Amnesty Hearings

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, it is now half past eleven, the interpreter has arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the interpreter now available?

MR BRINK: I believe so.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we hearing our channels right?

MR BRINK: I gather this, the interpreter speaking now is translating into Xhosa but the Tswana interpreter is here to enable Mr Koole to give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: The loud interpretation you are hearing is not Xhosa it's Tswana.

MR BRINK: I don't know. Could the Xhosa interpreter please interpret for the benefit of the audience, the Tswana interpreter will interpret the evidence given by Mr Koole.

MR J KOOLE: (Sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: For the record Mr J Koole is being recalled so that questions may be put to him in respect of the statement he supposed to have made which was attested to by Inspector De Lange. Does somebody need an adjournment so that they can sort out the - the interpretation coming out from the mikes is not in Xhosa but in Tswana. Is the audience getting the interpretation in Xhosa? Alright if - Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Sorry Mr Chairman, on which channel is English? Channel 2? Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Mr Nyoka did you want to say something?

MR NYOKA: I was going to suggest a one minute adjournment so that this can be sorted out. The Tswana interpretation is louder than Xhosa which will confuse.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes that's what I'm hearing and that's why I asked the audience and I think let's adjourn for a few minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Booyens.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Koole, your statement exhibit O. You heard the evidence of Mr Landman about it yesterday where he said it was properly taken and you took the oath in front of him?

MR DE JAGER: De Lange, Mr de Lange.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, De Lange. What is your comment about that?

MR KOOLE: Will you please repeat your question sir?

MR BOOYENS: You heard Mr de Lange's evidence yesterday when he said that this statement of yours, exhibit O, was properly taken and he recorded exactly what you told him and you took the oath in front of him?

MR KOOLE: That is not true, it's not like that.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, you are, I know you are disputing De Lange's evidence. Is that really what you're saying? You don't agree with De Lange?

MR KOOLE: That is where there are some parts where I agree with him and there are parts which I dispute.

MR BOOYENS: Now, would you agree ...[intervention]

MR DE JAGER: Die Afrikaanse vertaling kom nie deur van die getuie nie maar ek sal oorskakel na Engels toe, dit maak nie saak nie, maar ek noem net dit kom nie deur nie.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Koole would you agree with me, that if this Commission is to hold that the statement by De Lange is indeed a proper affidavit by you that there are vast differences between this statement and your evidence that you have given before this Commission under oath?

MR KOOLE: There are differences within De Lange's statements which does not agree with my evidence before this Commission.

MR BOOYENS: I'm not going to categorise all of them, I think it will be a waste of time, but in your statement there are for example five times where the name Niewoudt is mentioned which you didn't mention in your evidence. There are parts where a much more serious assault over a longer period is described as you mentioned in your evidence. There are other differences as well but I do not think it's necessary to enumerate all of them. I put it to you that your statement under oath, as before this Commission, and your statement that De Lange said you made under oath differs materially. What do you say about that?

MR KOOLE: The statement I made before De Lange is different from the statement I made under oath. There are words which he used I did not use.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Koole, I got the impression when you mentioned the differences between what you say you actually would have said and the De Lange statement that you are really saying that De Lange has added a lot of things to your statement or added a lot of things what you didn't say to put it more correctly?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, there are words which were said which I did not use.

MR BOOYENS: There are also facts, not only words, but facts that have been inserted that you didn't tell us about?

MR KOOLE: I don't know what kind of examples you're talking about.

MR BOOYENS: Have you got exhibit O?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, I have it.

MR BOOYENS: Go to paragraph 18 for example and in your evidence at page 1248.

MR KOOLE: I'm looking at page 5 sir.

MR BOOYENS: This was the stage when you were pointing out all the things you did not agree with and you said the allegation, "these men were brought one after the other into the room where they were tied to a wall and in this position" your comment about this - "there is only one man that was brought into the room and that is Mr Hashe". So that is just one of the examples. You see that?

MR KOOLE: I see that sir.

MR BOOYENS: And also paragraph 20 you said at page 1249 that you never said that all three of these people were locked in a cell? I'm not going to mention all of the examples, they are there for everybody to see. All I'm suggesting to you is apparently facts have been placed into this statement which were simply things that you say you never told De Lange?

MR KOOLE: Some of those facts I did not tell Mr de Lange.

MR BOOYENS: All I want to know from you Mr Koole is, was pressure exerted upon you to tell them about things that you never knew anything about. Were they suggesting, in other words, that you say additional things when they took your statement?

MR KOOLE: I don't know as when I was the first one to give evidence but there are some things which Mr de Lange has added which I did not say.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, the question is actually did Mr de Lange put these facts to you and suggest it that you should also put them in your statement and is that perhaps why they were added in your statement?

MR KOOLE: There was no pressure at all Mr Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Not pressure, just suggestion. Did he say to you "but you must say this as well" not threatening you or anything of that, "you must say this as well" or "don't you remember something like that has happened?" Things like that?

MR KOOLE: What I told Mr de Lange which I actually said and it's in the statement, I do agree with those. But things which I did not say and they're in the statement, I'm in dispute of those things.

MR BOOYENS: No, I think you're not understanding my question. Just listen carefully. While De Lange was, let us go to an example. Go to page 3 of exhibit O, the third line. There's a sentence there that says "Niewoudt did the talking about where we must park at the airport." I know yours in Afrikaans. You said that it was not Niewoudt it was Venter. Page 1242 Mr Chairman is the record reference. Now all I want to know, the putting in of Niewoudt's name there, did De Lange say to you "wasn't it Niewoudt that told you where to park at the airport?"

MR KOOLE: There are those which Mr de Lange told me which I did not know, for example as well, do I know Mr Loots? And other issues. I did not say those things but he wanted to put those in the statements. I did not say those things and even there I don't remember how many ...[indistinct] was put.

MR BOOYENS: Are things that he wanted you to say that you didn't know? Is that what you said?

MR KOOLE: That is correct sir. He asked me as to whether do I know.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Koole, this exhibit, exhibit O. Do you admit that you signed this under oath?

MR KOOLE: I dispute I didn't take an oath.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you say you signed it but you didn't take the oath? Is that what you're saying?

MR KOOLE: That is correct sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your amnesty application? Did you sign that under oath?

MR KOOLE: Yes I signed it under oath.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Koole ...[intervention]

MR LAMEY: Can my learned friend just refer to which Amnesty Application he's referring to. We've got more than one signing of an application in it's Amnesty Application in the form.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, perhaps my learned friend can enlighten me and tell me how many Amnesty Applications were signed. I know there was one Amnesty Application that was signed, I know there was an additional document signed. Maybe I should ask the witness. How many Amnesty Applications did you sign?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember well because there were people I was working with, they brought papers that I should sign. There are those that I signed at Mr de Lange's place. I don't know as to whether those, among those, which ones are applications for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Your application which you signed on the 9th of December 1996. Did you sign that under oath?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember the date well, sir, but there is one which I signed but I don't remember the day and the month.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, that's exhibit V. If the witness can perhaps just be shown by Mr Brink exhibit V please. It's dated 9 December 1996.

MR KOOLE: I see that Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you sign that under oath?

MR KOOLE: Yes I signed this one under oath.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now we have two statements. Exhibit O and exhibit V. Were there any other statements about the PEBCO matter that you signed under oath?

MR KOOLE: The last statements that I made at Mr de Lange's office which I don't see them here. I don't know as whether I made those under oath or not.

CHAIRPERSON: But were they in respect of the PEBCO matter?

Or other incidents?

MR KOOLE: It was in regard to the PEBCO 3 sir.

MR DE JAGER: Just for the official application before us which appears on 254 of Bundle 1. It was signed on the 29th May 1997. It appears on page 258.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Koole can I refer you to page 258.

MR KOOLE: I see that Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you sign that one under oath?

MR KOOLE: I signed it at the police station under oath.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, now we know you signed that Amnesty Application under oath on the 29th May, you signed another one in December. Now can you just tell us in respect of the two Amnesty Applications, in the one that you signed that appears on page 258 of Volume 1. Your reference to the acts and omissions is a reference to annexure A. Do you see that?

MR KOOLE: Yes I see page 258 I don't see the Annexure A.

MR DU PLESSIS: Annexure A starts on 259 and it goes through until page 268. Do you see that?

MR KOOLE: Yes I see that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now, do you also agree with me that that version of the PEBCO matter that we find from page 261 right through to page 268 is an affidavit that very closely accords with Mr Mogoai's Amnesty Application in respect of the contents?

MR KOOLE: I don't know the contents of that one but this one I know. I signed it at the police station. I don't know as to whether it is similar or in accord with Mr Mogoai's application.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well I'm putting it to you that it's in most respects except for a few differences here and there, more or less the same. Do you disagree with me?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's what he's saying. He says a quick glance, with a quick glance over six, eight pages he can't say. Then I have to take him through it, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR DU PLESSIS: To establish because ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What do you want to establish?

MR DU PLESSIS: I want to establish the fact that this application, this specific one that was signed in May very closely relates the Amnesty Application, relates to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You can put your questions on the assumption assuming that they look they same.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes alright.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to sit here and go through what we did last time.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright then I'll do it on that basis. Right, Mr Mogoai, and that's what I put to him, Mr Chairman. I put it to you that I will argue and that it will become clear if you read both applications that your application that starts on page 261 accords very closely in respect of the facts with Mr Mogoai's application which starts at page 26. I just put that to you. Now what I want to know from you is in the, in exhibit V, where you refer to the particulars of the act and omissions on the second page. Exhibit V, the second page. This is the one that was signed on 9 December 1996. There you say, you see paragraph 9A? Second page? It provides details for the deeds, omissions, offences which have regards to the political objective regarding to which Amnesty is required and then you say there "the deed, omissions or offences as per my statement which is at present in possession of the Attorney General." Which statement did you refer to there?

MR KOOLE: Can you repeat the last part sir? The question.

MR DU PLESSIS: Which statement did you refer to where you said "as per my statement which is at present in possession

of the Attorney General"?

MR KOOLE: It's the statement which I made to Mr de Lange which I did not know the purpose of that statement. Then he did explain to me that it is in regard to PEBCO 3. I don't know as to whether which reference is mentioned here.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is it possible that it could have been exhibit O?

MR KOOLE: It might be possible to be exhibit O. Some parts of it not all of it.

MR DU PLESSIS: But, how can you say some parts of it but not all of it because this document refers to a statement in possession of the Attorney General. Now I want to know which statement in possession of the Attorney General did you refer to? And my question was "Could it have been exhibit O"?

MR KOOLE: There is a statement which I made to Mr de Lange. He came to me for the first time, he asked me about PEBCO 3 then he said I should come to his office. I made my statement there in his office. It is not here. For the second time when we went to point out he said I should come and make the statement. There is a statement which is not present here which I made to Mr de Lange.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you say there is another statement apart from exhibit O and apart from exhibit V?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr du Plessis, let me just interrupt this. Very often, Mr Koole, people speak of having made a statement and sometimes they mean no more than that. They did speak to a person who writes down what they say, they do not necessarily mean that they actually signed a statement. Now when you say apart from exhibit O you had made a statement to De Lange, do you mean that you spoke to him and he took down what you said? Or are you actually saying that there was physical statement containing a piece of paper which you signed?

MR KOOLE: There is a statement which I made. It was written then he said I should wait for a while whilst it is typed. Then I should sign it later before I leave.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he's saying it is "O". He's saying that he took down a statement from you which he caused to be typed and then after a few days he brought it to you place of residence ...[indistinct] which you signed and he says this is "O".

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, the statement which is before me which is exhibit O is the statement which was brought to my house. The first statement which I made in his office. I made a statement there, then he said it should be typed and then sign it before I leave. It is not present here, it's not one of the statements I see.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, did you then sign that particular statement at his office.

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it before you signed exhibit O or was it after?

MR KOOLE: It is before I signed exhibit O.

CHAIRPERSON: And was that statement also in respect of the PEBCO 3 matter?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why would you be asked to sign more than one statement in respect of the same incident?

MR KOOLE: I didn't have knowledge what should I sign, where it should go, in relation to what. I didn't know even the destination of all the statements I signed. I didn't have the knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not ask him "but why must I sign yet another statement, after all I've already signed one statement at your office?"

MR KOOLE: I did not have knowledge to dispute because I didn't know how many statements were wanted and where they are wanted.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, when a person has no knowledge is precisely when he asks. You didn't know why you had to make so many statements and perhaps that's why you should have asked and that's why I'm asking you. People who don't know are precisely the people who ask. Why didn't you ask "why do I have to make more than one statement in respect of the same incident?"

MR KOOLE: I did not have knowledge how many statements I should have made.

CHAIRPERSON: And, well, when you made this other statement did you have a second consultation with Mr de Lange for the purpose of making exhibit O?

MR KOOLE: The exhibit O which is in front of you, it was made after we have come from Port Elizabeth. It is not the first one we have made in his office.

CHAIRPERSON: And, well, on that occasion when you consulted with him for the purpose of making exhibit O and when you made a statement to him about PEBCO 3, did you just repeat the same things that you said in the other statement, in the previous statement?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember as whether did I say all those things in their chronological order as it appears in exhibit O.

CHAIRPERSON: If one looks at exhibit O it is as if you had not made any other statement. In other words it does not appear to be a supplementary statement it just seems to be dealing with the matter from beginning to end.

MR KOOLE: Mr Chairperson, this is a second statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Which takes me back to where we started. Why the second statement? If you had made a statement which is not supplementary and which purports to be dealing with the issue from beginning to end as if there was no prior statement at all?

MR KOOLE: I don't know the difference between the two statements but I made the other statement. Mr de Lange came to me, there were three, then he said the following day I should come to his office. I went to his office and I made a statement. Then later we came to Port Elizabeth to point out places and things and thereafter I made the statement. I don't know as whether that statement was supplementary to the first one or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Koole, is there any reason, or let me ask you this, do you have a copy of the first statement you made, before you made exhibit O, in your possession?

MR KOOLE: No, Chairperson, I don't have it.

MR DU PLESSIS: But, would it be fair to say that that statement should be in the possession of the Attorney General?

MR KOOLE: I do not know where it was taken to.

MR DU PLESSIS: The first statement that you made, the first statement that you made Mr Koole ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why are we having a disturbance now? Please let us not have a disturbance if we can help it?

MR C DE JAGER: Menere, bly net by die persoon, as hy nie verdere probleme verskaf los hom.

CHAIRPERSON: The gentleman sitting next to that person, would you please advise him that if he wants to be in here he must keep quiet otherwise I'm going to ask the police to remove him physically out of here. Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, Mr Koole, the last time you saw the first statement that you made, the last time you saw that statement, was that still in the possession of the Attorney General?

MR KOOLE: The last statement which I saw was the one I signed at home which was brought by the police.

MR DU PLESSIS: I understand. I'm talking of the first statement. The first statement that you signed was the one before exhibit O. The second statement which you say you didn't sign under oath is exhibit O. The third statement was the one you signed in December as part of your Amnesty Application. Now I'm referring to the statement you say you made before you made or before you signed exhibit O, the first statement which we talked about now. Was that statement, the last time you saw that statement, was it in possession of the Attorney General?

MR KOOLE: It was in Mr de Lange's office. I don't know where it ended.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright so Mr de Lange's office. So we can say, safely say, that when you last saw it was in possession of representatives of the Attorney General. Now Mr Koole, exhibit V. The statement you refer there or in which it is referred there to a statement of the Attorney General of Transvaal. Do you refer there to the first statement? Would it be possible that that reference is a reference to the first statement, the one you made before exhibit O?

MR KOOLE: It may be so sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then one can safely accept that because this is part of an amnesty application that the Truth Commission would be in possession of that statement, isn't that so?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to verify as whether it is like that or not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well I'm putting it to you that because this is an application for amnesty, it refers to a statement that is currently in possession of the Attorney General. It should have been attached to this document and it should be in the possession of the Truth Commission. Do you want to comment on that?

MR KOOLE: I cannot comment because I don't know where it ended.

MR DU PLESSIS: It is either that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis do I understand your question to be saying that if there was a statement in the possession of the Attorney General to which the witness would have been referring to in exhibit V it would have been attached?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, what I'm saying is if it's not exhibit O, if the statement that is referred to there is not exhibit O and it is the first statement that the witness says he made under oath with the Attorney General.

CHAIRPERSON: One would expect that it would have been attached to this application and sent down to the Commission's office?

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct, that's the point I'm trying to make.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he understands that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, maybe I'll try to do it as clearly as possible. Mr Koole, exhibit V, that is your latest Amnesty Application, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR C DE JAGER: I think V is his earlier application.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Exhibit V is the first Amnesty Application that you made. Do you agree with me?

MR KOOLE: I do not understand this whether it is the first or the second but it's one of my applications for amnesty.

MR DU PLESSIS: It is the first because it is signed December 1996 and the other one was signed in May 1997, so this is the first one. Do you agree?

MR KOOLE: I don't agree, I do not disagree.

MR DU PLESSIS: But Mr Koole, just on the dates, this one is signed, was signed 9 December 1996.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I can assist my learned friend here with something I think in that if I could just place the thing just in perspective. I don't want to intervene here with the cross-examination. We were instructed some time in April to assist applicants with Amnesty Applications which had already been lodged in the format as we have here in exhibit V by the Attorney General's Office. There was correspondence exchanged between Rooth & Wessels and the Amnesty Committee regarding a problem that we foresee in that is that we don't have all the statements that's referred to and there might be need supplement, there might be material in that that needs to be taken out etcetera. If necessary I can hand that communication up but I thought that I would do it later. What was also said that at least before the second cut-off date which was round about I think in 10 May that that would be fine if we do it on that basis provided that only a summary, short summary is provided to the Amnesty Committee and I can hand the document up. In respect of Mr Koole there was also a second document that was signed. It merely summarised with the heading "The Acts and Offences" that he applies for amnesty for. And then the third document would be the supplemented whole, supplemented Amnesty Application which is dated May 1997. So he in fact signed three documents regarding to his Amnesty Application.

CHAIRPERSON: While you are on that, the pages 261, 259 I'm sorry, pages 259 to the end. When did they come in? Did they come in together with V or did they come together with the application forms signed in May 1997?

MR LAMEY: No, annexure A didn't come in with exhibit V.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I didn't ask whether it came with V, I asked whether it came with the other applications dated 27th May 1997.

MR LAMEY: Yes annexure A refers to the form which is on page 254 to 258. That is annexure A.

CHAIRPERSON: 254 came together with the annexure A referred to therein which is pages 259 and so forth?

MR LAMEY: Yes. Yes that was dated, in fact submitted after that cut-off date in May, but just before the cut-off date I could hand up the document, there was a document also sent to the Amnesty Committee just where Mr Koole also signed which has listed those incidents which he seeks amnesty for.

CHAIRPERSON: But the point you are raising is not bearing on the question which Mr du Plessis is asking. It won't cause any problems on the questions that he's asking.

MR LAMEY: But I think my learned friend, I've gathered from his that he assumes that there's now two documents signed relating to the Amnesty Application. I just want to say that there's in fact three.

CHAIRPERSON: What's the third one?

MR LAMEY: As I've said the first one is the document dated 9 December, the second one is the abbreviated listing of those incidents, which he seeks amnesty for, which was sent off before the cut-off date in 10 May 1997 and the third one is what we have here on 254.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, while my learned friend is enlightening us, perhaps he could enlighten us about which affidavit was attached to exhibit V?

CHAIRPERSON: He was not yet in the picture. If he can tell us, let him tell us.

MR LAMEY: I really don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that would be the issue which you would converse with the witness.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm going to Mr Chairman, I accept that my learned friend would have done that. I'm just making sure that there's no reflection upon him that when somebody reads the record and they ask why didn't he raise it, I just wanted to make sure there's no ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, go on.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right, thank you Mr Chairman. Now, Mr Koole, in respect of exhibit V, the statement that is referred to there which says there was currently at that stage in the possession of the Attorney General. Do you follow me? The statement that is referred to on page 2 of exhibit V. Do you understand what I'm referring to?

MR KOOLE: I don't where the statements are made were sent to the Attorney General or to Mr de Lange or they ended with Mr de Lange, I don't know exactly.

MR KOOLE: No, no, no, Mr Koole. Do you understand what I'm referring to. Do you understand I'm that referring to the statement that is referred to in exhibit V page 2 paragraph 9(a)? That statement. Just get that, just understand that I'm referring to that. Do you see paragraph 9(a) of page 2 of exhibit V?

MR KOOLE: I see that sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see it refers to a statement that was at that stage in possession of the Attorney General? Do you see it there?

MR KOOLE: I see that sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you just now agreed with me that it may have been possible that it could have been exhibit O or it could be possible that it could have been the first statement you made to the Attorney General. Is that right?

MR KOOLE: That is correct. It might be the statement which is in the Attorney General's office which is not present here and some parts of that document which you have.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you agree that whatever statement it is, it formed part of this Amnesty Application of yours that was dated 9 December 1996. Do you agree with me?

MR KOOLE: It is like that but I don't remember the date when it was written.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now when you signed exhibit V on 9th December 1996, did you read that statement that is referred to in paragraph 9(a)?

MR KOOLE: Yes I read that part.

MR DU PLESSIS: You read the statement that is referred to in paragraph 9(a). Did you read the statement?

MR KOOLE: Would you please repeat your question, sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Koole, when you signed exhibit V on 9 December 1996, did you read the statement that is referred to in paragraph 9(a) of exhibit V?

MR KOOLE: I read the statement sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. Do you understand the question and are you sure of your answer?

MR KOOLE: The question is as to whether did I read the statement which was signed on the 9th December before I signed that statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Koole, let's try again. Page 2, exhibit V refers to a statement that is in possession of the Attorney General. Please Mr Brink?

CHAIRPERSON: Just show him that sentence in 9(a)

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you see that sentence?

MR KOOLE: I see sir, I see that sentence sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you understand what it says?

MR KOOLE: Yes sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: And when you signed this document that you've got there with you, when you signed it, look on page 5, when you signed it on the 9th December 1996, when you signed it, did you also read the statement that is referred to on page 2 that was in possession of the Attorney General?

MR KOOLE: I don't know that statement which was in the Attorney General's office. I don't know whether it's the one in front of me or another statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm asking you Mr Koole, did you read the statement that's referred to on page 2 paragraph 9(a) when you signed this document? It's not such a difficult question.

MR KOOLE: I read the statement sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you read it on the very same day that you signed that application form in front of you?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember the date. I don't know on which day was the 9th December. I see that date.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't worry about the date. All I'm asking you is on the day that you signed this exhibit V did you on that very same day also read the statement or a copy of the statement which is said to be in the possession of the Attorney General?

MR KOOLE: I don't know as to whether I did read that statement because it was already in the hands of the Attorney General. I was given only this statement which I've signed.

CHAIRPERSON: A short while ago you said to a question by Mr du Plessis when he asked you about this you said you did read the statement referred to and that is why I asked you whether you read it on the same day that you signed this exhibit V. Please ask if you don't, these are not easy questions and nobody will blame you if you ask for clarification before you answer them. Plain to you, I'm going to take the top and explain to you the context in which these questions are being asked. You know that when you apply for amnesty you must complete an application form which looks like exhibit V, isn't it?

MR KOOLE: I did not know before.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, I'm not asking about the past I'm saying you know you've got to complete that form.

MR KOOLE: Yes I know sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did complete the form didn't you?

MR KOOLE: That is correct sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Now this application form requires a lot of information for example in paragraph 9(a) 1 which we are talking about you are asked to give details of the offence for which you asked for amnesty.

MR KOOLE: I understand sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you completed this application form instead of writing on this form the details of the offences, you said no, no, those details are found in the statement which is in the possession of the Attorney General.

MR KOOLE: I'm listening Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the question which was asked then was at the time when you signed this application form was that statement, rather did you read that statement? Which you say was in the hands of the Attorney General?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell me whether you read it on the same day that you signed this application form or you had read it before actually signing this application form.

MR KOOLE: I don't remember the date as to whether it was the same date when I signed this form or before.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you told us you made more than one statement to Mr de Lange.

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you said you're referring to a copy of the statement in the possession of the Attorney General, in your mind were you referring to the one you signed first or exhibit O which you signed later. Which of your several statements were you having in mind when you say, when you referred us to the statement in the possession of the Attorney General?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to answer that question because I don't know as whether that statement refers to exhibit O or the one which is not present here.

CHAIRPERSON: But the only person who can tell us is you. That's why I'm asking you, in your mind, in your mind which statement did you have in mind, you as Mr Koole. When you said I'm referring here now to the statement which is in the hands of the Attorney General. Which of your many statements, in your mind, were you referring to? Nobody can tell us that except yourself. That time according to you, you knew at that time you had made more than one statement. Now I want to know, which one then did you have in mind.

MR KOOLE: In my mind I thought I referred to the first statement which I made in Mr de Lange's office.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Koole when you signed this document, exhibit V, you - can you remember that you initialled the statement, the first statement which you say in your mind you thought was the statement. Can you remember that you initialled it?

MR KOOLE: I initialled - I initialled the statement which is before you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes but I'm talking of the first statement that was made to the Attorney General. Did you have it in your hands? Did you initial it when you signed exhibit V on the same day? Was it attached to this document?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember sir.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis I think in all fairness to the witness I remember that around the cut-off date was the office in Cape Town phoned and said they were on the border of the cut-off date and we're going to send the forms in and maybe they won't be as complete as you would have wanted it to be, would there be objections if we send it in and complemented further and I think that's what happened in this case and I remember, I know he's a partner in the firm Rooth and Wessels ...[indistinct] Is there a Mr Brink at your firm? Paulson. Yes Paulson was phoned and enquiries were made and it was said to the firm that several of the application forms and several of the applicants were given the opportunity to hand them in and later on they would be supplemented and I just think that in all fairness to the applicant it's necessary to be said that in his case, or one of those cases, that the details might only come later but that the application would then be handed in.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson, I accept that and of course that's something that should be placed in front of the Committee because I'm sitting here in cross-questioning and trying to figure out what's going on and how many versions there are and maybe there's a simple answer for all of this, the way these applications were submitted. I do not understand why we have to battle like this now.

MR DE JAGER: I also do not know. I haven't seen the application form. I don't know if one was attached to that or whether it followed later. I think the problem, Mr Du Plessis, is that according to De Lange's version it's the only statement that was made concerning the PEBCO 3 incident and according to him there aren't any other statements which were made and I think this is the problem we are experiencing and I do not know why all these questions are asked. Maybe Mr Lamey can help us. I'd like to ask him how did exhibit O get to us? From whom did we receive it and when was it filed and then exhibit V as it seems to be the case.

MR DU PLESSIS: As far as I remember the last time, was provided to us by Mr Brink on a request of myself about whether there were statements of the Attorney General in possession of the TRC and it was given to us on that basis. I don't know if Mr Lamey can elaborate on that.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, what I remember was Mr du Plessis wanted to see previous statements from Mr Koole as well as Mr Mogoai. I remember Mr Brink had in his possession a statement of Mr Mamasela, Koole and Mogoai. I can't remember now with regard to Mr Koole's statement whether I know that one of the statements was an unsigned statement and then we were ask to communicate with the Attorney General to the policeman who has got the docket and then it was faxed to the hall here and then only after we had an opportunity to look at it it was placed inter alia a statement of Mr Koole before the Committee. At no stage was that statement attached to any previous amnesty application as far as I'm aware. Mr Brink did last time said how, when and where he got it. Mr Brink can speak - enlighten us here, I don't want to do it on his behalf.

MR BRINK: Yes, Mr Chairman. Mr Chris MacAdam of the witness protection unit was in close liaison with the Attorney General and he made available to me an unsigned - what appears to be -unsigned copy of a statement made by Mr Mogoai together with a copy of exhibit O. These I made together with a copy of a statement made by Mr Mamasela. These I made available to my colleagues at the last time - at the last hearing. These are the only documents I know of, I haven't seen any other statement made by Mr Koole at all. I can only and I don't know for sure but I would have thought Mr MacAdam having obtained exhibit O which is a signed copy. Had there been another statement, I have little doubt that it would have been given to me had it still in existence but this is all I received.

CHAIRPERSON: The problem is V refers to exhibit A, your annexure A.

MR DU PLESSIS: No V refers to the statement in possession of the Attorney General.

CHAIRPERSON: And page 254 refers to annexure A which appears to be pages 259.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman and those - and there's evidence that there is another statement that was made to the Attorney General, the first statement that Mr Koole testified about which is not in front of us. Now, either in annexure V it was referred to exhibit O or there was a reference to the first statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. If it was there.

MR DU PLESSIS: If it was there. Now it could be possible and I don't want to argue this but I'm just trying to give you an idea of the different variations of what could have happened here is, if one takes into account what was eventually contained in the latest amnesty application, if that was based upon a statement in possession of the Attorney General, it means that the contents that we have as part of the amnesty application now in front of us, it starts on page 259. The contents of that statement was contained in the statement in possession of the Attorney General. According to Mr Koole, that would have been then the first statement which means that what is here in volume 1 may have been the contents of the first statement and then the question arises, why was there a second statement taken down by the Attorney General with different contents and for what reason? That's just one possibility, Mr Chairman. The other possibility [intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I ask a general question?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Taking a global view of pages 259 and so on, comparing it with the general picture of the evidence given by the witness, are the two versions more in harmony than if you were to compare O with this general evidence?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, the contents of the Amnesty Application from page 259 and the evidence that he gave contradicts exhibit O and it is more - the evidence is more in harmony in respect of his Amnesty Application and a further point that one has to take into account is the similarity between his amnesty application and Mr Mogoai's Amnesty Application in respect of minute details. Now that is why I'm trying to find out how did this happen, when were the statements made because it seems to me and that may be argument that I might want to - want to advance to you is that there was some manipulation of these witnesses by somebody in respect of these statements. Either in respect of the amnesty applications or in respect of the - of exhibit O. One doesn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Or else witnesses changed their version.

MR DU PLESSIS: Or they changed their version. In both instances it's going to be to the detriment obviously of Mr Koole.

MR DE JAGER: You see as far as the similarity in the wording of the amnesty applications is concerned, I won't be easily persuaded that that - anything turns about that because we had different amnesty applications with the same wording since you've got computers, Attorneys doesn't draw up affidavits for each time. They use the computer and they transfer it from one to the other and we find in every application almost the same words are being used.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes obviously I won't - I won't want to argue that point because my own applications have followed that same situation. But, one must remember that the question is, Mr Chairman, and that is really the gist of it, if Mr Koole's version which was this, which contradicted Mr Mogoai's Attorney General statement was not adapted to follow Mr Mogoai's version so as to have a - two versions - which are more in harmony in respect of the amnesty applications. That's the questions to be asked Mr Chairman and in that regard one could argue that point.

MR DE JAGER: For the argument, common cause that the evidence isn't in accordance with exhibit O. Further, Mr de Lange says there was only exhibit O while Mr Koole says there was exhibit O and some - and another application. So that's the facts we have to deal with and that's where we're standing.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes Mr Chairman and I'm really - I thank you for that because that is really the end of my cross-examination. That situation I wanted to put to Mr Koole and I wanted to give him a fair opportunity to explain to us how did this happen and to explain to us, try to explain to us the problems we have with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Something which I have to ask Mr Lamey. Pages 259 and so forth, maybe I wrongly assumed that it was prepared by the office of the Attorney General. Was it your office which prepared this or not?

MR LAMEY: Yes indeed, I was the person who consulted with Mr Koole and that it was prepared by our office.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see, oh.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, there's just another point which is important in this regard. I know we're not arguing but while we're trying to clear this point up, is that exhibit O was made after the two witnesses, Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole came to Post Chalmers with the Attorney General and with members of the Truth Commission - just of the Attorney General - after they went and pointed out certain places. This affidavit is dated after those dates, for what it is worth.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Koole, we know that you've made exhibit O on the 26th April, 1996. When did you first went or was fetched by the Attorney General in order to assist him to investigate this matter?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to ascertain the date because Mr de Lange and the other two came to my place. They asked me information to the PEBCO 3 incident then he said the following day I should come to his office. Then I made the statement in his office. Then he said I should wait until it is typed. Then I signed the statement. Then I left his office.

MR DE JAGER: Translation for me please?

MR KOOLE: My answer was that I am not able to ascertain the date but it's before we came to Cradock for the first time when I heard about the PEBCO 3. Mr de Lange came to the room, the other two policemen and asked me questions in relations to the PEBCO 3 incident. Then he instructed me the following day I should come to his office to make a statement. I made a statement in his office. It was typed and later I signed it.

MR DE JAGER: And thereafter did you go to - were you taken to Cradock?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson, we came to Cradock after I made my first statement.

MR DE JAGER: Was it a long time thereafter or very shortly thereafter that you came to Cradock after you had made the statement?

MR KOOLE: It was after a long time that I can estimate it to 2 to 3, 3 to 4 months.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka, do you have any questions to the witness?

MR NYOKA: I was having revolutionary note Mr Chairman, maybe you can read it before I say?

MR DU PLESSIS: What kind of note Mr Chairman? A revolutionary note?

MR NYOKA: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Does it have any bearing?

MR NYOKA: No, it has no bearing with violence don't worry.

MR DU PLESSIS: Bearing upon what's on my?

MR NYOKA: I've got just a few questions, Mr Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I'm not finished yet.

MR NYOKA: Oh, sorry.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to wrap up my cross-examination. If you'll allow me to.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you said it was your?

MR DU PLESSIS: I really didn't put it to Mr Koole. Mr Koole, what I want to put to you is, I'm going to argue in all fairness and I want you to comment on that. I'm going to argue at the end of the day that because of the confusion pertaining to your statements, because of the evidence of Mr de Lange which was said that you testified exhibit O under oath, because of the differences in your amnesty application and your evidence on the one hand and exhibit O on the other hand and because of the fact that there's another statement that we don't have, that nobody has supplied to this Commission but we know exists, it was not made available to this Commission and we don't know what is contained in it, I going to argue that little or no reliance can be placed upon your version in this matter in relation to any of the evidence of the other applicants. What is your comment on that?

MR KOOLE: I have no answer because I don't know where my statements and that I don't know what happened to my statements.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman and then there's just one last question that I've got. Mr Koole, Mr Mamasela testified that you and Mr Mogoai was working together with the white security policemen to portray a false version before this Committee. Is there any truth in that?

MR KOOLE: I didn't understand the question well. Can you repeat it again sir?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mamasela said that you were working together with the white security policemen to give a specific version to this Committee which is not true. Now did you work with Colonel Venter, with Warrant Officer Beeslaar, with Niewoudt, with Lotz and with Van Zyl. Did you talk to them about your amnesty application? Did you work out with them what you were going to testify about? Did you change the evidence so as to help each other?

MR KOOLE: That is not correct, Chairperson. Since the start of this we - I did not meet and we did not discuss about this issue together.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Koole, you have 27 years experience as a policeman, not so?

MR KOOLE: That is correct sir?

MR NYOKA: To my mind it seems as if you are not careful in ensuring that before signing a statement you read it or you were not careful to find out what the need was for so many statements for you to sign. I'm concerned about that. Any comment?

MR KOOLE: I would comment because in each and every statement I was told that it was taken to the Commission for application for amnesty.

MR NYOKA: You, in an answer to a question by Mr Booyens. You said Mr de Lange made certain suggestions which subsequently led to being in your statement which did not come from you. Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct sir.

MR NYOKA: Did you make any suggestions regarding the assault which came from him, not from you, which led to be in your statement. In other words did assault allegations come only from you and not from any other person?

MR KOOLE: Yes in my statement I did say something about assault.

MR NYOKA: These assault allegations did they come solely from you or from any other person that's what I'm interested not parts, the assault allegations?

MR KOOLE: They come from me.

MR NYOKA: Finally, which of the statements reflect the correct course of events that you signed before a Commission of Oaths, not those that you did not sign, those you signed before a Commissioner of oaths, which of them reflect the correct course of events?

MR KOOLE: I saw only one which I did not sign under oath. I don't see the other one which I signed.

MR NYOKA: You persist in your allegation that there was an assault by those people that were present at Post Chalmers. You don't retract from that. Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct sir.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYOKA

CHAIRPERSON: Let us clear this thing of Mr de Lange. Either you can be understood as saying that Mr de Lange told you to say certain things or it could be understood at saying Mr de Lange asked you questions as to whether or not certain things were true. In other words about clarification. I don't quite understand, well I thought I did, but I just want to be clear about this, what are you saying actually about Mr de Lange? With regard to this aspect?

MR KOOLE: There were names which he asked me about other than Mr Niewoudt's name. He asked me sort of "were these people present?" Then I replied that and say I did not know those person, I only know Mr Niewoudt and there were other white policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he or did he not say to you Mr Koole "say this in your statement, say this in your statement" or did he only ask questions like the one you've given an example of?

MR KOOLE: I was informing, telling him, then at times he would suggest as whether it's this kind of thing to or this person was not present. I would say I don't know. I will not be able to identify that person. So those are the things which he wanted to include in my statement.

ADV SANDI: Was he suggesting that that information should go into your statement?

MR KOOLE: It seems like that because those people he was talking about were the people he knew that they were involved in this incident and I did not know them.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should ask you, did he want that information to come into the statement whether it is true or not?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it was a question as to whether do I know this kind of a person and this other one, were they not present there? Things like that and then I would reply and say it's not like that, I don't know those people.

CHAIRPERSON: We appreciate that, we understand that. But you see we want to know whether you are saying Mr de Lange acted improperly?

MR KOOLE: I disputed the things which he suggested things to me. He wanted to add names of the people of - names of people I did not know. He asked me as to whether do I know Mr Lotz, I said no, I don't know him.

CHAIRPERSON: You are an experienced policeman yourself. In the way that he was asking these questions, are you saying that he acted improperly or are you not saying that?

MR KOOLE: I would not know as whether he was in order or not because it was his plan or ploy but he was supposed to take what I was telling him. He could have refrained from asking me things which I did not know about.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words are you saying that taking into account your personal experiences as a policeman, are you saying that in the course of his interview with you, Mr de Lange acted improperly?

MR KOOLE: I would say it's like that because he wanted to force me to say things or to add things which I did not say.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he actually want you to say things which you didn't want to say?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was your reaction?

MR KOOLE: When he asked me about other peoples names, for example Mr Lotz, those who are applicants for amnesty, I said I do not know. He wrote names of people I did not know then I even said to him I will not be able to identify those people.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, you see that could have been for purpose of clarification. We have come to a point where you are saying that he was not asking questions for purpose of clarification or why he was not asking questions so that he should just know whether you knew those people. You have gone so far as to say in your view he was acting improperly and you said, you've gone so far as to say, that he wanted you to say things that you did not want to say. That's what you've just said.

MR KOOLE: It is like that because he was asking me about Mr Lotz, I didn't even mention those people in my statement. That is why I say he acted improperly.

CHAIRPERSON: What is improper about asking you whether you knew Mr Lotz because you could say "no I don't know him". What is improper about that kind of question?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't believe that when he was taking my statement he could have suggested to me names of people I did not know or ask me about people I did not know.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if he wanted to know whether you knew them then what must he say? Must he not ask you whether you know them?

MR KOOLE: He asked me as to whether do I know them. I said I don't know them.

CHAIRPERSON: What is wrong if somebody asks you whether you knew somebody? What is improper about that?

MR KOOLE: I did not mention that name before. He brought that name as to whether do I know them. It was not my intention to mention those people because I did not know them in the first place.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew that you had been involved in this incident with other people. They might have mentioned the name of Mr Lotz to him. So what is wrong if he wanted to know whether you knew Mr Lotz?

MR KOOLE: In my statement, I did not talk about Mr Lotz. That is why I said he mentioned Mr Lotz name. He brought this name to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that why you're saying this question was improper for example?

MR KOOLE: That is correct sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Hartle?

MS HARTLE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Koole have you experienced any duress, real or imagined, since you've come out with the allegations against the applicants concerning their involvement in the death of the PEBCO 3, the assault rather, of the PEBCO 3?

MR KOOLE: Please try to be slower?

MS HARTLE: Have you experienced any duress, real or imagined since you've come out of the allegations of the assault in relation to the PEBCO 3 which would influence you to change your testimony ?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson.

MS HARTLE: When Mr de Lange took your statement or on the occasion that you were interviewed by him did you get the impression that he personally knew the applicants?

MR KOOLE: It appeared like that.

MS HARTLE: Did you get the impression, Mr Koole, at all that he was perhaps not acting impartially?

MR KOOLE: I would not be able to say he was partial or impartial because he was asking me about Mr Lotz and Mr Mogoai, then I said I know Mr Mogoai. He asked me about Mr Mamasela then I said I know him.

MS HARTLE: Mr Koole, have you ever in your experience as a police officer encountered a situation where a colleague is accused of a criminal offence and a statement is changed to discredit the prosecution?

MR KOOLE: I don't understand your question.

MS HARTLE: Have you ever heard of a police statement or a statement being tampered with so as to discredit the prosecution where a police officer is being charged with a criminal offence?

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean discredit the prosecution?

MS HARTLE: Sorry, Mr Chairman, in other words to cause confusion, to change the statement deliberately so as to make it untrue. I'm just asking if he's ever experienced that as a police officer.

CHAIRPERSON: Why does it sound so complicated?

MS HARTLE: I haven't heard your question?

CHAIRPERSON: Why does this have to be so complicated? Can't you simplify it so that we can understand?

MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, perhaps it's a matter I should just leave for argument.

CHAIRPERSON: I wasn't stopping you from asking the question. It's just that I thought maybe if it was asked in more practical terms or language.

MS HARTLE: Well perhaps I can try again.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I don't understand what you mean changing a witnesses statement or tampering with it to discredit the prosecution.

MS HARTLE: I think I'll just leave it Mr Chairman. It's just perhaps a bit confusing. I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS HARTLE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Koole, when you dictated the contents of exhibit O to Mr de Lange, you as a policeman knew that very serious allegations were being investigated and that your statement would be made on oath. Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: When he started I did not know because we discussed this thing firstly from my place. I only discovered when - when I made the statement in his office, he said to me I should wait so that I should sign the statement.

MR BRINK: Mr Koole, after you had spoken to Mr de Lange he asked you to call into his office to make a statement. You then on your evidence went to his office and you made a statement. What I'm putting to you is you must have known that that statement which he was taking from you would be sworn to by you in affidavit form?

MR KOOLE: That is correct sir.

MR BRINK: Now when Mr Booyens was cross-examining you, you said there were certain matters in exhibit O which were put in at the instance of Mr de Lange, matters about which you had no personal knowledge. But he insisted, go into your affidavit, you conceded that when Mr Booyens was questioning you.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I don't think my learned friend has got it quite right. I think what I said to him is that there are certain things which must have been put into the statement which you didn't talk about. Words to that, I don't think it went so far because - that I went so far that De Lange insisted that these things be put in by the witness. I don't think I went that far.

MR BRINK: Yes thank you. No, I take the point. But in any event you conceded that there were matters referred to in your affidavit about which you had no knowledge?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson. That is why I said I did not want to sign that statement. It was brought to me by two people to my house.

MR BRINK: Oh, is it your evidence that you then indicated to Mr de Lange that you weren't happy with the statement as it stood and that you that weren't prepared to sign it?

MR KOOLE: I did not tell Mr de Lange, he brought two people to my house which he has said that I should sign that statement. When I saw those mistakes, I told them. Then they phoned him then he informed them that I should sign the statement, those mistakes would be corrected.

MR BRINK: You signed the bottom of each page?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson.

MR BRINK: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Mr Koole just on the same issue. Were you concerned about the manner in which Mr de Lange had conducted the interview with you?

MR KOOLE: Yes I was concerned.

ADV SANDI: Did you take any steps in expression of your concern?

MR KOOLE: I did not take any steps because I did not know where to go.

ADV SANDI: Did you inform your attorney about what had happened?

MR KOOLE: I believe I informed him that there are elements in that statement which I do not agree with.

ADV SANDI: Did you specifically inform your attorney that Mr de Lange had conducted this interview with you in a manner which was a matter of concern to you?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I could have told my counsel, legal counsel, about that because if I had that statement I could have mentioned but it was just from my memory.

ADV SANDI: Did you tell Mr Lamey, who is representing you, that you've made several statements about the PEBCO matter?

MR KOOLE: That is correct sir.

ADV SANDI: Would I be correct to understand you to say that you were upset about the manner in which Mr De Lange had conducted this interview?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, I was concerned.

ADV SANDI: When he came yesterday, did it occur to you that you should inform your lawyer who is, who was here yesterday about what had happened on that particular day with Mr de Lange?

MR KOOLE: Since we've started here from the first day when we met, my lawyer has not consulted me. He said he cannot discuss with me about my application.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Koole.

MR DE JAGER: This last answer, do you refer to the period since you've been here yesterday that your lawyer didn't consult you or even previously?

MR KOOLE: This week he did not talk with me about this. He said we would meet further. Since I left on Sunday, we did not sit down together and talk about this.

MR DE JAGER: Didn't he tell you because that is because you're in a cross-examination and he can't consult with you now?

MR KOOLE: He said to me because I'm still under cross-examination he cannot consult with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we, we owe a lot of people some explanation. We're asking for everybody’s indulgence. We're aware that the time is what it is but because we started late and some people have already made reservations with regard to their flights and travelling arrangements, we thought we should just go on and maybe we could finish by 2 o'clock or before then so that we just adjourn once and for all and I hope it's alright with the interpreters in particular. Thank you. Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I don't want to ask any questions in re-examination, I just want to - you gave previously an indication that I could lead him on the nature of his injuries which he sustained prior to the PEBCO 3 incident. I would just like to proceed with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can go on.

MR LAMEY: Mr Koole, you've heard the evidence of Mr Mamasela where he in fact said that you strangled Mr Hashe in a manner where you were - I'm just putting it to you in my own words -"out of your mind and with brute force" and he described that you strangled Mr Hashe with both your hands over his throat while you were on top of him and while he was lying down. Now - and he's further stated that Mr Hashe was thereafter lifeless and this went on for half an hour, approximately half an hour. Were you physically capable of that?

MR KOOLE: No, it wouldn't be possible to do such a thing.

MR LAMEY: Can you tell the Committee why not? That you have - what is - is their a physical - is there any physical reason for that?

MR KOOLE: Yes, I have physical weakness on my two hands, the right hand, I cannot handle heavier objects. I was shot then I underwent an operation and there are still some pieces of the cartridge. Then I fell on my left shoulder. There are bones which - some parts of the bones - which were removed on an elbow.

MR LAMEY: Do I understand you correctly, which arm did have the operation?

MR KOOLE: It is firstly the right hand and then again I underwent an operation of the left hand again.

MR LAMEY: Where about in your right arm is the problem?

MR KOOLE: It is on the elbow. On the elbow sir. From the fingers up to just next to the armpit which means the whole hand.

MR LAMEY: Did it affect the strength in your hand?

MR KOOLE: Yes, severely, because even my work I usually ask somebody to come and help me because I cannot use that hand.

MR LAMEY: And your left arm or hand? Can you just explain what is wrong there?

MR KOOLE: It does have pain and it was swollen. I took it to orthopaedic surgeons then there were some bones which were broken and they removed those bones on my left arm on the elbow.

MR LAMEY: Mr Koole, this incident that created these injuries, when did that happen, where were you then?

MR KOOLE: I was in Thabazimbi, it happened in 1980 when one bottle store was robbed and I ran there then I was shot.

MR LAMEY: Shot by whom?

MR KOOLE: By the robbers sir.

MR LAMEY: With your leave Mr Chairman, can I ask Mr Koole to remove your jacket and to expose your right arm to the Committee?

MR DE JAGER: Could I put to you my problem. I don't know whether I'll be able to evaluate the strength of his hand, I think that's a medical aspect and I think a medical expert could say his grip had diminished by 5% or 10% or whatever it may be. But for a layman to judge whether you've got a strong grip or a weak grip or whether he'll be able to strangle a person, I don't think that I myself would be able to judge that on the evidence that's being presented.

MR LAMEY: That I understand Mr Chairman, I just wanted him to show to the Committee the whole length of the operation mark that he had in his right arm. It's quite significant, I just want to indicate basically.

MR NYOKA: Mr Chairman, can I make a follow up to what Mr de Jager said? Would it not be proper to have something in writing as to when it happened? Before 1985 or after? There's no need for us to be histrionic about showing things when you do not know when they happened. It could have happened after 1985. My problem, the basis for that is that if someone had such an injury, I've got a problem why he was not office bound rather than being a field worker.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I thought he said it happened in 1980.

MR NYOKA: I want proof Mr Chairman. It could have been after 1985.

CHAIRPERSON: Well yes that's a matter of credibility. Mr Koole I don't - you - this scar you - I take it you have a scar, isn't it?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And obviously that scar, it's what you're going to see is the scar which results from the operation, not so much the bullet but the operation to put certain things right in your arm. How long is that scar?

MR KOOLE: In 1980, there are some pieces of the bullets which are still within the arm.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the approximate length of that scar?

MR KOOLE: It starts from where the hand starts just next to the armpit.

CHAIRPERSON: Just stand up and show us from where to where?

MR KOOLE: May I show the scars if it's possible?

CHAIRPERSON: About the length of a ruler? Thank you.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, may I make a suggestion in this regard. If the medical records relating to the surgery are still available, Mr Lamey might be able to get them for us together with possibly an orthopaedic surgeon's report on the strength of this applicant's grip. If he's willing to do that that could be submitted with the evidence. I don't know whether anyone would dispute an independent orthopaedic surgeons report in that regard.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, that is indeed on the consideration -I'll just have to get instructions from the police department to - that we'll be able to incur that cost. I don't foresee any problem but I - we will certainly in view of this have to give consideration to that.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think there's a proper basis for that. There's no reasonable basis. There's been no reasonable basis laid down for that sort of thing for us to adjourn the matter and say that medical records be brought in or not brought in.

MR BRINK: I didn't mean by way of an adjournment, Mr Chairman, I meant merely to submit with copies to be made available with the argument. It wouldn't need a hearing but everyone's indicated to me they'll accept an affidavit from an orthopaedic surgeon and I think it's important in the interest of justice more particularly in the light of Mr Nyoka's remarks that there's some proof that Mamasela may be lying in regard to what he said concerning this applicant's activities relating to this alleged strangulation.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let's see what happens at the end but, well, Mr Lamey if you feel so advised to submit whatever documents you want to do I suppose we can do that. We will deal with it in the way that it comes to us and give it whatever weight it would deserve under those circumstances. On this issue ...[intervention].

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just get an indication. Would it be possible for us, if we do obtain those records and perhaps a medical legal examination that we can submit that together with heads of argument or do we have to lead expert medical, oral evidence about that?

MR BRINK: Sorry Mr Chairman, from my point if I've indicated quite clearly that my learned colleagues have indicated that an affidavit would suffice. There's no need to lead evidence. It's just an independent orthopaedic surgeon's report relating to the present state of this man's health relating to the strength he has in his arms or his hands. That's basically it. No one will dispute an independent surgeon's report. That's been made clear to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Hopefully that affidavit will go so far as to tell us what his strength was twelve years ago. Anyway are there questions by anybody in relation to this particular issue? Let me follow the right order. Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka?

MR NYOKA: I'm going to ask the witness to stand up Mr Chairman. I noticed something, I'm sitting next to him. I'll tell you where to pause. Can I ask him to stand up, to begin to stand up, I'll tell him when to pause. Because I noticed something when he was standing up. He applied pressure on the chair here for some time and there's no difference between strangulation and applying pressure on a chair.

MR DU PLESSIS: No I object to that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should you object to that? You object to what? Sorry what are you objecting to please?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, Mr Nyoka is not a medical person, I mean this is really - we're grabbing something at some straw here.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think there's any basis for the objection. Let's deal with this in a more proper way. Mr Koole, it is being suggested that when you stood up on your own, you put your weight on your arms. Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct but what is difficult is not the metal of the hands but the fingers.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your weight by the way? How much do you weigh?

MR KOOLE: 90 kilograms sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I've tried to put on record what had transpired Mr Nyoka, is there anything that you think I did not put on record as to what you say transpired?

MR NYOKA: No nothing Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And then do you have any questions then to put to the witness?

MR NYOKA: Nothing, except, nothing Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Hartle?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS HARTLE: Mr Koole, as Mr Mamasela suggested yesterday is there any reason why you did not apply to be medically retired from the police force? Why you remained on despite the injury?

MR KOOLE: I could have done that but I said to myself if I can retire there will no one who will take care of me because of the weaknesses I have. Then I received a suggestion that you are cripple, we'll take care of you up to the end.

MS HARTLE: And Mr Koole, is it not so that you must have reasonably anticipated that this kind of evidence would be led at the Committee that you were involved in that assault. Did you not anticipate that you should right from the outset bring this medical evidence to suggest that you could not partake in an assault?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman his evidence was that he take part in the assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat your question and if you agree with your learned friend in a way that will be in line with what he's saying?

MS HARTLE: I think he's perhaps misunderstanding me, Mr Chairman, the question is - well let me ask you this question first Mr Koole - did you not anticipate that Mr Mamasela might come to this committee and say that you were involved in the assault on the three victims?

MR KOOLE: I did not have a problem.

MS HARTLE: Did you understand from the affidavit, the section 29 interrogation, the documents that were filed of record that he would come and implicate you in an assault?

MR KOOLE: Nobody implicated me.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Hartle are you going to refer to Volume 2 and will you give us the relevant pages?

MS HARTLE: If the Committee would just bear with me? CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that Mr Mamasela was coming to say that - or he did say in his statement that you strangled somebody, if he did say that?

MR KOOLE: I heard him sir.

MR BRINK: I think it's page 14 Mr Chairman, the second paragraph.

MS HARTLE: So Mr Chairman, page 14, paginated page 14 of volume 2, the second paragraph, the third line down. "Warrant Officer Koole kicked him hard in his face" Mr Chairman I've just realised that it refers to "skop" and not necessarily kick and then further on "Warrant Officer went to sit on his chest and strangled him for a long time".

CHAIRPERSON: Just articulate that question more properly to the witness.

MS HARTLE: Now Mr Koole, this statement, this extract from his section 29 interrogation of Mr Mamasela suggests that you strangled Mr Hashe. Do you understand what I'm saying to you.

MR KOOLE: I understand but it's not true, it's not like that.

MS HARTLE: I put it to you that from the outset of these proceedings you would have known that at least Mr Mamasela would have come and said that you had strangled one of the victims?

MR KOOLE: I did not have that knowledge.

MS HARTLE: I put it to you Mr Koole that you must have had that knowledge and indeed that you should have then led that medical evidence that you could not strangle a man because of your medical disability?

MR KOOLE: I don't know as to whether did I have a privilege to confront him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, didn't your lawyers tell you last year in November when we started or before we started this hearing that Mamasela's making a lot of allegation against you and one of the things he's saying is that you strangled one of those people. Did they not tell you?

MR KOOLE: They did not tell me but they told me that I took part in the assault but I was not explained to as to whether how.

CHAIRPERSON: You say they say you took part in the killing, ...[indistinct] of the deceased?

MR KOOLE: That is correct?

CHAIRPERSON: How did they say you took part or did you ask them "oh, how did I take part in the killing?"

MR KOOLE: They said in the assault not in the strangling.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me what they said to you because I don't understand whether you are saying they told you about the assault or about the killing?

MR KOOLE: They informed me that Mr Mamasela alleges that the role I played in the assault perhaps of that because of my role. It is because of my role in the assault but they did not explain, they didn't inform me about the strangling.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ask them but how does Mamasela say I assaulted these people to their death? You didn't ask that?

MR KOOLE: I did not ask. They said I - in the assault they did not tell me in detail how.

ADV SANDI: Were you interested in getting those details Mr Koole?

MR KOOLE: I only knew that I'll come and account to what - to my role which I played in the assault not to what somebody else is saying I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: I have no questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: If those people that night when you were sitting in the kombi with your colleagues, if they had broken out and wanted to run away or fight their way out, you would not have been very helpful, would you?

MR KOOLE: I would not be helpful because I didn't know who they were and why they were detained.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I'm saying that you would not have been very helpful because you hands are weak or you are weak in your hands.

MR KOOLE: It is not only the weakness of the hands, it was both and again, my feet and my mind.

CHAIRPERSON: You would have been useless?

MR KOOLE: If there was there could have been a fight. I would try to help where I could, where it would be possible where I would not try to help.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what Mamasela says, he said you helped but this time of course not in arresting them but in killing them, that's what he says precisely what he says, he says you helped where you could.

MR KOOLE: That is not correct, that is not true sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey, you have any questions in re-examining?

MR LAMEY: Yes thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Koole, I've asked you in Chief Examination about your capability, of strangling in the way that Mr Mamasela described it. You did testify that you partake in the assault, were you capable of partaking in the assault in the manner that you described to this Committee.

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, my right hand is weak and my left hand was painful.

MR LAMEY: Mr Koole, I'm not referring to, in this question, I'm not referring to the way that Mr Mamasela described it. I'm just asking you, you testified before the Committee that you did partake in the assault by hitting the PEBCO 3 and also by kicking him. Were you capable of doing that?

MR KOOLE: I preceded myself I did that.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Koole, you are excused. You can stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: I believe this concludes the evidence on behalf of the applicants.

MR BOOYENS: Correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, apart from the affidavit of Colonel De Kock which I will present to you when I present the heads of argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Yes Mr Chairman, apart from perhaps the medical evidence or an affidavit in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Nyoka?

MR NYOKA: Mr Chairman I have no witness. I was awaiting a witness who was going to testify about the PEBCO matter about the former story. I don't know whether I'll get him or her. I don't want to spoil the agenda, your worship, I see there's an interest at the back there, so I'm reserving my rights to call the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you will - I don't know what the meaning of reserving ones right are but you will have to tell us why you want to call a witness next time when you come as to why you wouldn't - as to why you are not able to call that witness today. You reserve the right to ask for a witness to be called. You reserve the right to ask or argue that a particular witness be called.

MR NYOKA: I was trying to get hold of him or her.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay we'll cross that bridge when we come to it if it does so happen. Ms Hartle?

MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, we do not intend leading any evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: We - Mr Brink is it so that the matter then would then be adjourned to the 18th for argument?

MR BRINK: Yes Mr Chairman that is the 18th and 19th May. Those are provisional dates depending upon the availability of each of you at that time. Mr Coetzee will be discussing the matter he tells me with Judge ...[indistinct] anyway. If the matter cannot proceed on the 18th, we will know fairly soon and everyone interested will be notified. If they're not notified to the contrary then we'll be back here on the 18th May.

CHAIRPERSON: Well for our part we shall not say that the date is a provisional one. We'll just postpone the matter to the 18th and if there problems then it will - we'll arrange that it be postponed further for the purpose of certainty. For the sake of certainty, we postpone it to the 18th, not provisional but as a fixed date. If there are problems then we have to negotiate for the postponement but the matter is in fact postponed to the 18th and the 19th and we would request that heads of argument be filed before, two weeks before, if possible.

MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman I submit to heads of argument, we believe that that is actually an important phase of this entire enquiry. My clients, Mr Chairman, are litigants in terms of Section 34 of the Act in terms which provides that they will be remunerated on a prescribed tariff and that tariff unfortunately doesn't make provision for either heads of argument to be drafted or for a copy of a record to be obtained. I'm aware that this Committee doesn't necessarily have the jurisdiction to make any direction in that regard but I would ask that this Committee - I strongly recommend to the Commission - that some reasonable form of remuneration be agreed for the representatives for the victims so that they can also partake in this final process of the enquiry in order to submit heads and to obtain a copy of the transcript and have access thereto.

CHAIRPERSON: Well as far as I know, I don't recall having any problems in that regard with regard to - I mean concerning the question of heads of argument and the record. I don't know, we will recommend that though, but I don't know whether there have any such problems in the past. We've never had that kind of a problem raised by any practitioner with regard to obtaining the record and the like. Are you not on the same basis as Mr Nyoka? Is Mr Nyoka on a different basis.

MR NYOKA: Sorry Mr Chairman, we were going to incur those costs for the simple reason that this is a matter of national importance. If we have to incur those costs without saying that we are tycoons we'll have to incur those costs. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright and then - well we will look into the matter and do what we can do without promising anything that is not within our powers and then Mr Brink I notice that copies of the record have been made available to almost everybody in these proceeding except the Chairperson. The Chairperson has never been furnished with a copy of the record and I've been at a disadvantage in this regard and please convey my displeasure to those who are concerned with the task of seeing to it that records are being made available.

MR BRINK: I'll do that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll adjourn then until the 18th.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS