Amnesty Hearings

JOE MAMASELA: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mamasela, my recollection is that you told us yesterday that you were uncertain whether the Head of Security of Port Elizabeth, was present the second and the third day. You said he was definitely present on the evening when you arrived there, do you recall that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I can (indistinct) that.

ADV BOOYENS: So you agree with me that you said that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I just couldn't hear your answer Mr Mamasela, it was just unclear. Did you say you agree with that?

MR MAMASELA: I said yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Thanks. Would you mind turning to page 16 of volume 2 please, that is an excerpt from your Section 29 interrogation. Page 16, the thick letters page 16. Opposite marginal letter 35, you are questioned by Mr Potgieter - I am referring to the passage that says you said that in that brown vehicle there was the Head of Security Police in Port Elizabeth, at that stage it is Du Plessis, have you got that passage?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I've got that passage.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Booyens, you are now referring to volume 2, the extracts there on page 16?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I do. Yes, that is Herman du Plessis, yes, that is your answer. He was in the vehicle, and some other people is the question, you answer, and some other white policemen unknown to me, yes. Mr Potgieter, and that vehicle went with you so there were three vehicles that went to Cradock, Mr Mamasela, to Cradock. Mr Potgieter, so Du Plessis was present when the deceased were transported from Port Elizabeth to the old police station in Cradock and he saw that they were locked up in the garage and all of that.

Mr Mamasela, yes, he was part of the whole, the word was indistinct, that assaulted also the people. Adv Potgieter, was he present only on the occasion when you transported them to Cradock, answer, he was present on the first occasion, he was present also the Sunday when they, when Sipho Hashe was assaulted because he is the one who said no, he knows Sipho Hashe's sister very well, because Sipho Hashe said he hid the 17 AK's on the floor of the den room. He says there was a carpet, but it was a wooden floor.

The rest is not important. Opposite line 20, but the point was that Du Plessis was present on the first and second day, Mr Mamasela, yes, he was present and he was part of that group that was involved in the interrogation and assaults and so on, yes, he would come and go, and also go.

You have heard that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I've heard that very well.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, Mr Mamasela, yesterday you were uncertain whether he was there on the other days. Why did you give this evidence?

MR MAMASELA: Let me refer you to the same document that we are reading, page 9 of the same document.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well.

MR MAMASELA: Where I say we were called there and we were told by the Station Commander of Port Elizabeth, then Security Police, I think, I think it was Colonel Herman du Plessis, but I am not sure. It must be - what you have just read for this Commission now, must be taken into cognisance with what I said initially.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: I said I think it was him, but I am not sure.

ADV BOOYENS: No.

MR MAMASELA: This is what I said.

ADV BOOYENS: You are missing the whole point of the question. I think we did the exercise yesterday morning already where you conceded that you are not sure that the Head of the Security Police was Herman du Plessis.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: That is not the point of the question. The point of the question is that you yesterday said, I asked you whether the Head of the Security Police, and I didn't say Herman du Plessis, whether the Head of the Security Police was present on the second and third day and you said you were not certain.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: But according to what you answered to Adv Potgieter, not only couldn't you be uncertain, because in fact you say that the Head of the Security Police, which you think was Herman du Plessis, but obviously was somebody else, said that he knew the sister very well.

MR MAMASELA: No, I must have made a mistaken then, because the man who knew the sister well who was interrogating, was Lieutenant Niewoudt as I said it in my evidence in chief.

ADV BOOYENS: Oh, so you made a mistake in your answers under oath?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: In terms of Section 29?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, it is a mistake yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Oh, I see Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I want to - oh yes, there is something else. You say - I want to just clear up what happened in Pretoria. Roelf Venter called you and Koole and Mogoai?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Only the three of you?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And he gave you the instructions about coming down to Port Elizabeth?

MR MAMASELA: I will not say it was instructions, he debriefed us, he was briefing us about what we are going to do there.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, briefing, instructions, it doesn't really matter, let's not play with words unnecessary.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And so Roelf Venter told you that there was some activists making trouble in the townships and so on, you must go and sort the thing out, it was rather urgent, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And it was as a direct result of what Venter told you, that you came down to Port Elizabeth?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV BOOYENS: You don't know where Venter got his instructions from?

MR MAMASELA: No.

ADV BOOYENS: And he was the only one that briefed you about this beforehand?

MR MAMASELA: To a certain extent there was also Colonel Eugene de Kock. I think he came in at a later stage also.

ADV BOOYENS: But did De Kock have anything to do with the briefing?

MR MAMASELA: He also participated briefly.

ADV BOOYENS: But your briefing in fact was ...

MR MAMASELA: Mainly done by Colonel Venter.

ADV BOOYENS: It was Venter and not De Kock?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You are obviously fully aware that at the hearing you said that De Kock called you in, at the Section 29 hearing? You are obviously fully aware of that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I said De Kock was also in, but we were briefed by Venter. It was Venter and De Kock.

ADV BOOYENS: It wasn't the case of De Kock briefing you, Venter Koole and Mogoai? It was Venter briefing the three of you and De Kock was present?

MR MAMASELA: He was also there, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Turn to page 9, the first paragraph. Let's not waste time, read it for yourself.

MR MAMASELA: Must I start from the beginning?

ADV BOOYENS: Start with "and then".

MR MAMASELA: And then ...

ADV BOOYENS: No, you can just read it, it is not necessary to read it into the record, we've got it.

MR MAMASELA: Okay. Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You say it is no different from what you've told us before?

MR MAMASELA: No, in my opinion there is no difference.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I thought you would say so.

MR MAMASELA: Because De Kock was then, I explained here, De Kock was then just about to take over Vlakplaas but the man who was doing the talking and all that, it was also De Kock and Venter, Venter is also here. I say myself and Koole and Piet Mogoai.

ADV BOOYENS: That is not really what is written here. What is written here is that De Kock briefed the four of you and he then told us that there was a big operation in Cape Town, in the Eastern Cape. They needed us to go and help. That was Venter, myself, Koole and Piet Mogoai.

But you say it is no different from what you said earlier on?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, no, they were talking but De Kock, like I say De Kock was just about to take over Vlakplaas and he also was telling us about these things, and Venter also was briefing us.

That is why we left with Venter, we did not leave with De Kock. We left with Venter, even at Port Elizabeth it was Venter playing the leading role all the time. De Kock was left at Vlakplaas.

ADV BOOYENS: The whites that went with you was that Beeslaar and Venter only?

MR MAMASELA: No, I think I've said it even Sergeant Coetzee was also there.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. I just want to return very briefly to your loyalties. I still can't make out exactly where your loyalties are situated Mr Mamasela.

You were forced into the Security Police, but did you - your loyalty always lay with the ANC, not so? If you were not forced into the Security Police, you would have stayed an ANC operative, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And so all these years that you were connected to the Security Branch, if I talk about the Security Branch I talk broadly, I include Vlakplaas and the whole story in it, it was because of the duress exercised upon you? Is that right?

MR MAMASELA: Mainly, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: But your real heart, your real loyalty was towards the ANC and what they stood for?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is until the ANC killed my brother in 1981, June.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, and did you then completely turn against them?

MR MAMASELA: The ANC?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I told myself, I was convinced I had nothing to do with both black and white politics, politicians to me they were the same. I was disillusioned.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, you were disillusioned?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Would you then say that you turned against the ANC then completely?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And were you then going to fight the ANC with everything to your ability?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, just fight the ANC not the innocent people in this country.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am talking about the ANC.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: So, did you have a hatred for the ANC in those days?

MR MAMASELA: Not the ANC as an organisation, those who killed my brother, and those who hunted me down like an animal, those are the people that I hated because it was one of them who sold me out to this Boers on a silver platter, and now they are accusing me of being an enemy agent. So I hated them for that, not the ANC as an organisation per se.

ADV BOOYENS: But your, I am trying to make out, your loyalties are now completely with the Security Police?

MR MAMASELA: No, that is what you are saying.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay.

MR MAMASELA: You are putting those words into my mouth.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am asking.

MR MAMASELA: I was never loyal to both this, the ANC and to the Security Forces, because I perceived myself at that stage as a victim of both the Security Forces and the ANC. So I thought the loyalties then lay within myself, I was loyal to myself and I was loyal to my own cause.

ADV BOOYENS: And what was that cause, your own cause?

MR MAMASELA: My own cause was to expose, if I get the opportunity, I must expose the (indistinct) nefarious nocturnal acts of both the ANC and the Nationalist Party, and I did precisely that.

That is where my loyalty lay and that is where my loyalty is still laying today.

ADV BOOYENS: And but you say you didn't want to have anything to do with the killing of innocents, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: I said what?

ADV BOOYENS: You didn't want to, you were not happy with the killing of innocent people, you had no fight with innocent people?

MR MAMASELA: I don't understand your question.

ADV BOOYENS: I think you said a while back, that you had a fight with some elements in the ANC, but you had no fight or quarrel with the innocent people?

MR MAMASELA: I said my hatred, not fight.

ADV BOOYENS: Hatred, okay.

MR MAMASELA: Yes. So we were talking about the hatred, I said I hated a pocket of those ANC people who had a hand in the killing of my own brother, and who had a hand in hunting me down like a wild animal, those are the people that I hated and I even elaborated that I did not hate the whole ANC as an organisation per se.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, in other words you didn't hate all the members of the ANC, is that really what you are saying?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV BOOYENS: Because you cannot hate an organisation, that is not ...

MR MAMASELA: No, you can hate the organisation. The Security Forces of which are your clients, they had a passion for hating the ANC.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay.

MR MAMASELA: And everything that the ANC stood for.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, let's not play with words, the bottom line is you didn't hate everybody that was in the ANC, only certain people that belonged to the ANC?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. Now through the years when you were involved in all these operations, there were a number of occasions Mr Mamasela, when you were involved in people being killed, not so?

MR MAMASELA: Absolutely correct.

ADV BOOYENS: People, did you regard them as innocent on some occasions?

MR MAMASELA: In most cases, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: In most cases?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, in most cases not some.

ADV BOOYENS: And for example, let's take Mr Griffiths Mxenge. Did you regard him as an innocent?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, very much innocent.

ADV BOOYENS: Very much innocent?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Griffiths Mxenge was an Attorney in Durban?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You people operated for quite a while in Durban before Mr Mxenge was killed, is that right? You were checking his house out, poisoning the dogs, we all remember the story not so?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And tell me, Mr Mamasela, if Mr Mxenge - if you regarded Mr Mxenge as an innocent person, why did you take part in his killing?

MR MAMASELA: If you remember the facts well, I was not in the initial group that went to Durban. I was fetched at a later stage to reinforce that group.

I was just a mere ascari, an ascari is a prisoner of war. I was just told to do things. Ascaris were expected to carry out those things, not to question them. If you question the instructions, you were killed. So I had no alternative but to do as I was told.

ADV BOOYENS: What I would like to know is, this man that regarded Mr Griffiths Mxenge as a complete innocent, the man is an Attorney, he is well known in Durban, why didn't you warn him that people are plotting to kill him?

MR MAMASELA: Oh, my God, there we go again. I couldn't warn Mr Mxenge, I didn't even know of his existence prior to my getting to Durban. I didn't even know him. I was just whisked to Durban, I was given the photo's, I was shown the photo's and said kill the man and then we killed him. There was nothing I could do.

ADV BOOYENS: No, it didn't work like that, you were also involved in poisoning his dogs which was done a few days before?

MR MAMASELA: It was done, the dogs were killed today, he was killed the following day, not a few days before as you put it.

ADV BOOYENS: You also attended the, as you testified, the meeting with Mr Taylor and Mr Van der Hoven so it was not a question of there was no time to do it, you could pick up a telephone and warn the man?

MR MAMASELA: A telephone where, from the police station?

ADV BOOYENS: In the big city of Durban there are no public telephones?

MR MAMASELA: No, no Mr Booyens, don't talk like a foreigner. You are a South African and a white South African for that matter, and you know for a fact that during those days black people were at the mercy of white people.

There was nothing I could do. Even the police standing order was clear, that the white member by virtue of his pigmentation, was my boss. I couldn't question his instructions.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Mamasela, I am not interested in your political speeches, what I want to know is why didn't you pick up a public telephone and warn Griffiths Mxenge?

MR MAMASELA: We are talking on terms of a political commission here, of enquiry, so we are talking about black victims that were killed by the white oppressive system, so this is politics.

ADV BOOYENS: Why didn't you pick up a public telephone and warn Griffiths Mxenge?

MR MAMASELA: I didn't have time to do that, I was with other members of the Security Forces. They were the lap dogs of the Security Forces guarding us also because we were ascaris, we couldn't walk alone, even when we patrolled. We didn't patrol as ascaris, there was always two, three, four honest and loyal dedicated black policemen who were watching us, because the security system, the white Commanders did not even trust us as ascaris.

ADV BOOYENS: You were also involved in incidents that involved certain doctored hand grenades not so, in which some youths were killed?

MR MAMASELA: Oh, the rigged, the rigged hand grenades. You called them doctored, yes, I was involved there.

ADV BOOYENS: These youths, did you regard them as innocent young men?

MR MAMASELA: One hundred percent, extremely innocent.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you hand them the hand grenades yourself?

MR MAMASELA: I was ordered to hand them the hand grenades.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you alone?

MR MAMASELA: I was not alone.

ADV BOOYENS: Who was with you?

MR MAMASELA: I was with another ascari.

ADV BOOYENS: What is his name?

MR MAMASELA: Daniel Ngala.

ADV BOOYENS: But you traced these youths, not so, you knew who you had to hand the hand grenades to.

MR MAMASELA: I didn't trace them, we infiltrated them, we were ordered to infiltrate them, we were given a list of these people by the Springs Security Police.

ADV BOOYENS: But you infiltrated this group?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And it was - you had contact with them over a lengthy period to win their confidence?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: The whole purpose right from the word go, was that you were going to give them this rigged hand grenades, to use your word?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: That was the whole purpose of the infiltration?

MR MAMASELA: No, no.

ADV BOOYENS: Not?

MR MAMASELA: It did not start that way. We were ordered, we were instructed to infiltrate this people, to (indistinct) enough information as to which of the group was involved in attacking policemen's houses and stuff like that and we infiltrated them, after two weeks I wrote my SAP5 report, which is the investigation diary of the Police.

And then the Spring Security Forces were happy about that report. It is then that Brigadier Cronje said that he cannot take the decision my himself, because De Kock was supposed to take over. De Kock was in Durban, he was phoned. When De Kock came in, he said no, no, no, these people cannot be left alone. Let us make some history, something that had never happened in the world, let's give them military training and we must arm them with rigged hand grenades, so that they must blow themselves up.

He called that a one arm bandit operation.

MR NYOKA: Sorry Mr Chairman, I wish to be corrected if I am wrong. Are we about the historical background of Mr Mamasela or about the Pebco inquiry?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, this witness have testified that he had a lot of sympathy. This is all about credibility, that he had a lot of sympathy with the innocent victims.

I would say with respect, I am not busy dealing with the details of those operations, one can supply a lot more detail. But surely his credibility in this whole matter goes right to the root of things because he seems to be claiming that he was running neither hot nor cold, but he had sympathy for the innocent. So I would submit that the question is relevant, the question I want to ask him, I am driving at, is relevant.

The question will be why didn't he warn these other innocent young people?

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate the line of cross-examination, but it is just that I have a bit of problems about the way it is being done.

I am just worried that the way that it is being done, we may get bogged down in details of incidents and what worries even more is whether we are going to go through every detail that Mr Mamasela was involved in.

ADV BOOYENS: No, certainly not Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that the line of cross-examination is correct, but without sounding to prescriptive, I would have thought that one would ask him simply, well, you did give people some zero rated hand grenades, and why didn't you warn them if you were not that loyal, and that is it?

Maybe you know, we see things differently and then we approach them differently, but I accept that the line of cross-examination is right, I understand it, I have no problems with it.

But maybe if we could do it without getting into finer details of the incident.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman. I agree with you, I am trying to keep this as short of possible, of course if one gets lengthy answers, it is not always easy.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, perhaps Mr Mamasela, you heard what Mr Booyens is saying. He is saying that if you could try to in your answer, to be brief and direct to the point it could help us finish your evidence very quickly.

MR MAMASELA: I appreciate that Mr Chairman, but it must be borne in mind that some of the questions is not easy for you to say yes or no, you have to elaborate so that the Commission could understand at what background did this thing take place.

But I will try to be short with my answers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Mr Booyens, maybe before you proceed. Just to ensure that we are all on the same page, concerning the question of sympathy, I think I understood him differently yesterday.

I didn't understand him to say that he had a lot of sympathy for all these victims, he specifically said as I remember he thinks his feeling at the stage he was taking some water and giving them to Mr Hashe, perhaps it was a combination of compassion and sympathy? That is the way I understood him, I don't think he explicitly said he had sympathy for these victims?

I stand to be corrected by the record any way, but that was my understanding of him.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, as far as the water was concerned, I think that was just done to revive him. It was the food perhaps that you are referring to sir. That he said that he wanted to take food to him, but that is not the point that we are dealing with this morning.

I am talking about the innocent victims that he said he had sympathy for them, this all started off on cross-examination about his loyalties and so on. He said he had sympathy for the innocent people in a nut shell.

ADV SANDI: Was that your evidence Mr Mamasela, did you have sympathy for the victims?

MR MAMASELA: I said I had sympathy for other innocent victims, that is why I compiled my dossier and my diary in 1985, and when the Police gave me a package, I compiled a dossier.

I am the whole policeman in the whole country who has a dossier that has even pictures of his victims. I am the only policeman that came out long before the inception of the Truth Commission in 1995, I came out in 1994 under the (indistinct) of Sergeant X, because these things were troubling me, that I was used to kill my own people.

I had sympathy for the innocent victims. I was driven by that sympathy to have come out.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I don't understand. Did you have sympathy already as at the time when you were killing them, or are you saying that subsequent to killing them, later, maybe years later, you regretted it and you felt bad about what you had done?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, Mr Chairman, when you are forced to do things against your own will, against your political conviction, you do them with some residue of resentment and that is what - precisely what happened to me because I started compiling my diary in 1985. I had no inkling of an image that one day there would be a black government, I had nothing.

I had no hope that one day I will be a free person, but I did write my diary which was accepted by the Supreme Court of Pretoria, and when I was given the package, I did not spend the money, squander the money for myself. I used the bulk of that money to investigate these people who are sitting here today as applicants of the Truth Commission.

I investigated them, and after investigating them, I went to, I went public with some of the information, and I went to the Attorney General. The Attorney General wanted to arrest them. They only ran to the TRC for protection, not to tell the truth. That is how I understand the situation.

That I had sympathy because I was forced to do these things I was doing, and my conscience was troubled, that is why even today I keep on having flashes of all these incidents that I was involved in. And that troubles me, and talking about these things and telling ...

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to stop you now.

MR MAMASELA: Okay, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And ask you this question, as I understand this is what Mr Booyens wants to know. Without going into every detail, well he may do so if he wishes if he feels there is point in it, why if you had sympathy, why did you then go along and do these things in particular, why did you not warn them, the victims?

MR MAMASELA: I think Mr Chairman ...

CHAIRPERSON: The first leg of my question you probably answered earlier on to say that you did these things because you were ordered to do that.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But why did you not warn them?

MR MAMASELA: Let me answer this way Mr Chairman. It was not possible for me to could have warned each and every would be victim of the system without being caught in the act myself, and being killed and being sacrificed.

But I am on record, even the TRC is on record in the Johannesburg hearings, that one of the victims, Mr Scheepers Morudi said that his life was saved by Mamasela, when he was detained and he was tortured and he was left to die. I saved his life by recruiting him as an informer in (indistinct), I saved his life.

I saved about 50 COSAS students that I was given the poisoned vests to give them so that they could die. But I gave them, I switched them the COSAS vests in stead of the UDF vests that were poisoned, and I destroyed the poisoned ones.

I did try to save, salvage the lives of those that I could save, but unfortunately under those circumstances, I couldn't help them, all of them Mr Chairman. It was impossible.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, there we are Mr Booyens.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mamasela, let us deal with your - we have to some extent dealt with it - but your joining and becoming first a police informer and then a Vlakplaas ascari.

At the stage when you agreed to become an informer, that was before you had problems with the ANC, not so or not?

MR MAMASELA: I don't understand that question, joining and becoming an informer, I don't understand it, it is complicated.

ADV BOOYENS: You told us that there was duress exercised upon you?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You were beaten up?

MR MAMASELA: I was assaulted by the Police yes, tortured, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And you then agreed to work with them?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: So that was before you had a problem with the ANC?

MR MAMASELA: No, the man - the reason I was sold out was precisely because I was sold out by internal Commander, Sipho Makopo. I even explained that he is the younger brother of Isaac Makopo who was then the Chief Representative of the ANC in Botswana. I explained it in the Commission.

ADV BOOYENS: So, are you saying that you thought you were sold out by the ANC, even before the Police arrested you that first time?

MR MAMASELA: I never thought, I knew I was sold out.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. But, so by then you already were fed up with your so-called comrades in Botswana?

MR MAMASELA: I was fed up with Sipho Makopo for selling me out, being my Commander, I didn't expect it from him as a Commander to do that.

ADV BOOYENS: Fed up with an individual, not with the ANC?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Right. So the reason why you agreed to work with them, was because they assaulted and tortured you?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And that spectre of that torture, hung over you throughout your career in the Police Force?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: That was the duress that you were subjected to?

MR MAMASELA: I will never forget that. No victim can ever forget the torture that he has received from the Police. If you were black, you will understand what I mean.

ADV BOOYENS: So, that was the reason while throughout this period you stayed with the Police Force, the torture really?

MR MAMASELA: The torture and the constant fear of being killed by the Police if I don't work with them.

ADV BOOYENS: If you don't tow the line?

MR MAMASELA: Because this is what they said, yes, if I don't tow the line, they will kill me like they killed my uncle. They were boasting about it.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I remember that you told that story that they said to you that they killed your uncle?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: But that I understand, you are not even certain that those were Security Police that tortured you, it could have been Murder and Robbery policemen?

MR MAMASELA: I was not certain, even until this day I don't know them, that is how they used to operate.

That is how we used to operate too.

ADV BOOYENS: So you were tortured by a group of policemen and you agreed to cooperate with them. Cooperate with them about what?

MR MAMASELA: About what they wanted, they wanted me to go and work with the Security Forces. I said okay, it is fine.

ADV BOOYENS: Work with the Security Forces doing what?

MR MAMASELA: No, they didn't specify. They said you must work with the Security Forces and you must inform against your comrades or whatever. I said anything that you want from me, it is fine, trying to salvage my life.

ADV BOOYENS: So you immediately agreed to work with them, but it was only after you returned from Botswana that you phoned Major Kruger and said to him, you will work with him?

MR MAMASELA: When I returned to?

ADV BOOYENS: From Botswana. When did you phone Kruger? Remember you phoned Kruger, the Kruger that visited you in jail, gave you his telephone number?

MR MAMASELA: Oh, yes, no, I remember that one.

ADV BOOYENS: Asked you whether you would cooperate with him?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You got out of the country, you got to Botswana?

MR MAMASELA: Yes. The reason why I got out of the country to Botswana was to go and inform the ANC that my internal Commander that they said I must work with, has already sold me out to the Police, what must I do.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, you informed your internal Commander that you were now going to work with the Police, but you conveyed - and he said to you that is fine, you can work with the Police?

MR MAMASELA: No, not my internal, my external Commander.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay.

MR MAMASELA: My internal Commander sold me out, I cannot go to him and say ...

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, the external Commander.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You told the external Commander you were now going to work with the Police and he was quite happy about that?

MR MAMASELA: No, I didn't say I was now going to work with the Police. I told him that Sipho Makopo sold me out, and the Police are forcing me to work with them, and they threatened that if I don't work with them, they are going to kill me.

Then he said no, no, comrade, we are going to train you in Intelligence so that at a later stage, after the training, you can go back to those people and work with them, so that we can syphon enough data for us, that was the agreement between me and my external Commander.

ADV BOOYENS: So your external Commander actually instructed you to become a double agent?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV BOOYENS: And then you had problems in Botswana with certain individuals in the ANC, not so?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, my external Commander had to leave, I don't know for whatever reason. Then the new Commanders came in, and I could not trust them with my life. I couldn't tell them about the agreement with the other Commander.

ADV BOOYENS: But here was a potential very, very valuable Intelligence agent who was going to infiltrate the very South African Security Police that you people had problems with and you couldn't tell your new Commanders about it, why not?

MR MAMASELA: No, you don't understand the structures of the African National Congress.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, you are right there.

MR MAMASELA: I am an ANC guy myself, I am trained by the ANC, I am a soldier of the ANC. Once the ANC suspects even for the slightest mistake, that you work, even if it can be a perception, you get killed in the ANC itself. It is my organisation, I know it and I respect them, they know that too.

So in the ANC you don't go about telling every new face about your life. We work on the need to know basis, there is a chain of command.

ADV BOOYENS: But Mr Mamasela, I still don't understand. Your Commander who has instructed you to become a double agent, and is going to arrange for you to go on an Intelligence course, leaves and somebody else takes over.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, logic tells me that you would immediately go and say so and so, I mean the man has just left, he is contactable, he is in the organisation that itself has a sophisticated Intelligence apparatus, go to my new Commander and say to him, look what is happening about this Intelligence course, I am suppose to go and infiltrate the South African Police Force as a double agent?

CHAIRPERSON: I think he has answered that question, he has told you that he didn't trust these new people.

ADV BOOYENS: The point is I would like to know why not Mr Chairman, that is what I want to know.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, he said immediately they would suspect and you would be killed.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He has said that upon the slightest suspicion they will kill you, that is what he has just been saying Mr Booyens. You may not like his answer, but that is his answer.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well. You were not afraid of saying that to the first person, you didn't think he would have you killed?

MR MAMASELA: No, I was complaining to him. I did not say I am an informer already, I was complaining to him that the internal Commander that he sent me to work with, sold me out, so what must I do.

I wanted an alternative from him, what must I do, then he said, no, if they recruit you, then you must join them, and then we will give you Intelligence training, that is why they gave me Intelligence training in 1980. They did give me Intelligence training in the 1980's, it was specifically for that reason that I complained to them that these people are harassing me, they are recruiting me and they threatened that they killed my uncle, they will kill me if I don't work with them.

