly that. What you are telling me now, seems to be saying to me that we were told to be racist and shoot blacks? That it was nothing about security or an onslaught, it is simply being racist?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir. You are right, yes Sir.
MR MALAN: So what has that to do with the political background?
MR BENNETTS: The opposition were the blacks, basically. They were the kaffirs who then became the UDF and so forth.
MR MALAN: You talked about the A-Team, you had askaris working with you? What was the political context or is it simply a racist context?
MR BENNETTS: I think they overlapped quite a bit, Sir.
MR MALAN: You may proceed, Mr Falconer.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Would you continue from paragraph 56?
MR BENNETTS
"... At all times when I committed the aforementioned acts, I acted within the cause and scope of my duties in the South African Police Force. At no stage was I driven by any personal motives and nor did I derive any personal gain in committing these offences."
MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Falconer, you can take it that this is on record. I mean he has already deposed to it, he doesn't have to read this, it is not giving us any information in addition to his application.
The question was whether you will be leading further evidence, making out a case for his application which is not already before us.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bennetts, you have heard the Chairman correctly point out that this Committee is not in the business of issuing blanket amnesties, and you will appreciate the difficulties with which one is faced when, considering the first category of offences for which you have sought amnesty, which covers a number of various different kinds of offences and it also covers a protracted period of time.
Are you in a position to assist this Committee with any further particularity in regard to these offences?
MR BENNETTS: No, I am not Sir, I cannot recall specific instances, names, dates, I just, I cannot do, Sir.
MR MALAN: Mr Bennetts, must we accept then that you are not applying for any specific act perpetrated on any specific individual where it concerns torture or assaults or unlawful interrogation or whatever?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, as I said, I cannot recall individual names, dates or places. I just, I cannot do so, there were too many incidents.
MR MALAN: But you have also told us that you were notorious on account of the successes that you had, in investigations, in follow ups, in prosecutions, in getting convictions, can't you remember any of the names?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, I cannot.
MR MALAN: And you haven't gone to any pains to find out when you filed your application which of those you were successful and where you had tortured anybody?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, I don't even believe I would have accessed that information, I think those dockets are all destroyed by now, anyway. Once a guy is convicted, they only keep the docket for three or four years and then it is destroyed.
MR MALAN: And you cannot remember any of the names of the people convicted?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, I cannot. I responded to some of the statements there where ...
MR MALAN: No, that is not my question Mr Bennetts. I am asking you, I see, in your statements you say you don't know any of these people? You don't know any of the names?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, I cannot recall. I cannot recall any of the names specifically, no.
MR MALAN: All right. Then I don't know what evidence, do you have specific witnesses you intend leading, Mr Falconer?
MR FALCONER: I have not, I do not have any instructions in regard to any witness that I can call to further the applicant's case.
MR MALAN: Now, if you will just allow me then, this necklacing, I just want to see if we can get some particulars from you, Mr Bennetts.
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: This necklacing incident near the High School, if I understand your version correctly, you happened to be in the company of Kruger, you were an accessory in a passive sense, maybe not doing your duties where you might have had to report him on unlawful activity, but you did not commit this framing, you were not involved in the framing in any way, you were simply in his company?
MR BENNETTS: I was aware of it after he advised me. Let me say this first, Sir, look, it is possible that the deceased had nothing to do with the female. I don't know, I am only going on what Kruger had told me.
But let's assume that Kruger was correct in what he told me, I accept then that I became, immediately I became aware of what had happened, the fact that I had actually walked with him to the house, I was aware, I don't say he planned to have this guy killed at that point, but I was aware that he planned to have this chap identified as an informer albeit only ten minutes before the time, 15 minutes, whatever it took for the drive and walk to the house, I did nothing about that. I realise that that was wrong.
Coming back from the house and being made aware that there was actually cash in the envelope and this was a set-up, I still did nothing about that. I became later on aware that the chap had actually been killed, I did nothing about that. The bottom line is, I accept that I was in all likelihood an accessory to this guy's murder.
MR MALAN: Now, can you identify this person for us?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, I cannot, bar the circumstances and knowing there was a necklacing and actually going to the scene, I know I was at the scene of the burnt car and the corpse.
MR MALAN: Because if my memory serves me correctly, we have no statements of any relatives of this person that you refer to, that was necklaced and framed and set-up? Or do we have one in the bundle?
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, if I may interject. There is, there are indeed statements that have been deposed to, my learned colleague has furnished this Committee with them and those statements, Mr Chairman, we can only assume refer to the one and the same incident, to which the applicant has testified, with regard to the second offence, the necklacing of the male in Chesterville.
Independently without any further resources at the applicant's disposal, that is the very best he can do, and it seems that the facts of the statements which we are going to traverse later on, accord with what the applicant has made out in the second offence.
MR MALAN: Well, are you going to lead him then to identify that individual in a positive sense?
MR FALCONER: I beg your pardon Mr Commissioner?
MR MALAN: Are you going to lead your client in evidence to identify that specific individual as the person who was framed?
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, I indeed intend to traverse all of those statements with the witness.
MS MOHAMED: Sorry Mr Chairman, if I may be of some assistance. In Bundle A we do have a statement from the deceased's mother, that is the typed version, it is found on page 48, she was not present at the incident but she did put up this statement and in Bundle B, on page 40, we have a statement by Doctor Sandile Gwala who was with the deceased at the time of the incident. Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR MALAN: You see the difficulty that I have, and this is the reason for my question, I cannot recall, I may be mistaken because I read this some time last week, there is no extraneous evidence to the framing incident. There is indeed a statement here which relates to a necklacing incident as has been pointed out, but it doesn't link the two incidents?
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, the applicant has been out of the Police Service for a considerable period of time. He is busy trying to establish a business for himself, he does not live anywhere near Durban and he does not have the resources of the means to have access to confirm anything further than what he has managed to put before you, Mr Chairman.
MR MALAN: Mr Falconer, let me be very specific, in order to be granted amnesty, one has to who that one has committed an act which constitutes an offence, one must make a full declaration, full disclosure, identifying the individual against whom this wrong was perpetrated. There is no link, there is indeed this affidavit saying the person was necklaced for allegedly being an impimpi. It doesn't say the person was set-up, received R500-00, that Mr Bennetts was involved. It is simply a statement here.
Many people were necklaced in this area and other areas in the country. There is nothing linking this statement to Kruger's activity, Kruger's and Bennetts' activity.
MR FALCONER: I appreciate that difficulty Mr Chairman, it is one that I have traversed with my client.
MR MALAN: And you cannot help us any further?
MR FALCONER: Could you bear with me for a minute please, Mr Chairman?
MR MALAN: Please.
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, if one has regard to the statement of Tandiwe Elizabeth Nkosi, from what my instructions are, Mr Bennetts obviously having worked in that particular township for a considerable period of time, is well acquainted with the layout of the area, and the address furnished there as being 1086 Road 24, accords with very closely the vicinity in which he and Kruger visited. I am instructed that he cannot take the matter much further than that.
This all emanated from his appearance before a Committee on Gross Human Right Violations where he did his best to assist that Committee, on the advice of that Chairman, he is now applying for amnesty and he doesn't have resources at his disposal to take the matter further.
MR MALAN: Yes, thank you. And then just a question or two, just to get the picture clear in our minds.
The murder of the alleged PAC Member, your involvement there was accompanying the people, staying outside and providing a dud handgrenade which you kept as a memento, which you were asked to bring along before the operation commenced?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: And you handed this dud handgrenade to the people?
MR BENNETTS: To Tony Fernandez.
MR MALAN: To Fernandez?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: That is your only involvement?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir, I was aware that what was going to happen beforehand and I went along.
MR MALAN: Thank you. Thank you Mr Falconer.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bennetts, there are two issues that I would like to endeavour to clear up with you now.
The first one pertains to the question that the honourable Commissioner, Mr Malan, has requested, and that pertains to the death by way of a necklacing of the gentleman in the Chesterville, in the vicinity of the High School. Is there any additional information over and above the statements that we intend to traverse shortly, that you could possibly bring to bear to shed further light on that particular incident?
MR BENNETTS: Nothing at all, no Sir.
MR FALCONER: Are you in a position to state categorically that the person who indeed was necklaced, is one and the same person to whom the envelope had been intended to set up as a framing, besides what Warrant Officer Kruger told you?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, in your preparation for this hearing, you have also had sight of the documents comprising the inquest record involving the death of the late Moses Maake, who died as a result of an incident on the 27th of February 1992, is that correct?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR FALCONER: Now when one has regard firstly to the time when that incident according to the records, took place, and then particularly in regard to the various exhibits and evidence that that inquest had regard to, and here Mr Chairman, in particular, I am referring to a bundle of documents which regrettably it is not marked Mr Chairman, but I am referring to pages 108 through to 116.
MR MALAN: That is the bundle marked A?
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Once the shooting had occurred and you had furnished the handgrenade, did you proceed to the premises where the deceased was?
MR BENNETTS: I accompanied the Duty Officer when he arrived, I took him inside.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, if you have regard to page 108, regrettably it is a photocopy, does that accord with your recollection of the scene when you attended on it with the Duty Officer?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, it does.
MR FALCONER: And again, if you have a look at page 109, the following page, which shows a photograph of the deceased, does that accord with your recollection?
MR BENNETTS: He appears to have been turned over, yes, that would have been after I left, I don't know.
MR FALCONER: And then if you would please look at page 111, there is a photograph it would appear, a handgrenade there. Does that resemble the type of handgrenade that you furnished?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, it does.
MR FALCONER: And again looking at the first photograph I referred you to, you will see that that handgrenade is located in the near proximity of the deceased. Is that in accordance with your recollection when you attended on the ...
MR BENNETTS: That is as I recall it, yes Sir.
MR FALCONER: Were you ever subpoenaed to testify at an inquest into that particular matter?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, I was not.
MR FALCONER: Did you ever have any further formal dealings in regard to this matter?
MR BENNETTS: No, I did not.
MR FALCONER: When one has regard to the various statements that were made by the witnesses in regard to that incident, does it accord with those persons that you recall to have been on the scene, or not?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, it does.
MR FALCONER: The location of the incident, you have stated in your affidavit that you are not in a position today to state precisely where the incident took place at Inanda, but it appears from the inquest record that it did indeed take place in Inanda, so that would also accord with your recollection of that specific incident?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, yes.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, if you have regard to further portions of the inquest docket, there is a statement which is taken under Inanda DR111/92 and it is that of Christiaan de Jager.
CHAIRPERSON: Where is it?
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, it is at page 77. In your evidence and in your statement, Mr Bennetts, you have stated that you recall a Chris de Jager present at the meeting at the Reaction Unit at the Riot Unit, is that correct?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, yes.
MR FALCONER: Similarly at that meeting, you recall a Mr Fernandez present?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR FALCONER: The docket, the inquest docket similarly reflects at page 80 of Bundle A, Mr Chairman, an affidavit of Mr Fernandez in regard to this incident. Do you recall a Mr Verne Mouton?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir.
MR FALCONER: Or a Mr André Broodryk?
MR BENNETTS: I know there was a Sgt Broodryk who was a member of the Reaction Unit, but I don't recall whether he was there or not. I don't know.
MR FALCONER: Finally in regard to the inquest record, if you have regard to page 110, you will note it would seem a number of exhibits photographed there, collectively. On the right hand side you will see there is a handgrenade. Is that of a similar type to that which you furnished?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON: What page?
MR FALCONER: We are at page 110, Mr Chairman. May I proceed, Mr Chairman?
The device immediately to the right hand side of the handgrenade in that photograph as you see it, what is that?
MR BENNETTS: It appears to be a (indistinct) detonator for that grenade.
MR FALCONER: And a handle, is it?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, it all comes as one unit, I think.
MR FALCONER: Now the handgrenade that you allegedly furnished, was clean of any explosives or detonator, is that correct?
MR BENNETTS: It had no explosives in it, but it had a fired detonator.
MR FALCONER: A fire detonator, would that have the same appearance as what you are seeing here?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, very similar.
MR FALCONER: Would any portion of it be missing?
MR BENNETTS: I think a piece on the bottom. I think, I don't know.
MR FALCONER: Then in the centre of that picture, at the bottom, Mr Bennetts, what is that barrel looking instrument?
MR BENNETTS: It appears to be another handgrenade.
MR FALCONER: And the device immediately to the right, another pin?
MR BENNETTS: Another, yes, detonator and handle, lever.
MR FALCONER: Does that handgrenade in the centre accord with the one that you would have handed over or not?
MR BENNETTS: No, definitely not.
MR FALCONER: Which of the two is the similar one then?
MR BENNETTS: The one on the right.
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence in regard to the three incidents. Unless there are of course issues that you wish to raise with the witness at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: No.
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, I am not sure in which manner you would like the applicant to traverse the affidavits of the victims. When we adjourned on the last occasion, you handed down an order to the effect that the parties should endeavour to exchange papers to streamline the proceedings and indeed we have done so. A few affidavits have recently come in, since the formulation of this affidavit, Mr Chairman, but I wonder if it might be appropriate for the victims' representative to read the affidavit onto the record, whereafter Mr Bennetts could respond. I am not sure how you would like to deal with it.
CHAIRPERSON: Are the victims going to call their witnesses?
MR FALCONER: I am not sure.
CHAIRPERSON: They may decide that they do not want to call any evidence.
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, in that event, may I proceed with obtaining the applicant's response to the affidavits.
MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Chairman, may I just ask you, don't we have the response of the applicant?
MR FALCONER: You do indeed.
MR MALAN: To those statements?
MR FALCONER: You do indeed, Mr Chairman.
MR MALAN: I just want to repeat Mr Falconer, whatever is in the bundle, is before us.
MR FALCONER: Certainly.
MR MALAN: And whatever he has deposed to under oath, you can take as evidence before us.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR MALAN: So if that stands, then you can leave it for the other representatives to continue with their cross-examination, they can put whatever they want to to him.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bennetts, would you please turn to page 22 of your affidavit.
MR BENNETTS: I don't have page numbers.
MR FALCONER: During the lunch adjournment, you brought to my attention an inaccuracy in paragraph 47.3.1 of your affidavit. Would you please correct the record in so far as that is concerned?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir. I was busy going through these statements again and I realised I had made a mistake there. I don't know how it slipped passed me, but I said here I did not smear black polish on my face, is alleged, when carrying out my duties.
In fact there were occasions when we did do so. I don't know how I missed this, I was going through heaps of papers at the time, but there were occasions when we walked around on foot, where it was not polish as such, although someone else wouldn't know the difference, it was this camouflage type paint, which was smeared and there were occasions when in fact we did do that.
That is an error, I am sorry, I picked that up now only.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, in paragraph 47 you have responded to the statement of a Duma Masikane whose statement appears in Bundle B at pages 38 to 39. In your affidavit you have stated that you agree that the events that Mrs Masikane has deposed to in regard to paragraphs 3 and 4, were indeed in accordance with the nature of those that transpired at Chesterville at the time, but your paragraph 47.3.1 pertains directly to that error that you had made in your affidavit, how does it impact upon your alleged involvement as in paragraph 5?
MR BENNETTS: Again, I was never involved in an incident directly where we went and burnt a building. I don't know who was there, it was not me.
MR FALCONER: Besides the fact that the allegation is that the faces were painted with polish, it doesn't really bring much to bear with regard to the further portion of the thing?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, nothing, except that I just picked up a mistake there in my statement.
CHAIRPERSON: If I understood what you said now, you said "we smeared our faces", that it was part of your general tactics?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, of our group with us, yes Sir.
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, I have been furnished, as I mentioned earlier, certain statements were, only came to hand very recently and Mr Bennetts has not had an opportunity to deal with those in his affidavit thus far.
I am just going to traverse those quickly as he has not dealt with them in evidence thus far, or in his affidavit. The first statement of a victim, Mr Allan Zitholele Chili, also known as Mshana, has deposed to a statement in June this year and you have had an opportunity to traverse that affidavit, do you know Mr Chili?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, I do not.
MR FALCONER: The - Mr Chairman, I am not sure whether you have been furnished with copies of these statements?
MR MALAN: It is part of Bundle C.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Sir. Paragraph 3 refers to the fact that you were known to Mr Chili as a Security Force member and that you, together with other Police Officers used to throw teargas into their homes and you used to raid homes, looking for weapons and there were numerous occasions when he was asleep and teargas was thrown in. How does that accord with your recollection of the events as at the time in Chesterville?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I would go along with that, it is basically what was happening. I cannot specifically recall him or his house, but ...
MR FALCONER: When consulting with you earlier, you had comment in regard to the allegations contained in paragraph 4?
MR FALCONER: Yes, in paragraph 4 he said "the applicant approached us and told the two females to say that I had raped them", I don't think I would have been that stupid really, to try and get someone who is a friend of his, to try and implicate him in something, it just doesn't make sense to me.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, a further witness has made a statement, Mr Stimbisu Dickson Mswelo. You have had an opportunity to traverse that affidavit. Do you independently recall Mr Mswelo?
MR BENNETTS: No, I do not.
MR FALCONER: Does the name Stimbisu Dickson Mswelo ring a bell?
MR BENNETTS: No, the name doesn't ring a bell, but as I said to you when I read this for the first time, the name Dickson seems to come up, where from, I don't know. Whether it is the same chap, I couldn't tell you.
MR FALCONER: And the events that are described here, could you comment on them?
MR BENNETTS: It is quite possible that they did occur as he described, it is consistent with what we were doing at the time.
MR FALCONER: The following affidavit as deposed to by Mr Paulus Mtwala, again do you recall this man?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, I do not.
MR FALCONER: Could you comment on the events as described?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, I cannot. Again they are consistent with what we were doing at the time.
MR FALCONER: And the following statement is that of Thulasizwe Bongobi, do you recall Mr Bongobi?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, I do not.
MR FALCONER: With regard to the incidents that are mentioned in this statement, could you comment please?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, paragraphs 1 to 5 could possibly have occurred, paragraph 6, I have a little problem with he refers to "possession of an electric gun which they stabbed at me several times." I don't know what he is talking about. I am assuming he is referring here to some form of cattle prod of some sort. I never had anything like that, we did have a telephone generator electric device, but it wouldn't have been something we would have stabbed at the guys or described as a gun.
MR FALCONER: Finally Mr Bennetts, we have received a statement from the legal representative of another victim, Mr Siphiwe Kenneth Hlozi, which was received on the 15th of June. Do you recall independently Mr Siphiwe Kenneth Hlozi?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, I do not.
MR FALCONER: You have had regard to the incidents referred to here, could you comment on them?
MR MALAN: Do we have a copy of that statement, Mr Falconer?
MR FALCONER: I am not sure whether the legal representative furnished you with a copy. I have one that is marked, I could make it available, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it hand-written?
MR FALCONER: No Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Siphiwe Kenneth Hlozi?
MR FALCONER: The original may be, I wasn't furnished with that.
MR MALAN: Sorry, you may proceed.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can I make mine available?
CHAIRPERSON: Well, can we get copies?
MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, I thought you were given copies. We were also given copies this morning.
CHAIRPERSON: It is not part of the bundle?
MS THABETHE: It is not part of the bundle.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I have got a hand-written statement by him, three paragraphs, one page?
MR KUBONI: Well Mr Chair, there is a typed version, but well, it was not handed to the Commission.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but only one copy has been handed in and there are three members on the Committee?
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, I am not sure whether you would like us to stand down for a short opportunity for you to traverse the statement?
CHAIRPERSON: Well, the statements are different. The typed statement that I have just been given is not the same as the hand-written statement that I have before me?
Perhaps I should read out to you, it is a short statement.
"... I, the above-named person do hereby confirm on the papers to have been a victim of torture by them, by the Security Police, SAP Riot Unit, which was based in Durban under the command of C.R. Swart Security Police Headquarters of which Mr Frank Sandy Bennetts was a member. I am a former member of Umkhonto weSizwe, having joined the organisation in 1984. During the liberation struggle period of 1985 - 1986 to the 27th of June, I used Chesterville township as my residence for security and my operational reasons. I was at the time a scholar at Inhlakamifo High School in kwaMashu. On June the 27th 1986, I was arrested by the members of the Durban based Riot Unit in Chesterville. This special unit was based at or operated from Chesterville bar, which was converted and utilised as a base. Therefore I believe this man has something to show the South African public as to the state of my health, both mentally and physically today."
Right, we now have the typed copy. We all have copies of that?
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
MR MALAN: I think you should proceed, Mr Falconer.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Bennetts, you have had regard to the affidavit of Mr Hlozi and it would appear that in his affidavit you are, the typed version before us, implicated from paragraphs 8 onwards, would you agree?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I agree.
MR FALCONER: Can you comment on what is contained in those paragraphs?
MR BENNETTS: I cannot recall specifically, it is possible that I was involved. Again, it is consistent. The only problem I have is I know at the time, a Section of Westville Prison - I refer here to paragraph 15 - a Section of Westville Prison was set aside for detainees in terms of the, what was it called now, I cannot remember what it was called, there was an order at the time, this political detainees were detained.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it 90 days?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, Sir, the Emergency Regulations. I just cannot recall that I was involved in taking people in and out of the prison. I don't think I had access to them from that point of view once they were detained. Perhaps he is referring to someone else.
I know we took people there and people were detained by us there in terms of the Emergency Regulations, but once they were there, it was another Unit that handled them from there.
MR FALCONER: You say you don't think had access, you either did or you did not. Did you not have access?
MR BENNETTS: No, we did not have access.
MR FALCONER: Mr Bennetts, in the preparation of your affidavit and in your affidavit you stated that you would appreciate an opportunity to address the relevant members of the Chesterville community with whom you, or upon whom these deeds were perpetrated. Do you have anything you would wish to state at this time?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I would like to say something, Mr Falconer.
MR FALCONER: Continue.
MR BENNETTS: Okay. Look, I realise that what I did at the time was wrong. I am looking back again, as I said, with hindsight, I have been married now for 10 years, I have got a family, I have spoken on numerous occasions with my wife about my involvement, I have been candid with her. She has become like a sounding board to a lot of the things that I have spoken to her about.
I must say more than anything, she has probably changed my views, my racist ideas and everything else. One of the main comments that she always passed to me was "what would you have done, had you been the black chap living there in Chesterville" and I've got to say if I was, I probably would have been the guy standing in the front row toyi-toyiing down the road and throwing rocks and petrol bombs at policemen.
Unfortunately hindsight does not change the circumstances. I believe that what has happened with me specifically, has had an influence on myself that can never ever be taken away. It is extremely unfortunate, very, very unfortunate not only my involvement but the entire situation as a whole. I heard what the member of the Board was saying about a blanket amnesty, I accept in all likelihood, it cannot be given to me. I have read the Act, I know what the Act says, but I have tried where I can and what I could recall, to come clean.
More than that, I cannot do, more than that, I cannot say. I am sorry, I am sorry for harassing the people, I am sorry for the times we drove around with the casspirs, keeping people awake, I am sorry for the teargas shot into their houses, I am sorry for the assaults. I don't know, I was young, I was foolish and I was easily influenced.
I don't know what to say, it is unfortunate and I am sorry that it all happened. I really am sorry.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FALCONER
CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on to anything else, can I also draw your attention to the fact that attached to the hand-written statement that I read, is a letter from the Head of Prison of Durban Medium B Prison which says that "this serves to confirm that Mr Siphiwe Kenneth Hlozi was incarcerated at Durban
Medium B Prison as from the 29th of June 1986 until the 23rd of July 1987 where he was released on warrant of liberation". These documents are available if anyone wants to copy them.
MR FALCONER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Mr Bennetts, I would like before I start with my questioning, just like to state that the clients that I represent here, deny that and I am specifically talking about the last incident, the handgrenade incident, if we may call it that, specifically denies that there was any unlawful act committed by them and this will become apparent with the questions that I am going to put to you.
I would like to start off and I would like to refer you to page 110 of Bundle A, page 208 of Bundle D and page 15 of your supplementary affidavit, found in Bundle B.
CHAIRPERSON: Page?
MR FALCONER: Mr Chairman, in fairness, can the witness not be referred to one thing at a time, because firstly he hasn't been furnished with copies of these Bundles either, so he is going to be working off mine.
CHAIRPERSON: What are they, tell Mr Falconer.
MR NEL: The photograph, Bundle A is photographs of the actual handgrenade which was allegedly given to one of my clients.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that page 110?
MR NEL: It starts off on page 108 Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Let him have a look at those.
MR NEL: Now, on a question by your legal representative you said that the handgrenade that you supplied to Mr Fernandez had a dud, or a fired detonator in it. Is that what you said?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, yes Sir.
MR NEL: If I may refer you to your own affidavit on page 15, that is Bundle B, paragraph 36, the third last line of that paragraph you say
"... Fernandez was aware that I had in my possession two handgrenades with no detonators or explosives in them, which I kept as mementoes."
I would like to know whether this handgrenade that you gave, allegedly gave to Mr Fernandez, had a detonator in it, fired or not?
MR BENNETTS: It had a fired detonator in it. I was referring there to a live detonator, I did not have a live detonator.
MR NEL: On page 208 of Bundle D, on the 13th of November 1996, under Section 29 proceedings, page 208, three quarter way down the page, you state there
"... it was totally safe, it was an ornament, it had no detonator, it had no explosives in it."
Once again, I am trying to establish whether there was a detonator in at all, because from what I read from your statement, your affidavit, and your Section 29 proceedings' record, you categorically stated that this handgrenade had no detonator in at all?
MR BENNETTS: Okay, I referred to a fired det, when I say no detonator, there was no live detonator.
MR NEL: Why did you not say that? Is there a difference between a detonator and no detonator at all, obviously?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, there is, but again I say I was referring to the fact that I did not have a live detonator or explosives.
MR NEL: The handgrenade that was found in Inanda, which is in the pictures, in the photographs, can you say whether that is a dead, a fired detonator or a live detonator?
MR BENNETTS: I cannot say, it appears to be a live detonator in this copy.
MR NEL: You are not an Inspector of Explosives?
MR BENNETTS: No, I am not.
MR NEL: You are aware of the fact that at the time he was Lance-Sgt Fernandez, Rowan Fernandez, you referred to him as Tony, that he was an Inspector of Explosives?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is correct. I am aware and I was aware at the time, too.
MR NEL: And I take it, being a member of the Security Branch, you would also know that an Inspector of Explosives, would have access to an official armoury where these types of things are kept?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I think so.
MR NEL: And still, bearing that knowledge in mind, you say that Fernandez specifically asked you to supply him as an Explosives Expert, Inspector of Explosives, with a memento handgrenade?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, yes.
MR NEL: Mr Fernandez, my instructions are, was not at the meeting at the Reaction Unit at all, have you got any comment on that?
MR BENNETTS: He was there, he spoke to me at the meeting or after the meeting in any event, when I was there.
MR NEL: Can we digress to this meeting, how did you become aware of this meeting at the Reaction Unit offices?
MR BENNETTS: We were, if I recall correctly, I was with Shaun Fourie at the time, we were contacted on the radio and just asked to attend a meeting and given a time.
MR NEL: Can you recall who contacted you?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, I cannot.
MR NEL: Is it standard procedure or would you agree with me that it is, that if the Security Branch wanted to penetrate a home in a township, they would utilise the assistance of the Reaction Unit, because they are trained to do that job?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct.
MR NEL: Were you part of this meeting at the Reaction Unit?
MR BENNETTS: Well, as I have stated earlier, I arrived there, I assume just after the meeting ended, everybody was still present in the room.
MR NEL: Were you part of the discussion in this meeting?
MR BENNETTS: No, I had a discussion subsequent to the meeting, with Mr Fivaz and then with Tony Fernandez.
MR NEL: So we can assume from what you are saying that when you arrived at the office of the Reaction Unit, whatever was discussed during whoever was present, had already been discussed?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct.
MR NEL: The meeting was finished?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR NEL: On page 207 of Bundle D, this is during the Section 29 proceedings, held on the 13th of November 1996 and more or less just passed half way down the middle of the page, you say
"... I walked in on a meeting which was already underway, with Fivaz."
Did you arrive there when the meeting was finished, or was the meeting on its way?
MR BENNETTS: It had appeared to have just ended.
MR NEL: Well Mr Bennetts, you carry on on page 208 to tell the Commissioner, when you were asked
"... well, tell us about the planning, who initiated, what was the discussion about",
your reply was -
"... all right, the discussion was basically again based on the fact that this askari had identified this guy. He was in a house in Inanda. It was necessary that he would have to be killed, otherwise he would identify the askari and a plan at that stage, I believe the plan had already been ..."
etc, you told the Commission on page 208 that you were part of this discussion, am I correct, if I read that from the record?
MR BENNETTS: Can I ask you to go back one sentence, to the bottom of page 207?
MR NEL: Mr Bennetts, can you just comment on what I asked you? You say "well, tell us about the planning, who initiated it, what was the discussion about"?
MR BENNETTS: Okay, as I say I need to refer to that sentence in answer.
MR NEL: Please refer to it.
MR BENNETTS: The bottom of 107 where I already said
"... okay, the planning was done."
So prior to what you say now, I have already confirmed that the meeting had been done, the planning was done. By that I am saying that the meeting was finished.
We were in a room, obviously where the meeting had taken place, everybody was still standing around and this conversation referred to in that paragraph, beginning with "well, tell us about the planning" and ending with "as to who would be involved in it", was a discussion that took place between myself and Fivaz.
MR NEL: This was not discussed at the meeting, because you were not there?
MR BENNETTS: No, I don't know what was discussed at the meeting, I was being enlightened as to what I had missed, by Fivaz.
MR NEL: So you make a mistake when you say you walked in on a meeting which was already under way?
MR BENNETTS: Well, like I am saying, I am assuming that it had already ended, everybody was sitting around, smoking. I don't think it was a formal meeting where a Chairman stood up and said "right, meeting closed". But everybody was still closed in the room.
MR NEL: How well do you know Mr Fivaz?
MR BENNETTS: Well reasonably from a work point of view.
MR NEL: Did you work with him?
MR BENNETTS: Well, we worked in the same Section, I didn't as such work with him, no.
MR NEL: So if you would state that you worked with him, that would be a mistake?
MR BENNETTS: No, it wouldn't be a mistake.
MR NEL: Well, did you work with him or did you not?
MR BENNETTS: Depends what you mean "work with him"? I worked in the same Section as him, yes.
MR NEL: Is it correct that he was in charge of the PAC desk?
MR BENNETTS: From what I understood, yes.
MR NEL: Would you also agree with me that he shared an office and worked closely with Mr Piet Nel?
MR BENNETTS: I cannot recall if he shared an office, I think he might have, but he did work with Nel, yes.
MR NEL: Did you ever have the opportunity to see a computer drawn poster on Mr Fivaz' door with the words "Pacman & Son" on it?
MR BENNETTS: I don't recall, it might have been, yes. I know he was referred to, also as "Pacman", if that is where you are leading.
MR NEL: Please tell us about what do you know about him being referred to as "Pacman".
MR BENNETTS: Okay, he was referred to as "Pacman" because of his involvement with the askari, if I can call him that, who was also known as "Pacman". It was a chap who I had seen in the offices and who I am assuming is the same informer who passed on the information that led to this Inanda incident.
MR NEL: You believe that the person who died in the house in Inanda had to be killed, because he was going to blow the cover of a "Pacman" or the informer called "Pacman"?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I believe that, in fact I was told that by Fivaz.
MR NEL: And you believe this informer's name was also "Pacman"?
MR BENNETTS: No, I don't believe that was his name, that is what he was referred to as.
MR NEL: And this same informer, you frequently saw at C.R. Swart?
MR BENNETTS: Not frequently, infrequently, but he had been seen, yes.
MR NEL: You saw him in the passages at C.R. Swart?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is correct. That is correct, yes.
MR NEL: As a member of the Security Branch, don't you think it is unusual for an informer to stroll around in the passages of the Security Branch offices?
MR BENNETTS: No, he didn't stroll around, he was brought in and out, he was escorted in and out and he had a balaclava on. I couldn't tell you today what his face looked like, I have never seen it.
MR FALCONER: Sorry Mr Chairman, the applicant has indicated to me that the sun is disturbing him as he is seated now, is it possible for us to just shift downwards?
MR BENNETTS: Thank you Sir.
MR NEL: Did you ever have the opportunity to see the face of this person that was referred to as "Pacman"?
MR BENNETTS: No.
MR NEL: Have you ever met him?
MR BENNETTS: Well, I have seen him in the passage, if that is what you call meeting, yes.
MR NEL: But with a balaclava on?
MR BENNETTS: With a balaclava on, yes.
MR NEL: You have never met him?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir.
MR NEL: But you have seen him in the passage?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR NEL: And who told you that this is a person that is an informer of Mr Fivaz?
MR BENNETTS: It was common knowledge.
MR NEL: That was common knowledge?
MR BENNETTS: It was common knowledge.
MR NEL: By everybody in the passages at the Security Branch?
MR BENNETTS: We were on the top floor, at C-Section, yes, it was common knowledge.
MR NEL: And you believed he was handled by Mr Fivaz?
MR BENNETTS: I know he was handled by Mr Fivaz.
MR NEL: Did you know him by any other name?
MR BENNETTS: Not that I recall.
MR NEL: You say, I once again would like to refer you to page 211 where on a question by Mr Govender, and this is found in Bundle D, sorry that I have to jump around between the Bundles, Mr Govender asked you at the bottom of the page about the name of this askari involved and you said on a question
"... the name of the askari involved, Mr Bennetts, the PAC askari involved in this incident?
I don't know.
You don't know?
I don't know.
You have met him?
I have met him, yes. Yes. When I say I have met him, I have passed him in the passage. He used to come and go at C.R. Swart on occasion. He was known or referred to as "Pacman".
So did you meet him or did you not meet him?
MR BENNETTS: Again, it depends what you refer to as meeting.
MR NEL: You didn't shake his hand?
MR BENNETTS: No, I never shook his hand.
MR NEL: And all the times that you saw him in the passage, he would have had a balaclava on?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is correct.
MR NEL: You also think that his name was George?
MR BENNETTS: The name, I don't know if his name was George or not, I think he had been referred to as George, but I also think that André, yes, I think André Fivaz was also referred to as George. I don't know.
MR NEL: Well, if I can just briefly clear that up. Mr André Fivaz is not referred to as George, but his brother, the erstwhile Commissioner of Police is Mr George Fivaz and he was commonly referred to as "Pacman", being the Head of the PAC desk.
MR BENNETTS: No, I deny that.
MR NEL: Do you think it would be wise to call an informer "Pacman" or for that matter "Ancman" if he was an informer on the ANC?
MR BENNETTS: I don't think he was officially referred to as "Pacman".
MR NEL: Well, you say ...
MR BENNETTS: When I say officially, I mean I don't think claims and things were put in in the name of "Pacman", if that is what you are trying to say. He was known as "Pacman", he was referred to as "Pacman", we were aware of information coming and going from him, and it was referred to as information coming and going from "Pacman".
I think I need a second if I can, please. I cannot.
MR NEL: Mr Bennetts, if you would like to have a minute with your legal representative, I will ask the Committee if we can stand down briefly. Would that be in order?
MR BENNETTS: Well, I don't even think we need to stand down, I just need to ask him a quick question if I may, a very quick one.
CHAIRPERSON: You have no objection?
MR NEL: I have no objection.
MS THABETHE: Mr Chair, can we please have a short adjournment with my colleague, very brief adjournment in the meantime?
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, if you require a short adjournment, we can take one now, but make it short.
MS THABETHE: Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
FRANK SANDY BENNETTS: (s.u.o.)
MR BENNETTS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: (cont)
Mr Bennetts, if we can just get back for a second to the informer which was referred to as "Pacman", how did you get to know of this informer?
MR BENNETTS: Again, I was made aware at one point that a person had handed himself over to the Police somewhere up in the Transvaal and at some point, André Fivaz went to go and fetch this chap and he was used as an informer down in Durban.
I became aware of it after the fact, obviously, much later down the line, when we became aware who he was and the assistance that he was giving.
MR MALAN: May I just get clarity, was he used as an informer or was he an askari?
MR BENNETTS: He was used as an informer, Sir.
MR MALAN: Why is there reference to him being an askari? Do you know what an askari is?
MR BENNETTS: An askari was a chap, in my opinion or the way I understand it, was a chap who had received training and he had been turned and he was now being used as an informer on our side.
MR MALAN: Not as an active operative, simply as an informer?
MR BENNETTS: As an informer, yes Sir.
MR MALAN: That is how you understood an askari?
MR BENNETTS: That is how I understood it. Whether they were just used just for information or if they were used for actual operations, as they were from the Vlakplaas issue, to me it was one and the same, it was a chap who had been turned around and was now being used by our guys.
MR MALAN: Do you know whether he received payment as an informer or whether he was on the books as an askari, as an employed person?
MR BENNETTS: I don't know how he was on the books, Sir.
MR MALAN: Why do you refer to him on occasion as an askari and on occasion as an informer?
MR BENNETTS: As I have explained, I believe it could be the same thing.
MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Nel.
MR BENNETTS: Let me put it this way, you can have an informer who was never ever trained, but once you have had a chap, the way I understand it, who has been trained and he has now being turned and he is working on our side as an informer, he is either or, an informer or an askari.
MR NEL: Mr Bennetts, how long were you an active member of the Security Branch?
MR BENNETTS: Probably about two to three years.
MR NEL: In your period as an active member of the Security Branch, did you ever have the occasion to undergo a handling course, the handling of an informer's course or anything like that?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir. The only course I ever did in the Security Branch, was a basic Security Branch which lasted five days up in Pietermaritzburg.
MR NEL: I am asking you this question because my instructions are that the very first thing you are being taught about informers is that an informer never comes to the police station, which is common knowledge, would you accept that?
MR BENNETTS: Well, in general yes.
MR NEL: Also an askari never comes to the police station because of obvious reasons?
MR BENNETTS: Also in general, yes.
MR NEL: But this informer/askari, the person who you referred to as "Pacman", you have passed him in the offices of the Security Branch on occasions?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR NEL: And Mr Fivaz, who was allegedly his handler, allowed that to happen according to you?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir, that is correct.
MR NEL: Were you the only person who knew that this informer was called "Pacman"?
MR BENNETTS: No, I was not.
MR NEL: Was this informer/askari commonly known?
MR BENNETTS: His identity was not commonly known, the fact that he existed, was commonly known.
MR NEL: You did say in your evidence here now, that this person, when you saw him, had a balaclava on his head. Was he always clad in a balaclava?
MR BENNETTS: Whenever I saw him, yes.
MR NEL: Is there any specific reason that you never mentioned any balaclava when you were asked about this at great lengths during your proceedings in November 1996?
MR BENNETTS: No, there is no specific reason. When I testified, I had not prepared to do anything, I walked in there and they started to ask me questions. I simply answered questions and went as far as I could, to answer.
MR NEL: Because the impression you created there was that you knew this person, you met him, you saw him in the passages?
MR BENNETTS: No, I don't believe that that is the impression that should have been carried over.
MR NEL: Were you ever involved, working closely, with Mr André Fivaz?
MR BENNETTS: Again, I don't know how to read that, closely, down the passage in distance wise, or closely that we worked on the same cases?
MR NEL: Well, let me put it to you this way - in your mind, did you work close enough with Mr Fivaz so that he would trust you and pull you into a circle which is going to end up in murder?
MR BENNETTS: Why he did that, I don't know.
MR NEL: No, the question was, did you work close enough with Mr Fivaz that he would call you and trust you with an operation which was going to be an unlawful operation and a murder?
MR BENNETTS: I cannot answer that question because I cannot tell you want went through his mind.
MR NEL: What goes through your mind?
MR BENNETTS: In my mind, I wouldn't have done it, no.
MR NEL: Because you didn't work close enough with him?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct.
MR NEL: That is why you wouldn't have done it?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, yes.
MR NEL: How many other members were present at this meeting at the Reaction Unit of the Security Branch?
MR BENNETTS: Again I say at the meeting or subsequent to, let me say it this way, subsequent to the meeting, when I was there, were André Fivaz, Shaun Fourie, myself, Chris de Jager, Tony Fernandez and to this day I cannot tell you whether or not Piet Nel was there. There were a group of the Reaction Unit guys.
MR NEL: And this was still at the office of the Reaction Unit?
MR BENNETTS: Still in the office where the meeting was held.
MR NEL: And as you said the guys were sitting and standing around, smoking?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, well not everybody, but it was obvious that the meeting had ended.
MR NEL: And it was during this period of time, after this secret meeting had been completed, that you were informed that you are now going out on a mission where somebody is going to be killed?
MR BENNETTS: Basically, yes.
MR NEL: And you, not as a member, or not as an Explosives Expert, you are required to bring one of your memento, F1 handgrenades in to plant on somebody who might resist an arrest?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But was there any reason whatsoever for taking you along, because you were not going to plant the handgrenade according to your evidence, you stood outside, and when you were asked for it, you handed it over which you could have done before they went, couldn't you?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, before they went, the grenade was not at my office, it was at home.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you could have fetched it and given it to them?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, I could have, but it was a normal thing that when operations went about, I don't mean specifically going out to go and shoot a chap, but whether they followed up information on arms caches and that, a group of us from C-Section went with.
CHAIRPERSON: But why did they want you when they had a private meeting, they hadn't invited you to the meeting?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, I had been invited to the meeting, we got there late.
MR NEL: And to follow up on the question of Mr Chairman, can you think of any logical idea or reason, why you as a youngster as you put it in your own words in the Security Branch, would be called in to supply a handgrenade if two of the members are - on this team - are Explosives Experts?
MR BENNETTS: Other than the fact that they knew I had them, no.
MR NEL: To get back to this very same handgrenade, it has been pointed out to me that detonator on the photographs that we looked at just now, is in fact a live detonator, can you dispute that?
MR BENNETTS: I cannot dispute that, I think I said that actually looks like a live one to me, as well.
MR NEL: Because I have been told that a fired detonator does not look like that, the firing pin, the pin which you pull, would not be on it any more, would you agree with that, that comes from an expert?
MR BENNETTS: The particular one that I had, the bottom of the detonator, the fired detonator, was gone. But the lever and the pin had all be folded and put back together with the spring and screwed in to look original and that is how it stood and that is as I had them. The only way you would tell from looking at it, would be to screw the detonator out and look at the inside.
MR NEL: Well, I can assume from the inquest and the exhibits that were handed in, that this was a live detonator?
MR BENNETTS: It appears to be one from the photograph to me, as well, yes.
MR NEL: So if this was a detonator which you supplied to Fernandez, somewhere along the line, he must have switched your fired detonator with a live detonator?
MR BENNETTS: Quite possibly, it is the only explanation I've got.
MR NEL: Him being an expert in explosives, would do that?
MR BENNETTS: Well, him being an expert, I cannot comment on.
MR NEL: How far were you from the actual house that was penetrated by the Reaction Unit in Inanda that afternoon?
MR BENNETTS: Meter wise, probably about 30, 40, I don't know, we stopped around the corner, I could see the one side, the other corner of the house.
MR NEL: 30, 40 metres? And am I understanding you correct that Mr Fernandez had to come out, and walk the 30 or 40 metres to get this dud handgrenade from you?
MR BENNETTS: I met him in the yard as I recall. We spoke in the yard and then returned to my vehicle.
MR NEL: Where was your vehicle parked, 30 or 40 metres away?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is correct.
MR NEL: So you had to walk to your vehicle with him?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, that is right.
MR NEL: So he walked from the house, 30 or 40 metres to your motor vehicle to get a dud handgrenade?
MR BENNETTS: That is correct, yes.
MR NEL: If this was true, don't you think it would have been wise for him just to carry this thing in his pocket?
MR BENNETTS: The way I understood it, the grenade was only to have been used if it was needed to plant.
I am assuming looking at the photo's, that there was an arms cache of some sort found in the house, but I am presuming that that was only found after he had collected the grenade from me.
MR NEL: Well, that is not what the evidence says or the statements which your legal representative referred to. I think on page 77, Mr de Jager's statement where he testified in front of the, or at the inquest, that is found on page 77 of Bundle A. In paragraph 6 he says
"... under the mattress of the bed, towards the inside of the wall, there was an AK47 storm gun wrapped in a plastic bag. In a black briefcase, there was a .375 Magnum Taurus revolver and a 9mm 39 pistol. I also found a Transkeian passport in the room, containing the photo of the suspect, with the name Moses Maake. The suspect was interrogated regarding this, and he admitted that it was a false passport."
Then he goes on to say in paragraph 7 that they then decided that they must call in somebody from the Photography Unit to come and take photographs of the exhibit. The question arises why was it necessary to plant a dud handgrenade at all?
MR BENNETTS: Obviously we are assuming here that, or you are assuming that Chris de Jager is telling the truth? My version in my mind is that this stuff was not found till after the guy was shot?
MR NEL: Well, you were referred to this statement, Mr Bennetts, and you had no problem with that. Are you now saying that this statement is false?
MR FALCONER: Sorry Mr Chairman, I did not request the witness as to whether he confirmed the correctness of the allegations contained in that statement. I referred to the fact that there was a statement in the inquest report, which associated with someone who was present at the meeting.
MR BENNETTS: Mr Nel, look, I cannot comment on the correctness of any of these statements. I was in the house for a brief period of probably about 20 seconds when I took the Duty Officer in and then I left again.
MR NEL: Why was it necessary for you to take the Duty Officer in?
MR BENNETTS: Because he was scared.
MR NEL: Mr Chairman, if you can just bear with me for a brief minute.
After you took the Duty Officer in, what was required of you?
MR BENNETTS: Nothing, I simply went back to my vehicle and waited.
MR NEL: And then?
MR BENNETTS: The Detectives were called, whether they were called, I think they had already been called, I am not sure who attended it from an investigation point of view, but the inquest had to be compiled and investigated, therefore the Duty Officer was called, the mortuary van was called, photographs were taken, the whole scene was handled and we left. I had nothing further to do with it. I didn't testify, I was never called. Obviously at the time I would not have said that I brought the handgrenade and that anything had been planted, and therefore I don't expect anyone else who has testified in this matter, to have said the same either.
MR NEL: Are you aware of the fact that Mr André Fivaz, on two occasions on request by his superiors, filed a report on you to his superiors?
MR BENNETTS: I've got no idea.
MR NEL: And the gist of these reports were to report on you being notorious in Chesterville?
MR BENNETTS: I've got no idea.
MR NEL: Well, these are my instructions that that actually look place, and why I am telling you this is I am trying to point out to you that even if this is true, Mr Fivaz would never have trusted you to take part in the assassination of somebody? You've got no comment on that?
MR BENNETTS: Well, I can comment. Unless we see the report. Who knows what he said, maybe he assumed that I would be an "oke" who would work for them. I don't know what he would have thought of.
CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, what was the Duty Officer there to do?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, when an incident, when a shooting takes place, it is an instruction that an Officer has to attend all shootings.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
MR BENNETTS: And because this chap had been killed, that is why a Duty Officer was called.
CHAIRPERSON: And he makes a report?
MR BENNETTS: And he makes a report, yes Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes? So why didn't they send in someone who had been there when the shooting took place, who could tell the Duty Officer what had happened?
MR BENNETTS: I didn't, it was not my job to speak to the Duty Officer or explain anything. When he arrived, he arrived with a patrol van from kwaMashu or Inanda, I don't know who, where, who brought him there, but I simply escorted him to the house, and walked in behind him, through the door, I saw what had happened, I turned around and walked out. I had no discussions or dealings with the Duty Officer at all.
MR MALAN: Can you give us any idea why you were supposed to be tagged along, why did you have to go along?
MR BENNETTS: Like I say, it was, during operations of any form or nature, this C-Section at C.R. Swart didn't consist of too many people, it was a very, very small Unit. It inevitably happened when someone had information of an arms cache or of a trained person or something like that, a group of us tagged along. We had nothing more to do with it, we were just extra hands if it was ever needed or something came up that we needed to follow up on.
That was simply the main reason why the whole group of us went.
MR MALAN: But you go there, the operation is now executed, you remain in your vehicle, 40 yards away from the scene?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: Did they tell you what you were supposed to be doing, did they ask you to wait there or did they instruct you to wait?
MR BENNETTS: No, no.
MR MALAN: Why did you wait?
MR BENNETTS: No, the normal procedure was when the Reaction Unit went in, they went in as a reasonably large group of people, we were going into a location area, and if I can say almost a cordon is put around the house. I wasn't, it wasn't only us who were sitting outside, there were probably a group of about 20 or 30 policemen outside, at various points outside the house, Reaction Unit members who had nothing to do or didn't know what was going on, who were not privy to what the plans were, Security Branch members who I assume were not privy to what was going on, and us.
Once this whole incident had happened, we just simply stayed there while the entire investigation took place, we couldn't abandon the guys inside the house.
MR MALAN: You talk about what happened normally, what happened on that day? Were there 20 or 30 people posted outside to form a cordon around the house?
MR BENNETTS: Yes, there were. There were, as normally occurs, there were a group of people around the house, we stayed on the road from the time that the penetration took place, we stopped pedestrian traffic going passed, that sort of thing, no cars, no pedestrians, anything, on the road.
MR MALAN: So your role was being part of that cordon?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: Were there any other people apart from yourself and Fourie? Did Fourie also stay outside?
MR BENNETTS: Fourie was outside with me, most of the time. I cannot recall if at some stage he went into the house to have and look, but Fourie actually was driving the car that I was in.
MR MALAN: And you had no role but to provide similar backup or the same kind of backup or protection that the other 20 or 30 had to provide?
MR BENNETTS: No, no other role.
MR MALAN: At what stage were they brought into the operation, the other 20 or 30 that you speak about?
MR BENNETTS: These were Reaction Unit members, whoever it was from the Reaction Unit, I mean they were trained, this was their job, they were amongst however many. Let's assume here it was 20 chaps, of the 20, they would plan this whole thing in advance of who would actually go into the house, who would stay outside at doors and windows and who would be on the corners at adjoining houses or what have you. They look after each other.
MR MALAN: Let me, just give me, stay and answer my questions please, don't give me more information than what I am asking you for at the moment.
You were radioed to attend the meeting, when you arrived, the meeting had already finished on your version now?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: You were asked to provide one of your mementoes, the dud grenade?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: You went home to fetch it?
MR BENNETTS: Yes Sir.
MR MALAN: You went straight to the house at that stage?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, no. We went, we met later in the evening at the basement at C.R. Swart Square where everybody who was going with, the Reaction Unit people and the Security Branch people got together and from there we drove in a convoy up to the house.
From what I recall, I cannot tell you if this happened at this time, but normally someone would go and have a look at the house and make sure nothing had changed beforehand or during the course of the afternoon, someone from the Reaction Unit would possibly drive passed to go and have a look at it, so they would see what obstacles they would be encountering, whether there are streetlights in the area, all that sort of things. So someone would have checked the house out, not me, because I wasn't involved in the penetration.
When we left, we went in a convoy formation, the Reaction Unit guys jumped out, run through, kick down doors, do what they've got to do and get into the house. We sit on the outside and just make sure there is no bystanders that come and go or that anything else happens.
MR MALAN: When did you first learn of the time that this operation would be implemented?
MR BENNETTS: I would have been advised subsequent to that meeting that occurred, that we were getting together at a specific time at C.R. Swart.
MR MALAN: Not at the meeting?
MR BENNETTS: Well, I wasn't at the meeting.
MR MALAN: At the venue, were you called later or were you told when you arrived there to be available at a certain time?
MR BENNETTS: No, when we arrived there, we were told to be available or to meet in the basement at C.R. Swart Square at a specific time. We would have got there and then driven out from there.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just finish this. You haven't told us yet, my colleague asked you a long time ago, why did you go in with the Duty Officer? You say you didn't speak to him?
MR BENNETTS: No Sir, I simply walked him in. When he arrived, he arrived if you can call it, the outer cordon where the vehicles and things were parked.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR BENNETTS: We are in a suburban area, he wouldn't have just known where to walk to. I simply escorted him in, I walked him to the door, to the house and showed him where to go in. That was all otherwise he could have walked off into a neighbouring house, he wouldn't have known where to go to.
CHAIRPERSON: But I thought a few minutes ago, when you were telling us this, you said you went with him because he was scared?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, no, I am not saying he was scared, what I am saying is that I think he was scared.
CHAIRPERSON: But now you are saying he might have walked into the wrong house, "I just directed him where to go"? It is a very different story, Mr Bennetts?
MR BENNETTS: Sorry Sir, I don't think you are quite understanding what I am trying to say here. What I am trying to say is if I was the Duty Officer, I wouldn't simply just go into a location to attend a thing by myself. What I am trying to say is he came with a patrol van with an escort, I am not saying he was scared, I suppose I am not using the correct terminology here.
He would have been a fool to have gone in there by himself, if I can put it that way. I am talking about now the trip from where he came from, to the scene. When we met him ...
MR MALAN: Sorry to interrupt, why would he have been a fool, wasn't the operation completed by then?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, he had to get from wherever he was, to the middle of the location, where we were. Even myself at Chesterville, I wouldn't have driven around by myself there.
MR MALAN: But that is 40 yards from the house, 30 to 40 yards?
MR BENNETTS: No. But from the entrance, this is what I am saying, I am saying at this point I am talking about him travelling through Inanda to get to the house where we are.
MR MALAN: Where did he meet up with you, 30 yards from the house?
MR BENNETTS: At the house, yes Sir. He pulled up with the police van.
MR MALAN: So why did you have to walk him in, you could have pointed him the house?
MR BENNETTS: Sir, I possibly could have yes, but I walked him in.
MR MALAN: Why, that is the question? Because he was scared or because he wouldn't know which the house was?
MR BENNETTS: Well, I assume I could have pointed him at the house yes, but I went in and I had a look too, I was also curious.
CHAIRPERSON: So you went in because you were curious? Is that the reason now?
MR BENNETTS: That is the reason, that is the reason I went into the house. I walked him to the door, but I went into the house because I was also curious, yes Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on, or perhaps not.
MR NEL: In conclusion Mr Bennetts, in consultation Mr Fivaz told me and these are my instructions that this person who had been killed on that day, was a very important man, in fact he was the Operational Commander in the PAC and that he was very disappointed with the fact that this person had died, because he had very valuable information that could have been utilised by the Security Branch and Mr Fivaz was only told the next day that this person had been killed, a person who was identified as Mr Maake alias Ncophoyi. If I pronounce that correctly, or incorrectly, excuse me Mr Chairman. I see from one of the statements there are different spellings, but I have a Themba Ncophoyi. He would have desperately wanted to speak to the Operational Commander who had died on that day, he didn't want to kill him?
MR BENNETTS: I can only answer that by saying I must assume that Mr Fivaz has not applied for amnesty, I don't know. If he hadn't, he is not going to be here to admit what had occurred. I've got no reason here to come before this Committee, implicate myself in a matter that was totally closed and implicate everybody else if it wasn't a fact.
MR NEL: Finally Mr Fivaz, you are correct Sir, did not apply for amnesty for this incident and I really don't know why you did. Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will take the adjournment now, until nine o'clock tomorrow morning. Nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
MR NEL: Sorry Mr Chairman, before we adjourn, I forgot to ask this, there is one of my clients, Mr Piet Nel whom I do not intend calling. He is from Newcastle and asked me to find out whether he could be excused, obviously to be available should he be needed, but he has a business to run in Newcastle and he has nowhere to stay tonight, he's got to get back?
CHAIRPERSON: I think that would be perfectly reasonable.
MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: It is quite a long way to get back.
MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: If something does emerge, we can make arrangements?
MR NEL: Yes, absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON: Let him get off as quickly as possible.
MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairman.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