Knowing this fitted the way I knew them, I knew that they would do it, because they have already boasted about killing my uncle and he was dead, and I knew that they would kill me after that severe torture that I received from them.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Mamasela, let us deal with something else, and that is the number of occasions that you have told lies about your activities.

Since 1985, you were compiling a so-called dossier against these policemen, and compiling a dossier of all the dirty deeds that happened, and so on, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: That is a lie, because first and foremost I did not compile a dossier in 1985, I compiled a diary and I only started to compile a dossier after receiving my package in April 1993.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, but the diary, let's then put it correctly, you recorded the details of all the dirty deeds in the diary since 1985?

MR MAMASELA: I also wish to correct you, that is not true, not all of them, other wise it wouldn't be a diary, it will be a Bible. Only specific information was recorded there, that is how I even explained to Court in Pretoria.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, so you were selective about the information?

MR MAMASELA: Very much so. The things that I know, it was possible for me to forget the names, I will put into that diary, but the names of the people that I infiltrated and stayed with for two, three weeks, I couldn't forget them, so it was safe in my head.

So putting every individual's name in there, would have enhanced the risk of me being caught by these vicious policemen that I worked with, they would have killed me.

ADV BOOYENS: But Mr Mamasela, whether you put two or three names of victims in your diary of detail or what you did, or fifty, what difference would that have made?

MR MAMASELA: That would have done the world of difference.

ADV BOOYENS: About them killing you?

MR MAMASELA: No, about them killing me, because most of the cases that I was reporting about, are the cases that the very same clients of yours, briefed me about that I must go and work, it was the job that they gave me.

So putting an address or a little name there, I would have said, it is that time that you gave me the instruction to investigate that man, that I put the name here, I mustn't forget. I would have said that.

But if there is 50 or 60, then they would say no, no, something was fishy, they would kill me just like they killed Brian, he was compiling the same thing that I was compiling.

ADV BOOYENS: You say, which one of my clients gave you all that instructions?

MR MAMASELA: I said some of the clients that you are representing, the Police, you are representing the Police, I said some of them were giving me instructions.

You are representing the Police and as you stand there, I see a symbol of a police representative, not individuals.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I thought you were suggesting that - I actually don't represent the Police, I represent certain individuals. You are not suggesting that you received instructions from the individuals that I represent?

MR MAMASELA: Not individuals, those individuals were the Police, they were members of the Police. The very same unique click that went about killing people.

ADV BOOYENS: So you are actually talking about instructions that you received from people like De Kock and so on?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Oh, I understand.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, the Police.

CHAIRPERSON: In a view minutes' time I am going to insist that we come back to Pebco matters and stick to it.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV BOOYENS: Since 1985 you were making notes in a diary, for what purpose?

MR MAMASELA: For the simple purpose of being loyal to myself like I told you. I wanted to compile those names so that one day when I die, when I die I had the duty to my family and to my children to emancipate their names, to exonerate them from all the dirty acts that I was involved in.

That my wife and my child one day could take all those pieces and say this is what my father did, he did those things under duress. He was tortured, he was whatever, he was threatened with death and this is why he did it. I did not do it for a specific reason because I did not know that one day I will be liberated as I am today.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's deal very briefly with those occasions that you told lies to various people.

There was what was called the McNally Commission that was established, do you remember that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You told lies to that Commission?

MR MAMASELA: Some of your Police applicants told me to lie, like Herman du Plessis, Van Rensburg and others, they told me to lie and I lied.

Your clients told me to lie, and I lied.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Mamasela, you also lied to the Harms Commission, you can just say yes ...

MR MAMASELA: Your clients again told me to lie, I lied.

ADV BOOYENS: You also as we dealt with yesterday, told lies to the IBI, Independent Board of Inquiry?

MR MAMASELA: Dirk Coetzee told them lies and then I merely confirmed what Dirk Coetzee said.

ADV BOOYENS: But Dirk Coetzee wasn't a policeman at that stage any more?

MR MAMASELA: He was a former policeman just like some of your clients are former policemen.

ADV BOOYENS: Are you seriously suggesting that just because a former policeman told you to lie, you lied Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I lied. It was a norm in the Police Force to tell black people to lie, and we had to lie. If you don't lie, you get killed.

ADV BOOYENS: But this IBI meeting was a meeting held after 1994?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Joe Mhlanhla was Deputy Chief of the National Intelligence Service, Dirk Coetzee had just returned from exile, you have retired from the Police Force, now can I just - you have just explained to me why against that background you still had to lie when Dirk Coetzee told you to lie?

MR MAMASELA: Let me tell you something. Dirk Coetzee came to me, pleading with me that the ANC is leaving him in the large because he went in exile for four years, he suffered under the yoke of the ANC and now that he is back, the ANC left him in the large because everybody in the ANC was now involved in the government structures.

He was the only one left at this time. I felt pitiful for the poor man, he wanted to go and earn a living, an honest living. Then he said I am going to Joe Mhlanhla that is a stumbling block, I am going to say he is an informer, can you collaborate that? I said no Dirk, because I also want to use the IBI to inform the President that I am ready to stand up to tell the truth, then we can go together.

When he was there, he talked his lies, his whatever, he talked to the people there. They asked my briefly as to whether I know about this, I said no, I think I know about incidents where Engelbrecht was working hand in hand with Joe Mhlanhla, but I don't know whether he was an informer or not.

And if that makes me a liar, I am proud to have been a liar, to have save Dirk Coetzee's plight.

ADV BOOYENS: My Lord, I am going to refer to - this appears at page 60 of that portion of the record you've got - I am sorry that is just the part of the trial in Durban. It is typed written 360, but it won't, I've only selected certain pages.

What appeared in the Durban trial about this, is that you were not really worried what harm you could do to Mr Mhlanhla by telling the story, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: No, not telling the story. I was not telling the story, I confirmed what Dirk Coetzee was saying. It is Dirk Coetzee who was telling the story, not Mamasela. Now you shifted the whole thing to Mamasela, because you wanted to get your clients free at all cost.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Mamasela, the point is that if I tell a lie and you say yes, that is correct.

MR MAMASELA: I am a liar, and you are not a liar.

ADV BOOYENS: Then both of us are liars, not so?

MR MAMASELA: No, in that case it was Mamasela who was a liar, not Dirk Coetzee, in Durban.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am not talking about Durban. I am talking about Joe Mhlanhla. You say Dirk Coetzee told the story that Joe Mhlanhla was an informer?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And you confirmed it?

MR MAMASELA: No, he told me to confirm it and then I said, I think I didn't confirm it fully, I said I think I saw him working with General Krappies Engelbrecht. I don't know whether he is an informer or not, because I could not prove it. If the IBS had proved it, I couldn't prove it.

I said I think so. Dirk Coetzee was the one making the allegation, I said I think so. I did not commit myself, and if that makes me a liar, then I am a proud liar then.

ADV BOOYENS: Because you see one of the questions they asked you and that is about page 60, line 26 about, My Lord, it didn't bother you to make a completely false allegation about a man that was completely innocent?

To save a friend's life I will do that, and that was in context of the story of Mhlanhla?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I said, like now, I am repeating. I said Dirk formulated these lies for himself. He is the founder, he is the architect of those lies, and then I said I think, I am not sure, but I think I saw him with General Engelbrecht, and indeed I did see Mhlanhla with General Engelbrecht.

If that is a lie, I don't know. But I did not know whether they were working together as informers, that is what I told the IBA. I didn't say Mhlanhla is an informer.

You changed the whole thing and you threw it back to me, and you said Mr Mamasela, you lied and you didn't say Dirk Coetzee was lying, and I was confined by the Judge who say Mr Mamasela, please confine yourself to yes or no.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Mamasela, I think I am not going to go through the entire record here, but if one looks at what transpired at page 360, 361, 362 and 363 I think you went a lot further there than what you are prepared to go now, but let's leave that.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you leave it, where is that for what it is worth IBI thing, IBI document? Is there something on the IBI minutes, I know the accuracy of the minutes are being disputed by Mr Mamasela, but I just want to know whether there is reference to this?

ADV BOOYENS: Can my Attorney just look for it in the mean time Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: ... because yesterday the Commission indicated it wasn't too interested in it, because it was ... I can tell you off hand what it basically, there is a reference to the allegation by Mr Mamasela that mr Mhlanhla was a Police informer, but we will find it, it will be somewhere.

Be that as it may Mr Mamasela. Do you remember where we did an exercise in Durban where you identified a number of lies in that IBI document, and you didn't say those were lies told by Coetzee. You in fact said no, that was a lie, that was a lie, do you remember that? It appears from the record?

MR MAMASELA: No, I initially told you that that is Dirk Coetzee's statement and I merely confirmed some of the things. You are the one that gave me the document and said select what is lies and what is not lies, and I said - I didn't select it, I didn't point it out what I think was irrelevant and what I think was relevant. That is all I said.

But the dispute was, I even, it is on record in that court case that I said that this was Dirk Coetzee's story and I even said it was Dirk Coetzee talking, it was not a formal meeting, it was an informal sort of a meeting, that is what I said.

And you insisted that it was me who said that.

ADV BOOYENS: You also said in Durban that the things you sometimes said, contained exaggeration, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: I said the statement that (indistinct) said I must do the documentary, there are some little bit exaggerations there, because he wanted to captivate the minds of his audience, that is why he returned the initial visual material and he wanted us to make the new ones, that is what I said, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. Now, you also said in Durban that you've got no compunction about lying if you are not under oath, do you remember that?

MR MAMASELA: No, not compunction about lies. I didn't use that word.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Mamasela, I am not suggesting I am using your exact words. Did you say that or didn't you?

MR MAMASELA: No, compunction I didn't use it.

ADV BOOYENS: I didn't say you used compunction.

MR MAMASELA: No, wait a minute. I said if you discuss, if you talk generally you are not under oath, you are discussing. It is human nature that sometimes we talk little lies. I even said that sometimes we will tell our own children little lies, to make them happy and if that makes me a liar, a compulsive liar, so be it. To me it is true, we all do it sometimes.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 352, the question was, line 24, so if you are not under oath, you would lie and your answer was I will lie, because I have nothing to lose.

MR MAMASELA: No, yes, but in that light I actually elaborated. I said, I even explained to the Court why I say so. I said normally when we just talk and there is nothing like taking an oath or a serious matter, we normally lie. You cannot tell me all your life, you never told a lie, because you whites believe white people don't lie, they only tell a white lie. White people don't steal, they only do white collar crime, and that is a myth, that is a lie.

ADV BOOYENS: In fact you went further, and you also said at page 352 that you also told, I was referring to Exhibit R which was this document, and you said that it contained half truths and half lies?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is propaganda.

ADV BOOYENS: I beg your pardon?

MR MAMASELA: That is propaganda, half truths, half lies, that is propaganda.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, let's carry on. You also didn't quite trust this independent Board of Inquiry you told us yesterday?

MR MAMASELA: No definitely, it was an ANC selected committee to investigate violation of human rights and whilst, because I had already fallen favour with the ANC, I could not trust again their organ, but I could still use it if possible, to get protection from the government so that I could tell my truth, that is the purpose why I wanted to use it.

ADV BOOYENS: You said yesterday that the reason why Coetzee wanted you to tell a lie, was because Coetzee wanted the job of Commissioner of Police?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is what he told me. He was targeting that post.

ADV BOOYENS: So it wasn't, the intention wasn't that Coetzee could get Mhlanhla's job, not so?

MR MAMASELA: To the best of my knowledge, no. He even sent a telegram to Jacob Zuma asking him about that post. Jacob Zuma must use his muscle, so that Dirk Coetzee could get that high post.

ADV BOOYENS: I just want to read to you, My Lord, I am sorry, this is one of the pages which I see has not been duplicated from the original record. I will make it available, it is from page 379.

You said the following: Yes, so what you are saying is Coetzee, you won't have that Mamasela, I apologise, I've got the original record here.

MR MAMASELA: No, I didn't say I have it.

ADV BOOYENS: No, you haven't got page 379.

MR MAMASELA: No, I haven't got it.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, so what you are saying is Coetzee told you, accused 1, because remember Coetzee was accused 1, told you that Joe Mhlanhla hated him, you answer yes, My Lord. And that is why he couldn't get a job in the ANC, yes My Lord.

And you had to tell the ANC that Mhlanhla was actually an informer, your answer, yes, and that is why - yes, we just want the reason. No, that is true My Lord. Logically in other words, get Mhlanhla out of the way and Coetzee can get a job, that is what the accused said, that is a perception.

So the whole purpose was to get Mhlanhla out of the way, that Coetzee can get a job?

MR MAMASELA: No, like I am explaining here. Coetzee saw Mhlanhla as a stumbling block for him to get a Police job, a Commissioner of Police job, not Mhlanhla's job. Coetzee never underwent any Intelligence training to the best of my knowledge, he is just a bobby on the foot type of a policeman.

ADV BOOYENS: Let me just read to you one of the further questions. You never thought that it could prejudice Mhlanhla, now you tell me the whole idea was to get Mhlanhla out of the way? Your answer, not to prejudice, just to remove him so that Dirk Coetzee could get the job, not actually put him out of work. What did that answer mean?

MR MAMASELA: That confirms what I am telling you now.

ADV BOOYENS: That is at page 380 My Lord.

MR MAMASELA: Because you have a perception that Dirk Coetzee wanted Joe Mhlanhla out of his position so that Dirk could be the Chief of Intelligence and that confirms what I am telling you, that Dirk Coetzee saw Mhlanhla as a stumbling block for him to get a Commissioner's job, so he wanted to pave the way for himself so that he can get a job, by labelling Mhlanhla as an informer, because that will give the ANC a feeling that Mhlanhla is not good, then he can directly work with the ANC, through the ANC to get the job, because Mhlanhla was his immediate handler.

In the ANC, in the government we work according to the structures. If one structure is a stumbling block, the only way to remove it according to the ANC, is to make propaganda about him. You know, you label him an informer or anything, and then the other people will take you, and jump him and give you the particular job, that was Dirk Coetzee's strategy, it is not Mamasela's strategy.

I never looked for a job in the ANC government.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Booyens, we've got that evidence under oath. It was given under oath in a trial, it has been handed in except that page and you proposed to hand it in. Isn't that matters for argument? You have got two affidavits, or two sets of evidence that you could ... I don't think we will get any further by arguing it across the floor here.

ADV BOOYENS: If the Commission is happy to accept that this is a genuine excerpt of the evidence the witness has given in the Supreme Court in Durban, I can deal with the ...

ADV DE JAGER: Surely that can be certified or it could be put to the witness whether he agrees that this is a copy of the record?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Mamasela, let's just get one thing clear. You have been given some pages I think, have you got the document that starts at page 188?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And it goes to the last of this, there are two of this, the last one will go to 412? There is a transcript of you and Pauw and then you've got up to, there are various pages, the last one is 412?

ADV DE JAGER: Not referring to Exhibit S.

ADV BOOYENS: I think the documents you've got, Exhibit R and Exhibit S are stapled together, Exhibit R at the back.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I can see it.

ADV BOOYENS: I couldn't hear you sorry.

MR MAMASELA: I said yes, I can see the statements.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you accept that this is an excerpt of the record of the evidence you gave in the Durban Supreme Court?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, but the contents here some of them must be clarified, like I am clarifying them with you now. Because in a court of law, you don't deal with things in detail like we are doing now. In a court of law they just say confine yourself to yes or no, yes or no.

I was oppressed.

ADV BOOYENS: I think we can argue that one as well Mr Mamasela, whether you were oppressed by the Presiding Judge not to speak.

MR MAMASELA: Yes. The court record speaks for themselves, because on several occasions he kept on saying Mr Mamasela, confine yourself to yes or no, confine yourself to yes or no.

ADV BOOYENS: Then, just broadly I want to put it to you Mr Mamasela that as you have exaggerated and lied on so many other occasions, you are exaggerating and lying once again about what happened at Post Chalmers. That is not what happened there.

MR MAMASELA: That is absolutely ridiculous and preposterous to say I have lied and exaggerated. I have told you that I have lied under duress, it is your clients, the Police who told me to lie. If I did not lie, they would kill me.

It was not out of my own volition to do that, so you cannot put the Police's blame back to me, I was their victim.

ADV BOOYENS: I have said to you yesterday that the reason for that is that you have got to make yourself a valuable witness to the Attorney General to stay out of jail?

MR MAMASELA: No, that is a lie, you talked about Section 204. You said I am lying so that I can get Section 205 in a court of law, and I told you that it is not so. You are en example, you can testify for me, you can be here for it.

I said in Durban the Judge said I must come back for Section 204, and I instructed my Attorney to tell him let justice take its course. If justice demands that Mamasela must go to jail for the rest of his life for Apartheid crimes against humanity, of which Mamasela was a victim of, I said so be it.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, that is not putting it exactly correct. What the Judge notified you of is that if the Court considers not to give you indemnity in Section 204, because it is not satisfied with your evidence, you've got an opportunity to place argument before the Court. The Court certainly didn't convey to you that you must come and beg for a 204, but in essence, the bottom line is, yes, that is true, you didn't get Section 204?

MR MAMASELA: And I didn't ask for it, I didn't beg for it. I said let's justice take its course and I am still waiting for the justice to take its course.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Mamasela, today, as you sit there, do you think or where is your loyalty today? Are you loyal to the ANC, are you loyal to the government, what is the position?

MR MAMASELA: I have completely made up my mind in 1992 after the result of the so-called Harms Commission of Inquiry, that I am sick and tired of being loyal to man. I have decided to be loyal to the Almighty God, to give me a chance.

I am not loyal to any politician, let alone any human being. I am loyal to my God. That is where my loyalty lies at the moment.

ADV BOOYENS: And notwithstanding your Christianity, a few years later you were prepared to lie at the IBA?

MR MAMASELA: That was long before I became a Christian.

ADV BOOYENS: I thought you became a Christian in 1992?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: This IBI meeting, this Board meeting was when Joe Mhlanhla was already Chief of the National Intelligence, the Deputy Chief of the National Intelligence. Are you suggesting the National Party appointed Joe Mhlanhla as Deputy Chief of the National Intelligence Service?

MR MAMASELA: No. You are going back to the IBA now. I thought you are asking me about my loyalty now, where does it lie. Not yesterday, not when, but now. I am telling you now, my loyalty lies with my God. Now, you go back to the IBA.

ADV BOOYENS: No, Mr Mamasela, you are the one who told me how you became a Christian in 1992. I want to know how was it compatible with your Christian principles to lie to the Board, the IBI Board meeting after 1994?

MR MAMASELA: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you want to answer that?

MR MAMASELA: Let us not throw smoke screens around, and try to confuse the Commission. Your question was very clear, Mr Mamasela, now, where does your loyalty lie? Mr Mamasela took a stand and said my loyalty lies with my God. I was deceived, I was used like a condom and thrown out by both the white and black politicians, I don't owe them anything.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you understand my question Mr Mamasela, is that your answer to it?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: If the Commission would just bear with me. Mr Mamasela, just one aspect. When you left the Police Force, you were given a golden handshake of some R400 000-00 is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: One hundred percent correct, R400 000-00 plus.

ADV BOOYENS: And that was a large amount of money, not so?

MR MAMASELA: Very huge amount of money.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you think you were being compensated for all the dirty deeds you did for the Apartheid government?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I think it was money to shut my big mouth up, I mustn't talk about those evil deeds.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Mamasela, just one further aspect, you have been holding forth a lot about how badly you feel about black people being oppressed and so on. In Jacques Pauw's latest book he quotes you what you say about the ANC. Where you speak and that is a verbal quotation where you use the most possibly insulting word about black people, a word that I myself shudder to use. What do you say, do you know what I am talking about?

MR MAMASELA: I have heard this comic of Jacques Pauw, I have read it. It is just a comic, nothing else.

ADV BOOYENS: That is the part appearing at page 180, just look there.

MR MAMASELA: You can quote, I know it by my head. I have read this book, I don't want to go back to it. Read yours.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you say that quote by Jacques Pauw is untrue?

MR MAMASELA: Read it for the Commission and for the people, then I will comment.

ADV BOOYENS: No.

MR MAMASELA: If you don't read it, how can I comment about it.

ADV BOOYENS: You've got the book in front of you.

MR MAMASELA: Why are you afraid to read your book.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, very well, if the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, the choice is yours, if you want to read the book, you can read the book. If you want to ask the witness to read the book, you can put the question to the witness and ask him to read the book if he has a copy.

ADV BOOYENS: You have a copy in front of you, that third paragraph, what are you quoted by Jacques Pauw as allegedly saying? Read it.

MR MAMASELA: Read it yourself.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, you've got a copy of the book.

MR MAMASELA: No, I have a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are a witness and the counsel is asking you to read that book. Just read it please so that we can make progress.

MR MAMASELA: Read it loud?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please.

MR MAMASELA: Where he says I have spent many hours with Joe Mamasela, he is lying, he didn't spend many hours with me and never have I detected a shred of remorse for anything he has done. That is Jacques Pauw's feeling, I cannot answer for him on this point.

ADV BOOYENS: Read the paragraph.

MR MAMASELA: He spoke of ways of making money and will talk about the ANC as stupid kaffirs. This is what he says, who don't have a chance in hell of ever getting at him, that is pure rubbish and Jacques Pauw knows it. The reason why he is writing this is to try like you are trying to do now, to put a wedge between me and my people.

He is trying to do exactly that. And it was after I have testified in a court of law in Durban when I said he is just a cheap journalist, so he is hitting back at me by using again black people against me, and tomorrow as a white media he is going to write that when we start killing each other as black people, and saying it is black on black violence, it is typical of whites through unscrupulous people like Jacques Pauw.

ADV BOOYENS: So in essence your answer is you never said that to Jacques Pauw?

MR MAMASELA: That is rubbish, that is what I say.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you, just to clear up one further thing, did you ever go back to Post Chalmers to do pointings out?

MR MAMASELA: When?

ADV BOOYENS: To the place, that is the place where the people were killed, did you ever go back there?

MR MAMASELA: I went with the Special Investigation team of the Attorney General, that was the first and the last time I ever went there, I never went there again.

ADV BOOYENS: Can you remember when?

MR MAMASELA: I think it is probably on the 21st of the 10th month of 1995, if I am not mistaken.

ADV BOOYENS: Can you remember who you went with?

MR MAMASELA: I went with a guy called Warrant Officer Ellis and Captain, the one who wrote my statement, the one who said he is here, he is available.

ADV BOOYENS: I think you said you think it is De Lange.

MR MAMASELA: De Lange, you said he is available. I went with him and there was another Port Elizabeth chap who is now working, a Security chap, who is now working with the Attorney General, we were three. I don't know his name, but he is somewhere around, I saw him some time yesterday.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman and Mr Mamasela, just for the record, I appear in this matter on behalf of Warrant Officer Beeslaar, whose application is before this Committee. I have also appeared in a previous hearing on behalf of Colonel Roelf Venter and I also appear on behalf of Brigadier Jack Cronje who was the Commanding Officer at Vlakplaas when the Pebco 3 matter happened.

Mr Mamasela, where does your loyalty lie today? With whom?

MR MAMASELA: With my God.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And these people down there, are they your people?

MR MAMASELA: I don't own any human being.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking ...

MR MAMASELA: It is only God who owns us here, not me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You said just now your people, do you regard these people as your people?

MR MAMASELA: As my folks yes, like in your folks with AWB.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So these people are your people?

MR MAMASELA: They are my folks, they are black people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you think they like you?

MR MAMASELA: I don't think so, I know they like me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you can hear they say yes, yes, yes.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, they can stand up, those who like Mamasela, stand up. They can stand up.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, you must not address yourself to the public.

MR MAMASELA: I am sorry Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I am the Chairman of these proceedings, if you have requests to make, if you want that exercise to be part of the proceedings, you must direct your request to the Chair and the Chair will deal with it and if necessary, ask the people to do that.

MR MAMASELA: Thanks Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Please don't do that.

MR MAMASELA: No, thanks Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, Mr Mamasela, are you loyal to any political organisation today?

MR MAMASELA: I think we are repeating this thing as a broken gramophone record. I have told you I am not loyal to any politician black and white. They abused me, I am loyal to my God.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Are you loyal to South Africa?

MR MAMASELA: I am loyal to my God.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you loyal to the new South Africa?

MR MAMASELA: Loyal to my God.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, then I accept that you are not loyal to the new South Africa. Are you loyal to the open democracy that we have?

MR MAMASELA: I don't know what you mean by that, I am loyal to my God. I can abide by the rules of the government, I can abide by it, that doesn't make me loyal. I just abide by the rules, I've got to respect those rules.

But I am loyal, loyal is something more than abiding. Loyal, your loyalty is something very sacred, I am loyal to my God. I cannot be loyal to you or to any politician.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, let me ask you this. Are you in favour of an open democracy with an open constitution as we have in South Africa today?

MR MAMASELA: It depends on what you call open democracy.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, just answer my question. You know what South Africa is today, we have a constitution we're a democracy, are you in favour of that or not?

MR MAMASELA: No, let us not play with words. I don't want to commit myself with something I don't know. Democracy is just a wide word, it can mean a lot of things for a lot of people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, I understand you correctly, you don't have any political views today, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: I don't have any political loyalty.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you do you have any political views today or not, Mr Mamasela, yes or no?

MR MAMASELA: I don't care about politics any more.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right. So today you are not interested in politics?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: At the beginning you were interested in liberation politics, ANC politics, in 1977 is that right?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that stems largely from my own personal experience as a black person in this country who was oppressed by the people answering to description.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and then from 1981 to 1993, twelve years Mr Mamasela, you were part of the Security Police in South Africa, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: I was made part of, I was not part of, I was made part of against my will, against my political conviction.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, we will get to that.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: We will get to that.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Against your political conviction?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What was your political conviction then at that time?

MR MAMASELA: My political conviction at that time lay entirely with my organisation, the African National Congress.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Your organisation the African National Congress?

MR MAMASELA: My organisation full stop.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that still today your organisation?

MR MAMASELA: No, it is no longer my organisation because they sold me out on the Boers on a silver platter, and then they left me out to wallow in the filth of my own dung like a pig.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mamasela, they sold you out before you became part of the Security Police. Was the ANC your organisation between 1981 and 1993?

MR MAMASELA: No, that is when they sold me out. They sold me out in 1979 in June. How can they be part of my organisation when they sold me out?

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, so you weren't part of the ANC, you weren't supportive of the ANC during that period, am I right?

MR MAMASELA: No, I was not.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You were not?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then in 1993 you became a Christian?

MR MAMASELA: No, in 1992.

ADV DU PLESSIS: 1992?

MR MAMASELA: I became a born again Christian, not just a Christian.

ADV DU PLESSIS: A born again Christian?

MR MAMASELA: Born again, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Before that you were not a Christian at all?

MR MAMASELA: I don't know what you are driving at, because I have been a Catholic when I was a small baby, up to the time that I realised what Catholism is all about.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Then you changed?

MR MAMASELA: Then I left Christianity because I knew this country of ours was taken through the Bible, the missionaries, they robbed us of our land through the Bible. They said we must close our eyes and pray and they robbed us blind.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mamasela, we are not interested in political statements, I want to know from you, you were a Catholic and then you changed, is that right, then you were not a Christian any more, you didn't have any faith?

MR MAMASELA: This Commission is about politics.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, no, Mr Mamasela, just answer my question.

MR MAMASELA: It is about gross human rights' abuses, about politics. Politics are part and parcel of this Commission.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Just answer my question Mr Mamasela, you were a Catholic and then you changed and you were no more a Catholic, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then you changed in 1992 and you became a Christian, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I became a born again.

ADV DU PLESSIS: A born again Christian?

MR MAMASELA: A born again Christian.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And first in the 1970's you were part of the ANC, then you changed and you became disillusioned with the ANC and you became part of the Security Police, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: No, I did not become part of the Security Police, I was coerced forcefully by the Security Police to be part of them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I know you said that. And then in 1993, you came forward with your story?

MR MAMASELA: Which story?

ADV DU PLESSIS: You left the South African Police and when did you come forward, 1993, 1994, you came forward with your story, you went to the press, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: No, I came out with the truth, not my story.

Everything that I came out with, became true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And why did you do that Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: I did it because I owed it to the victims, not the ANC, not the Nationalist Party, but the victims. I owe it to this people to tell the truth, and I am proud of what I have done.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, all right you waited from 1985 to 1994 to come out with that, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: There was no way I could have come out in 1985, because you know as a white person of this country, what would have happened to me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And as I understand you correctly now Mr Mamasela, you were disillusioned with the ANC during the time you were in the Security Police and then when did you change and become totally apolitical? When did that happen?

MR MAMASELA: That happened the very same time that the ANC sold me out on a silver platter and when I went to them to inform them they grabbed my brother and they murdered him in the most cruellest fashion. My brother is the first necklace victim of the African National Congress in 1981, in June in Botswana.

I had to identify his charred, semi-decomposed remains.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, we are not going into that detail Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: I am going into that because it is very important to me. You asked me what changed my mind, my heart, I am telling you what changed my heart, now you are saying you are not going there any more.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You've gone into that detail Mr Mamasela, please just answer my questions. I am asking you about the change of heart you are having throughout your whole life.

MR MAMASELA: I am telling you about the change, that is when the change came.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: So why do you say we can't go into that again?

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then suddenly you had this urge to come forward with everything that you wanted, when you saw that the political dispensation in this country was going to change, isn't that so?

MR MAMASELA: Don't put words into my mouth.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, no, come explain that to us.

MR MAMASELA: No, wait a moment, let me explain. Don't try to throw smoke screens here and confuse the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Du Plessis, just repeat that question again, I didn't follow it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Mr Mamasela, so you decided to come out with the truth in 1993, 1994 just when you saw that the political dispensation is going to change again, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: That is absolutely incorrect and stupid.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So why did you come out then?

MR MAMASELA: Let me tell you something. I started in 1985 with the process of self-cleansing, I started with that process in 1985, it is about almost 14 years ago because I started compiling a diary in 1985.

1985 there was no thinking whatsoever, even in your mind that South Africa will be run by a black government, that is when I started in earnest.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think the question refers not so much to the compilation of the record of events, but to the disclosure.

MR MAMASELA: To the disclosures?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I compiled my diary in 1985 and when this flicker of hope started to come about, this is now Mandela being released from jail and whatever, my wish and my hope as a black person in this country, was enhanced, and when in 1993, when they gave me the package to leave the Police Force, I was blessed, I was happy because I had already embarked on a noble course that will expose this rot once and for all.

But the process started in 1985, not the way he says as if I was a political opportunist when the ANC comes into power, then I jumped up and said I want to tell the truth, no it is not the way he puts it.

It is not like the way he put it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, must we accept that it is then simply coincidental that you came out with it just before the political dispensation changed, is that just coincidental?

MR MAMASELA: It is not coincidental, the process started in 1985 in earnest. It was completed in 1993 when I got my package from the Police.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Mamasela, the Harms Commission started to probe hit squads in 1990, there was the Goldstone Commission thereafter, there was plenty of time to come out with that at that time. You only came out just before you saw the political dispensation was going to change, Mr Mamasela, I am putting that to you.

MR MAMASELA: Your statement is laughable and ridiculous and it is something that you suck from your own thumb, because the truth of the matter is Brian Mlunga tried to come out taking advantage of the Harms Commission and what happened to him? He was my fellow witness, he was my fellow ascari, he was murdered just shortly after the Harms Commission, after he gave evidence there he was murdered by the same policemen.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You say he also compiled a dossier like you and he also wanted to discredit the South African Police, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I call you as a witness Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: Call me as a witness, I will refuse.

ADV DU PLESSIS: When we testify about Brian Mlunga before the TRC.

MR MAMASELA: I will refuse, if you call me as a witness I will refuse.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why?

MR MAMASELA: I don't testify for policemen, for lawyers representing a corrupt and murderous policemen. I don't want to be part and parcel of you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You only want to speak the truth Mr Mamasela, is that right.

MR MAMASELA: I don't want to be part and parcel of your entourage. You specialise in police cases. You never represent a single political black leader and (indistinct), always you, I know you Mr Du Plessis, you always represent policemen, corrupt policemen and you make money out of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, we do not allow that kind of language and I am going to ask you to withdraw that last sentence you made that Mr Du Plessis is an unscrupulous lawyer, will you please withdraw that.

MR MAMASELA: With due respect Mr Chairman, I am sorry, I was very much emotional because you can see he is provoking me, but I wish to withdraw that unconditionally.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Mamasela, you have just illustrated a point I am going to make which I will argue, and that is that out of your own self interest you will change your opinion every time, easily.

MR MAMASELA: Not out of my own interest, but I have been asked by the Chairman, and I respect him, it is not my opinion.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes.

MR MAMASELA: If he want to get my opinion, I wouldn't have changed that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, I accept your apology. Mr Mamasela ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, could this be a convenient time to adjourn, you know we started nine o'clock, maybe we should adjourn now at quarter to eleven, until eleven o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION

JOE MAMASELA: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: (continued) Mr Mamasela, how do you feel about Marques Skosana?

MR MAMASELA: Who is Marques Skosana?

ADV DU PLESSIS: You don't know who Marques Skosana is?

MR MAMASELA: And what is she to you?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking how do you feel about Marques Skosana or don't you feel anything about her?

MR MAMASELA: No, you can't say how I feel about Marques Skosana out of the blue, who is Marques Skosana and what is her relationship to me in this case, at this Commission?

ADV DU PLESSIS: You know exactly who Marques Skosana is, why don't you tell the people down there, your people?

MR MAMASELA: What?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Who is Marques Skosana?

MR MAMASELA: I don't know, I don't know who is marques Skosana.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell him who she is.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, when you were involved in the zero hand grenade incident, do you remember that incident?

MR MAMASELA: I remember that incident very well.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And by the way let me very shortly tell your people down there, you haven't told them yet, and they probably don't know, that operation entailed that you went to certain activists, you gave them hand grenades, these activists, these hand grenades were booby trapped, they were to use the hand grenades against policemen's houses and all of them blew themselves up, except one who did not use his hand grenade. Not all of them were killed, but a lot of them were injured, some of them were killed, that is what you did Mr Mamasela, am I right?

MR MAMASELA: What does that have to do with Marques Skosana?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you.

MR MAMASELA: I am still waiting for Marques Skosana.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am coming to Marques Skosana.

MR MAMASELA: I have admitted to that a long time ago.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, do you agree with what I am saying, that is what you did, tell you people that that is what you did.

MR MAMASELA: Oh, shiver my timbers, goodness gracious me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: How many activists were you involved in that you gave booby trapped hand grenades who killed themselves in that incident?

MR MAMASELA: I did not count them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: I did not count them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but there were a few that were killed, is that not so?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, through the instructions of your applications, your clients.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and for how long did you operate in that black area before the operation took place when you gathered information, for how long?

MR MAMASELA: Plus minus, two weeks.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Plus minus two weeks?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And which white policemen operated with you in that black area then?

MR MAMASELA: In that black area, there was no white policeman operating in that black area, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, what is the relevance of this, what is the point that you are making?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the point I am trying to make, I am coming to the question of him being forced to take certain actions, and I am coming to the point if you will just bear with me.

CHAIRPERSON: I am getting the impression that you are now dealing with that incident now?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, no, I am not going to go into the detail of that incident Mr Chairman, I promise you. Neither will I go into the detail of other incidents.

Mr Mamasela, so you operated alone in that township for two weeks?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, but every evening we had to go back to our white bosses to give them report backs.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you had contact with all these major activists and ANC people in that area, isn't that so?

MR MAMASELA: Now, you are lying, the ANC was a banned organisation at that time.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but you had contact with people who were involved in liberation movements, who were involved, who were activists.

MR MAMASELA: They were not ANC, they were COSAS, they were students.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: We are talking about students here.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am just trying to make the point you operated alone for two weeks, do you agree with me?

MR MAMASELA: Not alone, with other Security Forces and other ascaris.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Who were the other ascaris there?

MR MAMASELA: No, I told you Daniel Ngala was one of them, Thebigo, no, no.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You said just now Mr Mamasela, you operated alone for two weeks.

MR MAMASELA: No, you are lying.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You know as well as I do.

MR MAMASELA: How can I work alone infiltrating a massive organisation alone?

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Du Plessis, just for my clarity. Is it your contention that he was not coerced to be involved in that particular incident?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, my contention is that he freely and voluntarily operated in that, participated in that operation and I am coming to other operations as well in respect of which he freely and voluntarily participated. That is the point I am trying to make.

While we are dealing with that Mr Mamasela, let's deal with the KwaNdabele 9 matter.

MR MAMASELA: No, you are at Marques Skosana, now you are jumping to KwaNdabele 9, come to Marques Skosana, I am waiting.

ADV DU PLESSIS: We will come back to Marques Skosana.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, just tell the Commission that you had no facts about Marques Skosana.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right.

MR MAMASELA: You know nothing about Marques Skosana.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right.

MR MAMASELA: And let me tell you who this Marques Skosana ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, you know who the girl was who participated or who went with you when you gave the hand grenades to the activists, you know who she was?

MR MAMASELA: You see, I wanted you to come there because you know what you are saying is a blatant lie. And I am sorry to say it, because there was no girl that was operating with the Security Forces, we never operated with women other than ANC guerillas.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, but Mr Mamasela, I never said she operated with the Security Forces, she went with you because she thought you were a revolutionary, she thought you were an activist. You were participating in this big plan.

MR MAMASELA: You are a liar. You are a liar. You are a blatant liar, there is nothing like that. We never went with Marques Skosana, I never even knew Marques Skosana unless other than what I have read in the press, other wise if I knew Marques Skosana I would have come out like I came out with 40 murders before this Commission and other Commissions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, by the way, I say Mamasela but is it Mamasela or Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: No, no, it is Mamasela, but normally it is Mamasela.

CHAIRPERSON: The correct way is Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: The correct way is Mamasela.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, I am going to call it the correct way.

MR MAMASELA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You must guard against prefacing your answers, if you know what I mean, with some statements.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Like you are a liar, I have been waiting for that. You know, those sort of statements do not, they are not evidence at all and they do not assist us.

MR MAMASELA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give you answers straight and say for example if the question is whether you had gone there with Marques Skosana you must say, no I did not go with her for instance, try to do that please.

MR MAMASELA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And another thing is, we know, like I've said before, we know that we are dealing with incidents which when discussed or spoken about excite many people, and I think that you should try not to be unduly excited in your answers, you must exercise some restraint.

MR MAMASELA: I will try to contain myself Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: These are remote issues that we are dealing with here.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now you see Mr Mamasela, except for Mr Sandi here, the two other members of this Committee has heard specific evidence in the amnesty applications of some of my clients in respect of the zero hand grenade incidents by one of the victims who testified specifically that Marques Skosana accompanied you when you gave the hand grenades to the youths and that eventually she was identified because these youths were blown up by the hand grenades, she was identified as being a police informer and she was necklaced by a crowd in a black area with a tyre and petrol poured over her and that was taken on video and that video was shown world wide.

Do you say that person lied before this Commission?

MR MAMASELA: That is absolutely untrue, to the best of my recollection we never operated with a single woman in that operation, and that is the truth.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you deny that you had a relationship with Marques Skosana?

MR MAMASELA: What kind of relationship are you talking about now?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Any kind of relationship?

MR MAMASELA: No, I have told the Commission I had nothing, we had nothing to do with Marques Skosana. I've got witnesses who were with us there, Daniel Ngala was there, Thebigo was there, all of them ascaris. There was no Marques Skosana there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And these people who were given the zero hand grenades, these booby trapped hand grenades, didn't you say to them before you gave them the hand grenades, listen don't use this hand grenade because you are going to be blown up?

MR MAMASELA: They were never trained by me, I was never, I never received explosive training from the African National Congress, I received Intelligence training, which had nothing to do wit hand grenades.

They were trained by, that is why Daniel Ngala was incorporated in my team, they were trained by Daniel Ngala, he is the one who gave them instructions.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, just listen to my question I am going to ask you the question again. When you gave the booby trapped hand grenades to these innocent young activists, to these innocent young activists, like the sons and daughters of your people who are sitting here, these booby trapped hand grenades, why didn't you warn these people and say to them, listen this thing is going to blow up in your face when you use it?

MR MAMASELA: Warning them, was a guarantee to my death at that stage, because there were other ascaris with me. There were other police operatives with me, I couldn't warn everybody, unfortunately. There are those that I warned, like Dr Ribeiro, I warned him, and he did not heed my warning, and he got killed. I've got evidence, I've got people in the ANC who can attest to this.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you warn Dr Ribeiro?

MR MAMASELA: I warned Dr Ribeiro, I warned the Commander of APLA, Tsoba, who was killed in Atteridgeville, and he never heeded my warnings, and they paid the ultimate penalty.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you were involved in the planning of the Ribeiro incident?

MR MAMASELA: Obviously, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: It is a fact, I was involved.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is why I warned him.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, thank you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, the KwaNdabele 9 incident, do you remember that?

MR MAMASELA: Very well, vividly.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, let's tell your people down there quickly what happened there.

MR MAMASELA: My people had nothing to do with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment. What do you mean tell the people what happened, why should we tell this people about an incident which they are not involved?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I want to make the statement about the evidence that was led before yourself and Mr De Jager about that incident, so that I can set the factual basis to ask Mr Mamasela certain questions about that incident.

Maybe I should rephrase the question and do it differently.

CHAIRPERSON: I am just saying that we must not play to the audience.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am not trying to play to the audience Mr Chairman.

Mr Mamasela, in that incident you were sent to determine exactly which youths were willing to go outside the borders of the country to get military training, am I correct?

MR MAMASELA: You are not correct. You are not correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, let me just carry on. Then you operated in Mamelodi and the surrounding areas and some youths volunteered to go for military training outside the borders of the country, to you, they volunteered to you?

MR MAMASELA: Are you no longer in KwaNdabele, are you now in Mamelodi?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mamelodi and KwaNdabele.

MR MAMASELA: Those are two separate incidents. If your clients misled you, then don't blame me, blame them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you involved in the KwaNdabele 9 incident?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I was involved. And the KwaNdabele 9 has nothing to do with Mamelodi.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you operate alone when these youths contacted you to go outside the country to get military training?

MR MAMASELA: I was not alone, I was always with black policemen.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Who?

MR MAMASELA: Constable Mbata, he was an ascari like myself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mbata, was he always with you?

MR MAMASELA: He was always with me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Because you see the evidence was led that you operated alone.

MR MAMASELA: That is false evidence.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. And Mr Mamasela, during that period when Mbata was with you, didn't you have a chance of leaving the country or disappearing?

MR MAMASELA: No, leaving the country to where?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Outside in exile.

MR MAMASELA: Where in exile?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Go to the ANC, you were forced now to be part of the Security Police?

MR MAMASELA: The ANC would kill me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why?

MR MAMASELA: They killed my brother, the same way as they killed my brother they would kill me.

How can I go to the people who killed my brother and seek refuge from them?

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, now explain to us how you were forced to stay in the Security Police, exactly how were you forced?

MR MAMASELA: Let me tell you something. The Security Police, they had their own devious ways of operating like all other Security Forces internationally.

We were not policemen, we were captured - we were captured and so-called turned ANC members and we were labelled because South Africa at that time was an Apartheid regime. There were no designatories of the Geneva protocol, they never recognised the prisoners of war as prisoners of war.

Then they called us ascaris, we were captured, I was a captured freedom fighter. So they had to make sure that I don't go back to the ANC, they used to call that the burning of the bridges. If they capture you, they use you as Mr X, Mr Y, Mr P in a political trial and they know that you send people, the ANC cadres to jail, your own Commanders to jail, they will smuggle letters and they will tell the ANC that you Mr X, Mr Y in jail.

In my case, Dirk Coetzee, on the 26th of November 1981 he took me to the ANC house in Botswana to conduct a raid. In that raid, whilst we were just about to shoot this women, he is the one who pushed me aside and emptied his automatic sub-machine gun on the walls and he left this woman to come Joyce (indistinct) to come and tell the story that they saw Mamasela and a white policeman attacking her.

So that is what I call the burning of the bridges. So Joyce survived and she told the ANC that Mamasela was here with the Boers to attack me. There was no way I could have gone back to the ANC, my bridges were burnt.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, I don't necessarily agree with you. I just want to put to you ...

MR MAMASELA: You don't have to agree with me, you have to listen to what I am telling you, because I was there, I am the wearer of the shoe, I know precisely where it pinches.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, if you will just answer my questions, we won't take so long.

What I want to put to you is you were involved in cross-border operations as well with Brigadier Jack Cronje?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you agree?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I agree.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Zweli Nyanda?

MR MAMASELA: No, I was not in the murder of Zweli Nyanda.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you not in the matter of Zweli Nyanda?

MR MAMASELA: No, I was not in that one.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, did you receive any money after operations?

MR MAMASELA: Which operations are you talking about?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Any undercover operations as part of the Security Police?

MR MAMASELA: There was no guarantee that after every operation you receive money.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you did you receive money after operations?

MR MAMASELA: No, some operations yes, some operations we received nothing. It was not a guaranteed thing that, a standing order, that you receive money for every operation, I would have been a multi-millionaire by now if that was the case.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But you admit that you in certain instances then, received money is that right?

MR MAMASELA: Like in Mxenge, after three months we were given R1 000-00 each and we never expected it, we were never promised money. We were never incited by money, we were never.

Your Commanders from time to time, they will decide whether they give us some incentives or not. It was not a standing order.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see on page 229 of Exhibit S, you testified before you do anything, the Police don't promise you money and you don't even know whether you do it for money, it is after the job is done, that sometimes you are given money.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is what I am saying.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Then you were asked, you knew there might be a chance of getting money, and you said yes, we knew.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, like I am saying now. It is precisely what I am saying, it confirms what I said. We did not know, sometimes we get, sometimes we did not get.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, I was informed that you could not wait after every operation, to get your money. Is that right?

MR MAMASELA: Oh, those who told you, they nicely informed you, and you are excelling with irrelevance.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What is further Mr Mamasela, in this book of Jacques Pauw, the book's name is Into the Heart of Darkness Confessions of Apartheid's Assassins, it is stated there that you testified every month I was earning between R30 000-00 and R40 000-00?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, from whom?

ADV DU PLESSIS: From the Security Police?

MR MAMASELA: That is a blatant lie, you must read well there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes?

MR MAMASELA: Or you must go and ask Jacques Pauw.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Where did you get the money from?

MR MAMASELA: I invested the money, the package money I invested in the Sutherland Sugar Company, I was getting between R30 000-00 and R40 000-00 a month, that is what I sacrificed to be where I am today.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And Mr Mamasela, isn't it also true that you were paid money by the Security Police to keep your mouth shut?

MR MAMASELA: Which money, are you talking about the golden handshake? The golden package?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, I am not talking of the golden handshake, I am talking of before that.

MR MAMASELA: Then you must specify which money we are talking about.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking if you were paid money to keep your mouth shut?

MR MAMASELA: No, except the golden handshake that I got.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mamasela, you did not stay in the Security Police for 12 years by force and involuntarily. Do you know why you stayed there, you stayed there for the money?

MR MAMASELA: That is a lie, it is not true. It cannot be true. I was earning at first R255-00 a month, can I stay in the Police Force for that peanuts, for that chicken feed?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mamasela, you testified that you have now a loyalty to yourself?

MR MAMASELA: To my God.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, you testified to yourself?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, to myself and my God.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. And you have this moral obligation to disclose dastardly deeds of the ANC and the National Party?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Which dastardly deeds of the ANC did you disclose?

MR MAMASELA: The killing, the brutal killing of my brother whom I referred to as the first necklace victim, official necklace victim of the African National Congress. That is what I disclosed.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now, Mr Mamasela, in this book of Jacques Pauw on page 179 it is stated there that you had to be paid excessive amounts to keep your mouth shut. You received amounts of R18 000-00, R23 000-00, R25 000-00, R27 000-00, he got a State vehicle, we had to pay his children's private school fees and install additional security at his house.

Do you deny that?

MR MAMASELA: No, let me tell you something. Like I have described Jacques Pauw here as a cheap sensationalist, even in the Durban court I have described him like that, he is trying to hit back at me, that is a blatant lie, he knows.

The money that I got there was R18 000-00 for the recovery of three AK47's in (indistinct) and the arrest of the people carrying it, that is R18 000-00.

That is the only true figure there, the rest, R25 000-00, R23 000-00, R27 000-00 is blatant lies. And then let's come back to the paying of the school fees of my children, that is a fact. During the Harms Commission of Inquiry my children received a threat that they were going to be kidnapped, I must tell the truth other wise they are going to kidnap my children, and the Police offered to take them to a place of safety.

At that time C-models were not in operation, they had to be taken to a private school and I did not have the capacity, nor the potential to can pay for their school fees and the Police opted to pay for the school fees for two years. A year later I received death threats from one of your so-called applicants there, Mr Herman du Plessis himself, who wanted to kill me when I demanded that school fees they promised me.

I have memos to that effect that I can give this Commission, original copies.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, you have given a long answer. Page 330 of this book, footnote 7 and I haven't had a chance to check that, it states that this was - what I have put to you now about these amounts - was evidence in the case of the State versus Eugene de Kock?

MR MAMASELA: That is plain rubbish, we can go into those court records, you will hear I give the same explanation as I am giving this Commission. I've got nothing to hide. I cannot say I have got R400 million, and then I refuse to say I received R20 000-00 or R27 000-00 from the Police, that will be a foolhardy thing for me to do.

ADV DE JAGER: What is the reference?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, in this book it is referred to on page 179 and then page 330, footnote 7.

Now, Mr Chairman, I don't think it is necessary to do it here, but there is evidence that I can lead in respect of this, and in future, in future amnesty applications Mr Mamasela, be sure that I will bring you the evidence of people who will come and testify about this personally.

MR MAMASELA: I will appreciate it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see. Mr Mamasela, you also wanted to sell your story to Jacques Pauw for R100 000-00 is that correct? Do you deny that as well?

MR MAMASELA: It is laughable, I don't just deny it, I laugh at it. I just dismiss it with the contempt it deserves. Jacques Pauw is trying to get at me. He is trying to get at me and he is trying to divide me with the black community. It is typical strategy of divide and rule here.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, I don't want to curb your cross-examination, but reading from a book like Jacques Pauw's, it is denied. We can't use it as evidence against him, unless Jacques Pauw comes and give us the evidence, because Pauw's book is no evidence before us, so we are wasting time - unless you are going to call him.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, obviously I didn't know what this witness was going to say about that. If this witness was going to admit this, or admit part of it, it would have been evidence, so I am probing during the cross-examination, and if I get an admission, then obviously I can argue that it is evidence.

I am not presenting Jacques Pauw's book as evidence before this Committee Mr Chairman with respect.

Mr Mamasela, then my learned friend Mr Booyens asked you about all the different situations in which you lied under oath. I don't want to go through everything, let's sum it up quickly, you lied before the McNally Commission, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: I was told by your clients to lie. If I did not lie, they would have killed me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, just make the point you want to make, please let us not go back to those instances.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am not going to go back to it, I am just summarising it Mr Chairman. It was the Harms Commission, the McNally Commission, the IBI Investigation, the Goldstone Commission, did you testify there?

MR MAMASELA: No, I did not.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. And in the video of Jacques Pauw, that transcript that we have?

MR MAMASELA: I did not testify, I gave him the story.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but did you speak the truth?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I spoke the truth.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you see Mr Mamasela, and Mr Chairman, just for your benefit perhaps to find the specific places in the record of the Durban trial, Exhibit S, I am going to give the page references to you. It is page 194, 195. I don't want to refer you specifically necessarily to each page, Mr Chairman, it is going to take long - 194, 195, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 361, 364, 365, 366, 391, 394, 395. On all those pages you commented about giving of false evidence, exaggerating your evidence under oath, etc. Do you admit that you gave the evidence?

MR MAMASELA: Where?

ADV DU PLESSIS: In such a fashion, in this record or must I take you to each paragraph?

MR MAMASELA: I don't have the record with me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, do you admit that you gave this evidence in this record?

MR MAMASELA: Of what?

ADV DU PLESSIS: This record is the Durban trial, the Mxenge trial?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you admit that you gave the evidence that is transcribed there?

MR MAMASELA: Right, right.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, if you do that, and I state to you that on these pages you admitted that you gave false evidence or exaggerated your evidence under oath, do you admit that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I told the truth. I told the Commission the truth that I was forced to do so by the Police. If I did not do so, they would have killed me alive, just like they've killed Brian Mlunga and others.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you see Mr Mamasela, what I tried to point out to the Committee now, is and that is what I am going to argue, that you are a specific kind of person, you will not hesitate, and I am putting that to you, I am going to argue that, you will not hesitate to lie under oath if it is in your own interest.

MR MAMASELA: That is a blatant lie, I have never lied under oath for my own interest. In all cases that you have pointed, it was for the Police who coerced me to lie, if I did not lie they would kill me.

Name one incident where Mamasela lied for his own interest then I will call myself a liar.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am also putting it to you that you are the type of person who will not hesitate to change your view points, your loyalty, your support of an organisation, if it is in your own interest.

MR MAMASELA: No, I am a human being. It is a normal, human norm for people to go where they feel satisfied. If today I am a Nationalist Party and I see that I have no future in this party, it is my democratic and basic human right to change to another party.

It is a general norm, it is human. It is not a special thing that is (indistinct) to Mamasela, and Mamasela alone.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And I will also argue Mr Mamasela, that you are the type of person who will also not hesitate to change his religion every now and then, if it is to your benefit.

MR MAMASELA: I don't know what you mean by every now and then, I changed from Catholic and I became a born again Christian. If that is now and then, then so be it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you are also the kind of person who without hesitation, will lie under oath.

MR MAMASELA: That is ridiculous.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right.

MR MAMASELA: That is ridiculous.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You are also the kind of person who without hesitation will put if I can call it that, youths who don't really know what they were involved in, and send them to their deaths?

MR MAMASELA: Those were instructions from your own clients that you were paid (indistinct) to represent today.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but you were involved in that Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, your clients asked me to do that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you, you were involved in that, yes or no?

MR MAMASELA: Your clients involved me in that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. And how much were you being paid today by the Attorney General?

MR MAMASELA: Paid today by the Attorney General?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: I don't know what you mean. I am paid.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, how much?

MR MAMASELA: I am not getting any payment from the Attorney General, let me tell you something. I spent almost a big chunk from my own pension money that I received from the Police investigating these people that you call your clients today.

And then after that, the Attorney General said I must help him with the further investigations. I carried on for 18 months out of my own pocket, you can ask them. It is on record. And my funds, my limited resources dried out and it is then, and only then, that I went to them and said guys, I don't have money any more, can you really compensate me for my petrol and for the mechanical part of my car. Then they said I must do it in writing, I did it in writing, and it was approved.

I am earning, I am getting between R4 000-00 and R5 000-00 a month compared to R30 000-00 and R40 000-00 a month that you were talking about, and it is peanuts, it is chicken feed as far as I am concerned.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you getting today between R4 000-00 and R5 000-00 a month being paid by the Attorney General to be a State witness?

MR MAMASELA: No, compensation for my own transport, for my own car that I use for their own errands to help them to investigate these false cases.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you are also being provided with accommodation, is that right? Your children's school fees are being paid, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: By the Attorney General?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes?

MR MAMASELA: That is ridiculous.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you?

MR MAMASELA: No, that is not true. You put it as if it is a fact. That is why I say it is ridiculous.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mamasela, you say you are being paid between R4 000-00 and R5 000-00 a month?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that all?

MR MAMASELA: That is all.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, I am putting it to you that you are lying and I don't have the evidence now, but in future hearings and amnesty applications, I will prove that.

Mr Mamasela, you didn't apply for amnesty, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: That is a fact.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, why not, why not?

MR MAMASELA: I think it is my democratic right.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you why not?

MR MAMASELA: Because it is my democratic right to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: He told us yesterday, even this morning that if he needs to be prosecuted, if anybody wants to prosecute him, let them do so, he doesn't want to apply for amnesty.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now, Mr Mamasela, there isn't any perhaps any secret kind of deal that you will not be prosecuted, is there?

MR MAMASELA: Secret deal with whom?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well with anybody, I don't know.

MR MAMASELA: Is there anybody who is above this government according to your intelligent mind?

CHAIRPERSON: No the question is simply, is there any secret deal with somebody that listen, you need not make an application for amnesty. Because even if you don't apply for amnesty, you will not be prosecuted?

MR MAMASELA: No, there is nobody who can make that kind of guarantee to anybody.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mamasela, because I just find this behaviour very strange. You are the only State witness as far as I know, who has not applied for amnesty.

MR MAMASELA: I am the only perpetrator, not State witness. I am the only perpetrator.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, perpetrator and State witness.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. And what I find furthermore strange is that you haven't been prosecuted by anybody.

MR MAMASELA: I am waiting to be prosecuted.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And in the Mxenge matter?

MR MAMASELA: You can write your recommendation as an Advocate to let Mamasela be prosecuted for having refused to ask for amnesty, I will be happy to go to court and be prosecuted.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mamasela, do you know why your version in this matter, this Pebco 3 matter differs from all the other people who testified here?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, it is because I am telling the truth and they are covering up.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No Mr Mamasela, it is because it is in your own interest that the people who apply for amnesty, don't get amnesty. Isn't that right?

MR MAMASELA: I have no capacity nor potential to can stop people getting amnesty. I am not serving under the TRC organ, I am just mere a State witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, in which way is it in the interest of Mr Mamasela that these people should not get amnesty?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, because the only way that Mr Mamasela cannot be prosecuted for instance on the Pebco 3 matter, is to get Section 204 indemnity if he testifies as a State witness, otherwise it is open to the Attorney General to prosecute Mr Mamasela. So what I am putting to Mr Mamasela, and I am putting it to you now Mr Mamasela, it is in your interest in this matter, for these applicants not to get amnesty, so that you can be used as a State witness in a future trial.

MR MAMASELA: No, it will be the opposite. It will be in the interest of Mamasela if these people get amnesty, because then there won't be any trials, and Mamasela will get off scot free.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why, would you get off scot free Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: If they get amnesty, for these crimes, then who must charge me because they got amnesty for the same crimes that I am involved in?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but the Attorney General is going to prosecute you for being involved in this matter.

MR MAMASELA: Then I will be happy, I will be happy. I told the Attorney General that if justice demands that he must prosecute me, he must prosecute me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did you say you will get of scot free if they get amnesty, explain that to us?

MR MAMASELA: No, even if that Section 204 of yours, that you are talking about ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, let me explain to him. He is simply throwing back the same argument that I raised when I asked you how he stands to benefit, because he is saying rightly or wrongly he is saying he will not be prosecuted if they get amnesty, there will be no prosecution, and then he would not have to go through the agony of being a candidate in respect of Section 204.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman, if all the applicants get amnesty and Mr Mamasela is the only person outside who does not get amnesty, and he cannot be utilised as a Section 204 witness, the only person who can still be prosecuted by the Attorney General for this incident, will be Mr Mamasela.

CHAIRPERSON: That is so, but I was explaining to you his explanation.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but I ...

CHAIRPERSON: Which you may not find it leaves or convincing or legally so, but ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: He says that he will not be prosecuted, and then I wanted to know why does he believe that he will not be prosecuted if all the applicants get amnesty, why does he not ...

CHAIRPERSON: You asked him how will he benefit.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, maybe I must rephrase it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not so important, I think you can move on to something else. We know that his evidence is that if these people are not to be prosecuted, he would also benefit in the sense that he won't have to run through the gauntlet of being tested against Section 204, and he maybe right, maybe wrong, and we know what the rest of his evidence is.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but the point remains Mr Chairman, and I will argue that, is that he will still be liable to be prosecuted for this incident, and all the applicants can be used ...

CHAIRPERSON: He has answered that, he has said well if they want to prosecute him, then so be it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes. The only point I am trying to make Mr Chairman, and I am going to make that point Mr Mamasela, and then I am going to leave this, I am putting it to you that it is in your own interest to see to it that these people don't get amnesty.

MR MAMASELA: It won't serve me any how whether they get amnesty or whether they don't get amnesty, Dirk Coetzee got amnesty, what did I benefit, nothing.

So there is no guarantee I will benefit anything from those so-called clients, when they get amnesty and if they don't get it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, did I understand you correct, the reason why you became a Security Policeman was because you were forced?

MR MAMASELA: I was forced, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You were forced?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And that was the only reason?

MR MAMASELA: I did not go to Hammanskraal to join the Police Force.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: I was forced and coerced into the Police Force forcefully.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And where did you report for duty, how were you forced on the first day on duty, how were you forced to go there? Where did you go on your first day for duty?

MR MAMASELA: I don't understand what you mean the first day, when you forcefully ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, they forced you. Did they come and pick you up in a vehicle and did they abduct you and did they force you to go for training, what happened?

MR MAMASELA: I told this Commission that I was arrested, I was set up by my internal Commander of the African National Congress at Andrew Masondo's house, 1121 Mofollo South in Soweto, that is where I was arrested by the Police, and I was taken to Brakpan police station, under a so-called Captain P. Viljoen, who brutally and savagely assaulted and tortured me for 72 hours.

After they broke me, they managed to break me and my integrity, he said he is going to summons Security Policemen to come and take me and I must give my cooperation to those people, I must work with those people, and that is when the whole thing started.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and Mr Mamasela, the Police knew exactly that you were being forced the whole time? They knew how you felt, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, they knew, that is the strategy that we even operated until even as recent as 1993 when I left the Police Force.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but what I am trying to establish Mr Mamasela, is the Security Policemen with whom you worked, they knew that you felt that you were forced to be there, that you didn't really want to be there, that you didn't want to participate.

MR MAMASELA: I don't know if they knew or they didn't know, it was not my concern.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you say anything about that ever?

MR MAMASELA: No, I didn't say anything to them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Because what I find improbable with your version Mr Mamasela, is that the evidence in numerous matters before this Commission was clear that only a certain selected few people were part of the hit squads of the Security Force and especially the Security Branch of Northern Transvaal, and you were part of that.

Now, explain to us how did you become part of that selected group?

MR MAMASELA: I don't find it highly improbable, if you are a trained professional soldier specialising in intelligence, you will never find it improbable. It was my duty and my function to see to it that I infiltrate these people, I am with them in whatever they do.

All these atrocities they were doing, I volunteered my services for them, and at one stage, they can even attest, they took me as one of them, because of something that I will call their curative power of humour, that I used to entice the white Commanders to love me.

I used to even insult myself, I used to call myself a dog, I used to call other ascaris dogs together, we were calling each other dog, dog, dog. And then my white Commanders they fell for the (indistinct), they loved me. They thought that they severely and completely broke me down, because I was speaking their (indistinct), I was calling myself a black Afrikaner, and they loved it.

In the interim I managed to syphon a lot of data which I came out with in 1994.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, we will see about that date Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: That is a fact, that is a fact.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 381 of Exhibit S, you were asked a question by Mr Booyens so basically you now say that it was because of this ex-Commander of yours, he was really the reason why you became a police informer, and you say that is absolutely correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, he started it, he started it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You said that was the reason why you became a policeman?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, he started it, he started it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Not that you were forced Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: No, I was forced by the Police. Had he not sold me out, the Police wouldn't have tortured me, so I don't know what you are talking about.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and what about this stand in Letlabile?

MR MAMASELA: Which was arranged for me by whom?

ADV DU PLESSIS: By Brigadier Cronje? Can you remember about it?

MR MAMASELA: There was no stand in Letlabile that was raised for me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You deny that?

MR MAMASELA: No, it was a normal Police procedure. As a policeman who had an appointment as a policemen, I had all the privileges like all the other policemen, to can get a house and that house be compensated by the Police, by my employer. I don't find anything strange with that.

That was the stand where I built my house, which the Police subsidised. Is there any improbabilities about that?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am just putting that to you, that is a further material benefit you got?

MR MAMASELA: It is not a further material benefit that I got, it is a benefit for all the Police, it was a general benefit.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And I am putting it to you that it was a special arrangement that was made that you could get that stand.

MR MAMASELA: It was not a special arrangement, it was a normal norm in the Police Force to look after their own people, not only Mamasela.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, now Mr Mamasela, can I take you to your Section 29 evidence. I want to take you to Mr Chairman, that is in the complete Exhibit R, not the one that is in the bundle that is part of the bundle documents, but the one that I handed up yesterday.

Mr Chairman, part of the transcript is part of this, I think it is the second bundle of documents that were handed to you, but I handed up a complete transcript to you yesterday.

ADV DE JAGER: The complete transcript you handed up was Exhibit R, that is Pauw's involvement.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am referring to that, to Exhibit R, I beg your pardon.

Now, Mr Mamasela, you testified just now that the transcript of what you told to Jacques Pauw is correct, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, to the best of my knowledge, that is correct. The contents is correct yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You didn't lie there, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: The contents is correct yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, on page 5 of this document, your evidence is as follows, the fifth paragraph, the long paragraph, the last sentence.

... and in 1985, when he set me up with the East Rand student where he killed about eight students with booby trapped grenades, and he sent us to Pebco 3 in Port Elizabeth, then I knew immediately that I had to deal with a (indistinct) maniac, do you see that?

MR MAMASELA: I don't see that, where is it?

ADV DU PLESSIS: It is the fifth paragraph, the last sentence, I have just read it to you now.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I think the witness is at a disadvantage here because I was not given a copy of this particular document yesterday. I asked for one, but it wasn't given to me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman. I have an extra copy Mr Chairman, may I hand it over please.

Mr Chairman, I am referring to Exhibit R, the one that I handed up yesterday, not the thick one, the transcript of Pauw. I think I have extra copies Mr Chairman.

MR BRINK: The one that has been given to me, is marked Exhibit N.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, it must just be changed to Exhibit R. Mr Mamasela, would you look at page 5 please. The fifth paragraph, the large paragraph, the last sentence. It starts with "and in 1985 ...".

MR MAMASELA: All right.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Have you read it?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, yes I read it. This is it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you see there that the words you used there, you were talking about De Kock and you said and he sent us to Pebco 3 in Port Elizabeth, do you see that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, is that correct or is that not correct?

MR MAMASELA: It is partly correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Partly correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, because he was one of the people, him and Venter, who sent us to Port Elizabeth, but because he remained behind and we left with Venter, that is why I never mentioned him in my statement, because he was behind, he was not in Port Elizabeth.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Who?

MR MAMASELA: De Kock, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Who was your overall Commander at that stage?

MR MAMASELA: My overall Commander at that stage was De Kock, he was just taking over Vlakplaas at that stage. He was still my overall Commander.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, it was Brigadier Cronje, Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: No, let me tell you something, these people are confusing you. Brigadier Cronje had to take his post for the first time in Kompol Building, and De Kock was being orientated to taking over in 1985.

That was the man that he was, even in my statement I said he was just taking over as a Commander, but he was working with us from as early as 1984.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Who was the Commander of Vlakplaas at that stage?

MR MAMASELA: It was Cronje, but he had already left during that period, to take over to Kompol, then a new post was created which was supposed to be taken by De Kock, and Cronje and De Kock, from time to time they had to work together so as to orientate De Kock, that is why even in Springs, in the so-called hand grenade incident, Cronje was there, but he could not take decisions by himself.

He then summoned De Kock to come from Durban and take decisions, because it was now De Kock being orientated to take over Vlakplaas.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but you see the problem that I have with your story Mr Mamasela, is I stand under correction, but I think Cronje was a Colonel at that stage, wasn't it?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, he was a Colonel.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And De Kock was a Captain, and Venter was a Captain?

MR MAMASELA: I am not sure whether he was a Captain or a Major at that stage.

ADV DU PLESSIS: He was a Captain, so I am putting it to you that Cronje couldn't take orders from De Kock, Cronje was in charge at that stage of Vlakplaas.

MR MAMASELA: No, let me tell you something, it didn't work in the strict Police structures as far as Vlakplaas was concerned. De Kock made major, major, major inputs and instructions at Vlakplaas, because of his vast military experience both in Zimbabwe and in Ovambo.

That is what he imported to Vlakplaas.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right Mr Mamasela, let's get back to this. You say it was partly correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So this is not one hundred percent correct, it is partly correct?

MR MAMASELA: It is partly correct, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: It is not an exaggeration?

MR MAMASELA: I say it is partly correct, I didn't read the whole thing, but that paragraph is partly correct because ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, and your evidence yesterday about your order that you were given, was that correct?

MR MAMASELA: It was correct yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, because let me read to you from my notes. You said I served as an ascari, we were called aside by Colonel Venter, he said we had a special operation in Port Elizabeth, there were activists who made it difficult.

We should help to eliminate these people?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you didn't mention De Kock there?

MR MAMASELA: At a later stage I mentioned De Kock, when Mr Booyens was asking, I said even De Kock was there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: But I never mentioned De Kock because we never left with De Kock, he was taking over. He was making the input also into that, into that ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mamasela, you came back to that a lot later. What I am trying to put to you ...

MR MAMASELA: Which is true yes, but I did come to that, whether it was late or early, I did come to it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, it doesn't matter Mr Mamasela, you contradicted yourself there.

MR MAMASELA: I didn't contradict myself. I forget, I am human and at that stage I recalled, and I put everything in its proper perspective. If that is contradiction, then so be it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the order that was given, what was the order?

MR MAMASELA: The order that was given was that there is, there are activists, political activists in Port Elizabeth who are making the townships ungovernable, we should go and organise and help the people to lure these people out of the townships because it was dangerous for the Security Police to operate in the townships.

So if we lure these people and we lure them out, the Police can then ambush these people, and we must help with the elimination. That was the instruction, that was the order from both De Kock and Venter.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right. Now, you see Mr Mamasela, you also testified that you should help to eliminate these people, that that was the order?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, now on page 11 of your Section 29, paginated page 11, of the Section 29 hearing, show us where you testified about that, about the elimination, that that was part of the order?

MR MAMASELA: I don't understand your question.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay. Read the first paragraph, it says on a day me, Koole and Mogoai were ordered to Roelf Venter's office where we were briefed concerning a task which had to be done in Port Elizabeth.

We were told that there were people who made the black townships ungovernable and we had to think of a method to get them out of the township and to lead them into a trap.

Where does it state anything that they had to be eliminated, that that was part of the order?

MR MAMASELA: No, but during the subsequent cross-examination I mentioned that they were to be eliminated. Even if I didn't mention it at that stage, but I know - you cannot just go from Pretoria to Port Elizabeth, just to help people lock them up and then you leave. I mean it is common sense that the whole operation was to eliminate these people.

You quote one word and one sentence somewhere and you don't read the whole Commission's report as I put it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, okay, where in the Section 29 hearing did you say that the intention or that the order was given by Captain Venter, that you had to go and eliminate people. Where in the Section 29 hearing did you say that? Where?

MR MAMASELA: No, even if it is not there, but that was the order. Because these people, no man, listen, don't take a little, don't make a mountain out of a mole hill. I know you are paid to do that, but the truth of the matter is we were called from Pretoria, a special killer squad, to Port Elizabeth to come and help and lure people out of the townships because they were making those townships ungovernable and the instructions were that we must try to put them into a trap and help with the elimination.

If I have omitted to put that there, that does not mean it is a lie because consistently and constantly I have mentioned it in the Commission report. I have mentioned it here in my evidence in chief, I mentioned it under cross-examination. Whether it is a mere omission there or not, to me it cuts no ice. It is not a big deal.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mamasela, the point I am trying to make is the first time that we heard that you testified that you were given, that part of the order was that you had to eliminate these people, was yesterday in your evidence in chief. You did not testify that in the Section 29 hearing, you did not say that in the Jacques Pauw interrogation.

That is what I am putting to you.

MR MAMASELA: No, that is a blatant lie. Jacques Pauw as far as I am concerned, I will never consider myself with his sensational stories that he writes in the book.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: He is an author that man. He can write anything that he ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: And Mr Mamasela, Colonel Venter testified in his amnesty application that it was normal procedure for Vlakplaas to visit certain areas to assist the Security Branch there with finding of terrorists and identifying terrorists, because ascaris may have known some of these people, they knew some of the people who went outside the borders of the country and that that was the reason why you were sent to Port Elizabeth.

He testified that it had nothing to do with a specific operation to eliminate people?

MR MAMASELA: With the greatest respect to my Colonel Venter, I will put it this way. He is mixing the truth with lies. He is trying to (indistinct) the truth and sanitise it. The fact of the matter is, yes, it was a standing order for ascaris to identify and help with the arrest of the so-called trained terrorists, but the fact of the matter is each and every ascari had to operate in an area he was familiar with.

In my case I was familiar with the Western Transvaal frontier because I came from Botswana, so I was basically based in Western Transvaal. There were those who came from Maputo who were based in Eastern Transvaal, and those who came from Lesotho, they were based both is Cape Town and other areas. It was not a normal norm for men to operate in Port Elizabeth. I was called from my Western Transvaal Unit to go and help specifically to kill the people.

Not just to go and look for people I don't even know, I can hardly even speak Xhosa, I don't know Xhosa, how can I operate in an unfriendly and hostile environment without knowing the people's language, it is just ridiculous? It was not a normal standard.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mamasela. You were an implicated person in the application of Colonel Venter when he testified that, why didn't you come and testify that in there and came to the Committee and say he is lying?

MR MAMASELA: No, he never and you never invited me. I was invited to come here, I didn't come here by myself. I was invited by the TRC.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No Mr Mamasela, we specifically in public requested that you testify.

MR MAMASELA: Who?

ADV DU PLESSIS: We requested in public at the hearing, that you testify.

MR MAMASELA: Where was I?

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the Attorney General said that you are a State witness that you can't testify. I am asking you ...

MR MAMASELA: So it is not my baby then, it is the Attorney General's baby, deal it with him.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am putting it to you that you did not come and contradict at that hearing that evidence.

MR MAMASELA: Take it up with the Attorney General, not with me. It is not part of me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, now Mr Mamasela, Warrant Officer Beeslaar's evidence about the purpose of going to Port Elizabeth was exactly the same as Colonel Venter, do you say he is lying as well?

MR MAMASELA: It is not surprising, it is the same battery and chain of lies and deceit again. It is not something new.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and then you see the evidence of Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole in their amnesty applications, the hearing and during cross-examination was more or less the same.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, those were their master's voice, they are the lap dogs of the white Commanders, they will do everything and say everything the Commanders tell them to do.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Not Venter, not Beeslaar, not Mogoai, not Koole testified that there was a specific instruction given in Pretoria that you had to go and eliminate people.

MR MAMASELA: That is a nice one, because these people on the 20th of January, that was December when Colonel Venter and the others appeared in the TRC, the following month, January on the 20th, a policeman by the name of Sergeant Moropa was sent to both Koole and to Piet Mogoai to organise them and to recruit them to come and back up their white masters because they reached a roadblock.

These people were not here to ask for amnesty, Koole and Mogoai, they were here to back up the story of their masters, to try and salvage their masters lives.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, they are applicants in this hearing, and they didn't testify about that, so what I am saying to you is are you telling this Committee that four people are lying in their amnesty applications and you who are not testifying in your amnesty application, but who have a vested interest in these people not getting amnesty, you are speaking the truth, is that what you are saying?

MR MAMASELA: No, the truth of the matter is they became latecomers into the whole application thing, after their masters got a cul de sac, they called on them, that is why they came together, it is quite a coincidence that Koole and Piet Mogoai could come together at the same time.

Why didn't they seek application with their masters first.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mamasela, isn't that speculation? They were also State witnesses and today even, their Attorneys have been instructed by the Attorney General to appear on their behalf?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, yes. But I will still say I want my intelligence to be questioned by him, and these people, that Sergeant Moropa was sent their with a white bakkie, a brand new bakkie with no registration, on the 20th of January, a month after Roelf Venter and others appeared here, he was sent to specifically with this intelligence to inform Koole and Piet Mogoai to come together because Roelf Venter wanted them to help them.

And if you listen to their submissions to the TRC, Piet Mogoai says Venter, he said Venter said these people are very brutal, you must ...

ADV DE JAGER: I am only put one question. They were with you as part of the State's prospective witnesses?

MR MAMASELA: In the Department of Justice?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: No, I did not know about that one. I did not know about that.

ADV DE JAGER: They were also - and they were sent, their Attorneys in fact was instructed through the Attorney General's office to appear for them in this application.

MR MAMASELA: No, no, that can be so, but the friendship and the relationship of Koole and Venter cannot be something that cannot be over estimated. Koole comes with ...

ADV DE JAGER: If you don't know about it, just say I don't know about it.

MR MAMASELA: I am trying to explain the relationship of Koole and Venter. The Commission must be helped here, the Commission don't know the history of these people, I know it, I worked with these people.

If the Commission is impatient with my trying to help them, then I can rather withdraw from this Commission, because the truth of the matter is Koole and Venter they worked together for many years, in Thabazimbi, ask Koole here, he will tell you.

And when Venter was transferred to Vlakplaas, he took his lapdog with him, he went to Vlakplaas. When Venter was exposed that he was involved in this nocturnal activities, Venter quickly brought his discharge and Koole followed suit, he went out of the Police suit. I want to bring the light to the Commission to understand the relationship, how close these people are, it is like butter and bread, you cannot separate them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, if that is true, if that is true, why does Venter's application in relevant aspects, especially pertaining to assaults, differ so vastly from what Koole and Mogoai says, is they are working together, why, explain that to us?

MR MAMASELA: No, I am not Venter and I am not Koole, I cannot explain what went into the mind of an applicant when he was desperately trying to salvage his life.

ADV DU PLESSIS: If they were working together, Mr Mamasela, they wouldn't have contradicted each other in respect of the involvement in the assaults, I am putting that to you.

MR MAMASELA: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And I am putting to you that you are lying, that you are lying in respect of them working together. I put it to you.

MR MAMASELA: I am putting it to you that I know, I am the wearer of the shoe, I know precisely where the shoe pinches. I was part and parcel of this devious and devilish acts, I know how these people are covering up.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And this person who was sent to come and speak to them, did you speak to this - were you present when this person spoke to Koole and Mogoai?

MR MAMASELA: I told you that I gathered that information from my intelligence data.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, so it is hearsay evidence?

MR MAMASELA: It was my intelligence, yes, my intelligence, but it is true. I gave you the date, I gave you the description of the car, and I gave you the time, just try and confirm with that whether it happened or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Du Plessis, I am not saying that whatever Mr Mamasela said about Venter and Koole, I am not saying that whatever he said, is true but you see, when you say to him, I put it to you that Koole and Venter did not work together, it is not quite correct.

Unless my recollection is wrong, isn't is so that we had evidence that Venter went there and later, because he had been working with somebody and therefore he got that person to come along and work with him, was it not Koole?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, I am referring to the drawing of the amnesty application.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am not referring to working together in the Security Police, I am not disputing that. I am referring to his suggestion that they have been working together or collaborating with each other to place a specific ...

CHAIRPERSON: To come and lie?

ADV DU PLESSIS: To come and lie, yes. All I am putting to him is that if that is so, why would there be contradictions of the nature there are in respect of the assaults.

Now, Mr Mamasela, and what I find more curious, you see, is that the other applicants before this Committee who are represented by my learned friend Mr Booyens, they all confirmed that none of the people from Pretoria, none of the Vlakplaas people ever knew what the purpose of their involvement in this Pebco 3 operation was.

MR MAMASELA: I mean, that is a (indistinct) dream.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Are they lying too?

MR MAMASELA: As usual. You know, it is the same strategy and tactics of the Security Forces, even in the Harms Commission, the same tactics of trying to mislead the Commission, and I will never allow this as a witness of this Commission, to allow these people to mislead this Commission, to mislead the nation. I will never allow it, I am sorry. You can get angry with me, but I am sorry.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Mamasela, when at the airport, when the people were, when these three people were put into the vehicle after they were apprehended and they were put into the vehicle, you testified that you searched them and you found something. Can you just explain to us again what you found?

MR MAMASELA: Let me just correct your statement. They were not arrested, they were abducted. We must be clear with our wording here.

When I searched them, I found a long home made knife from Godolozi and I searched also Champion Galela. I found nothing on him, I found only a long home made knife from Mr Godolozi.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, you see because what I find strange is that Mr Mogoai in his evidence and in his amnesty application on page 33 of the bundle, he testified "I found a panga from one of them whom I later learnt to know as Godolozi."

MR MAMASELA: Where did he find the panga, in his pocket?

ADV DU PLESSIS: As far as I can remember his evidence, he testified that he found it on him.

MR MAMASELA: I wonder if you know what panga means?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no.

MR MAMASELA: Because a panga is a ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, Mr Mamasela, that is not the question. What they are saying is, they are putting it to you that Mogoai, irrespective of what anybody understand by a panga, Mogoai says he is the one who found that knife, a big knife on Godolozi?

MR MAMASELA: No, that is ridiculous. Those people were apprehended by me and Venter, that is not in the argument.

CHAIRPERSON: So you disagree with that?

MR MAMASELA: I disagree with that. They were apprehended by me and Venter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just say so.

MR MAMASELA: And it was me who searched them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just say no, that is not so. It is me who found it.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, okay, thank you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now, Mr Mamasela, you testified that you were witness to the brutal assaults and eventual murder as a result of assaults, on all three these people, Hashe, Godolozi and Galela?

MR MAMASELA: That is a fact.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. Now, you see what I find strange Mr Mamasela, is that you are the only one who say that they died as a result of these assaults.

MR MAMASELA: That may be so.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Explain that to us.

MR MAMASELA: That may be so, but if you look at the faction of the people you are claiming to be representing, some factions says Mamasela was present when we killed them, but we never assaulted them. The other faction says Mamasela was there when we assaulted them, but we never killed them.

So both factions put me in both scenes of assault and murder, so therefore I was there, I was present, it is a fact. I was there, that is an objective fact.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but the Security Policemen apply for amnesty for murder and they testified in detail and that is Van Zyl, Lotz and Niewoudt, they testified that they shot these three people.

Now, explain to us Mr Mamasela, why would they in respect of the murder that they are applying for amnesty for, why would they lie? Why would they say they shot them in stead of they were beaten to death? For what earthly reason?

MR MAMASELA: It is very easy, it is very easy if you follow as you have followed the third force activities representing all the Police, it is inherent in the nature of the Police to commit devious acts and kill people brutally, but when it comes to the crux that they must explain how these people were killed, they change the scenario and they paint a good picture of humanitarian people, who did not want these people to feel pain, they gave them poison, and then they shot them quickly.

They make their murder appear nice and sweet, that is a lie. That is a lie. They want this Commission not to see the brutal anomalistic being.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, what I find more curious is that Venter, Beeslaar, Mogoai and Koole all four say that they were not present when these people were killed, and that they do not know, they have no personal knowledge of how they were killed.

So their version doesn't contradict Lotz, Niewoudt and Van Zyl's version about the killing of these people. The only person who contradicts all seven the applicants is you?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct. To answer that one, let me take you back to the KwaMakutha trial in Durban.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. Please don't take us to KwaMakutha.

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman, I was trying to explain something here, that might be of help to the Commission Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I think you will benefit something from this, because in future you will have cases like this where the strategy and tactics of the third forces, you don't understand.

Because it is the strategy and tactics that I want to paint here a picture, Mr Chairman, but it will be very brief, I understand your concern Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then you must remember the question that you are answering now was simply that you are the only one and they are seven?

MR MAMASELA: I am the only one, that is true Mr Chairman. In the case of Mr Malan, there were two witnesses, key State witnesses - one Klopper one Cloete. Klopper came in like I did, he spoke his heart out, he told everything, he told the truth, and Cloete came in later. As a witness also, like Koole and this come from the Department of Justice also because I went there first, they come in and then he threw the evidence of the main State witness, he threw contradictions there, just to create an atmosphere of a benefit of doubt, which in all instances the accused is entitled to in any way.

So here I see that type of scenario here appearing, where Koole and Piet Mogoai come from the Department of Justice later and then they come in here, they are honourable, they've got an Attorney from the Department of Justice and they come and contradict Mamasela and therefore Mamasela becomes a liar, or there is a benefit of doubt which all applicants are entitled to.

That is the scenario that has been going on and on in the third force, and that is a normal and well used third force tactic. I don't want this Commission to be caught with their pants down with that type of a trick.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see Mr Mamasela, now why would applicants, they may differ in certain respects, and we will argue to the Committee about the importance of the differences in their evidence and to what extent that influences their applications, but why would applicants who come before this Committee, who ask for amnesty, what interest do they have to lie?

MR MAMASELA: Oh, they have too much interest to lie.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, you see Mr Mamasela, the only person whose got an interest to lie before this Committee is you.

MR MAMASELA: Why?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Because as I stated to you before, if you are not utilised as a Section 204 witness, you are going to be prosecuted.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we have dealt with that, Mr Du Plessis.

MR MAMASELA: We have dealt with that. Let me help you to proceed because you don't understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Mamasela, I think let us adjourn for five minutes. Just five minutes, and then we will be back.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION

JOE MAMASELA: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: (continued) May I proceed Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Mamasela, the next aspect that I want to refer you to is who apprehended the people at the airport. You see what we have is, we have Koole and Mogoai's version that they saw the three people there, the three Pebco members and that four to five Security Policemen apprehended them and put them in the bus.

MR MAMASELA: Who are those four to five Security Policemen that they talk about?

ADV DU PLESSIS: They were not identified. I think Mogoai, no Koole identified them as Venter, Beeslaar, Niewoudt and I think three others. That was his evidence on page 1163 of the record.

MR MAMASELA: You see, with due respect, that is the problem with Koole. Koole as far as I am concerned, he is - I don't know how to put it without insulting him - but he is a person who cannot in most cases, you cannot utilise him with important information.

He is a person who just sees stars and you know, he is somebody who likes to hallucinate a lot, even in the Police Force we knew him as that. He is a hallucinator. There is no way anybody could arrest those people when they know him, or he is well known around Port Elizabeth. There is no way he could have been involved.

You can ask Niewoudt, for a chance he can attest to me that he never arrested those people. I think ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mamasela, you elaborate on your answers and I thank you for doing that, it will help me in my argument eventually. You see the other part or the other version that we have is Venter and Beeslaar saying that they were not involved in the physical apprehension of the people.

What I am putting to you is again in this incident, and this is why I am highlighting this, your version is the only version that differs from all the rest.

You say Venter and yourself apprehended them.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, you see the reason why my version differs from them, is because I am not an applicant in the case, I have nothing to gain or to lose, I am telling just the truth. And they are applicants, that is why, they are applicants, all of them, and they've got two different versions.

Some say we assaulted them, some say we did not assault them, some say Mamasela was there when we assaulted them, some say no, Mamasela was there when we were not assaulting them, but when they were killed. Both fractions put Mamasela in, Mamasela is telling the truth.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mamasela, I just find it very strange you see, that is why I am pointing it out to you. It seems to me that your whole version on a lot of crucial issues differs from most of the other people's versions, and I won't put to you again the reason why I will argue that differs.

Now, let's go to the assaults. Let's speak about the evidence about the assaults. In respect of the commencement of the alleged assaults, the people represented by Mr Booyens, Niewoudt, Lotz and Van Zyl, testified that there were no assaults?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The same evidence was given by Colonel Venter for the time that he was there, and Warrant Officer Beeslaar testified that he kicked one person once.

Now, Mr Koole's evidence and Mr Mogoai's evidence was that there were assaults. However, Mr Koole testified that the first night, after these people were abducted, all three these people were assaulted. That is stated on page 15 of his amnesty application.

Then Mr Koole testified page 1173 to 1179, that two people were interrogated that evening, and Mr Mogoai testified that Hashe and Godolozi were assaulted that night? Mr Chairman, I just want to make sure that what I stated was correct in respect of Koole.

Mr Chairman, the statement from Koole comes from that other affidavit that is in dispute, so I am making the statement in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's take it in instalments then.

ADV DU PLESSIS: My reference is to paragraph 15 of that affidavit, of the other affidavit of Koole that was taken down by De Lange, which is in dispute.

But nevertheless, the point is that Koole and Mogoai said that there were assaults the first night. What was your evidence again on this Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: My evidence is clear and it is self-explanatory.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: The first night we arrived there very late, at about eleven to half past eleven at night, there was no way these people could have been assaulted at that wee hours of the night.

Then we were given instructions to guard them over night, so that they can be interrogated the next morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, how can you say that. How can you say there was no way anybody could have been assaulted that late in the night, why not? Why can't it be possible to assault somebody even at twelve o'clock, one o'clock? It is possible? Just simply say, well tell us, do you agree with that version or not? Do you agree with it?

MR MAMASELA: I don't agree with it, they were never assaulted that night.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't make such sweeping statements which may just cause unnecessary problems.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, you heard his answer.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. You see Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai testified about the assaults, but they denied Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai in the evidence, they denied that or they testified that they never saw anybody using a stick or an iron pipe during the assaults and they say you are lying Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: I think they are lying, because the iron pipe was used, and the stick was used, and I have been consistent with that thing, from 1994 up to now, I have been consistent.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you will find that evidence of Mr Koole on page 1175 of the record and the other evidence on page 1213 to 1214 of the record, as well as page 1217.

You see, what I am putting to you is in respect of the people who allege that there were assaults, it seems to me that there are quite a lot of differences between Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole on the one hand and yourself on the other hand.

MR MAMASELA: Which is natural.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why?

MR MAMASELA: Because it is inherent in the nature of Security Forces to come together during such trying times as this, as we did in the Harms Commission, the McNally Committee, to come together and regroup and lie together.

I wouldn't find it quite strange, they are still lying because they are still owe each other one, they are friends. They are still friends these people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Mamasela, why would Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole, if they testify that there were assaults, just tell me, why would they not say that there were assaults by Niewoudt with an iron pipe and by Beeslaar with a stick, why wouldn't they say it?

MR MAMASELA: Ask them, not me, I am not them, I am myself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, no, Mr Mamasela, I will tell you why and the answer we find in this record of your evidence in the Mxenge matter, where you testified that sometimes you exaggerate a little bit, isn't that so?

MR MAMASELA: No, that is buldadesh, that is buldadesh.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. You testified there that sometimes when you lied under oath, you weren't really lying, you were really just exaggerating a little bit.

MR MAMASELA: No, you are trying to throw a smoke screen and confuse the Commission and the people, that is what you are trying to do.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you saying that you never testified that previously you exaggerated your evidence a little bit here and there?

MR MAMASELA: I said there were some discrepancies in some other matters, but discrepancies is not a lie. It is an omission of facts, sometimes you omit something because we are talking about things that happened 10, 12, 16 years ago, I am not a computer, I didn't store all these things in my mind.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see, and what I find strange is you confirmed just now to us that this transcript of the interview with Jacques Pauw isn't that? You told the truth, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I said that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Or do you want to detract that?

MR MAMASELA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: I think he said the transcript is correct in the sense that it is correctly transcribed, not that what appears there is the truth.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, everything is true.

ADV DE JAGER: Because I think he denied that it is the truth.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, then I will cover that Mr Chairman. What do you say about your evidence in respect of the video of Jacques Pauw, do you say that you spoke the truth there?

MR MAMASELA: I said the contents there is true. The contents of that video material is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you stand by that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, the contents is true yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Because you see, in Exhibit S, in the Mxenge matter on page 352 you were asked about that. You were asked would you make a video and tell deliberate lies on it and you said I made the video for a certain purpose, not for the purpose of the court.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You were asked will you tell deliberate lies on it, and you said I might probably exaggerate, not lies, I might probably exaggerate in some other instances. I was not under oath to tell the truth there.

Then you were asked, so if you are not under oath, you would lie? You said I will lie because I have nothing to lose. And then again you said, not really I will exaggerate, I might exaggerate. I might say anything because nothing binds my conscience. That is what you said about that.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, but wait a minute, don't jump into another station. That thing that you have just read is self-explanatory that I said I did not lie, I merely, we merely exaggerated. Jacques Pauw wanted sensation to grip the mind of his audience, this is how I explained to the Court.

Not that the contents was a lie, the contents was true. But Jacques Pauw, you know even the sound of the music and the way the put the videos, and the way they made me put those big spectacles, it was for sensational things. I wouldn't regard that as a lie.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I agree with you.

MR MAMASELA: Thank you very much if you ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: On page 353 you said that.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, thank you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: On page 353, you were asked but if you exaggerated, are you telling the truth or are you not telling the truth, and you said I am exaggerated the truth.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if I may just come in here, this video - it is because my learned friend hasn't got the full record. The video that we were talking about here, there was another video there that was never handed in as an Exhibit. That was a video that the witness testified in that trial, that he made for the purpose of his Attorneys, in which he told certain things and so on.

The reason why that video wasn't handed in is because Mxenge incident was completely left out of it, so I think my learned friend, and I am not suggesting that he is doing it deliberately, because he hasn't got a full record. Because I was in the trial, I know what went on there, that was another video, it wasn't the Jacques Pauw video that one.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Then I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, I wasn't aware of that.

Now, Mr Mamasela, all right, can we just then talk about the Jacques Pauw video. You wouldn't, do you say that what I have put to you about this video now, that that is different to what you would say about the Jacques Pauw video?

In the Jacques Pauw video you didn't exaggerate or did you exaggerate?

MR MAMASELA: No, I said Jacques Pauw used these video for sensationalism.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: And when you use - any truth, when you sensationalise the truth, it is no longer the truth, it is sensation. Not lies, the contents are true, but the way you use them, it is sensation. It is like propaganda. That is how I complain in Court in Durban and that is what caused Jacques Pauw to hate me until this day.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, on page 355 of the record, Mr Booyens asked you about the Jacques Pauw video, page 355, line 7, he asked you would you have lied to Jacques Pauw and you said there, not really lie, maybe exaggerate, it depends on how he put the questions to me.

And you were asked you may have exaggerated to Jacques Pauw, yes, My Lord. In the same way as you exaggerated in the TRC video? That is correct My Lord. Then Mr Booyens asked, very well, so the Jacques Pauw is also a situation, its contents is basically true, it may contain exaggerations which are false, and you said yes, like I am trying to explain to the Court that journalists, they want sensation. He led me first, he told me before he made the video, how I must put my answers and all that, he gave me these questions and we did that specifically for his questions.

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then you were asked line 28, the true facts exaggerated a bit, yes My Lord.

And you were asked so you and Jacques Pauw in fact conspired to put a false picture before the world, that had a lot of exaggeration in it, your answer to that was yes.

Do you say what you testified here is not the truth?

MR MAMASELA: It is not a matter of retracting. This is what I have said yesterday and this is what I have said today, that Jacques Pauw was using this video for sensationalism. The first three I still have the original copies, because they were found not to be suitable by him.

It was the plain truth, he wanted something that will captivate the minds of his audience and therefore I cannot be hanged for Jacques Pauw's wishes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But now Mr Mamasela, the important thing is I asked you about the video of Jacques Pauw and you confirmed just now under oath, that that was the truth, and that is correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, in this trial, just listen to my question Mr Mamasela, in this trial, you testified under oath that it contained half truths, exaggeration and that the truth was exaggerated. Now what is now the true position with this transcript?

MR MAMASELA: Let us not try to throw smoke screens here, let us be clear and specific with each other. I said to you the contents, the content of the statement of that Jacques Pauw video is the truth, there were other stuff that he used to exaggerate, to captivate the minds of his audience, that is not my funeral.

In some cases he told me we must put it this way or you must say it this way and then they put the camera closer and they made those funny noises, to captivate the mind of the audience. I don't believe why should I be hanged for Jacques Pauw's desires.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, won't you just answer my question. Is the evidence in the Jacques Pauw video transcript, is that now correct or does it contain exaggerations of the truth and half truths?

MR MAMASELA: That will mean I must go through it, all of it. Then I can clarify that point. I cannot just take a wild guess.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay, so what you say to us now is you cannot confirm it as the truth?

MR MAMASELA: No, I cannot confirm it now. I don't want to commit myself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now, will you have a look at the document, it is Exhibit R and your version about the Pebco matter starts on page 8.

All right, and for purposes of the assaults, let's just start on page 9.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, perhaps if you've got other questions, you could perhaps have a look during lunch time, but you could come back after lunch.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you, that is a sensible suggestion. I will go on to something else, I will come back to that.

Now, Mr Mamasela, how many nights did you stay there, at Post Chalmers?

MR MAMASELA: To the best of my recollection we arrived there on the 8th of May 1985. If I believe well, it was Wednesday and we slept the Wednesday night there and we slept the Thursday night, we slept two nights there. To the best of my recollection.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the third day, that was the Friday, when did you leave?

MR MAMASELA: We left a little bit late in the evening, at about between seven o'clock, half past seven.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The Friday?

MR MAMASELA: The Friday, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And when did these people die, on what day?

MR MAMASELA: Thursday, two died on Thursday, one was killed on Friday.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see, can I refer you to page 15 of your Section 29 evidence, paginated page 15, from line 17. This is now after the last one, Godolozi was killed.

You say even the ground which was covered with blood, we cleaned it. Whilst we were busy cleaning up, a brown Toyota kombi stopped and the three deceased were put into this kombi.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What time was that approximately? That is your Section 29 evidence.

MR MAMASELA: I don't have that with me, that is why I am looking for one. I am at a disadvantage.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I thought he had a copy of that.

ADV DE JAGER: It is volume 2.

MR MAMASELA: Which page?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Paginated page 15, line 17. Even the ground which was covered with blood, we cleaned it up. Whilst we were busy cleaning up, a brown Toyota kombi arrived and the three deceased were put into that kombi. What time was that? That was now on the, according to your evidence on the Friday?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I will say the man was interrogated at about nine, between nine and ten o'clock and the interrogation of the man took close between six and seven hours, and eight hours. I think we left at about, like I said, at about half past six, seven o'clock in the evening.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, and then you said me, Koole and Mogoai got instructions to return to our base?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see, because what I find strange Mr Mamasela, is that Koole and Mogoai testified that they went back to Glenconnor early that morning, on the Friday?

MR MAMASELA: No, it is not true, it cannot be true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you see the evidence of Beeslaar and Venter was that you returned on the Thursday evening?

MR MAMASELA: You see that is not true. Thursday couldn't have been Friday to them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the evidence of the other Security Policemen, Niewoudt, Lotz and Van Zyl, was that you returned round about twelve o'clock on the Thursday morning?

MR MAMASELA: You see now, no that is a concurred version. The fact of the matter is we waited for the Chief of National Intelligence to come and confirm whether Godolozi was in fact working for them or not.

So there was no way we could leave at twelve o'clock in the morning on Thursday, when the Chief came on Friday.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mamasela, the point is your version is again the odd one out.

Either we are heading to a situation and I am putting that to you, and we will argue that, we are heading to a situation that either your version will have to be believed and all the applicants' versions will have to be disbelieved, or you will have to be disbelieved.

Are you saying to us that everybody must believe you and everybody else is talking nonsense?

MR MAMASELA: It is up to the people to use their minds, whether they can be persuaded by a mob psychology. If the mob is lying because they've got numbers, then they are right. If an individual stands up and sticks his neck out for the truth, then because he has no numbers, then he must be rejected, it is up to the people to use their own imagination, not for me to dictate to them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am putting to you Mr Mamasela, I am going to argue that it would have been probably easier to have believed you if you were also an applicant, testifying in his amnesty application.

MR MAMASELA: I don't know about that one, and I don't want to indulge myself in speculations.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, to come back to that video that you made for your Attorney's purposes. Do you agree with me that you testified in the Mxenge trial that you in that video, the part that I held to you or that I read to you about that first video that Mr Booyens corrected me, the video that you made to your Attorney, that you testified there that that video also contained exaggerations and half truths?

MR MAMASELA: No, I don't have this thing with me. That video was not even brought to court for court records, it was never brought there. If I remember well, in court I pointed out that I cannot comment about something which I don't have at my disposal.

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Mr Mamasela, Mr Du Plessis can I just come in to clarify something here.

Mr Mamasela, you mentioned a moment ago that you've got three video's at home. How different are those to the one Mr Du Plessis is asking you about?

MR MAMASELA: No, these three videos I am talking about, they talk about the Prime Evil, that film Max du Preez made. They were to the best of my knowledge, they were very truthful and then he said no, they are dry. Then he changed them, and he wanted to do something else for sensational purposes.

The video that my learned friend is talking about here, is the one that I did with my Attorneys for the purpose of my own security, that if I die, then the contents of that video must be made known. So in my opinion, there is no way they can be lies, because I was giving synopsis, not the whole story, it was just a synoptic version of most of the things that I was involved in.

Because at that stage I was threatened, I was shot at and there were numerous threats to kill me by the Security Forces, so I feared for my life at the stage when I made that particular visual material. It is not the whole story, it is just a synopsis, the synoptic version of my life.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Mamasela, and Mr Chairman, just to make it clear for you, on page 352, there is a reference to the video made to the Attorneys, line 11.

Then on 355, line 12, there is a reference to the TRC video. That is the same video.

MR MAMASELA: It is the same video.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then on page 355, page 15, there is a reference to the Jacques Pauw video. Mr Mamasela, on page 352, where you were referred to the video made to your Attorneys, you testified on line 20 I might probably exaggerate, not lies, I might probably exaggerate. I as not under oath to tell the truth there, so if you were not under oath, you would lie? I will lie because I have nothing to lose.

And then you say again that you would exaggerate. Now the point I am trying to make Mr Mamasela, is in respect of the Jacques Pauw video, and in respect of the video that you made to your Attorneys, you admitted under oath there that you exaggerated the truth.

MR MAMASELA: No, if what you read you believe it, and you understand the contents of it, it says I might probably, not I have, I might probably, there is a probability there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you see Mr Mamasela, I will argue that your evidence about the use of the stick and the iron pipe, that that evidence of yours is also an exaggeration, it is also just stated for sensation purposes, and that it is not the truth.

MR MAMASELA: We can argue until the cows come back home, but at the end of the day, these people were killed, they are dead and it is Mamasela who came out first, long before your so-called applicants came to you. I came out first and I stuck out my neck and I said this happened.

The very same people you are representing, they took the TRC to court, they harassed the victims, they get the victims, they said Mamasela is lying. At the end of the day they are the ones, when the Attorney General summons them to arrest them, they run to the Truth Commission and they seek refugee and they said, after all what Mamasela said, is true.

So who is lying between me and them?

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you see Mr Mamasela, in respect of the people of the Security Branches who were involved in this whole operation, you testified yesterday that there were also people of the Cape Town Security Branch is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I said to the best of my recollection. Cape Town people came probably on Friday morning also. That is what I said, probably.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, now what I find strange about that Mr Mamasela, is not one of the applicants in front of this Committee, testified that Security Policemen of the Cape Town Branch were involved at all? So it is only you again who is saying that?

MR MAMASELA: No, they can say it, but that is what I heard when some of them introduced each other to each other, that this is one is from the Security Branch in Cape Town, then I knew that some of them came from Cape Town, otherwise I couldn't suck it from my thumb.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you specifically introduced by somebody saying meet so and so, he is from the Security Branch from Cape Town, did that specifically happen?

MR MAMASELA: No, ascaris were never given that honour. We were just ascaris, we will just stay one side when these people introduced each other, so I overheard that some of them were from Cape Town by introducing themselves to one another.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, did you overhear it?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you heard somebody say I am so and so from the Cape Town Security Branch?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now can I refer you to page 50 of the second bundle, that is your Section 29 evidence.

I want to refer you to line 22 where you say the following. Even though I cannot identify all the people at the Cradock police station at this point, it seemed to me and I stress the word seemed to me, as if it was a joint operation between the Security Branches of Port Elizabeth and Cape Town - our group and National Intelligence.

You testified there Mr Mamasela, that it seemed to me - explain that to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I think we are wasting time on that, precisely because you emphasise the word seems, in stead of emphasising the next word, as if, which would mean that he is not sure, he is not certain about it, and he has said he is not certain about it, and if there is somebody who has testified under oath that there were no people from Cape Town, so what.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, the point I am trying to make is that his evidence was now that he overheard somebody specifically saying I am so and so from the Cape Town Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, your client can never say he did not overhear anybody, can he? Can any one of your clients say that, that he never heard ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, I am just testing the witness' credibility Mr Chairman, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think we are wasting time on something which is very peripheral. Whether or not he overheard or did not overheard, whether people, this is not ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am just pointing that out, I will go faster with these points. At the end of the day what I will argue Mr Chairman, is if one takes collectively all the discrepancies in this witness' evidence, one must be very careful with believing what he is saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Not when he said I am not sure.

ADV DU PLESSIS: This is the point I am trying to make. As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Because if he says as if, it means he is not sure.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right. Mr Chairman, may I just proceed with the next sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: On another aspect.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, it goes back to an aspect I dealt with before, but it is on another aspect Mr Chairman.

The next sentence it says, according to me, in my opinion, even before the arrest of the three people, it was already decided that they would be killed.

You testified just now that you were given a specific instruction by Colonel Venter that people had to be eliminated?

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: When you testified in the Section 29 hearing, you didn't say anything about that, where you testified about your instruction, and right at the end, you say according to me, even before the arrest, it was decided that they should be killed? Why did you say according to me, why didn't you say here there was an instruction from Colonel Venter?

MR MAMASELA: I am not an Afrikaner, I want to point that out. As a matter of fact, I said to you when we left Pretoria, we were already informed that we are going to eliminate the people, but the identity of those people were never given to us.

We only became aware when we were at Port Elizabeth that these are the people that are going to be killed, then I said in my opinion, these other people confirming the instruction that I got from Pretoria, that these other people because we did not know the identity of the people to be killed.

We were told that a group of activists were making the townships ungovernable, not Sipho was mentioned or anybody of these people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You are not answering my question Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: I am answering your question to the best of my capability.

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Mr Du Plessis, can I try and assist here. I think the sentence you have just referred to, you have to read that in the context of what he has said immediately before that sentence.

He continues expressing an opinion, this is the impression I get.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, the point I am trying to make Mr Chairman, is that I just find it strange that he expresses an opinion where he says according to me, it seems that he is expressing an opinion, he makes a deduction that there was a decision beforehand that these people should be killed.

But his own evidence is that he was told and given an instruction that these people would be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if the witness understands it. You see the question put by Adv du Plessis is you told us that you were given instructions already, when you left Vlakplaas, to go and kill these people.

If that is so, how can you now come and say in the passage that he has read to you, that according to my opinion, there was already a decision to kill these people?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman, I think ...

CHAIRPERSON: There is no room for an opinion. If already when you left Vlakplaas, you were specifically told that these people are going to be killed.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, Mr Chairman, but I want to point out something here, it must be born in mind that when I was asked about whether I know Afrikaans and I understand it, I told them that there was a communication breakdown because the writer, the author of the statement in Afrikaans and myself trying to explain in English.

That is why I even said, I wanted to say I thought it confirmed the instruction that we received from Pretoria that these are the people who were going to be killed when I saw them, because when we were given instructions in Pretoria, we were never given the names of the people.

It was just said there were political activists who were causing the townships to be ungovernable, we must help with the elimination. It was only then when we came here, that these people - we were told that we must get this people, it came into my mind, I recalled that these are the same people that we were instructed to come and kill in Port Elizabeth.

So I think it is a question of the Afrikaans writer and the English author.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the point which Mr Du Plessis is making goes beyond that. He goes further to some of the questions he put to you earlier on. He put to you you will remember that in your Section 29 proceedings, in your statement, the statement that you read, you did not mention that you were given instructions from Vlakplaas to eliminate these people?

MR MAMASELA: I think I've answered that to the best of my recollection.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you might have answered whatever way you did, but the fact is that in your statement there is no mention of the fact that you were given instructions from Vlakplaas to eliminate these people, and moreover, you go further on page 15 to express an opinion that it seems to me that there was already a decision to kill them.

What I want to ask you is, when you testified before before the Truth Commission, on this particular day, was the thought there in you that when you left Vlakplaas, you had already in fact been told that these people were going to be killed?

MR MAMASELA: There was this thought Mr Chairman, although ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, sorry, then if there was such a thought, then why didn't you state it as a fact?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, but I say Mr Chairman, when I elaborated in my Section 29 of the TRC, when I spoke about all the details and all that, the word eliminate might have been omitted by me.

CHAIRPERSON: Then maybe you should have mentioned the word kill them?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is my omission, I take full responsibility for that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But if the knowledge was there in you that when we left Vlakplaas, we were told that we were going to kill them, why do you express an opinion here and say in my opinion? It seems that there was already a decision to kill them, how can you manage to express an opinion if you had in you a factual situation?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman, I think the only thing that can clarify this matter once and for all to the satisfaction of this Commission, is to get the tapes that I made with the Attorney General, when they debriefed me. The word elimination is there, so it must have been a human mistake on my part.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it before you testified before the ...

MR MAMASELA: Long before I even testified in whatever, those are original tapes at the Attorney General, that will clarify this matter once and for all to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you saying that your statement that is at the Attorney General's office, differs from what you said in the Section 29 hearing, is that what you say?

MR MAMASELA: I said the debriefing, in my original debriefing by the Attorney General, everything is put in its proper context.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient stage to adjourn until two o'clock?

COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION

JOE MAMASELA: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mamasela, is it correct if I say that you don't want to be classified with your former colleagues in the Security Police today?

MR MAMASELA: I don't know what you mean by classified?

ADV DU PLESSIS: You don't want to be associated with them?

MR MAMASELA: I don't understand the question.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, the question is clear, do you want to be associated with them, or don't you want to be associated with them?

MR MAMASELA: Which colleagues?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Your former Security Police colleagues?

MR MAMASELA: Generally?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Generally?

MR MAMASELA: No generally I am on good terms with some of them, very good terms.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And some of them not?

MR MAMASELA: No, those who feel I am a threat to them by exposing the truth, obviously I am not to them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. And you also want people to understand and believe that you were never really part of the Security Branch, that is why you testified that you were forced to do whatever you did when you participated in all those heinous crimes?

MR MAMASELA: My contention is - I made it clear to this Commission that I don't concern myself much about people's opinions because people's opinions are always wrong.

I don't do it for people, I do it for my truth and for my God.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mamasela, you see what I am putting to you is I perceive you as somebody who wants to be perceived as having really been part of the struggle, you were just forced to be part of the Security Forces, that is your own evidence isn't it?

MR MAMASELA: I just told the truth, that is all.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, well, are you saying that your evidence previously is not correct then?

MR MAMASELA: I said I have told the truth and that is all.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, don't you want to answer my question?

MR MAMASELA: That is my answer.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now, Mr Mamasela, and for that reason you also cannot be associated with people who apply for amnesty, that is why you didn't apply for amnesty isn't that right?

MR MAMASELA: I've got my reasons why I didn't apply for amnesty and what you are saying now, is not even one of the reasons, it is far fetched.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you don't want to be perceived as somebody who is assisting the Security Police Officers and Security Police people who are applying for amnesty, you don't want to be perceived as somebody who assist these people, isn't that right?

MR MAMASELA: Assist them by lying? I believe I am assisting them now by telling the truth so that they can get amnesty.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Mamasela, you are not assisting anybody by saying what you are saying. Your evidence, the gist of your evidence, if it is accepted, may eventually depending on the Committee's interpretation of full disclosure, may lead to not one of these applicants getting amnesty.

MR MAMASELA: So I should just lie so that they can get amnesty, then I've done a good job for the ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am not saying that you must lie. What I am saying is you have a motive to lie?

MR MAMASELA: No, there is no motive for me to lie, there is nothing for me to benefit.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see the motive for you to lie and to get the attention away from your participation in all these as you called it, dastardly deeds, that were committed also by yourself as part of the Security Police, is not to align yourself with the Security Police, not to apply for amnesty, and to come and sit here and say well, I was forced to be part of it.

MR MAMASELA: My contention is, and I've made it clear yesterday to the Commission, that my contention has always been consistent, let all perpetrators including Mamasela be prosecuted. Let us all be prosecuted.

Why are your clients so afraid of being prosecuted for the deeds that they know, they have confessed that they have done?

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you see Mr Mamasela, from what you have testified here and what you have said and the way you play to the audience, I think it is clear to everybody here that you are trying to convey to this Committee and to everybody else concerned, that you were not really part of the Security Police and that is the impression you are trying to create, isn't that right?

MR MAMASELA: I never played to any audience. You are the one who provoked the audience, you call the audience your people, you provoke them. When they react, you say I am playing to them? You played to them yourself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you is that the impression you are trying to create or not?

MR MAMASELA: There is no impression, I am not a cheap impressionist. I just tell the truth and that is all. I don't have to impress anyone.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, I am putting it to you Mr Mamasela, that that is a further reason why you would have a motive to lie before this Committee.

MR MAMASELA: I don't have any motive to lie to this Committee, I don't have a motive to lie to anybody. I have made my confessions, I have told the whole world already now for the past three years, that I was involved in the belly of the devil and I know how the devil's belly looks like from inside.

That is why I say let all perpetrators including Mamasela, be prosecuted. I don't know why you find a problem with that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, no Mr Mamasela my problem lies with the fact that just about most of your version, differs from everybody else's version and I find that totally improbable and that is what I am going to argue eventually, is that you have a motive to lie and that you are lying.

MR MAMASELA: The problem with me is that I am an independent thinker, I don't believe in mob psychology.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, if I can come back to what you testified about the fact that De Kock was part of the people who gave you the order to come to Port Elizabeth, what I find strange about that is we know that Colonel De Kock has applied for each and every instance in which he was involved, he has applied for amnesty.

For instance he applied for amnesty in the Motherwell matter, where he was very peripherally involved, as well as the Cradock 4 incident and a lot of other incidents where he was really involved, not in a large extent.

Now, I find it very strange that Colonel De Kock did not apply for amnesty in this matter.

MR MAMASELA: I think this matter was ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, are you stating it as a fact that he has not applied?

ADV DU PLESSIS: He has not applied, as far as I know Mr Chairman.

As far as I know, he hasn't applied. If he did apply, he would have been here today.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Du Plessis, are you putting it as a fact that Mr De Kock has applied for amnesty in respect of each and every incident he was involved in?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, as far as we know, what I am trying to convey, maybe I must make it a little bit clearer, he has for instance applied, I am informed in the Cradock 4 matter, for being an accessory after the fact.

He has applied for involvement, where he was involved to a very limited extent in certain incidents. All I am trying to convey to this witness is if he went so far as doing that, why hasn't he applied for amnesty in this matter where he was part of an instruction to eliminate people?

CHAIRPERSON: The problem is that neither you, nor the witness know as to whether or not Mr De Kock has applied for amnesty in respect of this thing.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, all right, Mr Chairman, I will leave it there. I will leave it there then.

Mr Mamasela, you testified at the airport, that the people were monitored. Hashe, Galela and Godolozi were monitored?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. And you said they were monitored by radio?

MR MAMASELA: I said we listened to their monitoring through the two way radio, that we were listening at the Police radio.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it through a two way radio?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it a Police radio?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, it was a Police radio.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Where was this radio?

MR MAMASELA: In the car, in the kombi that we were driving in.

ADV SANDI: Who was in charge of the radio Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: I think it was one of the Port Elizabeth Police. The people who were doing surveillance, were clearly Port Elizabeth black policemen.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Who were present?

MR MAMASELA: In the kombi?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes?

MR MAMASELA: I told you it was two white Security Police of Port Elizabeth that I don't know of, it was Warrant Officer Beeslaar, it was Warrant Officer Koole, it was Piet Mogoai, it was Colonel Venter and it was myself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, what I find strange Mr Mamasela, once again I find it strange that not Mogoai, not Venter, not Beeslaar, nor anybody else mentioned in their evidence this surveillance of this group of people. Why would that be?

MR MAMASELA: I find it illogical that people can just go from Transvaal, they can come to Port Elizabeth and just stay in a kombi and wait for people that they don't know whether they will come or not, and the people coincidentally come and get arrested. There must have been some surveillance team that was feeding information to us.

We couldn't just go and stand there. If they decided out of their own will, out of their own free will not to disclose these facts, it is their own funeral, it is not my problem.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mamasela, there was evidence that they knew that there was an arrangement set up and that they expected these people to arrive at the airport, so it wasn't necessary to keep surveillance on them.

I want to know why not one of the other applicants testified about this radio?

MR MAMASELA: I want to answer your first question, that it was not necessary for these people to be surveyed, I believe as a militarist myself, it is always necessary to tail and to survey your adversary, until you can come into a reasonable place where you can abduct them and give them an element of surprise.

It is always important to survey your adversary. Those people did not even trust us, we did not know whether they will come or they may not come, we did not know whether they will respond to the call, or they will not respond to the call.

So it was a futile exercise for us to go and wait there, wait there for ten hours and the people don't turn up. So it was imperative that they should be surveyed from their places of destination up to the airport, and that was done.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, are you actually summarising the evidence correctly to the witness? Are you saying there was completely no, or rather are you saying there was no evidence at all that these people were monitored?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Monitored to the extent that Mr Mamasela is testifying by sitting in the kombi, listening to a commentary over the two way radio, as far as I can remember Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't there evidence that ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: There was evidence that telephones were tapped, and that they got information ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, wasn't there evidence that there was somebody who would say to others, there they are, they have just come into the airport?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't there evidence ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, there was evidence about that, but I am talking of the surveillance of these people from their houses at the beginning. There was evidence about that, you are right, I remember that, you are right.

Maybe I should just clear this up Mr Chairman. Mr Mamasela, do I understand you correctly, the surveillance that was commented upon, that you heard over the two way radio, that was right from the start when the first person left his house and he picked up the second one, isn't that so?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, on national television I have elaborated that. We know Mr Hashe took Mr Godolozi, from there on they went to Champion Galela and they came around, even the roads they were using, we knew that. When they get into the airport, we were told that here they come, they are now at the entrance of the airport, they are driving such and such a car, this is the registration.

That is why even up to today, I still have the registration number by my head, CB12436, a Toyota Hi-Lux old bakkie, yellow in colour.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, I am quite impressed by your memory Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: It is an elephantic one.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am very impressed.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, now who was doing the surveillance?

MR MAMASELA: I am not in a position to say who was doing the surveillance because they were in another car, and we were in another car, it was in the evening. They were following the people from the township, and we were standing at the airport listening to this thing.

There is no way in hell that I could identify these people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mamasela, do I understand you correctly, it seems your memory is very good in respect of registration numbers, and I presume dates and so on as well, isn't that so?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, probably, reasonably good.

ADV DU PLESSIS: yes.

MR MAMASELA: Because I make efforts to help and assist the Commission.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You wouldn't have made a mistake in your evidence here or in one of these statements to Jacques Pauw or in your Section 29 hearing, you wouldn't have made a mistake about anything in that regard, a date or a time or anything?

MR MAMASELA: No, I said to the Commission that I have stated on numerous occasions that I am human. I might make mistakes, I am not a computer and I have accepted a human mistake that I have omitted to say elimination, I said trap will also include elimination.

I was taken to task for that by you. I have admitted it was a human mistake. I am human.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Are there any other possible mistakes that you know of?

MR MAMASELA: There are possible mistakes, but as you point them out to me, or as I see them, I will tell you this is a mistake.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, let's point out another one. Can you turn to page 9 please of the Section 29 hearing evidence. The first sentence on that page.

ADV DE JAGER: For the purposes of the record, it is volume 2, page 9.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Volume 2, page 9, thank you Mr Chairman. The first sentence, it refers to the fact that on the 8th of May De Kock called us into the Vlakplaas office, is that date correct?

MR MAMASELA: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that a wrong date?

MR MAMASELA: No, it is a wrong date.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why do you say that?

MR MAMASELA: No, I don't believe this. Maybe the incident was confused, the incident happened on the 8th.

The 8th we were in Port Elizabeth, we were never in Vlakplaas. On the 8th, we were in Port Elizabeth already, that is the time and the date when the incident happened, not Vlakplaas.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What was the date of Vlakplaas when you got the instruction?

MR MAMASELA: It is probably the 3rd, now they've said the 8th. Yes, the person who audited this thing, might have thought when I said the 3rd, it is the 8th.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you are not sure about the date when you got the instruction?

MR MAMASELA: No, I was not sure about the date when we got the instruction, but it is probably on the 3rd, because every month, at the end of the month, we get some three, four days holiday, then we are called back at Vlakplaas.

It was a normal procedure at Vlakplaas, that at the end of the month, we get about three, four days holiday to make shopping and then we come back. So probably the person who audited this thing, he thought when I said the 3rd, he said the 8th.

CHAIRPERSON: It could have been the mistake made by you, why the person?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, yes Mr Chairman, I say it is possibly my mistake or somebody might have misheard when I said the 3rd and they said the 8th, it is possible.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, we are talking about a difference of five days, between the 3rd and the 8th?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And what happened in those five days?

MR MAMASELA: I think I have elaborated to this Commission what happened. I said yesterday that we were distributed with small sedan cars to familiarise ourselves with the environment and then some other time, I think on the 8th, we were called in, before the 8th, we were called in the office there, I think it was on the 5th, we were called in the office to help to interrogate a certain guy, a detainee by the name of Toto Sithole.

We helped with this interrogation for almost three days, and then whilst we were busy with this interrogation and we managed to break the man, then and only then, did the Head of the Security Branch approached us to congratulate us about the job well done, and then he came with this information that at last they've managed to make a break through, the Police managed to make a break through because they intercepted a message from Tozamile Bota to the Pebco 3 that they wanted money and he promised to send British ambassadors something, to meet them at the airport to give them money, and it is then that it was suggested that one of the white Security Policemen with an English accent made a call to these people, posing as that British ambassador.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, all right, thank you. If you had gone there specifically for the purpose of the elimination of these activists, why would you have spent about five days there, why would that have been necessary?

MR MAMASELA: Five days where?

ADV DU PLESSIS: In Port Elizabeth?

MR MAMASELA: No, like I told you, they said this people in the location, even the Security Forces were afraid to venture into the townships, they made the townships ungovernable, so we were all working on a plan to lure them out of the township, so that they can be ambushed and eliminated, and fortunately they came with their plan before we could even think of a plan to lure these people, that they did anticipate the conversation between this people and Tozamile Bota and Mr Tozamile Bota is an MP he can be called in by this Commission to clarity whether he did have a telephone conversation with these people, promising them money.

I am not talking about dead people here.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Mamasela, you must try to restrict yourself to the question.

MR MAMASELA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What other work did you do apart from interrogating this guy called Toto?

MR MAMASELA: We were just told to familiarise ourselves with the environment, and some of our guys continued with their normal ascari job of identifying other armed insurgents, and then the three of us, we were always told to be nearer, that is why they said we must go and help with the interrogation with Toto.

They wanted us to be together, we must be away from the bigger group.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you three were identified to eventually be involved in the elimination, is that what you are saying to us now?

MR MAMASELA: From long ago, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right from the start?

MR MAMASELA: From the start.

ADV DU PLESSIS: From when Venter gave you the instruction?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So that means that you three were called together when you got the instruction, apart from the other ascaris who went to Port Elizabeth?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, they did not know what was the real mission of going there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why do you tell us that now?

MR MAMASELA: No. I told you that we operated, even yesterday, on the need to know basis. It is not a new information.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, because we all understood that everybody who went down to Port Elizabeth, went down for this specific operation, isn't that so?

MR MAMASELA: Otherwise it was stupid for Venter to call the three of us to the office and De Kock, they could have called the whole lot of us who were coming here. They wouldn't have called us aside privately, it made no sense.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you say the other ascaris were involved in normal operations assisting the Security Police in Port Elizabeth, etc, etc?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: They didn't know about this specific operation?

MR MAMASELA: No, the didn't know. No, they didn't, to the best of my recollection, they did not know.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And where did you say to them, what did you explain to them, where were you for those three nights?

MR MAMASELA: They knew they were not supposed to ask questions. Everybody has his own task to perform.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did they come to PE?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman, I will put it this way, in all probabilities, even when we went to Durban, we went with a lot of ascaris there, but those who operated, we were about four, we were only four, the rest did not even know what was happening.

I think they are there just to camouflage to other, to local Security Policemen there, that these people are working with us, they were doing this, they were doing that, they did not come for a specific operation because it will arouse attention if four assassins come in and then they do things secretly and then they pull out, and all of a sudden there is a major, a major murder reported, then it will be easy for the local people, even the local police to say but there were some strange Security Policemen from Transvaal who came here.

It will be easy to point, but if we are a group of people, and the others work with them on daily routine, and the others go and interrogate the people, they don't know the movement of each and every one. It is not easy, it is not always easy.

I think that is my perception, I think that is why we were there.

ADV DE JAGER: When did you return to Pretoria, the Friday night?

MR MAMASELA: We returned the same Friday night, My Lord.

ADV DE JAGER: Who returned?

MR MAMASELA: I think most of us who came with that kombi. We went to the base to collect other ascaris, and then we came back.

ADV DE JAGER: So all of you went back?

MR MAMASELA: All of us went back.

ADV DE JAGER: All the Vlakplaas people?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, you see what I find strange of your evidence yesterday then, is when you testified about when you got the instruction, you said you were told in Pretoria about the mission, you testified that it was a special mission, and all the people who went, were called together.

MR MAMASELA: All the people ...?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Who went there, were called together, that was your evidence according to my notes?

MR MAMASELA: No, I said all the people who were supposed to go and do that mission, were called in an office by both De Kock and Venter and we were briefed and I even named the people.

But all the people who were supposed to go with us, they were called together in a bigger meeting, not in a smaller meeting, a private meeting.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Mamasela, I put it to you you didn't make that distinction yesterday, you made that distinction now, and I am going to argue that this is part of the way you testify, it is an exaggeration, it is a change of your testimony to suit your own purposes.

MR MAMASELA: That is your own perception. I cannot deny you your own basic human right to think what you want to think.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, did you have a chance of reading this transcript of Mr Pauw?

MR MAMASELA: Jacques Pauw?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes?

MR MAMASELA: No, I didn't read it all, I didn't have a chance to.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Exhibit R?

MR MAMASELA: I didn't have a chance to read it all.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You had an hour didn't you?

MR MAMASELA: For lunch, not for reading.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, you were specifically requested to read it.

MR MAMASELA: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, then I have to, I have to request that in some way or another the witness reads it so that he can give us his view on the correctness thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, does that mean you don't have any other questions other than in respect of this document?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, I have some other questions. Should I proceed with that leave this first, all right.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, just to come back to the assaults again.

CHAIRPERSON: Why must we come back to them again?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I haven't dealt with all the allegations about the assaults that I wanted to deal with, because of this document, maybe I must then leave that to right at the end.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, all right. I thought you were going to repeat yourself?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, no Mr Chairman, I won't, I promise. Mr Mamasela, when you interrogated Toto, where was that?

MR MAMASELA: At Port Elizabeth Security Police.

ADV DU PLESSIS: At the Security Police offices?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you go there frequently when you were in Port Elizabeth?

MR MAMASELA: I will say we went there about three days, for three days we were going there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And who went with you?

MR MAMASELA: Warrant Officer Koole and Piet Mogoai. The three of us, and myself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did all of them go with you every time?

MR MAMASELA: Yes. We were using the same car, the same transport, and we used to go together, same time, and come back same time.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Because you see, the reason why I am asking you that is that there was evidence by Mr Mogoai that they were not allowed at the Security Branch offices, he was not allowed and none of the ascaris were allowed at the Security Branch offices?

MR MAMASELA: That is his own perception, we were working ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Is he lying?

MR MAMASELA: No, he is lying, because we were working throughout the whole of South Africa. How can we help the Security Forces in different areas if we are not allowed into their Security offices.

In Durban we were allowed, I testified in court that we went to see Taylor there, he gave us photos to identify this insurgent, where can we get that information if we don't go to the police stations?

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, and the operation, so you are saying Mogoai is lying?

MR MAMASELA: He knows he is lying.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The operation, when it started, where did you get an instruction to go to the airport, where?

MR MAMASELA: We got the instructions the same day, on the 8th of May 1985.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Where?

MR MAMASELA: At the Port Elizabeth police station, when we were busy with, after finishing interrogating Toto. The Chief or the Head of the Security Police came and he congratulated us about the good job that we have done because Toto managed for the first time to cooperate to a certain degree with the Police.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And was Koole and Mogoai present when you got that instruction?

MR MAMASELA: They were present, my friend, they were present, and they know it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, so Koole and Mogoai are also lying when they say they weren't there when that instruction was given at the Security Branch?

MR MAMASELA: It is not for me to say, it is for the Commission to can investigate that matter further, by getting the records of all the detainees at Port Elizabeth and to determine whether a certain Toto Sithole was apprehended, he was a detainee or not.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why would they lie Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: No, I say it is easy to find out who is lying between me and them because I am talking about a person who is still alive, Toto Sithole.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you know how easy it is Mr Mamasela, there are two people who are saying one thing and you say a different thing.

MR MAMASELA: That is why I say, let us go to the witness, Toto Sithole who was a detainee who was interrogated by myself, Warrant Officer Koole and Piet Mogoai, he will testify that there were three strange black policemen who interrogated me on that particular time.

Toto is still alive, he is not dead. Why are you afraid to take my challenge?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, no, what I want to ask you is why must we believe you every time where you are a single witness and there are, in a lot of instances that I have pointed out to you, there are more than one person who says directly the opposite very time? Why must you be believed every time?

MR MAMASELA: You must believe me because I have got witnesses who are still alive, who can testify that yes, what Mr Mamasela is saying is true, it did happened. I was detained, and the records will show.

I don't say you must believe me ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, can you just leave that for argument please, in stead of arguing with the witness?

ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Mr Mamasela, when you left Glenconnor to the airport, what happened, where did you go to?

Where did you go to when you left Glenconnor to the airport, did you go directly to the airport?

MR MAMASELA: We went directly to the airport.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, because I put it to you that Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole testified that they met the Security Branch people at a predetermined point. You will find that at page 1156 and 1157 of the record. And Mr Mogoai's amnesty application, paragraph 4 page 32.

MR MAMASELA: In my opinion, that is their own twisted version of events, that is not true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And that more or less accords with the evidence of Mr Beeslaar as well.

MR MAMASELA: I am not surprised.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, what were you told about the mission when you got the instruction? What were you told, how long would you be out?

MR MAMASELA: We were not told how long we would be out and stuff like that, all that we were debriefed about was to go and change our clothing, and we had to wear pyjamas.

Not real pyjamas, the operational clothing that we wear at night, that is dark clothing, hand gloves, balaclavas, we must have our own balaclavas and we must wear dark clothing for the night operations.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see, because the evidence of Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole for instance was that you were told that you would have to go for three days. Do you disagree with that?

CHAIRPERSON: You are not talking about the same thing Mr Du Plessis, please.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, my question ...

CHAIRPERSON: The witness is under the impression that you are referring to the day when they went to the airport as for how long they would go.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is what I am referring to Mr Chairman. Yes, maybe the question wasn't clear. I am referring to the day when you were told to go to the airport, were you told for how long you would be out on this operation?

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is my mistake.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I formulated the question wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, no I think it is my mistake, I misunderstood. There is something that I misunderstood.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you say the gentlemen that you referred to you say on that day, on the 8th, they were told that they would be away for three days, on the 8th?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I think it was either Mr Koole or Mogoai.

CHAIRPERSON: There is something I misunderstood, it is my mistake, I am sorry.

ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Mogoai says that, now do you dispute that or what do you say about that?

MR MAMASELA: I dispute it because it is illogical for people to can say come for three days, and we did not even know that one of the suspects will say he was working with this, that is why we had to delay. We did not know that.

Maybe he knew that in advance, but I did not know it in advance, and nobody told us to go for three days.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right. Mr Mamasela, when these people were abducted according to you, first the two and then afterwards the other one, what did you do with them in the bus?

MR MAMASELA: Like I told this Commission yesterday, I did not travel for a long distance with this people in the bus. I just put them in the bus and I was ordered to drive their bakkie and follow a white car, so what did they do with them in the bus, or what they did not do with it, I have no way I could know about it. I was not part and parcel of the entourage that was in the bus. I cannot be driving this people's car and be in the bus at the same time.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mamasela, wasn't you back in the kombi within say half an hour or how long had you been separated from the kombi?

MR MAMASELA: It was about 45 minutes Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: About?

MR MAMASELA: About 45 minutes, if I am not mistaken.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, Mr Mamasela, so do I understand you correctly, what you testified now is what happened - nothing else?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, to the best of my recollection, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You didn't get back into the bus after they were abducted and put into the bus?

MR MAMASELA: I have just told Mr Chairman that after 45 minutes after delivering their car, I jumped into the white car and the white car drove to a certain destination where we found the bus waiting for us along the road, waiting for me, our bus.

I then joined the bus, these people were there, they were now handcuffed, and they were always, at all material times guns were trailed on their heads.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, because you see Mr Mamasela, what I find very strange is that you testified yesterday that when they were abducted and put into the bus, they were forced at gunpoint, they were forced at gunpoint, you testified that specifically and you said, we searched them and we got the knife?

MR MAMASELA: I said guns were pointed at their heads to lie low and then I searched them. Guns were already there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is when they were put into the bus.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why didn't you tell that to me now?

MR MAMASELA: No, how can I tell you something that you know already?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Mamasela, you see, the problem is when I asked you now, I tested your evidence, you didn't testify that, now I showed to you that you testified about that they were forced into the bus at gunpoint and that they were searched, now you say yes, but I must know about that, that is why you didn't testify it.

MR MAMASELA: No, let me - don't start to be impatient, because you are making only yourself sick. The problem is you know for a fact that I stated categorically in the Commission that I am the one who put these people in the car, and they were forced by guns by Piet Mogoai and Koole to lay on the floor, and I searched them and I took out a knife.

And I went out, now your question now, wait a minute, your question now was Mr Mamasela, what happened in the bus where these people are, and then I answered to that there was no way, I am telling you, that I drove their bakkie to a destination, there was no way I could know at that stage what was happening in the bus.

Now you come and turn the whole thing around.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You said you didn't get back into the bus Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: No. You are the only one with that ...

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, they got back into the bus at a later stage, you drove the bakkie to somewhere to a house where there were old boats and so on, I think it was common cause he was in the bus for the whole time, but they arrested them and brought them to the bus, and he searched them, Mogoai said he searched them, and that is the ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes, the point I am trying to make here Mr Chairman, and I wanted to test this specifically, is what was his involvement when the people were abducted and put into the bus.

I asked him that. His testimony there was that he didn't get back into the bus, he went away with the bakkie and later on he got back into the bus Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, you didn't ask him that. You did not say to him what happened to these people at the time when they were abducted and put into the bus. You didn't quality, you just said to him what happened to these people in the bus. You did not, Mr Du Plessis, you did not say what happened to these people at the time when they were abducted and put into the bus.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I will argue that eventually, I differ from you but I won't get into an argument.

CHAIRPERSON: You can play the record, you can listen to the record, you will find that you did not explain to the witness as to which point or as to the point at which you wanted him to tell you, you just said what happened to them in the bus.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, then I may be mistaken, I will leave it there, I think the point has been made and I will argue it.

CHAIRPERSON: And I believe it is because you assumed that the witness' evidence is that he was in the bus for the last time when he went out to go and drive the bakkie, and never came back, you assumed that?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I will leave that, I will go onto the real point I wanted to make. Mr Mamasela, so these people were forced into the bus and held at gunpoint, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: That is right.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, now look at page 12 of volume 2 please. Where do you refer to the fact that they were held at gunpoint there?

MR MAMASELA: No I, let me tell you something, I made it clear in this Commission that when I made this statement, it was just a condensed statement, I couldn't put each and every detail, the statement will be as big as the bible.

But yesterday I explained under oath that they were held at gunpoint, yesterday, and you never disputed that. You are disputing today.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, I didn't cross-examine you yesterday. You see what I am trying to show Mr Mamasela, is that whenever you testify and you give a version again, certain things creep in, certain things are left out, certain things are changed, certain things differ and each and every one of them we can make off as saying this is not really important, that is not really important, what I will argue eventually and that is why I am pointing these things out, is that at the end of the day one must look at the big picture of your evidence, and in respect of the big picture of your evidence one cannot rely on it.

MR MAMASELA: That is your own opinion, nobody can take you to court for that, and as a matter fact I have never asked you to rely on my evidence.

I am here just to tell the truth the way I saw it, the way it happened, and that is all. Whether you rely on it or you don't, it is immaterial to me, I've done my duty.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see Mr Mamasela you testified yesterday as well that you saw that they were handcuffed when you came back with the white car, you saw that they were handcuffed in the kombi.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't find that here.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, that will be on the record, and we've agreed that you will have the record. And you could point out each and every point you are making, from the record, it is no use trying to repeat it seven times, the point won't become better.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am not trying to make the point better, what I am trying to do is I am trying to be of assistance to the Committee, to point this out, to give Mr Mamasela a chance to testify and I am testing his evidence Mr Chairman.

If he testified one thing yesterday and he testified one thing in the Section 29 hearing and he testifies another thing today, then I am trying to test what version he is giving now.

If I am not allowed to do that, then I will stop with that Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: You are allowed to do it Mr Du Plessis, by all means, but if there is three or four versions on the same story, do you want a fifth one, or do you want one of them to be confirmed?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I want as many different versions from Mr Mamasela on a specific point, as I can get. And we have already so many different versions and so many different points of Mr Mamasela, I want to drive the point home, that Mr Mamasela, every morning he wakes up, he has a different version.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not what you have been dealing with. What you have been trying to do now was to refer to his statement and you say well in the statement, now you are telling us that they were pointed with guns, your statement it is not there, there are so many things which will not be there in the statement. He said he poured some water on the person, maybe it is not there in the statement.

He said we ate two loaves of bread, that may not be there in the statement, how can one find everything in the statement, Mr Du Plessis, surely you must - we can spend time on that, you can compare his evidence and the statement, you will find many things which are not there in the statement. You can argue later and say that important things were not there, but I mean ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: If you say to me that if I want to argue that Mr Chairman, that it is not going to have any weight, then I will leave it. Then I will leave it, the point I am trying to make Mr Chairman, is that in respect of this witness, his evidence every time changes in respect of certain points.

If it changes in respect of certain points, it means that the reliance that one can place on this witness' evidence becomes suspect, that is the point I am trying to make. But I will point that out in argument eventually as well. I have made the point, I will go on to a different point.

Mr Mamasela, what is so funny Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: Funny about what?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, you are laughing, is anything funny?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, do you have any comment to make on the question which was put to you?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman, everybody has noticed, my light is always red. If I was laughing, this Commission could have heard me laughing. So he is just angry with himself, I told him he will make himself sick.

CHAIRPERSON: So you do not agree that ...

MR MAMASELA: No, I didn't laugh and now he is the one who is laughing Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: In the end everybody is laughing, so that is fair enough. Mr Du Plessis?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mamasela, is it your contention or your evidence that there was no problem with the fact that you and Piet Mogoai and Koole were involved in the interrogation and the eventual killing of these people without a problem, you were part of it, you were exposed to it and nobody was worried about the fact that you were part of it? Is that what you are saying?

MR MAMASELA: I don't understand your question. It is complicated, simplify it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What I am trying to convey to you is - what I find strange Mr Mamasela is that according to your evidence, there were lots of people present when these people were interrogated and when they were killed?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: There were people coming in and out, cars coming in and out?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You were present there, Mr Mogoai was present there, everybody was present there. Are you saying that that is the way it happened, that nobody cared about who was present when these people were killed?

MR MAMASELA: My contention is that I don't find it strange. I was involved in a lot of operations where a massive contingent of the Security Forces will converge, just like the Nietverdiend 12 if you care to know about that one.

It was the Army, Intelligence, it was the Zeerust Security Police, it was ourselves and it was also Nietverdiend police and then we converged there, there was nothing wrong. I don't find it strange. The Police, the Security Police trusted each other, we were just like a big neat family at that time.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see Mr Mamasela, the evidence of the other Security Policemen were that there was no way that they would have allowed people who they did not know, and especially ascaris, to be present when eliminations took place? The other Port Elizabeth people testified that.

MR MAMASELA: But they could allow ascaris to come and help them to abduct people coming from Pretoria, not tell them ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but not with eliminations? And you see Mr Mamasela, in respect of the other incidents that I know you were involved in, as far as I know, not one of those incidents that I can think of, there was a situation where people were tortured to death with literally 20 to 30 people coming in and out all the time.

It was always just one, or two or three people present?

MR MAMASELA: No, not always. I think you are wrong.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Which incidents are different then?

MR MAMASELA: You might be having information that I don't have, maybe you were an ascari and I was a lawyer.

I am talking about my own personal experience as an ascari and you want to defy that. I gave an example of Nietverdiend 12, there was not the question of two, three people involved there, it was a whole contingent of the Police there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: I talked about KwaNdabele, you talked about KwaNdabele incident where nine school children were killed. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela ...

MR MAMASELA: Wait a minute, let me finish. You talked about nine KwaNdabele incident, and as a matter of fact for your information, the people who killed those people, were not only from Kompol, we made use of ordinary Murder and Robbery Squad people of Pretoria. They were with us.

We didn't fear that they might talk, they were the Police, they were trusted by the Security Police. All were ambitious, they wanted to come to the Security Forces. You can dispute it if you want.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Mamasela, all I am trying to say to you is that the evidence was placed before members of this Committee in various incidents, especially of the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, in incidents where you were involved in as well, where these operations took place not with a lot of people who knew about it, just a few people knew about it.

I am putting it to you it is not normal for the Security Police to have 20 to 30 people coming in and out while being are being tortured to death, it is simply not normal, it is simply not the way it was done.

MR MAMASELA: It is not normal, but it did occur in other instances, like in PE, like in Nietverdiend as I was telling you. So I don't know what is normal and abnormal about it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In what other incident were people interrogated and tortured to death, where 20 to 30 people came in and out, which other incident?

MR MAMASELA: Nietverdiend, I was telling - the 12.

ADV DU PLESSIS: People weren't tortured in the Nietverdiend matter Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: Were you there?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I know exactly what happened there.

MR MAMASELA: I say were you there?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I say I know exactly what happened there. What other incidents?

MR MAMASELA: Where you there, because I was there.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the point has been made Mr Du Plessis, there is no point in trying to engage in some hairsplitting exercise. You are saying you are putting it to him actually that people could not have been killed while 20, 30 people were there, and he said it happened in some instances, he gave you examples.

Whether those people were tortured or not tortured.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, all I want to know is, is he saying that people were tortured in the Nietverdiend matter, is that what you are saying?

MR MAMASELA: I say, you talked about the convergence of where ten to twenty Security Forces could be there when people are killed, not tortured.

I said it happened in Port Elizabeth and it happened in Nietverdiend. In Nietverdiend, I believe if you inject a person with poison, that is torture. Unless we don't know the definition of the word torture.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, I am asking you if you know of any other incidents where people were tortured for two to three days, two days on end, until they died with people coming in and out all the time, 20, 30 people where was that usual practice?

What other incident did it happen?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, can't you just - because, neither are you summarising the evidence correctly, the witness doesn't say the people were tortured for two days on end with 20, 30 people coming in and out, there is no such evidence?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the evidence was that the people were tortured for the two, Hashe and Galela was tortured on the Thursday, Godolozi was tortured on the Friday until approximately the afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you are saying something else, you are painting a different picture which the evidence doesn't paint. You are putting it to him that the evidence, as if the evidence in this case says that people were tortured for two days on end, with 30 people coming in and out.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When we know for that matter that 30 people only came on a certain day together with somebody and all that kind of thing.

ADV DU PLESSIS: On the Friday morning certain people came, there were four to five vehicles on the Thursday, there were 15 vehicles ...

CHAIRPERSON: The number of people varied.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: On Friday the number of people was different, on Thursday night the number of people was different, on Friday the number of people was different. Wednesday evening the number of people were different?

ADV DU PLESSIS: But that is the point Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: There were fewer people, Thursday the number was different, Friday the number was different.

ADV DU PLESSIS: That is the point, that is the point. Why would the Security Police have an operation where they are busy torturing people to death and they let people come in and out, in and out, different people on different days, while people are being tortured to death, it doesn't make sense.

That is the point I am trying to make.

CHAIRPERSON: He has given you his answer.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, thank you Mr Chairman, I will leave it there. Mr Mamasela, if you are prosecuted for these crimes you were involved in, what is your intention, are you going to plead guilty or not guilty?

MR MAMASELA: You are not my God, I cannot tell you my intention about my future.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mamasela, I want to put it to you that as far as I am concerned, the idea that I get is that you have struck a deal with somebody and that you will not be prosecuted.

MR MAMASELA: That is your own fertile imagination, help yourself to it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you will bear with me please.

Mr Mamasela, when you testified yesterday and you gave your version, did you testify with the document in front of you?

MR MAMASELA: Which?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you testify with any document in front of you or did you testify out of your head?

MR MAMASELA: I didn't read from anything.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you testified out of your head?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then twice you went back to certain incidents, is that right, which you forgot to testify when they - in the chronological sequence, can you remember?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is how the human mind works.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember which incidents those were?

MR MAMASELA: I can remember the case of the stick, where I was talking about ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar?

MR MAMASELA: Yes and then I remembered that oh, I forgot to mention that he used a stick in that case, and I went back to that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see in respect of the one incident, you testified, you forgot to testify about Warrant Officer Beeslaar's stick which we find on page 13 of volume 2, you forgot to testify that in sequence, and then on page 14, you also forgot to testify in chronological sequence your evidence pertaining to Warrant Officer Beeslaar who kicked the testicles of Galela?

MR MAMASELA: Not kicked, you are mistaken.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Or pressed them, or ...

MR MAMASELA: You are false, that is a false statement.

ADV DU PLESSIS: His testicles were kicked and hit.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, not kicked.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, whatever, the point I am trying to make is that in those two respects, you did not testify those two incidents in the chronological sequence when you testified, is there a reason for that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, the reason is that I am not a computer. I cannot file things chronological in my mind, because this is the truth and I know it to be the truth, I can start from A to B, or start from A to B, it does not matter.

What matters is the contents and the truth in it that I put forward. I do not cram my statement head by head and word for word, I did not cram it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mamasela, what I am going to argue and I am putting that to you is that that evidence is a fabrication, and that is why you forgot to testify it.

You were reminded in some way or another by a document or by somebody.

MR MAMASELA: By who?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am putting that to you.

MR MAMASELA: That is a perception, it is a figment of your imagination playing tricks with you again. And you want to blame me for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, please don't qualify your answers, again I am asking you because it takes a lot of time and you know, you speak for two minutes, and then the one minute is an introduction or qualification to your answers.

MR MAMASELA: Thank you Mr Chairman, my humble apologies.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's look at the previous question which was put to you by counsel about forgetting to mention the stick and the question of pressing one of the deceased's testicles.

I would have thought these were important aspects which you would not have forgotten?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I know you are not a computer, you are a human being, but isn't it so that ordinarily these two things if they did happen, are of such a nature that you would not have omitted mentioning them, and only remembered subsequently, isn't it so?

MR MAMASELA: To a certain extent Mr Chairman, I will agree with you. But the whole thing must be seen in the context as to how it happened.

I had not completely forgotten it, until I was asked by one of the defence counsel's. I reminded myself, because you know as you give evidence verbally, you are faster and I have been warned several times by the Chairman, that I mustn't be too fast, so I am so fast that I even skip some of the things, and immediately my mind works and then I go back and put the things in their chronological order. That is precisely what happened yesterday Mr Chairman, I did not forget and be reminded today by the, I reminded myself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mamasela, and what is also strange in respect of this, is that there is a third point which you have forgot to raise in sequence, and that is the question of the watch, where Warrant Officer Beeslaar was also involved in. You also testified that out of the chronological sequence, you forgot about that and then you came back to it later.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, out of my own volition. You never reminded me, I reminded myself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, the point is what I am going to argue, is that that part of your evidence is fabricated.

MR MAMASELA: Well, please yourself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see, in respect of the watch, Mr Mamasela, let's just be civil with each other please.

MR MAMASELA: If I say please yourself, what must I say? I can't answer that, I've tried to give you civil answers, you kick them out.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Just listen to my questions Mr Mamasela. You must remember your evidence on the record, the longer your answers are, the less credible they are going to seem on the record.

MR MAMASELA: I don't need you to tell me that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You are damaging your own evidence.

MR MAMASELA: I don't need you to tell me that. The Chairman told me that, I am satisfied.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In respect of the watch Mr Mamasela, in respect of the watch, you testified that you gave it to Beeslaar hoping that he would put it in the lost and found docket, what lost and found docket?

MR MAMASELA: It is SAP13, it is called, I even explained. It is called SAP13.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But why would he put it in that docket?

MR MAMASELA: Because it is something that I picked up on the floor and I gave it to him, we were taught that way.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But it was a secret operation?

MR MAMASELA: No, I was never told about the secret operation. Ascaris were told that at the scene of crime or at the scene of murder, you take the clues, you hand them over to your Commanding Officer or your senior, your immediate senior, he will take these things and he will put them in SAP13, that is how we were taught.

When we asked what is SAP13, they said it is a lost and found docket.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was the normal Police procedures followed in this matter, like in a normal investigation?

MR MAMASELA: No, I acted upon our instruction that we were given at Vlakplaas. Whether they were normal procedure or not, I acted according to the instructions.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking were the normal Police procedures taken in this matter?

MR MAMASELA: I was never a policeman, I don't know about normal Police procedures or not, I don't know whether they were normal or not. I was never a policeman. I was an ascari.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, turn to page 15 of volume 2, the last sentence of the first column there, line 28. It starts at line 27, you say there were no normal Police procedures taken after their arrest.

Why did you say that then if you don't know what normal Police procedures are?

MR MAMASELA: The author of this statement told me whether there were any normal Police procedures. I asked him what is that, then he told me were these people apprehended with the rights read to them, and I said no, that did not happen.

Then he put it as a normal Police procedure, it is a policeman who was writing the statement, it is not me who was writing the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: What was to happen to this watch in the end, as far as you are concerned?

MR MAMASELA: I thought this watch will be put maybe in a SAP13 probably in Johannesburg or in Pretoria, wherever, where I was stationed, because our instruction was as ascaris, if you get something from the murder scene, you give it, immediately you hand it over to the nearest senior officer.

What I called yesterday as Commissioned Commissioners, because we were regarded as ascaris, as non-Commissioned Commissioners. So I handed it over to Beeslaar to take this thing and maybe to report it to the seniors at Vlakplaas or whatever, I don't know what he was going to do with it. I was not interested, I did what I was supposed to do as an ascari, to hand over these things to our immediate senior policemen, and I did that.

CHAIRPERSON: But at that stage you knew that this man was going to be killed?

MR MAMASELA: Yes. So here is an evidence on the floor, lying on the floor, so our duties were if we find an evidence on the floor on a murder scene, or any clue, we must remove these clues and hand them over to our immediate Commanders, and that I did. What they did with them or not, I do not know.

But the normal way was, if you handed it over to, like a valuable thing like a watch, if you hand it over to your immediate Commander, he is supposed to put it in the SAP13 and they call it lost and found docket.

So I was surprised two months later, when he gave me R50-00. I said what is it for, then he said oh, it is that watch. It is then that it dawned to me that it is the watch that belonged to Mr Hashe, because I am the one who picked it up and gave it to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you accept the R50-00?

MR MAMASELA: To me it was sort of a bonus that he gives me, a thank you thing, thanks for giving me this wonderful watch, so I just took it, I don't ask questions, because I was an ascari. I was never allowed, ascaris were never allowed to question the instructions of their Commanders.

CHAIRPERSON: You see his evidence as far as I remember was that you took the watch for yourself and then later, sold it to him?

MR MAMASELA: With due respect Mr Chairman, Warrant Officer Beeslaar is a veteran policeman of more than 30 years experience in the Police Force. I was just an ascari.

There is no way an ascari can steal a watch for himself, and sell it to the policeman. If you steal something, then the person that you don't want near you, is a policeman. You don't steal and run to the police station and say to the police, I am stealing this. There is no logic in that.

ADV SANDI: As far, Mr Mamasela, as far as I can recall from the evidence of Mr Beeslaar, you had sold this watch to him for R30-00?

MR MAMASELA: No, he is sucking it from his thumb. I gave him the watch on the day and he is the one who gave me R50-00 two months later, and I was surprised and he showed me it is for the watch and I saw, and I remembered, it was a silver and a very unique watch, that this watch belonged to Mr Hashe.

Then he took it for himself and he gave me a bonus of R50-00. I was happy.

ADV SANDI: When you testified yesterday, I got the impression that there was something that had attracted you about this watch, was that impression correct?

MR MAMASELA: Not attracted me, I said there was something unique about that watch, the uniqueness of the watch was the name. It was not a common watch name, like Seiko, like all other like Oris, like other watches like Lanco. It started with Z, like Zefo or something, it was like a person's name.

That is what attracted me, those were the unique features of the watch, it was only that and then I handed it over to him, to Mr Beeslaar. There was no way a policeman can buy stolen goods wilfully, knowingly and illegally any way.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I come to that statement of Jacques Pauw, the transcript, that is Exhibit R.

I would like to ask the witness questions about that and then questions surrounding the assaults Mr Chairman, because I left that because of the questions pertaining to this.

Mr Mamasela, you say you haven't had a chance of reading this?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I didn't have this.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, you can start on page 8. Mr Chairman, I don't know if you want to adjourn for a minute or so.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there certain points you want to raise with him or what, why not just draw his attention to the paragraphs that you want to raise?

ADV DU PLESSIS: yes, the question was Mr Chairman, if there was any exaggerations or things in this statement that he didn't, that is not hundred percent correct or hundred percent true. That was the question and then he undertook to, he said he hadn't read it, and he undertook to read it during lunch time and he didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: So you want him to go through that and identify exaggerations or whatever?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, anything that he says is an exaggeration or something that is not hundred percent correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that will require of us to adjourn but it will be only in respect of the Pebco 3 and not beyond that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, it is just from page 8 to the top of page 10 Mr Chairman. The last part of page 8 till the top of page 10.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just define the problem more accurately. You want to find out from - I want to use the language that the court will understand, not the language that we will not be able to understand - you want to identify areas which are not true?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, as far as I can remember the question I asked him was in respect of this, of the Jacques Pauw transcript, you will remember what I put to him what he testified in the Durban trial about the fact that this was not hundred percent correct. He testified there that it contained exaggerations and certain areas which are not the truth.

Then I asked him, in this hearing what is his view on the transcript and the correctness thereof and are there exaggerations in this document or not, and he said he hadn't read it, he wants to read it.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 8 to?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 10 Mr Chairman, top of page 10, after the third paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are going to adjourn for a few minutes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am indebted to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, we are going to adjourn so that you can have a look at page 8 to page 10 and identify areas which are not correct or which do not constitute the truth.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And you will tell us as soon as you have finished. You will tell Mr Brink.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I may just point out, I am nearly finished Mr Chairman. Another five minutes or so and I will be finished.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay, so then we will adjourn and please tell Mr Brink as soon as you are ready.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JOE MAMASELA: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mamasela, have you finished reading the relevant pages?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mamasela, you testified yesterday that Mr Hashe was first interrogated?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you testified that he was interrogated to a specific point and then there was, if we can call it, a little break in the interrogation, and then he asked difficult question, and Koole kicked him again and then there was a second interrogation, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: No, he did not ask a difficult question.

ADV DU PLESSIS: A stupid question?

MR MAMASELA: He was asked a question that he perceived as stupid, and I concurred with him at that time.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you see, in respect of the interrogation in respect of Hashe, you testified in the Section 29 hearing on page 13 of volume 2 - can I refer you to that - you testified there that, in line 39, they started hitting and kicking him, he was handcuffed and could do nothing to protect himself and started shouting. We covered his mouth. Warrant Officer Beeslaar took a stick, pushed it against the old man's throat so that he suffocated.

At the same time Lieutenant Niewoudt hit him with a steel pipe over the head. I saw that blood was oozing from his mouth and ears. Let's just go that far.

Mr Mamasela, according to my notes, when you gave evidence about this incident, if we can call it the first interrogation of Mr Hashe, you testified that Hashe said something about people who can pitch their tents in town, and that the ANC stood for a racial democracy and that that infuriated Niewoudt and that he grabbed an iron pipe and beat him several times on the head, is that right?

MR MAMASELA: No, that is not correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Okay what is the correct evidence?

MR MAMASELA: The ANC has never stood for racial democracy.

ADV DU PLESSIS: For a non-racial democracy, sorry I read my notes wrong, it says here non-racial.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, and another aspect is the question of people can go and pitch up tents, it is not a correct version of what I've said. He was accused of chasing the policemen out of the township and now the accusation went as far as now, this poor black policemen are now pitching tents up in town, what must they do.

Then he said that is what the ANC stood for, for a non-racial democratic united South Africa, so he said if this policemen want to live in town, (indistinct) that is what they wanted, and that seemed to be the thing that infuriated him to - it sparked the assault. This is what I said.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see and then you testified Venter, Koole, Mogoai, Beeslaar - you testified yesterday, Venter, Koole, Mogoai, Beeslaar, Niewoudt and the other whites participated?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I was told to stifle his screams, we struggled to stifle his screams. The others hit with fists, punches, sticks, Niewoudt beat him with an iron pipe, I saw blood coming from his ears and mouth. This scared me and I jumped to one side? The beatings went on, I saw him on the ground with blood all over his face. He had difficulty breathing, I poured water over him and then he seemed to revive.

I dragged him and put him on the wall, balanced him on the wall. Could see he was slightly confused and he began to talk, that was your evidence yesterday.

MR MAMASELA: That is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now if you read the evidence about the first interrogation on page 13, line 35 to 40, which I read to you just now, there is one aspect that was glaringly absent in your evidence yesterday.

That is the stick of Warrant Officer Beeslaar. What you said here in your Section 29 evidence, there you said Beeslaar put a stick and put it on his throat, during that incident, and you didn't testify it yesterday.

MR MAMASELA: No, that is at a later stage, that is what we were discussing, I went back to that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. You came back later?

MR MAMASELA: It is not a matter of (indistinct), I omitted it at that stage, you wanted a chronologic sequence, you didn't want the facts.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now, in the second interrogation, you testified on page 14 of volume 2, Warrant Officer Koole kicked him hard in the face, that is line 7. I remember that there was foam coming out of his mouth, his eyes rolled over, everyone assaulted the old man and then later on you say, I saw that Warrant Officer Koole's clothes and shoes were covered in blood.

Right, now that was what you testified in the Section 29 hearing. When you testified yesterday, there were quite a few things that you included in your testimony Mr Mamasela. I want to put that to you because I am going to argue that that is the way you testify, when you play for the gallery, you make things up.

You play along, you say things extra, you say things further. You testify more. That is what I am going to argue.

I am going to put to you what you testified yesterday. You said Koole delivered a mule like kick on the jaws of the old man, saw his lower jaw twisted to one side. I saw white from the mouth of the old man, he collapsed.

Then Koole went bezerk, put his knees on the old man's chest, he couldn't breathe or move, he started strangling him. That is something you didn't testify in the Section 29 hearing.

Koole held onto the old man's neck, he was the last to leave the old man. He laid there dead still, he couldn't move, his eyes were rolled up, he was evidently dead. Koole was bloodied all over. If one looked at him, it looked as if he was assaulted.

Koole left the old man, saw the old man was listless, I tried to revive him. The way you testified it yesterday Mr Mamasela, was much more in detail, much more graphic as it appears that you testified in the Section 29 hearing.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I think that is very normal. It is a normal practice. If you testify in a court of law, you don't testify just with the statement only. Your statement is a condensed fact of what happened, and when you testify you elaborate.

If elaboration is lies, it is your own funeral.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Mamasela, it is exaggeration. What you testified in the Durban trial about, it is exaggeration. That is what I am trying to point out to you. You exaggerate in your evidence.

MR MAMASELA: No, it is a lie.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Apart from the fact that you are lying.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what is it that is not mentioned in the evidence that is contained in the statement?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the fact that Koole was the last person who stood up, the fact that Koole held onto his neck, that he saw that he couldn't breathe or move, that Koole strangled him, that the others weighed in with sticks.

CHAIRPERSON: It is also that he sat on his chest and suffocated him.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, it is again the point that you criticised me on, but I thought I will do it again at the risk of being criticised again.

The point I am trying to make here Mr Chairman, is that there is a difference in the version, and the version we had yesterday was a much more elaborated version, a much more version that played for the gallery than the version we have in the Section 29 hearing, and I am trying to illustrate the fact that this witness exaggerates, that he tends to make things much more important than they are.

Mr Mamasela, in respect of the Jacques Pauw transcript, you have gone through that now, haven't you?

MR MAMASELA: I have gone through that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and what do you say about that, does it contain lies and exaggerations?

MR MAMASELA: As far as I am concerned, there are no lies, there are no exaggeration, the only thing that I can point out is a discrepancy, one little minute discrepancy.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So what you testified in the Durban hearing, is then not right, that wasn't true, the fact that it contained exaggerations?

MR MAMASELA: No, I did not read the whole transcript. You are the one who gave me the guidelines, read page 8 up to 10. That is what I read, and in conjunction with your instruction, I found that there are no lies, there are no exaggerations, there is only one little minute discrepancy that I can point out.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What is that?

MR MAMASELA: The discrepancy that I can point out, is on page 9 under (JM) the Pebco 3, and then here I say at about 9 am the joined Security Forces of Cape Town came in, that was Cape Town/Port Elizabeth and that is not - this is the argument that we had yesterday with my learned friend, Mr Booyens, that this people, it is a mistake, I wanted to say they converged on Friday, so that is the only little discrepancy that I am talking about.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, Mr Mamasela, all right, I've made the point. Now, you see if we look at page 14, volume 2. The next thing you testified was about the watch and then the further thing you testified was about Mr Galela who was fetched in the garage. Do you see that on page 14, volume 2?

MR MAMASELA: Jacques Pauw transcript or something else, did you jump to something else?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, no, volume 2, page 14.

MR MAMASELA: Okay.

ADV DU PLESSIS: At the top of the page, you dealt with the second interrogation of Hashe, then in line 12 you dealt with the watch, then in line 24 you said we fetched Galela from the garage and then you deal until line 36 with the interrogation of Galela, do you see that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I see that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you see that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then you say in line 38 at approximately five to six o'clock Galela died?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then you said line 41 we were told to guard them until the next morning. We first had to have confirmation as to whether Godolozi worked together with National Intelligence Service, do you see that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I see that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then on the next page, page 15 line 7, you testified that the next morning, Godolozi was interrogated and assaulted?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that was Friday, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you see yesterday's evidence was a bit different, because after you had testified about the second interrogation of Hashe, you testified the following yesterday. You said I was asked by Venter to fetch Godolozi.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: When he saw the old man, he went on his knees, begging for his life. As Niewoudt wanted to attack with an iron pipe, he said he was working with NIS. I thought it was a way to get away from the assault, Niewoudt didn't believe him, the others intervened and said it might be possible. He took him back.

And then you said when Galela came out, we saw that something was wrong with his eye, they started interrogating him, he didn't know much. So that whole part of Godolozi who came out and who was sent back, was not testified during the Section 29 hearing. Was that an oversight of what is the case?

MR MAMASELA: No, it is not necessarily an oversight. What was happening here, I was giving the version of what happened to a policeman like you who wanted things to follow a certain chronological sequence as far as the police is concerned.

He wrote about who was hit first, who was killed second, and who was killed third. So I can't say Godolozi was killed second, when he was killed last.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Because what I find strange here is that on page 14 Mr Chairman, this whole part of Godolozi should have been included at line 24. At line 24 Mr Mamasela's whole version of Godolozi should have been included there, and it wasn't.

I am just asking your explanation.

MR MAMASELA: Which rule says it should have or it should not have? Which category are you using to determine whether it was ...

ADV DU PLESSIS: Because you testified about that yesterday and you didn't testify at the Section 29 hearing.

MR MAMASELA: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So your evidence at the Section 29 hearing cannot be relied on and it is not complete.

MR MAMASELA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I don't understand, what did you say just repeat your difficulty.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, what I pointed out is you will see that page 14, the top of page 14 until line 12 dealt with Hashe's interrogation. Then it started with the watch, then line 24 refers to Galela.

In the evidence yesterday, this witness' evidence followed the sequence of the Section 29 hearing except here where he started with we took Galela from the garage. There was a whole section about Godolozi yesterday inserted in this place, which was never testified to in the Section 29 hearing, that is the point I am trying to make.

His evidence was there before Galela came out, after Hashe was interrogated for the second time, Galela didn't come out of the garage, Godolozi came out. Then Godolozi saw Hashe lying there, Godolozi said no, no, sorry I am part of NIS, don't interrogate me. Then they sent Godolozi back, and then they took Galela out and they started interrogating Galela.

The point I am trying to make is that in the Section 29 hearing, part of the evidence was not included there. It just deals with the reliability of this witness and his evidence Mr Chairman. That is the point I am trying to make.

My argument will be that if he had left something out in the Section 29 hearing, and he included certain things in this hearing, the reliance that one can place on his evidence, becomes less and less reliable. Do you understand what I am saying Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: I understand, but what you are saying is something that is not correct because if you say that I've excluded that Godolozi mentioned that he worked with NIS and NIS people had to postpone the whole thing to wait for NIS people to come, I have said that.

The only problem that you have is you argue about the chronological sequence and as far as I am concerned, I am not worried about chronology, I am worried about facts, about objective facts in my statement.

I am not worried about chronology because I told you I am not a robot, I never computerised this thing, I never crammed my statement.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, maybe you didn't learn your statement properly, because you followed this statement word by word when you testified.

MR MAMASELA: No, you are the ones who had been arguing even before now, that Mr Mamasela, your statement does not follow the chronology, you tend to be forgetful, you tend to go back, now all of a sudden my statement is following the chronology. Where do you stand exactly?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I hear what you say Mr Mamasela, I am pointing out to you the problems in your evidence, and don't get angry when I do that.

MR MAMASELA: No, I get angry.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Let's look at page 15 please, volume 2, page 15. From line 7 you testify about Godolozi and in line 13 you speak about Godolozi and you say he was also hit, kicked and assaulted with the iron pipe and Warrant Officer Beeslaar's stick. Is this correct Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that the evidence?

MR MAMASELA: What evidence, that he was assaulted?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: He was assaulted, it is a fact.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And this evidence is correct, this is what you testified yesterday too?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, it is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Is there nothing you want to add there?

MR MAMASELA: Like what?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you, you can remember Godolozi's interrogation, I am asking you what more, what do you want to add there?

MR MAMASELA: No, what I said about Godolozi was when he saw the old man there, you can't put all that in a statement, like I told you, otherwise if I had to put every little thing, like that he went down on his knees, that he begged for his life, it was not relevant to the Investigating Officer. He wanted concrete facts, not what I perceived.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mamasela, I am asking you, is this correct, is this what you testified about the interrogation of Godolozi?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct, that is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And this is your evidence about the interrogation of Godolozi?

MR MAMASELA: According to my statement that I made.

ADV DU PLESSIS: According to what you remember as well?

MR MAMASELA: No, to the statement that I made.

ADV DU PLESSIS: According to what you remember?

MR MAMASELA: It is my statement.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking you according to what you remember, is it the same?

MR MAMASELA: What I remembered was the version that I gave the Commission yesterday, the full detailed version.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What was that?

MR MAMASELA: That when Godolozi saw Mr Hashe lying there, he went on his knees, and then he begged that he must not be killed. As far as I am concerned, that act in itself did not constitute gross human rights' abuse.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, just listen to my question. I am asking you is this version on page 15 of the interrogation of Godolozi, is this the correct version, is this what you testified yesterday too?

MR MAMASELA: That is true, it is a true version.

ADV DU PLESSIS: This is what you testified, this is a true version.

MR MAMASELA: Now you want to tell me do you want to add something.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You don't want to take something out?

MR MAMASELA: I said yes I can add something on, and I tell you what I want to add on is the process where Godolozi saw the old man there, and then he went on his knees.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Du Plessis, you were also there when he testified yesterday, you heard his evidence. If there is a contradiction between what stands on page 15 and what he said yesterday, why don't you just put that to him?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I am getting to that. I am just trying to determine exactly what he says what his evidence was.

You see Mr Mamasela, in the sequence that you testified yesterday, and it wasn't cleared what you testified if it was Galela or Godolozi, you testified that Warrant Officer Beeslaar took his stick and he pressed the testicles of somebody, now who was that? Was that Galela or Godolozi?

MR MAMASELA: No, again you are making false, you don't understand what you are asking. You are confusing the whole Commission and yourself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, I am asking you.

MR MAMASELA: You are confused. I never said Warrant Officer used the stick to press somebody's testicles.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, you testified about testicles that were pressed, whose was it.

MR MAMASELA: Ask me if you don't understand.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Whose was it?

MR MAMASELA: It was Galela's, it was Galela's testicles that he pressed with his hand and then they protruded like the size of a golf ball, and then he hit them hard with his right hand. There was no stick used there.

You are confused, and then you say I am confused.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mamasela, in the sequence of your testimony, that is something, and I have pointed that out previously as well, if it is Galela that you testify about in respect of the testicles, you testified it totally out of sequence.

MR MAMASELA: You worry about the sequence, that is your problem, and I told you worry about the objective facts and the contents of my statement. Don't worry about the sequence.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mamasela, the point is, let me finalise the point. The point is what I am putting to you, is that what you testified about Warrant Officer Beeslaar, about his use of the stick, about the pressing of the testicles, every time when you had to testify it in the chronological order, you didn't do so because it is not the truth.

MR MAMASELA: No, because I am not a robot. I don't follow a certain procedure, I know these things happened. It is my daily bread, you can wake me up at 1 am, I will tell you exactly what happened, even if it is not in a chronological order, the contents will be the same. And that will be the truth.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And I put it to you that Warrant Officer Beeslaar denies and never testified that he was involved in assaults in this fashion. Colonel Venter testified that they were not involved in assaults of this fashion.

The other Port Elizabeth Security Force policemen testified that they were not involved in assaults of this fashion and Mr Mogoai and Koole testified that Beeslaar was never involved in assaults with a stick.

MR MAMASELA: I won't argue much about that, because as a third force agent myself who was there in the belly of the devil, I know it is inherent in the nature of the Security Forces to deny their evil and dastardly acts, it is not a new thing to me and I am not surprised.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you see Mr Mamasela, when we have to argue if this Commission has to accept your version, it means that the version of all these people that I put to you now, even though they don't contradict each other in that regard, that that version should be rejected.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to answer that question again, we have dealt with these things.

ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: He told you long ago that it is not a matter of counting the heads, if you want to disbelieve me because I am one, there are five, we have covered this ground before.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I see it is four o'clock, must I continue?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MR LAMEY: Thank you. Just for the record, I represent Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole in their amnesty applications, Mr Mamasela.

Mr Chairman, I wish to provisionally hand to the Committee documentation that were previously handed to me by one of the legal representatives for the family. It is affidavits by Mrs Hashe as well as in an application against the Minister of Law and Order, previously I believe it is during 1986, in a Supreme Court application which I believe was aimed at ordering the Police and the Minister of Law and Order, to release if I stand to be corrected on this, but to release Messrs Hashe, Godolozi and Galela from custody.

If I, I am saying this in view of my impression, if I am making any erroneous statement in this regard, I ask that I just be corrected. I don't want to be unfair to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Are these papers different from the ones that we got last time or am I having the wrong papers in mind? Anyway I suppose it does no harm, even if we have them.

MR LAMEY: I have prepared a bundle Mr Chairman, which I propose to use, I suggest that it be marked Exhibit T for ease of reference.

CHAIRPERSON: All right we will mark it Exhibit T. That will be papers in the matter of Mrs Elizabeth Hashe and two others v Minister of Law and Order.

MR LAMEY: Indeed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela ...

ADV DE JAGER: If at any stage we could find out the case number, it may be relevant later for records if the case number could be found.

MR LAMEY: I will try and establish that Mr Chairman. Mr Mamasela, when you made your statement before the Truth Commission, the Investigating Committee, did you have any source from which you were able or may I ask you this, this was your statement to the Attorney General which was read to the Investigation Committee of the TRC, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is absolutely correct.

MR LAMEY: When you made that statement, did you have any sources from which you were able to refresh your memory?

MR MAMASELA: Where, in Cape Town, when I made that ...

MR LAMEY: No, when you made your statement to the Attorney General regarding the Pebco 3 incident, did you have any sources from which you were able to refresh your memory?

MR MAMASELA: No, I just wrote about my own personal recollections and experiences.

MR LAMEY: So, you had nothing, this statement to the Attorney General is from your memory, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, in most cases, yes.

MR LAMEY: I am talking about the Pebco 3 incident.

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I say that in most cases about the Pebco 3 incident, yes.

MR LAMEY: What do you mean by in most cases about the Pebco 3? I just want to clarify that Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: You are saying to me, Mr Mamasela, did you have any sources of recollection that helped you when you made the statement, or did you make it out of your own recollection. I say in most instances, yes, I used my own recollection.

MR LAMEY: I just want to try and understand what you refer to most instances regarding the Pebco 3 statement. Can you just clarify that for me, are you referring to other instances of other incidents that you refreshed your memory, because I am talking about the Pebco 3 statement that you made to the Attorney General?

MR MAMASELA: No, it was purely my own recollection of events.

MR LAMEY: So the Pebco 3 incident was your memory recollection of the events?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you didn't use your diary?

MR MAMASELA: About the Pebco 3, I didn't write anything about that in the diary.

MR LAMEY: Thank you. It was purely on memory, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Is there some of your version, let me just ask you this, when did you make this statement to the Attorney General?

MR MAMASELA: I said on the 21st of the 10th month, of 1995.

MR LAMEY: The 21st of October 1995?

MR MAMASELA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Are there aspects included in your statement in the Attorney General's statement, and which you read out to the TRC, can I just rephrase that, is every bit of fact you know what a fact is Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: I suppose I do.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, I don't mean to under estimate your intelligence, I actually accept that you are a very intelligent person, what I mean by fact is you must realise that its got a specific legal, fact is also a legal term. That is why I am asking you, is every bit of fact in this statement made from your memory and your recollection, or are there as at the time, in other words, your memory as to the events that it happened at the time, not to exclude that or to distinguish that, from hearsay information that came to your knowledge later onwards, or inferences that you have drawn, do you understand this question clearly?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I try to understand it, but I don't follow. I don't follow it quite well.

MR LAMEY: Let me break it up then.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Are there inferences and conclusions which you have put into your statement from information that you have gathered subsequent to May 1985?

MR MAMASELA: No, no.

MR LAMEY: Nothing?

MR MAMASELA: No, where will I get information from?

MR LAMEY: So your answer is nothing?

MR MAMASELA: No.

MR LAMEY: Every fact that is contained in your statement before the TRC, can I just ask this, is there any inferences that you have drawn from certain facts, that is sort of opinion or deductions that you have said in your statement?

MR MAMASELA: No, I have said to you just now that that is virtually my memory, the recollection of my own memory about what happened, about incidents that I witnessed with my own eyes, that I saw, that I was involved in. I did not need anything to refresh me about that.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Mr Mamasela, I want to ask you about, at this point, about one aspect, if you look at page 12. I am referring to volume 2, page 12.

You state in the middle Mr Chairman, unfortunately my bundle has not been numbered next to the lines, but it is more or less in the middle of page 12, and I am going to read it to you Mr Mamasela. You say a yellow Toyota Hi-Lux bakkie with registration plates CB12436, we followed this car up to point (b) in photo 1 where it was parked. That is what you stated, is that correct?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You stated it as a categorical fact?

MR MAMASELA: Objective fact, yes.

MR LAMEY: How were you able to recall the registration number of that vehicle ten years after this incident?

MR MAMASELA: When I gave evidence here yesterday, I made it clear that I am a militarist. I am a well trained Intelligence Officer, trained by the African National Congress.

It is my duty to sypher and to syphon data, I was trained, that was my speciality in the ANC, to sypher and syphon data. I will, if I want even telephone numbers by my head, most of the telephone numbers I hear, several telephones of my friends, they are in my head. I am trained in that aspect, that is my speciality, that is my field.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, that is what you are saying now. In the same breath I want to put it to you and I have also listened to your evidence here, you have at a certain stage during cross-examination said I am not a computer, I am not able to memorise every minute detail after so many years.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Is that what you said?

MR MAMASELA: No, that is true. Let me tell you something how Intelligence works in case you don't know. If you are an Intelligence Officer, when something of paramount importance crops up, you register it in your mind. You don't register each and every little scrap of information, otherwise you will go bananas in your mind.

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Mr Lamey, if I can ask just for my own clarity. I want to ensure that I follow you. Do you have instructions from your clients that the registration number is incorrect?

MR LAMEY: I will come to that now Mr Chairman, may I just, I will come to that now. The first point is, and I want to put it across and that is why I give Mr Mamasela the opportunity to answer this, and to - I find it astonishing and I must say, absolutely astonishing that a person can remember from once seeing it during an operation where his focus of concentration must have been more directed to the arrests, and the vehicle at the time must have been immaterial, that he remembers and memorises a registration number of a vehicle and can still recall it after 10 years and can state under oath before this Commission, that that is still correct and true and a categorical fact.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is true, what is your problem about that? What do you want to make out of it?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I was coming to this, and I put this to Mr Mamasela and I want to refer to Exhibit T.

ADV DE JAGER: I am sorry Mr Lamey, could you have made a mistake about the number, the registration number of the car?

MR MAMASELA: Mr Chairman, if I was not hundred percent sure of the registration, I wouldn't have put it in here.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. And could you have made a mistake about the type of vehicle?

MR MAMASELA: Absolute not, Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, Mr Mamasela, the document, perhaps Mr Brink - I will show you the document that I have handed, I don't know whether it is in front of you.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: This is an affidavit by Mrs Hashe, who I believe is also present at this hearing, which she made in a court case. She is the wife of the deceased, Mr Hashe.

I want to refer you to page 4 of her statement, paragraph 4.2. On the same day, Hashe, Godolozi and Galela set off in a yellow Isuzu, not a Toyota, yellow Isuzu.

ADV DE JAGER: Page 8, numbered page 8?

MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, I will refer for ease of reference then in future to the paginated numbers 8. It is page 4 of the - but it is paginated page 8.

Do you have it in front of you Mr Mamasela?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I have it.

MR LAMEY: Firstly it refers to a yellow Isuzu and not a yellow Toyota.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Do you see that?

MR MAMASELA: Yes, I see that.

MR LAMEY: It further refers to registration number CB12462.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Which is different from the registration that you mentioned?

MR MAMASELA: To the best of my recollection what I saw was that registration. If we can get the original documentation of this car, maybe it can say something else.

MR LAMEY: Are you now leaving open in your evidence that you stand to be corrected on this aspect?

MR MAMASELA: I can be corrected if we get the original papers of this car, because I still stick to my version, 12432.

Because what I did was, I applied what we call a number system.

MR LAMEY: You have now said 12432? You have now said 12432, Mr Mamasela.

MR MAMASELA: No, I am talking about in my evidence, where I put the registration number.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, you have now said 1234.

MR MAMASELA: No, let's check what I've said in my statement, the registration of the car. I want to see whether this is - yes, I said 12436, not 62 and I believe my version is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mamasela, just now, a minute ago you answered 12432?

MR MAMASELA: No, I made a mistake, 36. That is my original and I stick by it and I will tell you why I stick by it and why I want to challenge the memory maybe refreshed, the memory of Mrs Hashe.

We must not take advantage of old people's memories, because let me tell you something, why I arrived to this is because I played a number system in my mind. Because I said the first numbers were 12, the following number is 4, and then the last numbers I am quite certain and I am sure, it was 36. Now I said if the first number is 12, I said 12 times 2 is supposed to give me 36, but in stead it was not 2, it was 4. Then that was the difference, I couldn't make 12 times 4 give me 36, it is only 12 x 3 that will give me 36. 3 is an odd number, 4 is an even number, that is bigger than 3.

So I played the number system for many years, and it played in my mind, that is why I am certain that this is a fact. We can challenge, and it is not a yellow Isuzu. I drove the car, it was a yellow Toyota Hi-Lux, and if it is a Isuzu, let's get the original papers and the papers will tell whether I am lying or I am not, or whether the old lady made a mistake, a human mistake. Our mothers don't know anything about models and makes of cars, they are old people, we must not take advantage of them.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, I just want to point out further that Mrs Hashe further quotes the engine number of this vehicle.

MR MAMASELA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Although it doesn't state so clearly in the affidavit, I want to put it to you that it is reasonable inference that one can draw, that at the time when making this affidavit and making sure as to what she is stating, she probably referred to the registration documents of this vehicle, because she was also able to quote the engine number.

MR MAMASELA: I stick to my version, my version is correct, because I played that number system for many years, it rang in my head. Even after 20 years, if you can ask me this number, I will give it to you.

That is how trained I was.

MR LAMEY: I further want to put it to you that this affidavit by Mrs Hashe was made, may I just make sure, if I may refer to page 20, paginated page 20 on the 16th of July, 1985 and one could also reasonably infer that it was made when it must have been fresh in her memory?

MR MAMASELA: My argument still stands, let's get the original papers, for your argument sake, let's get a copy of my registration and see whether it will issue, produce an Isuzu or a Toyota. If it produces a Toyota at that time, then I am correct.

And then you take out this registration and this engine number in this affidavit, and go to the licensing department and produce that document and see what it stands for, then we can save this Commission a lot of halloo balloo over nothing.

MR LAMEY: I just want to get this clear from what you are trying to say Mr Mamasela. You say I do not stand to be corrected, what you are saying is the documents will show that my facts are correct?

MR MAMASELA: That is what I put it to you because I believe in this registration, I was there, I drove the car myself. I didn't drive an Isuzu. I didn't drive a CB6 something car, I drove a CB12436 car. That is what I drove.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you accept Mr Mamasela's challenge to check the registration authorities power, you don't represent Mrs Hashe? Perhaps I wouldn't make that suggestion, I will leave it there.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mamasela, you described to this Committee that, and in the video recording to Mr Pauw, that the word ascari is a racist terrorist term?

MR MAMASELA: No, not racist terrorist term. You see that is the mistake of just following and consuming anything that you get.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey when you come to a convenient point, shall we adjourn until tomorrow morning?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, my attention has just been drawn to one of my colleagues. I believe that there has been previously an Exhibit handed in, it is Exhibit A3, which was the recorda of the vehicle registration by the Security Police in their information system of the particular vehicle that we are talking about.

ADV SANDI: What page is that sir?

MR LAMEY: Exhibit A3. Mr Chairman, the document I have in front of me, on the top it says 26 page = 5 of 11. It is document 20 of 26 page 5 of 11.

ADV DE JAGER: According to mine, it is 1 of 11.

MR LAMEY: Yes, Mr Chairman, the document A3 starts off 1 of 11, if you page on ...

MR BRINK: Sorry Mr Chairman, I think it is the fifth page of that Exhibit.

MR LAMEY: I am indebted to my learned colleague, it will be the fifth page of that bundle of documents.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, we've found it.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mamasela, I want to put it to you that it must be more than a coincidence that the Security Police has also recorded the description of this particular vehicle as registration number CB12462, 1980 Isuzu bakkie, yellow.

MR MAMASELA: The Security Forces?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR MAMASELA: Then if that is the case, then that is their version, but my version stands that why don't you take my version and check it also, whether it is a Toyota Hi-Lux or not?

MR LAMEY: Well, Mr Mamasela, I must put it to you this way, they were expecting a vehicle at the airport, and surely they must have been able to assure themselves of the description and the registration number of that vehicle, to know according to your evidence, whether the right people are to be approached in that vehicle?

MR MAMASELA: I don't want to confuse myself with what the Security Forces can do, because I know that they can falsify evidence and they can falsify their documents, so I am not interested in that aspect.

Why should Security Forces look for a vehicle, it is ordinary policemen motor car theft branch, to look for missing vehicles, not Security Forces.

ADV DE JAGER: I believe we've got local Attorneys here in Port Elizabeth, who would be able to assist us going to the Municipality and see whether they can get the documents.

I take it they will still have a motor car registered in 1985.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if I may be of assistance here, that aspect has been checked. I am told that the records unfortunately don't go back as far as 1985, apparently they've wiped it off the computer, that is the Municipality.

Anybody who wants to go can go and check it again, we were told that that is not the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Booyens. Well, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I think this is a convenient stage, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS