Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: 12th November 1997, we will proceed to the next applicant Mr Lamey?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, before we proceed, may I perhaps be afforded the opportunity to hand in respect of Mr Beeslaar's application, the report by the Psychiatrist about Mr Beeslaar and I just want to read the contents to you. We are waiting for enough copies, we haven't had enough chance to making all the copies.

It says the above mentioned patient has been with me since the 13th of May last year and he suffers from hypoglycaemia and shows clear amnesia and he cannot remember everything that he has to testify about and I doubt whether his memory is good enough to be of any value.

I beg leave to hand this up to you. Oh, I see you have got copies. I believe this would be Exhibit N.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, have you discussed this matter with your colleagues and the other legal representatives, this report?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, I haven't. Mr Chairman, I made mention of it yesterday during the testimony.

ADV DE JAGER: If it is not being handed in by consent, then on what basis are you actually handing it in? On what basis are you contending we should accept it as evidenced?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I take your point. I can't imagine that there would be any objection, unless somebody perhaps give such an indication. I just assumed there would be no objection.

ADV LAMEY: No objection here, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka?

ADV NYOKA: No objections.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Hartle?

MS HARTLE: No objection Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it will be Exhibit N.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, and I also want to express my appreciation towards my two colleagues on the opposite side for this, thank you.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, for the record, I also have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we started too early today. Mr Lamey?

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. The first applicant that I call is Mr Peter Mogoai. His supplemented amnesty application is on page 26 up to and including page 39 of the bundle. Mr Chairman, I will in view of the fact that his affidavit has been drafted in Afrikaans, I will lead in Afrikaans, but the applicant make use of an interpreter in Tswana, his mother tongue is Tswana.

MR BRINK: Sorry, Mr Chairman, in case you don't know, Tswana is on channel 4.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

KIMPANI PETER MOGOAI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV LAMEY: Mr Mogoai, do you have page 26 in front of you? Can you please look at pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 30(a), 30(b), 30(c), 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39. Page 39 up to paragraph 6. Is that a copy of your supplemented amnesty application relating to the prescribed form and the annexure regarding the background and specifically the particulars with regard to the Pebco 3 incident?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Is that your signature which appears on the document?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is me.

ADV LAMEY: Okay, could you please go back to page 26. Is it correct that that page contains your personal particulars, your address, your identity number, date of birth and place of birth?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV LAMEY: In paragraph 7(a) on page 26 you say that you were a member of the ANC, of the military wing of the ANC, Umkonto We Sizwe at one stage?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Paragraph (b) you say that between 1977 and 1979 you were an Infiltration Officer stationed at the ANC Regional Headquarters in Botswana and that you were tasked with the establishment of infiltration routes of MK members from Botswana to the RSA and that you were also tasked to establish arms caches in Botswana?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV LAMEY: In paragraph 8(a) you say that you were also in the employ of the State, specifically the South African Police's Security Branch, Vlakplaas, from 1980 to approximately 1986?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV LAMEY: And that you were also at Security Headquarters from 1986 to 1992?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV LAMEY: Relating to the question as to the capacity in which you were in the employ of the State, you said that you were a South African Police ascari involved in the detection of terrorists from about 1980 to 1986 and thereafter you were stationed at Head Office in the Intelligence section where you were particularly involved in counter propaganda against the liberation movements?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV LAMEY: You said that you left the police on pension in 1992, on medical reasons?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And you confirm your Force number, paragraph 8(b) on page 27?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: As far as question 9 is concerned, and then on page 28, paragraph 10 and 11, you refer to an annexure, it is an annexure to your amnesty application, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: That annexure starts on page 30(a), as the Committee has it, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Chairperson, if you would allow me, I would like to ask some leading questions about the background so that we can expedite the matter, unless you give me an indication that I should proceed differently.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, it has already been confirmed and it forms part of the record, so perhaps you can just focus on certain issues which you want to refer to.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Mogoai, as far as your background is concerned, you said that in 1979 you decided to leave the ANC and to go back to your wife and children in South Africa, that was in Krugersdorp?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV LAMEY: At that stage you say the ANC wanted to re-transfer you to Zambia which you didn't want and at that stage you were also disillusioned with the ANC?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV LAMEY: This return you manoevered by means of contact through means of a previous employer in Krugersdorp who made contact with the South African Police, Security Police, and you had a discussion with them in Botswana?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You wanted to make clear to them what your intentions were so they would not be of the impression that you were still in South Africa with the view of promoting the objectives of the ANC?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Discussions took place with Colonel Jan Coetzee, General Erasmus and Major Le Roux?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And they also requested you to help the Security Police in respect of weapons of the ANC to get this from Botswana and to hand it over to the Security Police, which you did?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV LAMEY: After that, you stayed in Sebokeng with your family for a period of time, you had no work, no income, you were also aware of the fact that the Security Police were at that stage recruiting people and you decided to join?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: After you joined, you became part of the Vlakplaas Unit in 1980. The Vlakplaas Unit was in its infancy at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: At that stage it was under the command of Colonel Victor?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And you were still staying in Sebokeng, but when your services were needed at Vlakplaas, you received instructions for certain tasks to be carried out?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV LAMEY: And you say that although the main reason for joining the Security Police was because you were unemployed and had to earn an income to look after your family, you also say that you were particularly disillusioned with the ANC due to the fact that more and more prominent leaders in the ANC were members of the South African Communist Party, or other communistic organisations and that they in particular played a prominent role in Umkonto We Sizwe, that was the reason for your disillusionment?

MR MOGOAI: The way you explained you say I was a member of the South African Communist Party, that is why I have a problem?

ADV LAMEY: No, let me rephrase the question. You said that you were disillusioned with the ANC because several prominent leaders in the ANC were also members of the South African Communist Party or other communist organisations and that they played a particularly prominent role in Umkonto We Sizwe, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You also say that when you joined the Security Police, the ANC also regarded you as a traitor and you became aware of the fact that instruction had been given to kill you?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: I would like to take you to page 31. There we have the particulars regarding the Pebco 3 incident. On page 1 you confirm the fact that during May/June of 1985 you can't remember the specific date, your Vlakplaas group was busy working in the Western Transvaal under the leadership of Captain Venter?

ADV DE JAGER: Paragraph 1?

ADV LAMEY: Page 31, paragraph 1, that is where I am at the moment Mr Mogoai.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV LAMEY: You say that one day you were requested to go to Port Elizabeth along with two other groups?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: The members of your group were inter alia Joe Koole, Joe Mamasela and yourself and other members of other groups, who went with you?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: May I ask you who was the Commanding Officer at Vlakplaas at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: It was Brigadier Cronje.

ADV LAMEY: I continue with paragraph 2 where you say the following: You then went to Port Elizabeth and whilst you were in Port Elizabeth, you stayed at the Glenconnor railway station, between Jansenville and Uitenhage?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Let me put it in a question form, is it correct that you started with your normal functions and activities in Port Elizabeth namely the detection and tracking down of terrorists?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: In paragraph 2 you also say that while you were working there, you were not requested to go into the black townships because there was a lot of unrest in those areas at the time and there was the fear that you would be attacked and become involved in a shooting incident?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: I continue now with paragraph 3. There you say that after you had been in Port Elizabeth for about a week, you were busy doing patrol work in Port Elizabeth on one particular day?

MR MOGOAI: May you please repeat your question sir?

ADV LAMEY: I am on paragraph 3, page 31. You say that after you had been in Port Elizabeth for a day, you were on a particular day busy doing patrol duty in Port Elizabeth?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I am listening.

ADV LAMEY: Did you receive a particular instruction from Captain Venter?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: One moment, this instruction from Captain Venter, how was this conveyed to you? Did you have radio's with you or how was the instruction conveyed?

MR MOGOAI: He give us this instruction because he was the one who was going to this people and coming to us again at times.

ADV DE JAGER: I am sorry, I didn't hear the answer. I wasn't wearing my airphones.

MR MOGOAI: Mr Koole used to go to Captain Venter, then he would come back to us and explain to us and give us instructions.

ADV LAMEY: Could you please just explain - was Warrant Officer Koole the leader of your group?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct. Mr Koole was the leader of our group and again he was the one who was allowed to go to Captain Venter and to the offices of the Security Branch to receive instructions. We were not allowed to go to those offices.

ADV LAMEY: So you were not allowed to actually go to the Security Branch offices, is that correct? The ascaris weren't allowed to do that?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we were not allowed to go near to the offices.

ADV LAMEY: And Warrant Officer Koole, was he an ascari?

MR MOGOAI: He was a policeman.

ADV LAMEY: You say that one day you received instructions from Captain Venter, what were these instructions?

MR MOGOAI: We received those instructions from Mr Koole, from Captain Venter that we should go back to Glenconnor where we were based and then we should wait for him there until he comes.

ADV LAMEY: Was any reason given why you should return to Glenconnor?

MR MOGOAI: He did not explain the reason. He just instructed us to go back to Glenconnor to our bases.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember more or less what time of day it was when you received this instruction?

MR MOGOAI: If I remember well, may you please repeat your question sir?

ADV LAMEY: Can you recall more or less what time of day it was from Captain Venter that you should return to Glenconnor railway station, more or less what time of the day was it?

MR MOGOAI: It was around twelve o'clock.

ADV LAMEY: You and Warrant Officer Koole then returned to Glenconnor.

MR MOGOAI: All of us went back to Glenconnor. When I say all of us, I mean we were driving two kombi's. We were quite a number, but I don't remember the exact number.

All of us returned back to Glenconnor.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then at Glenconnor?

MR MOGOAI: We waited, then after a while Captain Venter arrived. He called myself, Warrant Officer Koole, Joe Mamasela and instructed us we should prepare our clothes for about three days because on that evening we are going to leave with him.

ADV LAMEY: Who was with Captain Venter there?

MR MOGOAI: He was together with Warrant Officer Beeslaar.

ADV LAMEY: So you packed your clothes as you were told?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Can you recall whether any mention was made of any vehicle and where you must take this vehicle?

MR MOGOAI: Captain Venter said we should use the kombi which was used by Peggy Radebe, which is a Hi-Ace, Toyota Hi-Ace. It was white in colour and its windows were tinted.

ADV LAMEY: More or less when did you leave Port Elizabeth, what time?

MR MOGOAI: We left round about four o'clock, in the afternoon, from Glenconnor to Port Elizabeth.

ADV LAMEY: Where were you supposed to go to in Port Elizabeth, where were you supposed to stop?

MR MOGOAI: We were supposed to stop where we used to stop when we usually received instructions from Captain Venter. Warrant Officer was the driver of the kombi on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: How many were you in the kombi?

MR MOGOAI: We were three, that is myself, Warrant Officer Koole and Joe Mamasela.

ADV DE JAGER: The Warrant Officer to which you refer, was that Beeslaar or was that Koole?

CHAIRPERSON: If I may ask, you mentioned the three names, yourself, Mamasela and Koole.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, the last question was not interpreted. The Warrant Officer referred to, who was he?

MR MOGOAI: That is Warrant Officer Koole who was driving the car.

ADV LAMEY: Apart from Warrant Officer Koole and yourself, who was also with you?

MR MOGOAI: It was myself, Warrant Officer Koole and Joe Mamasela. We were three.

ADV LAMEY: You have heard the evidence that one of the Port Elizabeth people, Mr Lotz, that he testified that it was him who actually came to fetch you at Glenconnor and drove the van or the bus to Port Elizabeth, what is your comment on that evidence?

MR MOGOAI: That is not so. Then again, I want to tell you this that I don't know Mr Lotz, I see him for the first time. I hope that if he came to collect us under those conditions and drove a car from Glenconnor to Port Elizabeth, I would be able to identify him.

ADV LAMEY: You then all arrived at the pre-arranged place, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV LAMEY: What happened further there?

MR MOGOAI: When we arrived there, late in the afternoon, around half past five, Captain Venter arrived there. Then he explained to us that whilst we were waiting there we should go and look for food quickly.

ADV LAMEY: May I ask you this, did Captain Venter arrive there at the same time as you did, or was there some passage of time before he arrived?

MR MOGOAI: We waited for a while before he arrived. He didn't arrive at the same time with us.

ADV LAMEY: And I assume you then went to find yourself some food. After you found yourself some food, what happened then?

MR MOGOAI: We waited again. When it was now dusk because it was now late in the afternoon, he arrived with a certain car then he explained to us that we should follow that car.

He explained that we are going to the airport.

ADV LAMEY: Did you then follow the vehicle in front of you to the airport?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we followed that car.

ADV LAMEY: Did you arrive at the airport, what happened further?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we arrived at the airport. We parked our kombi at the car park.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR MOGOAI: After a while Captain Venter came to us, he was together with a certain white man whom I would regard him as a member of the Security Branch in Port Elizabeth.

I did not know him then, even today I don't know him. Then he directed us where we should park the kombi.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, what exactly did he explain to you, is that Captain Venter?

MR MOGOAI: That is Captain Venter and a certain white man.

ADV LAMEY: What exactly did he tell you to do?

MR MOGOAI: He pointed where we should park the kombi.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember where it was that he told you to park?

MR MOGOAI: The way he explained, there were two doors and one door looked like an exit and the other door was closed. Then he explained to us that we should go and park the car next to the closed door, in front of the door which was closed. We did that.

ADV DE JAGER: You say that he told us to go and park there, who is this he that you are referring to, is that the man who accompanied Venter or was it Venter himself?

MR MOGOAI: Both of them explained to us where we should go and park the car.

ADV LAMEY: Do you know who this other white man was who was with Captain Venter?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know him.

ADV LAMEY: Who was driving the bus at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: It was Warrant Officer Koole.

ADV LAMEY: Did you do as you were requested to do, in other words did you move your bus to a particular point?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we did as we were instructed.

ADV LAMEY: What did you do then?

MR MOGOAI: Captain Venter and this white man left and we were left behind in the car.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR MOGOAI: Whilst in the car, just after a few minutes, Captain Venter came back to us and he told us that we were waiting for three people.

These people will have to be taken into the car. He said we should leave the sliding door open.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what did he say about three people, just repeat yourself?

MR MOGOAI: He said we are at the airport waiting for three people. He did not explain about ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You said something about putting them in the car, what did you say about that?

MR MOGOAI: He said we should leave the sliding door open and that door should be kept open so that they can bring people into the car when the arrived.

ADV LAMEY: Before this stage, were there any discussion about people that were to be picked up, or who it was that was supposed to be picked up?

MR MOGOAI: They did not tell us who these people were who were going to be put into the car, they just told us that three people were going to be put into the car.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, but before that point, was there any discussion before then? Was this the first stage when it was said that these three people would be picked up and put into the kombi?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, it was the first time. There had never been a time where he explained to us what we were going to do as we were chosen as the three people.

And the destination we were going to take into the car, was not even given to us.

ADV LAMEY: Right, what did you, Warrant Officer Koole and Mamasela do in the bus?

MR MOGOAI: We then left the door open as instructed and Captain Venter went back. When I say back, I refer to the entrance, the door that was used by the people to and outside the building.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, and what else did you observe?

MR MOGOAI: When he went back to the entrance, he was associating with many white people I did not know. You would see them for a minute and the next minute they are gone.

CHAIRPERSON: He was walking together with those people?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, he was walking with them My Lord.

ADV LAMEY: What else did you observe?

MR MOGOAI: After a while I saw three black men approaching the door, that is the exit to the building. At that time, I saw two white men trying to get out of the building to the door.

Now these three black men, when they approached the door, four to five white men were behind them already. I do not know what they said to the three men. They showed them which direction to take and it was where the kombi was parked.

ADV LAMEY: Could you please tell us, did you see Captain Venter at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I saw him. He was together with these men.

ADV LAMEY: If you are referring to these men, which men actually are you referring to?

MR MOGOAI: I am talking of the three black men I did not know. They were being followed by white people who were walking together with Captain Venter.

ADV LAMEY: I see. What happened further?

MR MOGOAI: They arrived at the kombi, they were put into the kombi. Captain Venter told us that these were the three men we were waiting for and he asked Warrant Officer Koole to drive the car forward from where we were parking.

It was a little dark car. When we arrived at the spot where we were told to park, he called Joe Mamasela, that is Captain Venter.

ADV LAMEY: I am sorry, I didn't follow the interpretation. Am I understanding you correctly, that you say that another indication was given to Koole to take the bus a little bit further, to drive it a little bit further on?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: The interpretation which came through was that he asked Koole to drive and it was a small, dark car. Now, this small dark car, where does that fit into the picture?

ADV LAMEY: My colleague is drawing my attention to the fact that he also got the impression that there was a small dark car, but my colleague suggests that the phrase used, was that it was just a bit darker?

MR MOGOAI: We were parking where there was light, and the instruction was that we should drive from this place, that has got light, and we should go and park where it was a little darker.

ADV LAMEY: Right, and what happened then?

MR MOGOAI: Captain Venter called Joe Mamasela, he called him aside. What they said, I do not know. He closed the sliding door and he got into the other car and he asked us to follow him.

They drove on a gravel road just next to the airport. We did not drive a long time, the cars stopped. The car that was in front of us stopped, and we also stopped. The lights were switched off, all the cars switched off the lights.

At that time, another car approached and it stopped just in front and I realised that it was driven by Joe Mamasela, it looked like a Ford, an old Ford bakkie. But I was not sure if it was a Ford or a Toyota.

Captain Venter came to us with these white men I did not know. Some of them had cloths, whitish in colour and they blindfolded these three men so that they could not see.

ADV DE JAGER: I honestly have a problem with either the evidence or the interpretation. Venter and white men came to us, I did not know them, it was whitish in colour, that was the next evidence that came through, so clearly there is something which the witness isn't saying or which isn't being interpreted.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what is going on, but if you can just give me a chance Mr Lamey. The interpreter in his own language says that these two people produces white pieces of cloth to cover the, to blindfold these people and I really think that we are having problems about interpretation this morning.

We may have to be careful because three languages are being used here and we should not end up having three different versions. I am not criticising, but I am just saying that we need to be a little bit careful, because I am listening to the, I follow the language used by the applicant and I also listen to the English interpretation, but I can't listen to yet another language, to Afrikaans, and I don't know what is happening in the Afrikaans channel.

We should try to be a little bit careful.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just say that it appears when it is translated to Afrikaans, there was a difference, and there was something different translated in English, because my colleague, Mr Rossouw, had heard also what you heard about they brought cloths, something to that effect and he is on the English channel and I am listening to Afrikaans.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, if I may be of assistance, I am also listening to the English channel and the note I have is that Venter came to us with the white men whom I didn't know. They came with light coloured cloths with a view to blindfolding, and they blindfolded them. That is my note.

CHAIRPERSON: I think any way the truth is what the witness said, and the witness has said they came with white pieces of cloth which Adv De Jager and others missed on the Afrikaans channel. You can proceed. You stopped at a point where you just told us that pieces of cloth were brought and the people were blindfolded. You can take it further from there.

MR MOGOAI: Thank you My Lord. After blindfolding them, it was requested that these three men should sit down, not on the seat.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean they were asked to sit on the floor of the kombi?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, My Lord. Two men, white men came in and the other one drove the kombi. The other one sat on the passenger seat at the front.

Myself and Mr Koole were seated at the back. Another car left, it was followed by the van. Joe Mamasela was the driver of this bakkie.

ADV LAMEY: Was Joe Mamasela not in the bus with you at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: No, he was not with us.

ADV LAMEY: He left with this other vehicle?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, he was driving this van, the bakkie that he arrived with.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, let me just clear something before we go further. The white person who was with Mr Venter when they came to speak with you at the airport to leave the kombi or rather to park the kombi at a particular point and to leave the sliding door open, you said you didn't know that person?

MR MOGOAI: I did not know the person.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he amongst the applicants here before us?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, I want to explain this. All the white people affected or involved in this event, I cannot even point one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Whenever you come to, well, I hear you, so are you saying that whenever you refer to them, we should assume that you cannot point them out, anyone of them? Because I don't want to keep on stopping you time and again and asking you whether anyone of them would be amongst the applicants here?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, I do not remember one of them. I cannot even identify one of them today and say he was involved, I have that problem.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, we will listen to your evidence on that basis. You can proceed.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Mogoai, what happened then after Mamasela drove off in this vehicle, what did you do? Yes, what happened to your vehicle?

MR MOGOAI: We followed the other car, we followed the other car and the other one was coming behind us. We went through the town, I did not know which direction we were taking, because I did not know the place very well.

ADV LAMEY: Did you notice where Captain Venter was at this stage?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know in which car he was driving, but he was present, but every time we stopped, he would be seen at the place. And he was giving us directions of what to happen next.

ADV LAMEY: So you then proceeded further, what happened then?

MR MOGOAI: I do not remember how many minutes did we drive, but it might be 20 to 30 minutes and the cars stopped again. After stopping, the gentlemen that I have referred to that I do not know them at all, came with handcuffs and they hand cuffed these three men.

These chains were applied in such a way that they should be fastened to the seats of a kombi.

ADV LAMEY: What type of handcuffs were used?

MR MOGOAI: The ordinary handcuffs, and they also had the cuffs for the feet.

ADV LAMEY: So you are referring to both handcuffs and foot cuffs?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct?

ADV LAMEY: Shackles?

MR MOGOAI: At that time, Mr Mamasela arrived, he went back to the group. In other words, he came into the kombi.

Thereafter the cars drove off. We drove until we came across a police roadblock on the road. One car sped off to the front. I thought that they were going to negotiate our way through so that we do not be disturbed.

It is true we were not stopped, we were immediately let through and thereafter we went into an old farm. It was already at night. I do not remember the time, but it was about midnight.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember how long you were driving for before you reached your destination?

MR MOGOAI: I estimate it was about twelve o'clock or just after eleven to twelve o'clock.

ADV LAMEY: What I would like to ask is can you recall how long you were driving for from Port Elizabeth to the place where you then arrived?

MR MOGOAI: It can be hours, not minutes sir. And I am not sure about the distance too.

ADV LAMEY: Please tell us, what happened when you arrived there and in what condition did you find this place there?

MR MOGOAI: It was an old farm, I saw buildings and I could not just explain those buildings, but there was a house, it was an old house, it was built of stones.

The cars were parked. Ours was parked further at the back next to the house. These men were unchained from the seats and they were taken out of the car. At that time I heard that Mr Galela was supposed to be taken to the cell and I was surprised - were there cells in this place?

I did not know where Mr Godolozi was taken to at that time because they said Mr Godolozi should take another direction, I do not know where to. Myself and Warrant Officer Koole ... (intervention)

ADV LAMEY: You are referring to Mr Galela and Godolozi, at this stage when you arrived there, did you know who these persons were?

MR MOGOAI: I did not know My Lord.

ADV LAMEY: Is it correct that you are saying that you are now mentioning their names as a result of the later knowledge which you gained about their names?

MR MOGOAI: When we arrived there, I heard when it was said that Galela must be taken to the cells.

ADV LAMEY: Okay, and Godolozi?

MR MOGOAI: They did not give exactly where he should be put, they were pointing at a place aside.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you learnt of their names there and there, they were saying take Galela to the cells and then you learnt of the name? Take Godolozi to a certain place, then you learnt of the name, is that what you are saying?

MR MOGOAI: That is where I learnt their names, My Lord.

ADV SANDI: Who was saying this Mr Mogoai, who was calling out the names?

MR MOGOAI: It is one of these white men.

ADV LAMEY: Can you recall what happened then?

MR MOGOAI: It was dark and we were told to leave with Mr Sipho Hashe to a building - I thought it was an old house.

ADV LAMEY: When you say we, who are you referring to?

MR MOGOAI: It was myself, Captain Venter, Warrant Officer Koole and the two white men I do not know.

ADV LAMEY: May I ask you this. Do you know where Warrant Officer Beeslaar was at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: I really do not know.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, this place was very dark, there was no electricity, candles were instead used. What I want to explain the place where Mr Hashe was taken to, in this house, around this house, there is a room at the back and it did not have a door, that is connecting it to the house, it only had a door into the room, but it was part of this big building.

That is where we took Mr Hashe to. He was then fastened to the floor because there were round steel bars still on the floor, cemented to the floor. That is where he was fastened to.

ADV LAMEY: Was he chained to those rings?

MR MOGOAI: His hands were cuffed.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, but was he also cuffed to those rings on the floor at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: No sir.

ADV LAMEY: Right. Please tell us what happened then?

MR MOGOAI: Captain Venter went out with these two white men, they left me behind with Mr Koole and Mr Hashe.

We waited for them outside. After a while they came and they started interrogating Mr Hashe. This unknown man, white man was interrogating him.

ADV LAMEY: Was Captain Venter present as well?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, he was together with him and these two men I do not know.

ADV LAMEY: You said that they started interrogating Mr Hashe?

MR MOGOAI: Yes. They asked him about an AK47 rifle. I do not know how it came about that he be questioned about that AK47, they asked him where it was.

Mr Hashe said he was not going to say anything.

ADV LAMEY: Just a moment, what was Mr Hashe like, what was his condition?

MR MOGOAI: He was a heavily built man and he was very aggressive, he told himself that he was not going to give his cooperation, he was not going to cooperate with the police.

And this unknown white man referred to him as being a hardened person.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should use the exact words, Mr Interpreter. The interpreter in English - out it the way it is.

INTERPRETER: He said he was very arrogant, that is the appropriate word the interpreter can use for "hardegat."

CHAIRPERSON: I was saying to you, use exactly the Afrikaans word he used.

INTERPRETER: Thank you Chairperson. He referred to his as a "hardegat."

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: The interpretation in Afrikaans did not get through to us. Perhaps if we try and use only two languages, perhaps if we use only English and Tswana. It seems to be that it causes problems to interpret into three languages.

ADV LAMEY: May I just receive instructions? Mr Chairman, I think that I should perhaps proceed in English, although the papers are in Afrikaans, I will do my best, but in fact I must just place on record that Mr Mogoai has just drawn my attention that he is experiencing difficulty with the translation, and he suggested himself that I proceed in English, and he will try his best also to answer in English.

Perhaps we should question in English, and he still uses the interpreter, his own interpreter and see how far we get.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if he would be able to testify in English directly.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, that is also my reservation.

CHAIRPERSON: But I of course, obviously I don't know the gentleman, I can't comment on his command of the English language. If he is quite convinced that there would be no problems, he will experience no problems, well then the choice is really his, but I should mention that he should do so, he should make the choice if he is quite sure that we will later not have arguments about whether he had expressed himself properly or not.

But, it depends on him really if he wants to testify in English. We can give it a go and if he feels somewhere along the way that it is not a very wise decision, then you will advise otherwise. Let the choice be his.

ADV LAMEY: Let me just take a final instruction here.

CHAIRPERSON: At the request of the interpreters, we shall take a short adjournment, a few minutes' adjournment.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, what is the proposition now?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, it has been discussed with Mr Mogoai, together with the interpreters and it has been jointly decided that I will proceed with my questioning in English and that Mr Mogoai will speak Tswana and that it will be translated then back to English.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well then.

ADV LAMEY: At this point I just want to ask that we put on record at the last point where we stopped, what the exact word in Afrikaans was that was used, with regard to what was said to Hashe.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the words used were "hardegat", I don't think there is any problem with that. Mr Lamey, before you proceed, I just want to clear something.

I didn't quite understand the witness earlier on. Mr Mogoai, you said Mr Hashe was put in the room and you mentioned the fact that he was chained in one or another and this is where you should correct me. I thought you said you and Koole left the room, or something like that and stood outside, is that what you said?

MR MOGOAI: That was my explanation My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: And was Mr Hashe then left alone in the room?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And Venter and that other person went away?

MR MOGOAI: They were three My Lord. It was two white people and Venter, they left I did not know where they went to.

CHAIRPERSON: And you and Mr Koole you remained outside the room, was it at the door of the room or what? Were you guarding this person in other words?

MR MOGOAI: I would not say we were guarding him. They told him to remain behind, that is when they left. They did not say we should guard them. They said we should remain behind, they will come back?

CHAIRPERSON: And they did come back?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, they did.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is when they started interrogating him?

MR MOGOAI: That is where they started interrogating him.

CHAIRPERSON: It is clear to me now. Like Mr Lamey said, he stopped you at a point where you had just told us that one of them said he was a "hardegat", you can take it further from there.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Mogoai, you also said that the interrogation started with an AK47, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct My Lord.

ADV LAMEY: At that stage, was Mr Hashe still blindfolded and hand cuffed?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct. His head was covered and his legs and hands were chained, but his hands were loosely chained. They were not chained to the ring I referred to.

ADV LAMEY: Can you then just explain what happened further here?

MR MOGOAI: Mr Hashe then explained that he was not going to say anything, he would better die. It was better for him to die.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened further?

MR MOGOAI: After a while he requested that he should be uncovered, this cloth on the head should be removed.

ADV LAMEY: And can you remember whether the interrogation proceeded and if so, what was the substance of the interrogation?

ADV DE JAGER: Can we just first get the answer. He asked the blindfold to be removed, was it removed or wasn't it?

MR MOGOAI: Yes. They removed the cloth and he was asked whether he was prepared to tell the truth? He refused. After refusing he was beaten with fists and he was kicked - all of us in that room.

ADV LAMEY: Does that include yourself?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, My Lord, I took part in the beating.

ADV LAMEY: And was he interrogated?

MR MOGOAI: He was being interrogated about what he knows, about the events that were taking place and about the situation of Pebco.

ADV LAMEY: And was he - can you remember was he interrogated about anything else?

MR MOGOAI: There were several questions, some were relating to his knowledge of Umkonto We Sizwe cadres and he was asked whether he knew where the AK47's were hidden.

ADV LAMEY: How long did this interrogation and assault last?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just a minute. How long did the interrogation last?

MR MOGOAI: I did not take long. It took about 15 minutes, it is not a long time.

CHAIRPERSON: And for how long was he assaulted?

MR MOGOAI: Interrogation and assault were done at the same time, it was just mixed up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MOGOAI: He was left in this room. We went outside, we left him behind in that room and another white man was told that Mr Godolozi should be fetched.

Mr Godolozi came screaming loudly saying that he was not prepared to say anything.

ADV LAMEY: Where was Mr Godolozi brought, where to?

MR MOGOAI: He was taken outside the house, there was something like a stoep with a verandah because these were the old buildings.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, and at that stage, was he still hand cuffed and blindfolded?

MR MOGOAI: He was still hand cuffed, his face was still covered.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we should adjourn for a few minutes. We will adjourn for a few minutes. Mr Nyoka, we are adjourning on your account for a few minutes, please tell us as soon as possible when you are ready.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: We understand that civil leaders have asked you to please cooperate and not make the proceedings difficult. We appreciate that very much and we hope that you will cooperate with us.

We believe that you have got the right to be here, to come and listen to the evidence. I believe you all want this people to tell everything, even if it is unpleasant and we should expect that they will tell everything, which will obviously not be pleasant.

But if we want them to tell everything, we must be prepared to give them the chance to do so. They cannot do so if there is a lot of shouting. I know, and all members of the Committee know that it is a very difficult situation, but please try not to make the proceedings difficult, otherwise we will not be able to know these details that these witnesses are giving us.

We were still busy with you Mr Mogoai. I am not even sure where we were. There was quite some bit of a noise which has confused me so much that - and I am not talking about the response from the family. We have no problems with the kind of the response we got from the family, the screaming we got, we expect that kind of thing to happen and we are ready for that. We are ready to accommodate that and that is not what I was referring to. I was just referring to the general remarks coming from the audience.

Mr Lamey?

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mogoai, I think that we left, we adjourned at the stage when you said that Mr Godolozi was brought to this verandah of the house and you said that he was screaming and that he said that he would rather die. Can you please tell us further what happened now?

MR MOGOAI: With your permission My Lord. Mr Godolozi was screaming, saying that he was not prepared to say anything. He said he would better be killed.

At that time, while he was speaking, he was attacked by these unknown white men and they assaulted him, they kicked him. It did not take long and they uncovered his face. I am referring to the cloth that was on his face.

And they asked him are you ready now to tell the truth? He kept quiet, he did not give an answer, he just kept quiet. They realised that he was not going to talk and they said he should be taken back to the cell. I realised when he was taken back to the cell, that there were two cells. In the other cell which was on the left, it was Mr Galela and he was taken into the right cell.

ADV LAMEY: Is that now Mr Godolozi?

MR MOGOAI: Yes sir.

ADV LAMEY: And?

MR MOGOAI: After putting him in, we dispersed. I do not remember whether Mr Galela was interrogated?

ADV LAMEY: That evening?

MR MOGOAI: Yes sir.

ADV LAMEY: All right, and what did you do then further?

MR MOGOAI: We went back to the kombi and Captain Venter told us that we were going to sleep in the kombi because there was no accommodation inside the house.

ADV LAMEY: And did you then go and sleep in the kombi?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we slept in the kombi. We didn't even have blankets.

ADV LAMEY: Okay, and who slept in the kombi?

MR MOGOAI: Myself, Mr Koole and Mr Mamasela.

ADV LAMEY: Now, you have heard the evidence of the other applicants that, referring to you ascaris, were instructed to guard these three persons in a garage. What is your comment about that?

MR MOGOAI: I do not remember having such a discussion at any stage. Nobody told us that we should guard these people in the garage. There were no people in the garage. The garage door was closed all the time.

ADV LAMEY: At that point, at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Right, and you slept then in the kombi?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we slept in the kombi.

ADV LAMEY: And then can you explain what happened the following morning?

MR MOGOAI: The next morning, just after waking up, Mr Hashe was taken. He was removed from the room he spent the night in and he was brought to the verandah. With your permission Chairperson, I want to explain shortly the situation.

At the verandah there were stairs leading to the stoep. Mr Hashe was put next to the stairs on the lawn. Captain Venter called me. He was together with one of the unknown white men. Mr Koole, Mr Beeslaar was there and Mr Mamasela was there.

He asked me to sit down facing directly towards Mr Hashe. I did as I was told and he asked me whether could I speak Mr Hashe's language, which was Xhosa. I said I could not speak it fluently.

ADV LAMEY: What happened further?

MR MOGOAI: He said that was find, I should just keep on asking him even in English. He said I should ask him how was Pebco formed and what are its functions.

Mr Hashe said it was known how it functioned and he said the white people who were there, knew its functions. It wasn't necessary for them to ask. Captain Venter told me to ask him what he knows about the AK or the arms that he had knowledge of.

ADV LAMEY: During this stage, was there any assault?

MR MOGOAI: It was just an interrogation.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR MOGOAI: He did not show that he was prepared to give any knowledge or evidence of what he knows. He refused to tell the truth he knew.

The assault that was similar to that of yesterday, started. It was worse than the previous day. He was kicked severely. Because I was sitting right in front of him, I had to move away because a boot just passed me.

I stood back. Mr Hashe screamed loudly. He said he will speak, they should just leave him. When they left him, he said he once hid an AK rifle somewhere.

ADV LAMEY: Did he speak about one AK47?

MR MOGOAI: He was talking of one AK.

ADV LAMEY: And what did he say, where was this AK kept?

MR MOGOAI: He explained that it is somewhere, whether at his aunt's place or at his sister's place, but actually he was explaining that it is at a woman's place.

ADV LAMEY: And then?

MR MOGOAI: It was now evident to these white people, that I did not know that they had an interest, they realised that this person was now coming up with something.

And he requested water and he was quickly given water, he drank the water. I was smoking, he requested a smoke. He could not smoke properly, he was smoking heavily. I could not understand whether he was a smoker or not.

CHAIRPERSON: He was having difficulties in smoking.

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, I would explain it this way. When a smoker gets hold of a cigarette, you would see that he had this lust of smoke.

ADV LAMEY: Do you say that Mr Hashe didn't appear to have this common lust for smoke when he started smoking the cigarette?

MR MOGOAI: That was an indication. I do not know whether you understand my explanation. It looked like he was not a person used to smoking, because you would see a person who really wants a smoke.

ADV LAMEY: Did he have injuries at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: His face was swollen already. His face was swollen. And the mouth too.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened further?

MR MOGOAI: We were requested to rest, actually let me put it this way, we requested that we be given a chance to rest. Now, that issue of an AK47 and where it is hidden, they said it interested them, they were talking about it, they were getting into the house, getting out of the house, getting into the house and coming out of the house.

ADV LAMEY: Let me just stop you there for a moment, was the interrogation with Mr Hashe left then at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: It was not over My Lord.

ADV LAMEY: No, no, at that point?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, at that time it had stopped.

ADV LAMEY: And where was Mr Hashe left?

MR MOGOAI: He was left outside. He was sleeping there.

ADV LAMEY: And at that point, do you know where the other two people were, Mr Godolozi and Mr Galela?

MR MOGOAI: I only knew that they were in the cells sir. Because all the time Mr Galela was screaming in his cell and I could not understand what the contents of his screaming were.

ADV LAMEY: Okay, can I just stop you there for a moment. What transpired then further? Was there communication between you and Koole?

MR MOGOAI: After a while Mr Koole went to Mr Hashe. They talked and Mr Koole called me. At the time when he called me, these white men appeared and he told me that Mr Hashe said there was nothing about a hidden AK47, he was saying that just to relieve himself from the beatings.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I must have interrupted the interpreters, it is a mistake on my part because I follow the witness.

After interpreting that portion, we will take an adjournment. We will adjourn until eleven o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mogoai, while you are still under oath, you stopped at a point where you were telling us that Mr Hashe, called Koole and you and he said that the story of the AK47 was not true, he just said it in order to get himself out of trouble.

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Yes? Can you continue from there Mr Mogoai?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, My Lord, with your permission. The white men heard what Mr Hashe was telling us, telling us that the evidence that he gave regarding an AK was not the truth, he was now prepared to tell the truth.

They got very angry, they didn't want to listen to anything he was saying. They said he shouldn't come play games with them.

The assault and the kicking that I have referred to earlier on, early in the morning and in the afternoon, were just nothing. He was kicked more than the first time, he was assaulted severely. Just really went up.

One kick went straight to his face, it was so strong that he hit against the wall at the stoep, he hit the wall with his head and I thought at one stage that he had fainted. They also thought that he fainted, because they dragged him to a water tank and they opened the water so that he could gain consciousness. Indeed he did.

ADV LAMEY: You say he gained consciousness at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: And was there any other visible signs on him as a result of this assault?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, he was swollen on the head. It was clearly seen and the part where he hit the wall with, was also swollen. That is on the forehead sir.

And blood was coming out of his nose and mouth.

ADV LAMEY: And then what happened further to Mr Hashe?

MR MOGOAI: They took him back to the room where he was fastened.

ADV LAMEY: Now, at this stage, did you or any of the ascaris, participate in this assault? Can you remember?

MR MOGOAI: I remember that I was standing at the back because I was afraid I would also be kicked.

ADV LAMEY: And anyone of Koole or Mamasela?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, I won't remember very well who took part and who did not because it was turmoil. It was a real turmoil.

And the white people were really emotional. I realised that Mr Beeslaar was also involved in these assaults and kicks. My Captain Venter was also involved, but he just went aside later.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember perhaps who was the person that kicked him against the head when he fell against the wall?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, it is unfortunate that I do not remember who kicked him because there were so many kicks but there was this one strong kick that hit his head against the wall, and he fainted.

ADV LAMEY: Right, and then what was further done with mr Hashe then after this assault and after he was now brought back to his consciousness? Have you already said that he was then taken back to the room?

MR MOGOAI: Yes. He was taken back to the room. Whether they tied him again or not, I do not remember. I think they tied him again.

ADV LAMEY: Right, and can you then explain further was anyone of the other people then - what happened to anyone of them?

MR MOGOAI: These white men were angry. They were really frightening and they said Mr Godolozi should be fetched from the cell. He should be brought at the stoep.

They brought him with, his hand were cuffed and his legs were also cuffed. His face was covered. He was screaming when he went out saying he was not prepared to tell anything.

ADV LAMEY: Can I just stop you there for a moment. You say that his face was covered, how was his face covered?

MR MOGOAI: It was covered with that cloth that I referred to, but it was removed.

ADV LAMEY: But it was removed again, and then what happened further?

MR MOGOAI: He was brought at the stoep and he was put down. He was not put at the spot where Mr Hashe was put. It was on the grass next to ... (intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, was he carried to the stoep or did he walk to the stoep?

MR MOGOAI: He was dragged from the cell.

ADV LAMEY: Right, and you say that he was then put on the grass?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, My Lord. And he was screaming, saying he was not going to say anything.

A small white bag was then taken and they covered his head and face and it was tightened up at the neck so that he can suffocate. During the suffocation, he was being kicked and attacked. After a while, a bag was taken off. It was evident that he could not breathe properly. They interrogated him whether he was prepared to speak.

ADV LAMEY: If you say it was evident that he could not breath properly, is that why the bag was removed?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, the sack was now removed from his head.

ADV LAMEY: And then?

MR MOGOAI: He was asked whether he was prepared to speak now and he said he was not prepared to speak.

ADV LAMEY: Now, during these assaults on him, did you take part in it?

MR MOGOAI: I did not take part sir.

ADV LAMEY: And can you remember who was the people involved with this assault?

MR MOGOAI: Mostly the white men took part. The white men I said I did not know.

ADV LAMEY: Not Captain Venter and Beeslaar?

MR MOGOAI: Captain Venter said to me I should stand back. He also removed himself from the scene. At that time, they put back that sack on his face.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR MOGOAI: He screamed loudly, but he was inaudible because it was tightened to his neck, he was now kicking. Now as he was kicking, they kicked him too, they assaulted him. They dragged him to something like a garage, because it had a big door.

They dragged him to that area, while being assaulted. The sack was still on his head, tightened. When they got into that little house, I would refer as a garage, Captain Venter shouted and he said no guys, not like this. Pull that thing off. They uncovered him. They put him into the garage.

ADV LAMEY: Sorry, can I just stop you there. If you say they uncovered him, was the bag then removed?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: After Captain Venter requested it?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct My Lord.

ADV LAMEY: And then what happened further?

MR MOGOAI: These white men went back to the house together with Captain Venter and Warrant Officer Beeslaar. They got into that house, they stayed for a while talking.

Myself and Mr Mamasela and Mr Koole were outside, waiting. After a while they came out, they were now more angered and they went straight to the garage where Mr Godolozi was.

When they got there, they closed the door. After closing the door, we heard the scream from Mr Godolozi. I do not have evidence as to what they were doing to him.

At that time Captain Venter and one of the whites and Warrant Officer Beeslaar came to stand at the stoep. They were talking amongst themselves, I did not hear what they were talking about.

Warrant Officer Beeslaar came to us at the kombi, it was myself, Mr Mamasela and Mr Koole. He looked a little bit disappointed. He said to us that the gentlemen from Port Elizabeth cannot handle the interrogations properly. If I put it well, he was saying I do not know - it looks like these people are not handling this case very well. But it is their case.

I did not know what he meant by that. Those men who went into the garage, came out of the garage. They left Mr Godolozi behind and they left the door open. Mr Godolozi was still screaming.

ADV DE JAGER: How many of them were there in the garage?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, I do not have an exact number. There were three or four.

ADV LAMEY: Could you, were you aware of the whereabouts of Galela?

MR MOGOAI: Mr Galela was in the cell. He was also screaming from the cell. He would keep quiet and scream, keep quiet and scream loudly and I could not determine what was he screaming about. And he was also talking.

ADV LAMEY: Right, now after Mr Godolozi was now left in the garage, what happened further?

MR MOGOAI: We were told that we can rest. Captain Venter told us we can rest and the fire was started to prepare for a braai.

ADV LAMEY: What time of the day was this?

MR MOGOAI: It was winter My Lord, I would not tell what time it was. It was in the afternoon, just towards sunset.

ADV LAMEY: And you say that you went to rest a little bit?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Do you mean that you slept?

MR MOGOAI: No, we did not sleep. We were just resting in the kombi.

ADV LAMEY: And then what happened further?

MR MOGOAI: The meat was braaied and porridge was cooked.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened further?

MR MOGOAI: After the meat was ready, I must say there were drinks too. The kinds of drink I saw there were beers, whisky and brandy.

ADV LAMEY: Did you have something to eat?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we ate porridge and meat.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Lamey, I was going to ask a question, but he can continue to finish the sentence.

ADV LAMEY: Just finish your sentence there Mr Mogoai.

MR MOGOAI: Some one took out a word and he said get something for the poor things, so that they also get something.

Some plates were taken to them. I do not know who took those plates to the people.

ADV LAMEY: I just want to, before that, just ask you, did you have something to eat then? You and Koole and Mamasela?

MR MOGOAI: Where sir?

ADV LAMEY: At this stage, after the meat was prepared at the braai?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we had something to eat.

ADV LAMEY: And did you have something to drink?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, drinks were brought, but I refused to drink because I was supposed to inject myself for diabetes.

Captain Venter forced me to drink. He said I should forget about the sicknesses.

ADV LAMEY: And did you then have something to drink?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, because of the force I had a drink. One glass of brandy mixed with Coke.

ADV LAMEY: If you say now he forced you to drink, can you just explain that a bit?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, it doesn't mean he was holding a glass, forcing it on me. Every time he was telling me drink, man, drink. Everybody is drinking here, you are the only one who is not drinking.

ADV LAMEY: Right, can I just then refer to the other three people. Mr Godolozi, Galela and Hashe, do you know whether they got something to eat?

MR MOGOAI: I already said My Lord, that a word was taken out that they should be sent food, the poor things.

ADV LAMEY: But did you see anything to this effect?

MR MOGOAI: I can only say I had an opportunity to go to Mr Hashe's room and I saw a plate that was before him. Just a little food was taken from the plate, it meant that he did not eat enough, he just had a little to eat.

ADV DE JAGER: I do not quite follow. Were there still some food left in his plate, you said that he did not have enough to eat, he only ate a little bit? What do you imply?

MR MOGOAI: When I said he ate a little, when a person ate their whole food, the plate and there was enough food, you would see, he would leave a little bit of food, but he didn't eat the whole plate, he just ate a little.

ADV SANDI: Who prepared the food Mr Mogoai?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know who the cook was. I only saw white people in front of me who were at the fire.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened further that evening?

MR MOGOAI: Captain Venter said to us we are going to sleep in the kombi.

ADV LAMEY: And did you then go and sleep in the kombi?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is true.

ADV LAMEY: And who was with you in the kombi, who slept there in the kombi?

MR MOGOAI: The three of us as I said, it was myself, Joe Mamasela and Mr Koole.

ADV LAMEY: And the following day, what happened?

MR MOGOAI: In the morning when we woke up, Captain Venter came to us and he informed us that we should go back to Glenconnor, the three of us.

He said to us again that we should not use the road we used previously, yesterday, when we arrived at that place. We should take a different road which passed at Graaff-Reinet and Jansenville, then it will lead us to Glenconnor.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute Mr Lamey. Before you, after Captain Venter told you to go and sleep in the kombi, and before you went to the kombi to go and sleep in there, did anything of significance happen which we need to know?

MR MOGOAI: Your Honour, if I understand you well, you mean that during the night?

CHAIRPERSON: No, you told us that at some point that evening or after you had had porridge and meat and so on and so forth, at some point, Captain Venter said the three of you should go and sleep in the kombi?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you told us as to how you went to go and sleep in the kombi accordingly?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what I wanted to know from you is, I want to know from you whether before you actually went to sleep, whether there is anything that happened that we need to know? I don't want you to go and sleep before you tell us what happened, if anything?

MR MOGOAI: I don't remember as whether there is anything of significance which happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well then. Continue with your testimony.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. And then the following day, did you then take that road which was explained over Jansenville and Graaff-Reinet?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember what time of the morning you left there?

MR MOGOAI: It was at dawn, at sunrise. It could have been around eight o'clock, because it was winter.

ADV LAMEY: And did you and Koole and Mamasela then leave?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we left.

ADV LAMEY: Okay, and who drove the minibus back to Glenconnor?

MR MOGOAI: That is Mr Koole.

ADV LAMEY: At that stage when you left, where was Captain Venter and Beeslaar?

MR MOGOAI: We left them behind.

ADV LAMEY: The morning when you left, did you see any of the three Pebco people?

MR MOGOAI: I did not see them because we didn't have that opportunity for a chance to go to them. But what I could only say is that at that time, I heard Mr Galela shouting or screaming in that cell.

ADV LAMEY: And you then arrived at Glenconnor?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we arrived at Glenconnor?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, sorry, I am going to interrupt you here. Mr Mogoai, can't we try to put these things into dates. We know now, I think it is common cause, that these people were abducted on the 8th.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And according to your evidence you arrived there around midnight, at the farm?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, the following day would have been the 9th?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, you spent the night in the kombi, the three of you or slept in the kombi?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct. The first day or the first night.

CHAIRPERSON: And as I say the following day would be the 9th, and then you were there the whole day during the 9th, until the braai at about sunset?

MR MOGOAI: We spent the whole day there, we slept there again the following night.

CHAIRPERSON: That would mean that when you left in the morning, at about eight o'clock, it would be on the 10th?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MOGOAI: With your permission sir, I want to explain why I said we slept two days or two nights at Post Chalmers - because we were not sleeping comfortably in the kombi.

We didn't have blankets and it was cold. Then only one night, you would feel that you are uncomfortable to sleep in that way and then I would not forget that we slept two nights, whilst I was sleeping uncomfortably. That is why I am not able to forget that we slept two nights.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Well, then you left at about eight o'clock on the 10th now, we know it is the 10th of May, yes, continue?

ADV LAMEY: And you have already said that Captain Venter and Beeslaar was behind and you took another road which was different from the road that you arrived at this farm house the first evening, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct. I will explain it in this way that even the road we used I am not able to identify because it was for the first time and it was at night.

ADV LAMEY: Okay, and you said that you then arrived at Glenconnor and can you remember whether Captain Venter and Beeslaar arrived there, and when they arrived?

MR MOGOAI: They didn't arrive with us.

ADV LAMEY: Did they arrive later?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, they came later, but it was at night when they arrived. We were asleep when they arrived. We were woken up by one policeman who was there. That is Mr Peggy Radebe, that is the one that woke us up.

He informed us that Captain Venter informed him that we should pack all our things, then in the following morning we should return to Thabani.

ADV LAMEY: And where is that?

MR MOGOAI: That is Rustenburg.

ADV LAMEY: And then did you do so, returned the following day to Rustenburg?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we did as instructed.

ADV LAMEY: Now, at Rustenburg, was there anything said by Captain Venter that you can recall?

MR MOGOAI: Later in Rustenburg, Captain Venter informed Mr Koole, directed to us and Mr Mamasela that he request that we should not conceal the incident or what happened at Post Chalmers.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just let me interrupt you, I did not hear the English translation.

MR MOGOAI: That we should not conceal what happened at Post Chalmers.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the interpreter misunderstood you Mr Mogoai. What did Captain Venter say, just repeat yourself.

MR MOGOAI: That he should inform us that we should not conceal, we should not say anything, we should not reveal about the incident at Port Elizabeth.

CHAIRPERSON: He said you should not reveal anything, that is in fact what you are saying?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Did he say anything, did he provide any explanation for this?

MR MOGOAI: No, he didn't give us a reason.

ADV LAMEY: Just a minute Mr Chairman. Can I just take you back to page 37, Mr Mogoai, paragraph 9(i). You apply for amnesty for your participation in kidnapping and your participation in assault with intent to do harm?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And any other defence or delict which may be inferred from the facts?

MR MOGOAI: That is with humility, sir.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I now come to the political objective. I don't know if I could just perhaps read it out in the record or whether you should want me to lead evidence on this?

CHAIRPERSON: Direct him towards the essential aspects. We will read the details, but maybe you can just direct him towards the essential aspects. Just the main framework. Which page is that?

ADV LAMEY: It is page 38 Mr Chairman. Mr Mogoai, could you just have a look at page 38. Do you confirm the contents with regard to paragraph 10(a) and (b) with regard to the political objective and your motivation with regard to your participation, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct. I agree.

ADV LAMEY: You say that at the stage when you were in Port Elizabeth, the political situation in Port Elizabeth was chaotic and that political violence was out of control.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You said that you inferred from the contents of the questions which you were asked to address to the people, during the interrogation, that Pebco was suspected to be involved with the organisation of the violence?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And it also appeared to you that the members of the Security Branch, Port Elizabeth, suspected MK soldiers to be hiding in the black townships in Port Elizabeth?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV LAMEY: You also say it appeared to you that the members of the Port Elizabeth Branch believed that Pebco received their instructions from the ANC?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You say it was clear to you that all possible information had to be gathered from these three people?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You also mentioned in this part of your application, that while you were staying at Glenconnor, there were policemen burnt to death in the Zwide area of Port Elizabeth?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And that there was also interrogation about this aspect?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And there was questions about attacks on police houses?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And police houses that were burnt down?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And you also say that you later were informed or gathered from Captain Venter that Hashe was the Secretary General, Godolozi the Chairman and Galela the Treasurer?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You also say that as ascari member of Vlakplaas, you had also to follow instructions and that your participation flowed from these instructions?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And you further say that it was further clear that the assistance of Vlakplaas was called in to assist the Security Branch of Port Elizabeth?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: I want to ask you did you receive any specific reward or remuneration following your involvement in this incident?

MR MOGOAI: I didn't receive any reward or remuneration in this regard.

ADV LAMEY: Then I want to refer you also to page 39, questions 11(a) and (b), that you confirm there that you acted under instructions and approval? Is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is true.

ADV LAMEY: And that the instructions emanated from Captain Roelf Venter who was in charge of your group which was sent to Port Elizabeth?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And you say you don't know from whom Captain Venter received his instructions?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Mogoai, I just want to ask you, were you aware of any plan to eliminate these three people?

MR MOGOAI: I didn't have any knowledge of the plan that these three people should be abducted and they should be taken without anybody knowing at the airport. I didn't have any knowledge of the plan or what would happen from the airport up to the end.

ADV LAMEY: I just want to ask you this. These three people, while they were at this old police station, I am talking about the first evening and the following day when assaults took place, were any of them hit with a physical object like a stick or an iron pipe?

MR MOGOAI: I didn't see any instrument used Your Honour. As I said, I saw when they were kicked many times and they were assaulted with fists.

ADV LAMEY: I want to refer you to portions of a statement of Mr Mamasela and I want you just to comment on that. And I just want actually to put you the gist of his version.

He alleged that they were hit with iron pipe and with other objects and they were beaten so severely that they died there and that the bodies of two people, I think he said Godolozi and Mr Hashe was placed in this garage and that later, while you were there present, Mr Galela also died. What do you say about this evidence of Mr Mamasela?

MR MOGOAI: I would say this. The instruments which Mamasela mentioned, I have not seen them firstly, and secondly, the person who was interrogated in my presence was Mr Hashe.

I saw at the end of the interrogation, I saw Mr Hashe still alive. Mr Galela I think that he was still alive when we left, because at all times he was screaming. I haven't seen him with my own eyes, what kind of a person he is.

ADV LAMEY: Perhaps I should just put you this gist of his evidence that he says while you, well while you were still there at this old police station, the bodies, the deceased Mr Hashe was already deceased and his body and that of Mr Godolozi, was placed in the garage and that he said that Mr Galela died between five o'clock in the afternoon and six o'clock in the afternoon?

MR MOGOAI: No, I don't know as to whether they died. You ask me questions as if you are in a hurry. Can you ask me one question, one by one?

ADV LAMEY: I am just putting to you that the gist of Mr Mamasela's evidence, the impression that is gained from his statement is that Mr Hashe and Godolozi died and that there bodies were placed in the garage. That is now while ... (intervention)

MR MOGOAI: That is not correct.

ADV LAMEY: Is that not true?

MR MOGOAI: No, that is not true.

ADV LAMEY: And he claims also, Mamasela to be present at the stage when he says between five o'clock and six o'clock on a particular day, that Mr Galela died? What do you say about that?

MR MOGOAI: That is not correct.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Mogoai, at this hearing you are aware that the - let me just say this - at this hearing you are aware that the family members of Mr Hashe, Godolozi and Galela are present. Is there anything that you would like to convey to them?

MR MOGOAI: Yes I have, I know that they are present, but I don't know them well. Who are they or where are they? I would ask the Chairperson if he allows me.

ADV LAMEY: Would you please proceed?

MR MOGOAI: Your Honour, sir, these are the words which I want to say. I have written them down, they come from my heart which I wanted to address them before this Commission before the members of the deceased and then before the audience and those who are not present here.

I have written them in English, Mr Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: You can proceed.

MR MOGOAI: I have taken this opportunity to speak the truth and to express my torturing regrets about wasted years and my shame about a mean and petty past.

As I regard myself today as a disgrace to my mother, my family and my relatives. My friends and the families of the Pebco 3 and the nation as such, it is with my deepest remorse that I ask for forgiveness and hopefully wishes to be reconciled with everybody once more and be part of a better and brighter future of South Africa.

I say it now here today, as I could not have done so in the earlier days of this realisation for obvious reasons. I thank you.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, could I just point that concludes my examination in chief. Could we ask for a short adjournment?

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV LAMEY: .

CHAIRPERSON: Adjourn for a short while. You can call us as soon as you are ready.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mogoai, you are still under oath.

KIMPANII PETER MOGOAI: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, there has been a request conveyed to my colleague Mr Rossouw, from Mr Nyoka, whether Mr Mogoai would be prepared to meet the family in private at an opportune occasion and I have taken instructions from Mr Mogoai, and he is indeed to meet them during such private occasion at a stage which is opportune in this proceedings. I just want to say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I suppose that can be arranged between the parties, which will be a matter outside of the proceedings.

ADV LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. I have got not further questions.

ADV NYOKA: Mr Chairman, let me just make a correction here. The party requested to meet us privately, I went to Mr Rossouw to find out whether they are going to make that public, that they want to meet us privately less a misunderstanding is created that we are seeking that meeting. No, they seek a meeting with us.

ADV LAMEY: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I didn't mean to create any misunderstanding here, it is so that the possibility of this was discussed also previously also from our side and from Mr Mogoai's side and this was just again raised during the adjournment and I just want to place on record that Mr Mogoai is indeed prepared to do that upon further arrangement between the legal representatives of the family, as I say at an opportune moment.

I just want to say that at this particular point, he will be further under cross-examination and you must also bear that in mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mogoai, these are events that happened 12 years ago, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Notwithstanding that fact, you seem to have a very good recollection of detail, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: There are other issues which I cannot remember well?

ADV BOOYENS: Such as?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, how can you ask him to tell us something which he does not remember?

ADV BOOYENS: No, he said events that he could not remember well, not at all, Mr Chairman. That is what was translated to me, it may have been different.

Now, I just want to deal with what you said right at the conclusion of your evidence, first. You said you had no knowledge of a plan to abduct the people.

MR MOGOAI: I didn't have a knowledge sir.

ADV BOOYENS: What appeared to you at the airport, did that appear to could have been a normal arrest by policemen?

MR MOGOAI: I took it that way.

ADV BOOYENS: And did you at any stage have reason to change your mind that this was not an arrest by policemen?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: When?

MR MOGOAI: When I saw their faces covered and when they were hand cuffed, legs and hands.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, if people are arrested especially by you people from Vlakplaas, wasn't that more or less ... (intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Booyens, you will have to go a bit slower. Your questions and the interpreter's answers overlap, please just go a little bit slower.

ADV BOOYENS: Wasn't that normal practice when people are arrested, that they would be hand cuffed and especially as far as Vlakplaas is concerned, that the heads would be covered when you convey them?

MR MOGOAI: No sir. I have never engaged myself in those kinds of activities, it was for the first time in my life.

ADV BOOYENS: You mean arresting people or what kind of activities are you referring to?

MR MOGOAI: To arrest people and cover their heads so that they should not be able to see.

ADV BOOYENS: So it was just the fact that the heads were covered, that gave you the impression that they were being kidnapped?

MR MOGOAI: I saw that that was not a normal arrest.

ADV BOOYENS: The question is did that give you the impression that they were being kidnapped?

MR MOGOAI: I explained the way I understood that. I saw that it was not a normal arrest.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, not a normal arrest may be a long way from a kidnapping. What gave you the impression that they were being kidnapped?

CHAIRPERSON: He has never said they were being kidnapped. He said he got the impression that they were arrested in an abnormal way.

ADV BOOYENS: Quite true Mr Chairman, but he applies for a kidnap and that is for amnesty for a kidnapping.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that is a different thing, but he hasn't as yet said that the people had been kidnapped, yes, maybe you should build towards it properly.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, you say it was not a normal arrest. The only thing abnormal about it was that people's heads were covered or closed, they were blindfolded?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: For the rest, it appear for all intents and purposes, to have been a normal arrest?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I had that kind of an impression.

ADV BOOYENS: So up to the stage when the assault started, apart from the fact that it was an abnormal arrest, you didn't think that there was anything illegal about it?

MR MOGOAI: May you please repeat your question sir.

ADV BOOYENS: Up to the time when the assault started, the arrest was only abnormal, but you didn't think that anything illegal had been done, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And in your experience, and you don't have to give us detail, you must be aware of many cases where people had been arrested and were assaulted subsequently?

MR MOGOAI: I don't have that kind of an experience, because I didn't effect many arrests. I have experience that when people were arrested, they were assaulted or beaten.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. So, did you at any stage think these people had been kidnapped?

MR MOGOAI: In short sir, I would explain it this way. As they made us to realise that in Port Elizabeth, in the black townships, there were no go areas, I took it that they did not have authority of powers to arrest those people in the houses.

ADV BOOYENS: I don't understand you, it may not have been possible for them to arrest them at the houses, that is why they lured them to the airport and arrested them there, wasn't that what you believed?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is the way I understood.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. Were you three ascaris that were there, in each other's presence all the time at the airport?

MR MOGOAI: Before I will accept that question, what do you mean by the three ascaris, whom do you think of?

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, for convenience sake we will refer to you as the ascaris, I know some of you were members of the Force and some of you were ascaris. The three people that came down from Rustenburg, that were stationed at Vlakplaas, that is the three I am going to call the three ascaris.

Just for the sake of convenience, I know some of you were not ascaris. I know for example you are a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Booyens is referring to yourself, Mamasela and Koole.

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I understand the question now.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, from Glenconnor till the time the people were put in the kombi, were you three in each other's company?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we were together.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you have a radio in your vehicle?

MR MOGOAI: Do you mean the police radio?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR MOGOAI: No, we didn't have a police radio.

ADV BOOYENS: So you couldn't hear a running commentary about them being followed all the way while they were approaching the airport?

MR MOGOAI: You mean the people who were expected to arrive?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes?

MR MOGOAI: We didn't know what was happening.

ADV BOOYENS: In fairness to you, that is what Mamasela says. You don't agree with that?

MR MOGOAI: What Mamasela says? What is he saying?

ADV BOOYENS: In essence what I told you now.

MR MOGOAI: You mean that we didn't have a radio?

ADV BOOYENS: No, Mamasela said you could follow the proceedings on radio like it was a audio/visual commentary, I think, are his words. How they loaded each up, where they were approaching, etc?

MR MOGOAI: We didn't have a police radio in the car, our car didn't have a radio.

ADV BOOYENS: Dealing with your background briefly, you have changed your loyalty from the ANC to the SAP at some stage?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And after these things happened, have you changed your loyalty back again to another political organisation or what is your political loyalty now?

MR MOGOAI: I don't belong to any political organisation now. I don't know where I am, I am lost.

ADV BOOYENS: After you returned, after you got to the airport, your only instruction was that you must wait for these people, is that correct and put them in the vehicle with you?

MR MOGOAI: We were instructed that we should wait for these people, then they would be made to arrive at our car.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. You were not even instructed to handcuff them or restrain them?

MR MOGOAI: No sir.

ADV BOOYENS: What would you have done after you put them in the kombi ... (intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: The interpreter couldn't hear the answer, please repeat the answer.

MR MOGOAI: I said no, I don't understand now what question are you referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was whether, the question was you were not even asked to handcuff them and you said no.

MR MOGOAI: I said no, we were not instructed or told to handcuff them.

ADV BOOYENS: What would you have done if one or more of them had jumped out while they were with you in the kombi and ran away?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know what we could have done.

ADV BOOYENS: You would have just let him run away without doing anything?

MR MOGOAI: As I was at the back, I would leave those who were in front of me, to follow him, because I didn't know what was happening.

ADV BOOYENS: You also, so you were not briefed at all about the intentions of this operation beforehand, you were just given an instruction to obey?

MR MOGOAI: Not at all. I did not know a thing.

ADV BOOYENS: When you arrived at this disused police station, were you briefed then as to what the intention was?

MR MOGOAI: Nobody told us the intensions sir. We were supposed to wait and see what comes next.

ADV BOOYENS: Nobody told you what you were supposed to do, you ascaris?

MR MOGOAI: It is difficult to answer that question My Lord, because now and then Captain Venter would come to us to tell us what to do.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but that would be practical things like take people there, or do things or take them into a place, but you were not briefed as to what you were supposed to get out of the people, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: The next day it was clearer, when the interrogations started.

ADV BOOYENS: Interrogation started that evening, you didn't know what it was about?

MR MOGOAI: I could follow what was being said.

ADV BOOYENS: But, you had no knowledge as to the background of this, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: Maybe I do not understand your question sir.

ADV BOOYENS: That evening when you took part in the interrogation, you had no background - when the interrogation started, as to who these people were, what they were supposed to have done, why they were being arrested, anything, you knew nothing about them?

MR MOGOAI: Let me say firstly My Lord, I understood who these people were. When we arrived it was said Mr Galela should be taken to this place, Mr Godolozi should be taken to that place, that is when I understood their names and during the interrogation, Pebco was mentioned, and then it was then that I understood Pebco is an organisation here in Port Elizabeth.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. But when the, during the interrogation that started initially about an AK47, an assault took place, is that right?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: An assault in which you took part?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And Mamasela?

MR MOGOAI: Mamasela was not there, it was myself, Captain Venter, Mr Koole and the other two unknown white men.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Koole take part?

MR MOGOAI: Yes sir.

ADV BOOYENS: Why did you assault these people Mr Mogoai, this man?

MR MOGOAI: I was taking part as a member that was present there.

ADV BOOYENS: You had nothing to do with the investigation, so you just took part automatically?

MR MOGOAI: I did not know whether I was not supposed to take part in the investigations. I took part because I was already involved with these people, I couldn't turn back.

ADV BOOYENS: You weren't ordered to assist in the assault?

MR MOGOAI: In that kind of a situation nobody would say, man, what are you waiting for, come take part.

ADV BOOYENS: That if I understand your evidence correctly, that is the last time when you took part in an assault at all in Post Chalmers, is that correct? You didn't assault anybody further?

MR MOGOAI: That is not the only place when I have to tell the truth.

ADV BOOYENS: During this period at Post Chalmers, was this that is that evening, the only occasion during the period at Post Chalmers when you yourself, physically assaulted somebody?

MR MOGOAI: No, My Lord, it is not only that night.

ADV BOOYENS: You understood the question?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I understood your question.

ADV BOOYENS: Right. Who else, and at what occasion did you assault anybody else?

MR MOGOAI: I was dealing with Mr Hashe. My second time of taking part, it was the next day when I was sitting in front of Mr Hashe, I hit him on the chest with a fist.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, so that was your second assault?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Anybody else that you assaulted?

MR MOGOAI: No sir.

ADV BOOYENS: You didn't mention, if I recall correctly, that you yourself hit Mr Hashe. All you said was that the white members assaulted him and in fact you had to move back because you nearly got a boot against your head, yourself.

MR MOGOAI: That is what I explained when I was talking about the kicks.

ADV BOOYENS: Why didn't you tell the Commission that on the second occasion you also assaulted Mr Hashe?

MR MOGOAI: I did not take it that there was the first time, the second time and the third time, and I was not hiding this information. I could not tell it that time, you are now asking me.

ADV BOOYENS: I think you were given a very full opportunity to describe to us what happened and you didn't avail yourself of that opportunity. Have you got any better answer than that why you didn't tell us about that second assault? The morning's assault?

MR MOGOAI: I do not understand your question sir.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's keep it, try and keep it simple. You said and my Instructing Attorney's note reads that you did not take part and that is referring to the incident in the morning.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I just want to come in here. I don't recall at any stage that he during that next morning when Hashe was interrogated, there were two occasions, that when he referred to the first occasion, that he explicitly said that he did not take part.

As I also recall his evidence, it is that at a certain stage during that assault, he moved away as a result of the kick. I don't think he said explicitly that I did not take part in the assaults.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, yes, I will go through my own notes in that regard, but in any case, let me just ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don't have that kind of note.

ADV BOOYENS: No, in my own notes I don't see something like that either Mr Chairman, that might have been an interpretation of what he was saying.

What you did say about that, is that Venter told you to stand to one side, do you remember that?

MR MOGOAI: I remember when he said that.

ADV BOOYENS: Was that after you had assaulted Mr Hashe?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, let me remind you Captain Venter's words when he ordered me to stand back, it was at the time when Mr Godolozi was assaulted, not Mr Hashe.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, right. Very well, but now, this assault on Hashe, when you hit him on the chest, was that before they started kicking him, or at what stage?

MR MOGOAI: It is at the beginning of the kicking.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you hit him once or more than once?

MR MOGOAI: I said I hit him twice My Lord.

ADV BOOYENS: That is now in the morning?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Where did the blows land? The one I know was on the chest, where was the other one?

MR MOGOAI: Both of them on the chest.

ADV BOOYENS: With a fist?

MR MOGOAI: It is what I am explaining sir.

ADV BOOYENS: No, you didn't say fist yet. So I can accept that both were fists?

CHAIRPERSON: He did say so in fact.

ADV BOOYENS: Did he say fist My Lord?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I didn't pick that one up. Did you hit him hard?

MR MOGOAI: I hit him twice like this. I do not know whether it was hard or not, but my hand went twice to him and I would not say I hit him with two fists. I used my one hand twice.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, Hashe after he came out about the AK47, the questioning of him stopped, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Can we perhaps just deal with what Hashe was asked about on these two occasions? On the previous night he was asked about the AK47 and about what else, if anything?

MR MOGOAI: He was asked about the workings of Pebco, how Pebco functions. He was asked whether are there people in hiding that he knows about here in Port Elizabeth.

He was asked who was behind the burning of policemen's houses. He was asked who was killing the policemen with necklaces.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes? That was the previous evening. Anything else?

MR MOGOAI: These questions were coming out even before he could give an answer, another question would come up.

ADV BOOYENS: The question was what he was questioned about.

MR MOGOAI: That is my recollection My Lord.

ADV BOOYENS: And the interrogation the next morning, what was he questioned about?

MR MOGOAI: It was based on the same questions.

ADV BOOYENS: So the same topics were covered once again?

MR MOGOAI: Yes. One question that I remember it was asked what was he doing in Lesotho.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes?

MR MOGOAI: That is shortly my recollection.

ADV BOOYENS: On the third occasion that he was assaulted, it seems that it was just an assault, if I understand your evidence correctly, there was no questions really being asked?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And, so to your knowledge, up to the time at the end of the questioning in the morning where you were involved, no further interrogation of Hashe ever took place? Is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: Which time are you referring to sir?

ADV BOOYENS: There were two occasions when he was questioned. The previous evening and early the next morning. After that, to your knowledge, he was never questioned again?

MR MOGOAI: I really do not understand this question. ADV DE JAGER: Maybe we can assist. The Advocate said that he was questioned the evening and he was questioned the next morning as well, then he was assaulted. And he was assaulted a second time, but no questions was put to him, that was the morning.

He was assaulted twice that morning, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now the second time that he was assaulted where you said it was worse than the previous time in your testimony, was this before twelve o'clock or was it later than twelve o'clock, or could you not place a time on that?

MR MOGOAI: I do not recall what time it was but it was during the day. The sun was shining.

ADV DE JAGER: After the second time that they assaulted him, when you said that no questions were asked, was he assaulted later that afternoon or evening again?

MR MOGOAI: He was not attacked at night. When he was assaulted during the time of no interrogation and then the next time he said to Mr Koole, he revealed something about a hidden AK47 and it was not true what he said. He wanted to be let off the beatings.

CHAIRPERSON: The third occasion when he was assaulted, it was after he had revealed to Mr Koole and said to him listen, that whole story of an AK47 is not the truth. I just said it to get myself out of trouble.

MR MOGOAI: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the last occasion when he was assaulted?

MR MOGOAI: That was the last time My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember whether it was in the morning or in the afternoon, or can you not remember?

MR MOGOAI: I will not remember very well, but it was not in the morning and it was not late in the afternoon, it was about twelve o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: And as far as you know, that was the last time that he was assaulted?

MR MOGOAI: That is my recollection My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Booyens, you can proceed.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Let's deal with the position of Godolozi. The previous night, notwithstanding the fact that he was obstinate, he wasn't assaulted at all?

MR MOGOAI: He was assaulted My Lord.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did somebody call?

ADV LAMEY: I think Mr Mogoai has answered the question. I've got the impression from Mr Booyens' question as if it was his evidence previously that he didn't, that he stated that Godolozi wasn't assaulted. And I think that he said that he was assaulted the evening.

ADV BOOYENS: My learned friend is correct My Lord, I see he was attacked by the unknown whites.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I notice that on two or three occasions you misstated evidence of the witness.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think this thing really should be avoided, because it confuses the witness.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am fully aware of that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we need to check on those before we put things to the witness.

ADV BOOYENS: As far as Godolozi was concerned, did you take part in that assault?

MR MOGOAI: No My Lord, not at night.

ADV BOOYENS: Why not?

MR MOGOAI: He was assaulted by the people who brought him in the front of the house.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, the question is were you there?

MR MOGOAI: I was there. I want to tell this Committee and the Honourable Chairperson, that Mr Godolozi I could not even think of going nearer him. He was heavily built, he was a giant. I did not know where to go and start hitting.

ADV BOOYENS: So you were scared of him in other words?

MR MOGOAI: I was respecting him, he was heavily built, yes, I was scared of him.

ADV BOOYENS: And that is why you never assaulted him?

MR MOGOAI: I thought I was going to be the one to be injured, it wasn't necessary therefore to go and attack.

ADV BOOYENS: Galela was to your knowledge never assaulted, and never questioned?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, I have a problem. I only remember that Mr Galela was in the cell, screaming. I do not remember at any stage where he was removed from the cell, or any stage where he was interrogated. I have never been any closer to him, I do not even know his face.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, I don't understand what exactly you ascaris were supposed to do in this operation. You didn't seem to have any specific function except for driving a kombi?

MR MOGOAI: You have taken all I wanted to say, even today I do not know my presence there. I was just fulfilling the orders. I do not understand the plan, what was the plan. We were just taken, I do not know what were we supposed to know.

ADV BOOYENS: And what you did do could obviously been performed by some Port Elizabeth policemen quite comfortably, not so?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Isn't it in fact true that the real story was that the specific reason why you people were used, is because you were unknown, that is why you were used for the kidnapping and that as you tell it, it is simply not true?

MR MOGOAI: We were used to drive a car and to kidnap people, it is something that we do not know. This surprises me, why didn't they do the job themselves? But I did not go to get them, we were in the kombi and they were brought to us.

If ever I took part in driving them to the car, I would be sitting here, telling the Committee. But it is not what I did.

ADV BOOYENS: You see, the other applicants say that, and that is including your own colleague from Vlakplaas, the purpose why you were there, was exactly to make sure that people who are not known, removed these people from the airport.

ADV LAMEY: Can my learned colleague just specify which colleague of Vlakplaas is he referring to?

ADV BOOYENS: Beeslaar.

MR MOGOAI: If that is so, I believe that these people did not know him, why was he not used to go and kidnap them?

ADV BOOYENS: What is more, is that all the Port Elizabeth people say that is the only reason why Vlakplaas was involved. There would be no other reason to involve you people, what would you say about that?

MR MOGOAI: I did not know Mr Hashe and them while we were at the airport, I did not know the people we were supposed to arrest. I could not even point them, how would I go and get people whom I did not know. It was in the afternoon and even if you knew a person, you would never identify him in the dark.

And this is not the only part we took, the other part was that we should interrogate them.

ADV BOOYENS: But the part you took in interrogation, was if I understand your evidence correctly, you were only told to take part in the interrogation the next morning on your own version?

MR MOGOAI: Yes sir.

ADV BOOYENS: So, you were not really that important for the interrogation as well, because you didn't know too much about the situation in PE, not so?

MR MOGOAI: We did not have knowledge, even now I do not bear any knowledge of what was happening.

ADV BOOYENS: So what little knowledge you did have, you would have had to glean from the Port Elizabeth police?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, the little knowledge would have been given by the Port Elizabeth police.

ADV BOOYENS: You received no specific training in interrogation, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: No My Lord, we didn't get any training.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am talking about you yourself, you never received such training?

MR MOGOAI: I do not have that specific kind of training.

ADV BOOYENS: And to your knowledge, did Mamasela or Koole have any specific skills as far as interrogation was concerned?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know My Lord.

ADV BOOYENS: And on your version at least, your abilities to assault these people, wasn't all that important either, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: I do not understand your question, or rather the interpretation is not good.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, perhaps one should put it more simple. The majority of the assaults were perpetrated if I understand you correctly, not by you and not by the other ascaris, but in fact by the policemen from Port Elizabeth, that is according to your version?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, most of the assaults were done by the police of Port Elizabeth, even though I could not say who they were.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. By the way how many policemen from Port Elizabeth were at that police station?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know sir.

ADV BOOYENS: Does that mean I cannot remember or I don't understand why you say you don't know.

MR MOGOAI: I don't know, because I can't remember how many were they.

ADV BOOYENS: Can you dispute that there were only three Port Elizabeth policemen?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I will disagree.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, if you can't remember, how can you disagree?

MR MOGOAI: There were more than three cars besides our car. There were about four.

ADV BOOYENS: Four cars apart from your car?

MR MOGOAI: And on top of that, there were two white men who were in the kombi with us to Glenconnor and I did not know them.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, so if you say it couldn't have been three, but you can't remember how many approximately. Beeslaar was in a car or was he with you?

MR MOGOAI: He was not with us. I do not know which car was he driving in.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, and you say there were about four cars?

MR MOGOAI: Yes sir.

ADV BOOYENS: Could it have been three cars apart from yours?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, let me explain this to you. While these cars were driving, one would pass the rest and park alongside the road and we would drive passed and then he would follow us, just like that.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes?

MR MOGOAI: On our arrival at Post Chalmers, I saw four cars.

ADV BOOYENS: So you are adamant now that there were four cars?

MR MOGOAI: The cars I remember seeing, are four.

ADV BOOYENS: So you are saying there could have been even more?

MR MOGOAI: I do not believe so.

ADV BOOYENS: What happened to the Ford bakkie that Mamasela had?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know what happened to the bakkie.

ADV BOOYENS: That didn't get to Post Chalmers?

MR MOGOAI: No, it didn't get to Post Chalmers.

ADV BOOYENS: You tell us you are unable to identify any of the white policemen that worked with you, that is from the PE white policemen?

MR MOGOAI: That is what I said My Lord.

ADV BOOYENS: What is the reason for that because we had three of them who had said that they were there. You don't know whether they were there or they were not there.

MR MOGOAI: Even when I look at them today, they do not come to my mind. I had enough time to look at Mr Niewoudt on television, I tried to recall his presence, but nothing. It doesn't come to my mind that he was anywhere with us.

Mr Lotz who testified to the event that he went to fetch us from Glenconnor, I believe that if he really fetched us from Glenconnor as he explained, I would have had enough time to look at him and remember him, but it doesn't come to trace him. That is my problem.

ADV BOOYENS: And while we are busy with that, what about Mr Van Zyl? I mean you have seen him here as well, and he tells me he had a beard just like he has now, in those days?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know My Lord, I do not put him any way in the picture. I saw these people that night and the next day when they left, when they went out of the house, when I was supposed to see them, it was the interrogation of Mr Hashe and all the time or most of the time.

Not even one of them stood and talked to me. I do not remember them at all and it hurts not to remember that this person might have been there.

ADV BOOYENS: I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you cannot remember the Port Elizabeth whites that were there, you cannot remember what they looked like any more, or are you saying that these three were not there?

MR MOGOAI: I am not saying they were not there. I am saying I do not remember any of the Port Elizabeth police. I do not remember them, I do not know them.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but you've got no problem remembering that there were four motor cars?

MR MOGOAI: Yes. I would be in a position to count the cars, but I do not know the make of those cars, whether they were Mazda's or Volkswagen and I could not just remember how many people were there too.

ADV BOOYENS: In fact you go further and you even remember the exact themes that were covered during the interrogations? Is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: You are right sir. Because I realised that my presence there stayed with me for a long time and I was supposed to listen carefully to the interrogations.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Mogoai, when were you asked the first time whether you would be able to identify these Port Elizabeth policemen, was that perhaps by the Attorney General's staff or the investigating team of the Attorney General's staff?

MR MOGOAI: The staff from the Attorney General's office.

ADV BOOYENS: They asked you the first time?

MR MOGOAI: Yes sir.

ADV BOOYENS: And you told them that you can't remember what these people looked like?

MR MOGOAI: That is what I told them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, you will tell us when you reach a convenient stage for us to stop for lunch?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, certainly. But notwithstanding the fact that you can't identify them, your memory is good enough to tell us exactly what liquor was available there. Are you serious about that Mr Mogoai, that you can even remember the detail like that?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know what difference do you want to bring about between the time for braai and the other issue because I see a bottle of liquor every day at the bottle store or anywhere.

Now the Port Elizabeth people, I have never been involved with them, I have never been to their offices, I did not know them.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I presume policemen are less common than whisky and beer. Thank you My Lord, this may be a convenient stage.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until two o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS FOR LUNCH - ON RESUMPTION

KIMPANI PETER MOGOAI: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Booyens?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: (continued) Thank you My Lord. Mr Mogoai, I recollect correctly that you stated in fact, if my notes are correct, you stated twice that Hashe was taken to that outside room which had rings in the floor and he was not cuffed to the rings, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: I said he was taken to a room which was different from other rooms, then he was hand cuffed to the rings which were implanted in the floor.

ADV BOOYENS: My Lord, could I perhaps ask the Commission's assistance, my recollection is it was not, in fact I think it was said twice, that he was not cuffed to the rings on the floor. That is my learned friend ...

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection is that, which may be wrong, but my recollection is that he said the legs were in cuffs as well and the legs were cuffed onto the rings, but not the hands.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I don't think there was any reference. He said the legs were in leg irons or not not leg irons, that wasn't the way it was translated, but I - my note reads that he was not cuffed to the rings on the floor. This Attorney's note reads was not cuffed to the rings on the floor.

CHAIRPERSON: At some stage the interpreter said the hands were just loosely hand cuffed which sounded a little bit odd, but I thought it was in contra-distinction to the fact that the legs were chained on the rings, but I may be wrong. Let's check the notes.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, we were told to take Hashe to a place, looked like an old house. Then there was mention of Beeslaar, then he went on. This place had a separate entrance, not connected to the house.

There was round steel fastened to the floor and he was cuffed to those rings, that is the translation which I received.

CHAIRPERSON: And if you were to go on, you will come across something like the hands were just hand cuffed loose. I think it was in contra-distinction to the legs which had been chained onto the rings?

ADV BOOYENS: Could I perhaps ask him My Lord? What was cuffed to the rings in the floor, if anything?

MR MOGOAI: He was hand cuffed to the rings which were implanted in the floor.

ADV BOOYENS: So the handcuffs, the wrists?

CHAIRPERSON: No, that is not correct. I think repeat your answer to the interpretation?

MR MOGOAI: If I explain it well, on the legs he was cuffed with leg irons. Those leg irons were tied to the rings on the floor. His hands were hand cuffed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there it is. Very well, Mr Booyens.

ADV BOOYENS: You do have knowledge that at least one of the three was given food that evening, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I have that knowledge.

ADV BOOYENS: At page 37, paragraph 15, the last sentence, you state that I do not know if the three men got food. Why did you say that?

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

ADV BOOYENS: Page 37, paragraph 15, the second last sentence - I do not know whether the three men received food.

ADV BOOYENS: Why did you say that in your application?

MR MOGOAI: I explained that I only knew of one, not all of them.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, why didn't you then say in your application as far as I know, only one of them got food, but in fact your evidence was that somebody said words to the effect that these poor souls, give these poor souls some food and you knew that one of them had food. But that is not at all consistent with what is stated in your application?

MR MOGOAI: I was just generalising when I made that statement that I didn't have the knowledge that all of them were given food, were given food or not. I was talking about the one whom I saw there was food in front of him.

ADV BOOYENS: And it was said that all three must get food. Correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you at any stage asked whether you would be able to identify any of the Port Elizabeth policemen at an identification parade or were you perhaps shown photographs of them and asked whether you could identify photo's?

MR MOGOAI: No, I was never asked that question. Then there was no such kind of a request.

ADV BOOYENS: You state that two people drove the bakkie, the best part of the way towards Cradock, is that correct? Two unknown whites?

ADV LAMEY: The bakkie or the ... (intervention)

ADV BOOYENS: The kombi?

MR MOGOAI: May you please repeat your question?

ADV BOOYENS: You stated that two unknown whites drove the kombi towards Cradock for most of the way?

CHAIRPERSON: You said one white person drove the kombi and there was another one sitting with him in the front?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Why can't you identify those two?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know them. It was at night and we were sitting at the back.

ADV BOOYENS: During the period that you three ascaris were at the police station, did you spend most of the time in each other's company?

MR MOGOAI: We were not together at all times. There were times when the other one would be somewhere else and the other one would be somewhere else. We were not together at all times.

ADV BOOYENS: No, the question was most of the time?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: I think you have already stated and I am not going to take the point much further, but according to Mamasela's evidence, two of these people were beaten to death the previous night, a third one the next morning, and in fact the corpses were left inside the garage together with the one that was still alive through that night. According to you, that could not have happened?

MR MOGOAI: No, it was not like that.

ADV BOOYENS: And that the next morning, well, let me ask you this first of all, Mamasela left with you, didn't he?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Mamasela then states that the three corpses were removed in a brown mini bus the next morning, that is not correct?

MR MOGOAI: No, I don't know that.

ADV BOOYENS: You first went to the Attorney General, is that correct, in connection with this matter, you were first approached to make a statement to his investigating team?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: How many statements did you make to the Attorney General?

MR MOGOAI: Two statements sir.

ADV BOOYENS: Why two, were they not satisfied with the first one?

MR MOGOAI: First, in the first statement there were writing. My replies to the questions I was asked. For the second time, for the second statement, they said to me they want that I should explain in detail what happened.

ADV BOOYENS: More especially about the assaults I presume?

MR MOGOAI: They didn't say which part, they just said I should explain in terms of my memory of what happened.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. The assaults that you say took place, did you at any stage feel you want to disassociate yourself from that?

MR MOGOAI: Of these assaults, even those I took part in, I didn't have any interest to take part in them.

ADV BOOYENS: Perhaps you can just explain to us what do you mean when you say you had no interest to take part in them. If you had no interest, then why did you take part?

MR MOGOAI: I took part because I did not have an alternative or I could not just sit back.

If I did not take part in those assaults or in other assaults, I was instructed by Captain Venter that I should step aside.

ADV BOOYENS: That answer, the answer that I got, certainly didn't make sense. You say if you did not take part, you were told by Mr Venter that you should step aside. I don't understand that.

The question is simply, if you ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, he is saying in those that I did not take part, it was because I was told by Venter to step aside.

ADV BOOYENS: I am indebted to Your Lordship. But you had no interest in any of these assaults - I want to know why you took part? You say you had no choice, why did you not have the choice?

MR MOGOAI: If I didn't take part whilst people were assaulted, I would be regarded as if I was supporting those people who were assaulted.

ADV BOOYENS: What gave you that idea?

MR MOGOAI: As an ascari and other members, we were at all times guarded or supervised what we were doing or what we were not doing.

ADV BOOYENS: So are you saying there was a sort of indirect form of duress upon you to take part?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know what you mean.

ADV BOOYENS: In terms of the fact of your association with Vlakplaas ascari, are you saying it was expected of you to take part in the assaults?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: But notwithstanding that as far as Godolozi was concerned, you did not take part, because you were scared of him?

MR MOGOAI: Because Captain Venter said to me I should step aside.

ADV BOOYENS: But you also said ... (intervention)

MR MOGOAI: Not forgetting the reason that he was well built, therefore I was scared to come nearer him.

ADV BOOYENS: But wasn't Godolozi hand and leg cuffed at the stage when he was assaulted, because he was dragged to the place where he was assaulted?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, he was hand cuffed.

ADV BOOYENS: And his legs, were they not cuffed as well?

MR MOGOAI: He was cuffed both hands and legs.

ADV BOOYENS: So the man was helpless for all practical purposes, not so?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: So the fact that he was so big and strong, didn't effect you, why didn't you assault him if you were under this sort of, in this atmosphere of assaulting people?

MR MOGOAI: Even if he was tied, when I was going to assault him, it would seem as if I was beating a wall or something because I would be the one who would feel the pain.

ADV BOOYENS: So would you say that the assault on Godolozi have any effect on him?

MR MOGOAI: May you please repeat your question sir?

ADV BOOYENS: Did the assault that you witnessed on Godolozi, have any effect on him, seeing that he was so tough and strong?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, it had an effect.

ADV BOOYENS: You see, all three these gentlemen were obviously very well known to the Port Elizabeth police, is that right?

MR MOGOAI: Which men are you talking about?

ADV BOOYENS: The three deceased, the three gentlemen that died in this matter?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: But how much did you know about the political situation around Port Elizabeth at that time, prior to this incident? Did you know what role Messrs Godolozi, Galela and Hashe played?

MR MOGOAI: I didn't know anything about their political roles. Even the little knowledge I have, when we arrived in Port Elizabeth, we were taken by this tinted kombi. It was during the night. We were accompanied by other black policemen to take us around in the black townships.

All of us who were in Vlakplaas were in that kombi. One of this men is called Tugwani. They took us around to the places where violence was and where they used to burn tyres and to the barricades. They showed us a certain man called Maqina's house. In that place it seems there is a circle or a cul de sac.

That place was crowded. When we were supposed to go back, there were many people with stones, they wanted to throw stones at us. We said to them we were lost, we were looking for a direction to Uitenhage.

They left us and they gave us the direction. When we proceeded with that road, a certain policeman called Tugwani gave us the direction that we are going to turn on the right side. There was a house which belonged to Mr Patela.

When we were just about to pass that house, people threw stones at us. The driver of that kombi was one of the black policemen who were from Port Elizabeth. He looked for the direction where we could go out of that area. In short that is the little information I have about the political situation in Port Elizabeth.

ADV BOOYENS: At page 31, paragraph 2, you say in fact you people were asked not to go into the black areas, because of the high incidents of unrest at the time and because they were afraid that you would be attacked and you would shoot back and that would cause even further trouble.

Now you tell us you were in the black areas.

MR MOGOAI: To go there during that first night, was because they wanted to show us the political situation to the black townships. What I have written here, is that we were not supposed to go there when we do our usual patrols, we should go inside the black townships.

ADV BOOYENS: Sorry Mr Chairman, perhaps you could assist me. When we were doing our something patrols, which I couldn't catch the word.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry.

ADV BOOYENS: It was interpreted when we were doing our something patrols, I couldn't catch the word.

MR MOGOAI: When we were doing our patrols.

ADV BOOYENS: Just when we were doing our patrols? So were you supposed to go in and do your patrols there, that is what I don't understand your answer?

MR MOGOAI: We were supposed to do our patrols all over.

ADV BOOYENS: You were supposed to do your patrols into the black townships around PE?

MR MOGOAI: Not only in the black townships, but all over Port Elizabeth.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but I am interested in the black townships. But you say in fact, at the very last sentence on page 2 says we had to lay low and only do patrol in the white residential areas and towns. How do you explain that statement?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know how you want me to help you.

ADV BOOYENS: Because I don't understand. You were supposed to patrol everywhere, but in fact what you say in your application is that you had to lay low and do patrols in the white areas only. What is the position?

MR MOGOAI: I explained that we were informed that we should not go inside the black townships, but we were supposed to go inside and patrol in town and in the locations. But at this moment, we were informed that we should not go inside the black townships because of the violence in those areas.

ADV BOOYENS: In what language did the interrogations take place?

MR MOGOAI: It was Xhosa and English.

ADV BOOYENS: What language did you use?

MR MOGOAI: I tried to speak Xhosa, although it was - and English.

ADV BOOYENS: You mention on occasion Captain Venter shouted ... (intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Can I just associate with this. Were there any other people present who were speaking Xhosa, people who were interrogating people?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, there was a certain white man who was speaking Xhosa.

ADV SANDI: Can I get clarity Mr Mogoai on something, in your evidence in chief, you said at some stage Mr Venter was asking you to put certain questions to Mr Hashe. What language was Mr Venter using to you?

MR MOGOAI: Captain was telling me in Afrikaans. He was speaking with me in Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Booyens.

ADV BOOYENS: And those subjects that Venter wanted you to question them about, were subjects that were covered the previous evening with no great success, is that correct? They couldn't get any information out of Mr Hashe?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: When you started your questioning of Mr Hashe, were the Port Elizabeth policemen there or was it only you people from Vlakplaas at that stage, when you started your questioning that morning?

MR MOGOAI: They were all present.

ADV BOOYENS: But they left it to you to ask the questions initially?

MR MOGOAI: I would say they didn't want me only to ask the questions, but they left it to Captain Venter to tell me to ask Mr Hashe what kind of question, those questions.

ADV BOOYENS: But was the only reason why you were supposed to ask the questions, because you could speak some Xhosa?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, he didn't say the reason why I was asked to ask questions was because I could speak Xhosa.

ADV BOOYENS: No, that is why I am asking him whether that was the reason.

CHAIRPERSON: No you say was that the only reason? You say the only reason why you were asked to ask questions, was it because you could speak Xhosa. He has not as yet said that he was asked to put questions, because he could speak Xhosa.

ADV BOOYENS: What I am trying to establish My Lord, is whether the reason he was used to ask the questions, is because of his ability to speak Xhosa. Perhaps I should have put it clearer.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Was the reason that Venter asked you to ask the questions because of your ability to speak Xhosa?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know his reason.

ADV BOOYENS: You had no desire to ask any questions on your own?

MR MOGOAI: Even if I had a desire, I would not just start and ask.

ADV BOOYENS: This, I just want to get clearance about Mr Galela in the cell that seemed to have been screaming and shouting.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Was he screaming, saying what, or was he screaming in pain or what are you trying to tell us here?

MR MOGOAI: I said earlier that he was screaming but I was not able to find out what he was saying, but he was talking, but I was not able to understand what he was saying.

ADV BOOYENS: So was he screaming while the policemen were busy interrogating two of the other people?

MR MOGOAI: With respect, I did not know as whether there were people with him there, because the door of that cell was facing the other side, so I didn't see or see what was happening there.

ADV BOOYENS: These cells are approximately 80 metres away from the house? If I talk about the house, I talk about the place where the garage is?

MR MOGOAI: That may be so.

ADV BOOYENS: You see, I would just like you to comment, it is not a case of people that still have to testify about it, but the evidence was that they, Port Elizabeth Security Branch, did not have the key to the cell, these people were locked up in the garage? You don't agree with that?

MR MOGOAI: I don't have a reason to disagree or agree, because those are the people who would know about the case. ADV BOOYENS: Well, it is unlikely that they would put somebody in a cell if they didn't have the keys, because he can just walk out. So is there a possibility that in fact they were locked up in the garage, or what are you trying to say?

MR MOGOAI: I saw doors opened, how were they opened?

ADV BOOYENS: One of the aspects that you say was discussed was the death of three policemen that were burnt to death. Were they burnt to death with the necklace method in Zwide?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: But, in the papers of the applicant Mr Niewoudt, there are two references to two incidents towards the end of April but what I am informed is that those are not in the Zwide area but in a different area and in separate incidents and that there was no such incident of three policemen being burnt to death in Zwide at this time?

MR MOGOAI: I remember being told about three policemen who were necklaced and in the place called Zwide. Even on the radio they put it that way. I don't know Zwide.

ADV BOOYENS: When were they supposed to have been necklaced?

MR MOGOAI: They were necklaced either before or just around before we came. That was the time before, just immediately before we arrived.

ADV BOOYENS: So not during the time that you were staying at Glenconnor?

MR MOGOAI: That was just immediately, just before or on our arrival at Glenconnor.

ADV BOOYENS: If the court will bear with me. Thank you Mr Chairman. I have no further questions, thank you sir.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mogoai, when were you approached or did you approach the Attorney General or did the Attorney General approach you to make a statement?

MR MOGOAI: Are you saying he sent people to me or he himself came to me? I do not know what do you refer to when you say the Attorney General came to me?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking what happened. Did you go to the Attorney General or did they come to you?

MR MOGOAI: He sent his people tome.

ADV DU PLESSIS: How many people?

MR MOGOAI: Three people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And what happened? Did they discuss this matter with you?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, they discussed this matter with me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you tell them everything?

MR MOGOAI: I agreed that I had a connection with them, that is the first time when they came to me. And they told me that they will further notify me when to appear in their offices to give a full explanation.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you go and give a full explanation to them?

MR MOGOAI: I did go sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, when they approached you the first time before you went to their offices, where did they discuss the matter with you?

MR MOGOAI: Are you referring to the offices sir?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, no, the first time, not the offices, the first time.

MR MOGOAI: It was at home.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And were you alone when you spoke to them?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I was alone.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And when you went to their offices later, who did you speak to?

MR MOGOAI: I spoke to Mr De Lange.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And was it only you?

MR MOGOAI: It was not only myself.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Who else was present?

MR MOGOAI: There was Mr Koole, there were other gentlemen present.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember who those gentlemen were?

MR MOGOAI: I do not remember their names.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And is it correct to say that you then told everything in detail to these people of the Attorney General?

MR MOGOAI: When I spoke to the Attorney General's staff I was, I spoke alone, when I gave them the facts.

ADV DU PLESSIS: When was that?

MR MOGOAI: That is the first time when I went to their offices.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, do I understand you correctly, are you saying that when you went to speak to them at the offices, you were alone with the people of the Attorney General?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct My Lord.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But that is not what you testified just now. You testified just now that Mr Koole was present there with you?

MR MOGOAI: The question was who else was in the office and I said Mr Koole was at the office. It doesn't mean I was talking in his presence or in the presence of the other gentlemen.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, so you say you were speaking alone to the people of the Attorney General?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mogoai, just listen carefully to my question so that we don't get a misunderstanding again.

MR MOGOAI: I also request that don't be too fast.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, I will go slower. Mr Mogoai, Mr Koole was there, but he wasn't present when you spoke to the people of the Attorney General, is that right?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Where was he, did he wait outside?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, he was in the other room.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And before you went to the offices, did you speak to Mr Koole about anything pertaining to this matter?

MR MOGOAI: No sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right. Who when in first, were you first of was Mr Koole first?

MR MOGOAI: I went in first.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And was a statement drawn from what you said to the Attorney General?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, what I was saying was written down.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And were you asked to sign it there or when did you sign it, or did you sign it?

MR MOGOAI: I did not sign.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you ever sign any statement at the office of the Attorney General?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, they explained to me that what they have written down will be forwarded to the typists and thereafter I will be called to sign.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, did you sign it?

MR MOGOAI: Now, the second time when I went in, I was given to read and there were mistakes, little mistakes and they said they will correct them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did that happen? Do you eventually sign a statement, that is what I want to know?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I eventually signed the statement.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I am in possession of a statement which I obtained from my learned friend, Mr Brink. I thought copies would have been made for the Committee and I did not make enough copies in respect of the statement. I will endeavour to provide you tomorrow with the statement, and I am simply going to keep the questions around the statement as easy as possible, without really referring to the contents thereof.

I apologise for the fact that I don't have enough copies available, I really thought there would have been today.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not happy about you cross-examining a witness on the basis of a document which only you possess and we are not able to read. I am surprised Mr Brink, that we don't have a copy of that statement.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, the reason was I wasn't proposing to use it, I didn't regard it as material. I was requested to furnish a copy to my learned friend, and if he was going to use it, then clearly he would have had copies made. I wasn't intending to use it.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we should use a document which none of us have a copy thereof.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I don't want to use the contents of the document Mr Chairman, I just want the witness to identify the document in my hand. I will provide you with copies tomorrow.

That is as far as I want to go with this document.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't want to get into the document itself?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, in respect of the differences, no Mr Chairman, because this document follows very closely the statement pertaining to his amnesty application. That is in respect of Mr Mogoai.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, can I just come in here? I have glanced just at the document which Mr Du Plessis has and I also asked Mr Brink when I learnt that that document was handed over to Mr Du Plessis, because we were previously requested by Mr Du Plessis whether the Attorney General would make it available, but up to this point, we didn't receive a positive instruction about that, but the document appears not to bear any signatures. I just want to make that point.

CHAIRPERSON: I am rally puzzled by this statement.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just point out I am in possession of two statements that was made to the Attorney General's office and by the way, we are arranging for copies to be made, we will have copies available within a few minutes.

There is one statement of Mr Mogoai that is a statement that closely follows the wording of his amnesty application. There is however, a further statement deposed to by Mr Koole which differs in a vast variety of instances from his amnesty application.

I asked my learned friends to ask the Attorney General to make the statements available to us because as you know previously the Attorney General refused to make available any statements which are on dockets and my learned friend, Mr Brink, was in possession of these two statements and he made it available to us. And for purposes of cross-examination I submit that it is important to deal with them.

ADV NYOKA: Mr Chairman, we are also going to cross-examine and we do not understand we were not furnished with statements because now it is really a complete surprise and it was said that if documents were to be used, timeous notice must be given. In fact my colleague was scolded for handing documents at the last moment.

I do not understand why one hand, I mean, a particular situation doesn't apply to another? We cannot accept that, it is totally unacceptable.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I just want to say I think that if documents are handed over which comes from the Attorney General, we should know whether, what the Attorney General's attitude is in this regard, with regard to these documents.

That is how I understand the Act and we must also bear in mind that the Attorney General, when they take statements from potential State witnesses, there is a certain amount of confidentiality until the witness testifies in court and I, from previous knowledge, I know that the Attorney General gives an undertaking that he would not hand over those documents until such time as this person is called to testify in the criminal case.

But I just want to say, I don't want to be obstructive in this regard, I just think that the position of the Attorney General should be ascertained and further that a document should be I think, properly identified if that purports to be a statement by Mr Mogoai.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, the Attorney General apparently handed the document to the TRC.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I asked that because I was - when the request was made by Mr Du Plessis to us, I understood to convey the request to the Attorney General. We did that and we were told that they will speak to the Attorney General and come back to us.

But the following day, these statements were handed to Mr Du Plessis and I asked well, where do these statements come from and I was told that these statements were given to Mr Brink by Mr Chris McAdam which is I believe a member of the Witness Protection Programme and you know, up to this stage I don't know whether the Attorney General has given its approval.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps comment on this. Firstly in respect of what Mr Nyoka said, I was under the impression we were all given these statements.

If I knew you didn't have these statements, I would have provided you with it. It is not my statements, I got them from Mr Brink.

Mr Chairman, I find this a very strange situation. I spoke to my learned friend, and I don't want to accuse him of anything, but I spoke to my learned friend last week and I said to him, in previous matters where we dealt with this, we asked over and over again, could we have statements of witnesses who were State witnesses, because we wanted to see what they say and it was refused time and again.

Now, I requested my learned friend to request the Attorney General's assistance in this regard, specifically because we have two State witnesses here who are testifying in their amnesty applications.

My learned friend indicated to me that he doubted they would make it available, but that he would speak to them and before he could speak to them, the statements were made available.

Now, he had ample time to approach the Attorney General and to, he knew I was going to use this, I told him, he had ample time to approach the Attorney General to hear what his view is, to determine if these statements were made by his clients or not. I don't know if he is now disputing that the one statement by Mr Koole, was made by Mr Koole.

The point, Mr Chairman, I want to make is this, this is about the truth and if we have a statement here of Mr Koole that contradicts a lot of what Mr Mogoai says, that contradicts a lot of what he says in his own amnesty application and there is an attempt to hide that from the Committee's eyes, Mr Chairman, that is not the way this Commission should deal with that.

And then lastly, I don't know where the Act makes provision for the Attorney General to have a say in documents presented to this Committee for purposes of cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, documents were indeed handed to me by Mr McAdam. I did not intent using them and therefore copies were not made, it was just I think in the course of yesterday or it might have been the day before, that I was approached by Mr Du Plessis and Mr Lamey, asked whether they could have copies of them because they understood I had possession of them, and I gave them the copies which I had.

I didn't intend using them, that is the reason I had no copies of them made.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you ask for them, didn't you call for them?

MR BRINK: Mr McAdam told me he had them available, and they were given to me shortly before we came to commence the hearings last week. I think it was on the Thursday or the Friday of the week before.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, he volunteered that?

MR BRINK: Yes, I wasn't aware that these statements were being made until I was informed of that.

CHAIRPERSON: He came with them here to Port Elizabeth?

MR BRINK: No, no, Cape Town, on the Thursday to my recollection, the Thursday or the Friday before we came here for the hearings, I had been informed that he had them and he said I could have the copies. I didn't know they existed until he told me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, there are certain aspects which I really am puzzling about his, but perhaps that is not the issue. Just hold it for a minute. Mr Du Plessis, shall we for a while concentrate on the witness' own statement?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I will go on with other issues while we are waiting for the copies, and perhaps I can get back to this issue later when I have the copies available.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, you can proceed.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, Mr Mogoai, do I understand you correctly, you don't really know what your purpose was with this operation, you don't know why you were there and why you were used?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, now were you ever involved previously in interrogations?

MR MOGOAI: Yes sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I mean prior to this incident?

MR MOGOAI: Yes sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: How many times, lots of times, a few times?

MR MOGOAI: I am still thinking. I think it is a few times.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And being from Vlakplaas, I presume violence was used during those interrogations?

MR MOGOAI: No sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Not?

MR MOGOAI: Not always.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you present at interrogations where violence were used?

MR MOGOAI: Before this incident, I have never been involved. Please excuse me My Lord, before this incident, there was an opportunity that I used to interrogate and a person was assaulted.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did that happen once where you were present before this incident?

MR MOGOAI: Yes sir. I think I even made an application for amnesty to that effect.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. And the interrogation in that instance, did it yield results because of the violence?

MR MOGOAI: No sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mogoai, would you expect, would you agree with me that one can expect that if violence is used during an interrogation, one would obtain information and that there would be results?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, some times it would be possible to get results.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, it is obvious if someone is assaulted, he is going to speak easier than if he is not assaulted?

MR MOGOAI: Sir, when a person is being assaulted and that kind of person doesn't possess any information that is being looked from him, what is he supposed to say?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mogoai, I am not arguing with you I am just talking to you about something that is common knowledge. Now, during the interrogation of all three of these people, just tell us exactly what information was gained. I want to know exactly what information was gained from the interrogation.

MR MOGOAI: I do not see any conclusion having been reached.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was there no information that was provided by any of these activists?

MR MOGOAI: No information we heard sir. Because Mr Hashe said he saw an AK and just after that, he said he spoke in that manner because he was being assaulted and besides that, no other evidence was fruitful.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am asking if there was any other information that was gained as a result of the interrogation, except for the information about the AK47?

MR MOGOAI: No sir, no information.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Nothing? All right, now Mr Mogoai, you were never asked by anybody to do anything about any information, is that right, because there was no information that was gained from these activists?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, I think you should perhaps rephrase.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I will rephrase the question Mr Chairman. Mr Mogoai, you were never approached by any of the white Security policemen with information at all about anything during your time at Post Chalmers, information pertaining to the liberation movements, were you?

MR MOGOAI: Nobody came to me sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, because no information which was useful was gained, is that right?

MR MOGOAI: They heard that themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, I think I am going to interrupt you here.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Have you got the copies Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have just received the copies of the statement apparently from Mr Mogoai. Mr Lamey, are you getting a copy of the statement only now?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, this document which I have doesn't purports to be a photocopy of the original, that is the first point that I want to make.

I can just say that this is the first time that I see this document apart from the fact that I also, after when Mr Du Plessis got it from Mr Brink, I got a similar document from him, from Mr Mogoai.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I am confused, I don't understand. Are there two statements by this witness?

ADV LAMEY: Let me just make sure what I got Mr Chairman. I've got a similar document which is a typed document which I can't remember, I think this is the one that I got from Mr Brink.

ADV DE JAGER: A similar document, or the same document, or a photostat of the same document?

ADV LAMEY: Let me just compare them Mr Chairman.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, while that is being done. My recollection is that Mr Lamey had the documents which I gave him and he was going to return them to me because I didn't have additional copies of them.

My recollection further is that the statement by Mr Mogoai was a photocopy of a signed document and initialled at the bottom of each page.

CHAIRPERSON: The document we have Mr Brink, I don't know if you have a copy, the document we have is neither signed nor initialled.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I don't know if Mr Brink is perhaps - I had a document which purported to be signed by Mr Koole that I received from Mr Brink and also one of Mr Mamasela which was unsigned and I think this one that I got from my file now, is the one with regard to Mr Mogoai which is an unsigned one.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, there may be that kind of confusion, but any way that is the document which you got from Mr Brink?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, the document which has now been handed up appears to be a photocopy of the document that I received from Mr Brink, except for the fact that there are certain notes on it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Du Plessis, you can continue with your cross-examination.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I will leave this until the other statement is available, then I will go on with that.

Mr Mogoai, you will then accept the evidence of the other applicants where they testified that they did not get any useful information from these three, is that correct? Would you accept that?

MR MOGOAI: I heard you saying Mr Koole, are you talking to Mr Koole.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mogoai, you know I am talking to you.

MR MOGOAI: No evidence, no information was retrieved.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, do you concede or do you - you cannot dispute the evidence of the other applicants that no useful information was received, is that right?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mogoai, and I presume that you discussed everything with your legal representatives when you consulted in this matter, is that right?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And that you told them everything?

MR MOGOAI: As far as I could remember.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. And did you tell your legal representatives that the purpose of the ascaris was that you had to be present during the interrogation so that you can follow up any information when it becomes available, is that what you told them?

MR MOGOAI: I did not tell him that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, I would belabour that point, all I want to put to you is that your legal representative did state in cross-examination that that was the purpose why you were utilised in this operation. Can you explain that?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I must just state here that I also represent Mr Koole here and if I remember correctly I put it as along the line of cross-examination along that point. I can't recall that I specifically said Mr Mogoai will say that or will testify that.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood him then when he put the question,to be saying that to be putting it more or less as a hypothetical argument saying would it not be necessary for them to be there so that if I don't know what word he used, he said something like hot - what did you say?

ADV LAMEY: Yes, I remember that something about to follow up perhaps hot information that becomes available, yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Hot information yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is the problem with putting questions like that in such a way because it created the impression with me that that was the version of Mr Lamey's clients.

No other version, then I want to make this point before I go on, no other version was put for what reason the ascaris were then part of the operation and I will argue that.

Now, Mr Mogoai, we have established now that there was no information gained during the interrogation that was useful to anybody, you weren't approached for any information. Why would you say is that? Do you have any explanation therefore?

MR MOGOAI: Which explanation sir?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I am just asking you if you have any explanation why no information was gained as a result of the interrogation, no useful information, why?

MR MOGOAI: It means there was no new information that could be found even when they were being beaten.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, you see Mr Mogoai, I am going to put it to you that the reason and the only reason therefore was the fact that they were not assaulted. That is why no information was gained from them that was useful. They were not assaulted.

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, do you mind telling me what did they go through, because I have this knowledge that they were assaulted. These people were assaulted.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mogoai, in retrospect, you've heard now about the Pebco 3, you've heard about their important positions, you know what positions they had. They were the leaders of one of the most important organisations in the Eastern Cape.

Now, surely they must have had some important information that could have helped the Security Forces, don't you agree with me?

MR MOGOAI: I agree with you there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but now they are interrogated Mr Mogoai, in the most brutal fashion as you have testified but nothing comes out of this interrogation? Why is that?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, you have just said, these men proved that they would rather die with the truth that they had, that they were not prepared to depart with the truth.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mogoai, I put it to you that the reason why no important information was gained, was simply one reason and that is that they were not assaulted.

MR MOGOAI: To my knowledge they were assaulted.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, now Mr Mogoai, on page 34 of your amnesty application paragraph 9, you explained how you arrived at Post Chalmers. You say in the last sentence of page 9 the other people left and Koole and I were left alone by Sipho Hashe, there was only a candle burning in the room. And then you say Mr Mogoai, a little while later the unknown whites and Captain Venter returned and Hashe was questioned regarding an AK47 gun. Hashe was very obstinate and said he would not cooperate.

Now, before Mr Hashe was asked about the AK47 gun, you do not mention the fact that Mr Hashe or anybody else was assaulted before that. Do you see that?

MR MOGOAI: That is not what I said.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, what is your testimony about the AK47 gun, when was that raised and how was it raised, tell us?

MR MOGOAI: At that time they wanted to interrogate him.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and how was the question of the AK47 gun raised?

MR MOGOAI: They asked him I think I explained when I gave my evidence earlier on, that he was asked about an AK47 and I did not understand how did it come about in this discussion and he said he was not going to talk about that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he volunteer the information about the AK47 gun?

MR MOGOAI: That same night, he didn't say anything about an AK47 that was somewhere.

ADV DU PLESSIS: That night? Did he only say that the following morning?

MR MOGOAI: He talked of an AK47 the next day.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, was that after he was interrogated?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, after the interrogation, after the assault and the kicking.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Will you look at these two statements that I am going to show you now. The first statement is a statement where your name appears on the top of the statement, and it is unsigned and it is dated April 1996, do you see that?

MR MOGOAI: I can see them sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was that the statement you made to the Attorney General?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I don't think in all honesty that the witness has had an opportunity to peruse this statement and to refresh his memory from that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Where is the statement he signed?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman there are two statements in my possession, Mr Lamey's possession and Mr Brink's possession and in your own possession.

One unsigned statement by Mr Mogoai and one signed statement by Mr Koole. Those are the only two statements in our possession as far as I know.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mogoai, did you sign a statement at the Attorney General's office?

MR MOGOAI: Yes sir.

ADV DE JAGER: So in fact you have made a signed statement?

MR MOGOAI: I was given the statement. The first statement that I wrote was taken and they told me that it will be taken to the typists and it will be brought back so as to verify the contents. When I went back, there were mistakes in that statement and they were corrected and it was re-typed and I came to sign it.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you sign it on the same day or a day or two later after it had been corrected?

MR MOGOAI: I do not remember very well whether I went back home and came back the next day.

ADV DE JAGER: I don't know whether you had the opportunity now to look at this statement that has been given to you. Can you say or can't you say whether it is the same statement that you have signed there at the Attorney General's office?

MR MOGOAI: I do not believe that they are the same. I can't tell where the mistakes are My Lord, I really can't.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, I don't think we can ever reach a stage where we will have to say to this witness, this is the same statement, this is exactly the same statement as the one you signed before the Attorney General, unless we have a copy of the signed statement in which case we would be able to compare them. We cannot compare it with nothing and say well, it is the same statement which was signed.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I was informed that this was a print-out from the Attorney General's offices' copy.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not good enough. What if one would was left out just before he signed, one word was put in? Otherwise that person may have to come in and testify about that, I don't think we can go along with that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, I don't know if my learned friend, Mr Lamey can perhaps enlighten us about this?

CHAIRPERSON: We can't endorse this statement as a true and exact copy of the signed statement unless we see the signed statement.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I have said what I wanted to say, I am not going to go further. Mr Chairman, I just want to place on record then, that there is a signed statement, that it is not available, it is not made available to the Committee and I will argue at the end of the day that the only deduction one can make from that, is that there is, if it is not this statement, there is another statement that differs vastly from Mr Mogoai's evidence and that is why it is not placed before the Committee, that is what I will argue Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you haven't seen the signed statement have you?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, no, but I cannot understand why it is not ...

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say that you will say to us that there is a vast difference? How can you say that?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, because it is not made available.

CHAIRPERSON: By whom?

ADV DU PLESSIS: There is evidence about that?

CHAIRPERSON: By whom?

ADV DU PLESSIS: By either the Attorney General or my learned friend. If he is in possession of such a statement, which I don't know and I don't think he said to me he is, but the point is Mr Chairman, we know there is a signed statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you can make that argument, we will attach the appropriate weight to that, if it will get any weight.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I just want to say that if there is any innuendo from my learned friend, that we are trying to hide anything away, I must certainly object to that innuendo. I have said to my learned friend, if you want the statement, address your request to the Attorney General but I also said to him that I will convey your request to the Attorney General, which I did, and it was late Friday afternoon when my learned friend asked me this and we did that after hours and My Lord, up to this stage, we haven't received a positive answer from them in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the parties will pursue that if they want in the office of the Attorney General and we do not want to get entangled in that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, in any case, I will leave it in respect of Mr Mogoai, we have Mr Koole's affidavit and Mr Koole's affidavit is the most important one.

Now, Mr Mogoai, Mr Koole was never present when any of these statements of the Attorney General was discussed with you, when your statement, made by you to the Attorney General was discussed with you, is that right?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So can we accept that Mr Koole made his statement separate from you?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you go and show the representatives of the Attorney General, the various places where these incidents happened, Post Chalmers and all these places at the airport? Did you do that?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct My Lord.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And were you alone with the people of the Attorney General when you did that?

MR MOGOAI: I was with Mr Koole sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So that was done together, you and Mr Koole together?

MR MOGOAI: They called us one by one to point and show what we remembered.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you go on the same day or different days?

MR MOGOAI: We went on the same day.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, you see, Mr Mogoai, your affidavit in support of your amnesty application, is very clear pertaining to specific issues. On page 32 you say, you refer in the first paragraph on page 32 to the fact that at two o'clock exactly Captain Venter and Warrant Officer Beeslaar arrived.

ADV LAMEY: That is not what is said there Mr Chairman, it says approximately, not exactly, approximately.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Approximately, then you say in the last sentence, at approximately 16h00 we left for Port Elizabeth, then in the fourth paragraph, the second paragraph on that page, you say approximately 17h30 you arrived in Port Elizabeth, and then there are two references to specific time periods, although you every time say approximately, but you say approximately 18h00 and then you say 19h00? Do you see that? Do you see that Mr Mogoai?

MR MOGOAI: I can see them sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you see what is strange to me and I am not hundred percent sure what the reason is therefore, is that Mr Koole's affidavit in support of his amnesty application, refers to exactly the same time periods or times when certain things happened, but exactly the same. Do you agree with me?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know Mr Koole's statement My Lord.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, I can refer you to page 262. The third paragraph refers to 17h30, it is exactly the same time you referred to on top of page 32, the second paragraph on page 32 and there is another reference about 19h00, which is exactly the same. Have you got that before you?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I can see where I have written down.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, and now can you explain to us and the rest of the affidavit Mr Mogoai, and I am not going to go through everything, the rest of the affidavit of Mr Koole seems peculiarly similar to your affidavit pertaining to the facts in this matter. Can you explain that?

MR MOGOAI: My Lord, let me start with the problem of time. Firstly if I have written down that I have left at two and the same applies to Mr Koole, this means it is the time he thought we arrived at the place.

Because we were together, how could one reach the destination first and the other come after, we were supposed to be there, the two of us. The other difference that you have just mentioned, I do not know the quality and the contents of Mr Koole before this Committee, I do not know what he wrote down.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, you know why I mention this Mr Mogoai, you see Mr Koole's affidavit to the Attorney General he makes no mention of time periods whatsoever. Mr Chairman, if I can refer you to that affidavit maybe we can mark it Exhibit O, it is the affidavit of Koole that was handed to you and I understand that it is not disputed that Mr Koole signed this affidavit.

ADV LAMEY: My Lord, I must say that I did not have an opportunity to look at the original of the affidavit of Mr Koole with the Attorney General, I haven't seen it myself. I have only seen the copy purported, handed by Mr Brink, which was handed to me which purports to be signed as I stated.

ADV DE JAGER: I wish to really put it to you, we are not busy with a court case here so please try and cooperate and see whether you could get the correct documents before us. We are not busy with taking points on one another, we want the documents to be before us to try to ascertain the truth. So please cooperate, all the legal representatives and give the documents and give it to everybody so that they could have it and hand it in.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I don't think we can ever hope to get hold of the original, it is unlikely that you will do so, but I think what you should do is to provisionally, pending proof thereof, we can provisionally accept what purports to be Mr Koole's affidavit as an Exhibit, provisionally accepting it, subject of course to it being proved in the ordinary way.

ADV LAMEY: I've got no objection to that.

CHAIRPERSON: And we will have it as Exhibit O.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, that would be Exhibit O Mr Chairman, and then I presume we will have an answer tomorrow morning about the affidavit and the authenticity thereof.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you could please compare it tonight, because as far as I could see, paragraph 2 of the unsigned affidavit is a repetition of exactly what stands in paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 is the same as paragraph 3.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Chairman, may I just stop you there. In respect of Mr Mogoai's unsigned statement, it very closely follows the statement in respect of his amnesty application, there are very few minor differences.

In respect of Mr Koole's statement, it doesn't follow it at all.

ADV DE JAGER: We are not dealing with Mr Koole's statement at present.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I know Mr Chairman, but I am trying to...

ADV DE JAGER: I just want to point out something in paragraph 6 which corresponds to paragraph 5, which corresponds to paragraph 5. The one says at about quarter to eight, Captain Venter arrived there, and in the amnesty application mention is only made of a while later. That is the only difference there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, there are a few other differences Mr Chairman. I will get to the point that I want to make, now. Mr Mogoai, you see, what I find strange is that Mr Koole's affidavit was apparently later for purposes of the amnesty application, adapted to be exactly the same or very closely similar, to your amnesty application and the affidavit in your amnesty application.

Do you have any explanation for that?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know sir. I do not know how it came about if ever these two, I do not know the differences. I do not know whether they are the same, they are not the same, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can we ask the public please, we are in a hearing. I get the impression that people are just freely engaging in some conversations. We cannot hear what the witness is saying and personally I need to hear what the witness says in his own language to make sure that the interpretation is correct, and I cannot hear the witness in the midst of this kind of noise. Please.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mogoai, in respect of your unsigned statement, which is very similar to your statement in terms of your amnesty application, it seems that the version of yourself and Mr Koole, accords very much and is very much similar now, than the version of your statement before the Attorney General, which is the unsigned one, and Exhibit O of Mr Koole, that was made before the Attorney General. So there seems to be there was some ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, you mustn't bring in through the back door, the unsigned statement.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes ...

CHAIRPERSON: We don't know if it is his statement. He hasn't read it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, maybe we will have the answer later in this week and I am make that on the basis of that Mr Chairman.

Do you have any comment on that Mr Mogoai?

CHAIRPERSON: You do not have to comment on that Mr Mogoai.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I said it is not a fair question because this witness has not read the statement and we cannot assume that that is his statement.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now Mr Mogoai, was anything during your consultation with the Attorney General, did you tell your story and did they take it down?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, they were writing down.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And did they write down exactly what you told them?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, they were writing what I was telling them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, and exactly the same happened when you drew your amnesty application, I presume? You told your story, and it was written down?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And when you wrote it down, you stated specifically as on page 32 of your application, you referred out of your memory to exactly the time periods referred to?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that was according to my recollection of time.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, but yet Mr Mogoai, your recollection is so bad that people you saw assaulting somebody severely, and whom on your own version you spent two nights and a full day with, you cannot even remember their faces up to now? After you have seen them for a week here, how do you explain that?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, you are right. I have this problem of remembering their faces.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mogoai, is it not possible that your amnesty application was based upon the information that you gave to the Attorney General? It was based upon the statement that you made to the Attorney General?

MR MOGOAI: Both these statements are based on my recollection of the events that took place during the Pebco 3.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mogoai, so you are saying to us that you remember exactly the drinks that were taken, whisky, brandy and beer, you remember exactly the activists who were involved there. You've got no recollection about the white policemen who were there, even though they assaulted these people together with you, but you remember the times when certain things happened on the day before the assaults and the day before or upon the day of the abduction, you remember the time periods hundred percent exactly, is that, or close, is that what you are saying to us?

MR MOGOAI: This has been a very long question My Lord. I really do not get its value, how should I answer?

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see, the idea that I get is that your memory is very selective Mr Mogoai.

ADV SANDI: Mr Du Plessis, can I just interpose for a moment here. I think what the witness says is that he cannot remember the faces of the white police who were involved, but he has mentioned the liquor. He said beer, whisky, brandy.

I am not sure what you are expecting to get from him?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Bottles do not have faces.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the point is that I find it very strange that he can remember exact time periods and small little details in this application and if I could establish the link to the Attorney General's affidavit, obviously it would make it easier, but he remembers small little details in this application, but about important things about the faces of the people who were involved in assaults with him, he doesn't remember anything.

I made the point, I will leave it there. Now, Mr Mogoai, you testified that you were never allowed at the Security Branch offices, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct My Lord.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yet, in Mr Koole's affidavit, Exhibit O, he says on paragraph 7, the second page, he says we black policemen did daily patrols in Uitenhage and the way it worked was that we went from the Security Branch Port Elizabeth, and there myself and one other black member went to Niewoudt's office. Now, can you explain that?

MR MOGOAI: That Mr Koole was going to the office with another group leader every day. They went to the offices to get new directions and orders for the day.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So Mr Koole did visit the Security Branch offices, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, why didn't you point out that Mr Mogoai when you were asked about that?

MR MOGOAI: I think I mentioned it somewhere.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Mogoai I will argue that you didn't.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, he did say that. In my examination in chief I remembered whether the permanent members went to the Security Offices, I remember something to that effect.

ADV SANDI: Did he not also say Mr Lamey, instructions were given to them through Mr Koole?

ADV LAMEY: Yes, I recall that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I think he testified that Mr Chairman. I cannot remember that he testified that Mr Koole physically went to the Security Branch offices.

Now, Mr Mogoai, you say in paragraph 16 on page 37, the next morning Captain Venter came to us and told us to go back to the Glenconnor railway station. He explained the way we should go over Graaff-Reinet. Now, I just want to put it to you that on page 267, paragraph 19 Mr Koole says that Mr Niewoudt explained to you the road. Who is correct, you or Mr Koole?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just get the page?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 267 Mr Chairman, paragraph 19.

MR MOGOAI: It is not a question of who is telling the truth and who is not telling the truth. Captain Venter came to us and he explained to us that we should go back to Glenconnor. And he further explained that we should take the Graaff-Reinet road through Jansenville to Glenconnor.

When we were supposed to get out of the gate, he came back with another white man, that is the part I did not explain. This white man was unknown to me and he explained further which way to take.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You didn't say that in your original application. I am just putting that to you?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I did not put it that way. You see Mr Mogoai, I am going to go on with further examples, but I do have a problem with your version and Mr Koole's version and I will argue at the end of the day and I want to put this right before I go ahead with this cross-examination, that I am going to argue that the similarity of your application and Mr Koole's applications relate to the differences there were in the Attorney General's affidavits in respect of your versions and that there was an attempt to let the versions sound the same.

You testified that you slept uncomfortably, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: May you please repeat your question?

ADV DU PLESSIS: You testified that you slept uncomfortably in the bus at Post Chalmers? Is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you testified that you had no blankets?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you slept there for two nights?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In the winter?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you were told before you went on the operation at Glenconnor that you had to prepare to stay away for three days and you had to take everything you needed with, is that right?

MR MOGOAI: We were told to take clothes for the three days. The clothes to wear.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Because I find it strange Mr Mogoai, that you did not take blankets with you as you knew that you were going to sleep over for three nights?

MR MOGOAI: We were not told sir to take the blankets.

ADV SANDI: Mr Mogoai, for a moment, were you expecting to be provided with blankets where you were going to go?

MR MOGOAI: That was our expectation sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mogoai, did you make any when you were on duty in the Eastern Cape during this period, if you got hold of any information or whatever, did you make reports to your superiors, did you report to Mr Koole or to Captain Venter or who did you report to?

MR MOGOAI: If there was any information, I would give it on to Mr Koole or Mr Peggy Radebe or anyone who would be close to me at that time.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. And did you have any discussions with Captain Venter about what happened there afterwards, except the discussion in Rustenburg when Captain Venter said, according to you, you must keep quiet, were there any other discussions?

MR MOGOAI: No sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mogoai, you say in your statement on page 31, the first paragraph, you say that the two white men were driving with a Volkswagen station wagon, do you see that? That is not correct or is it correct?

MR MOGOAI: I do not remember well.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember what they drove with?

MR MOGOAI: Captain Venter once drove in a car that was used by Colonel De Kock. It was a station wagon. I do not know whether it was a safari or not, but later on he got this Volkswagen station wagon. I do not remember if it is during this time when he was using the station wagon or not.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you heard the evidence of Mr Beeslaar and the evidence of some of the other applicants, that Captain Venter drove a Nissan Safari during his time in Port Elizabeth. Would you accept that that is correct and you could have made a mistake?

MR MOGOAI: I would agree that it is true sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right, and therefore this is another indication that your memory is not hundred percent correct in respect of the vehicle that was used here every day by Captain Venter, but yet you remember times, approximately to the hour? Do you want to comment on that?

MR MOGOAI: I think my thinking is giving me the truth all the time sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you testified that there was a roadblock on your way from the place, the road where you stopped after you left the airport and on your way to Post Chalmers? You've heard the evidence of the other applicants that there were no roadblocks at that time. Are you prepared to concede that you may have been wrong?

MR MOGOAI: No sir, there was a roadblock.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, now Mr Mogoai, you testified that Mamasela took the bakkie, is that correct and he drove away with the bakkie from the place where you stopped after you had left the airport, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And he went alone?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know who was in his company.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then that is on page 33, paragraph 7. You say the fourth line, Mamasela drove with the Ford bakkie again, but in a different direction, do you see that? Was it only Mamasela or somebody else, was somebody else with him in the car?

MR MOGOAI: I was in the kombi. I did not see when he pulled off whether someone got into the car and he was following another car when he left.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was he following another car when he left?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: That is not in your statement and it wasn't in your evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: We are really busy with hairsplitting Mr Du Plessis.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, I am trying to indicate the status of this affidavit and the way this witness is testifying Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't told that the road was wet or dry, is that going to be an issue?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, it is not an issue. The point is I am trying to establish exactly why this statement was drawn in such detail, but certain points were left out. Now, what is strange here Mr Chairman ...

CHAIRPERSON: You must just leave something? Something must be left out, he hasn't told how these people were dressed, how their clothes looked like, he hasn't told us. Whether they were in camouflage, he hasn't told us. Something has been left out, must be left out.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I will leave that point Mr Chairman. Mr Mogoai, will you go to the top of page 33?

You see the top of page 33, you say there the white men were all clad in civilian dress and they wore windbreaker jackets, do you still stand by that?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Because you see in Mr Koole's affidavit Exhibit O, paragraph 9, he says I can recall that the one man was wearing a big hat. I did not know who he was, but later I learnt that his name was Hashe. One of the other men wore a khaki coloured windbreaker jacket.

He doesn't say that everybody wore that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, we think some points are for argument. I don't think it is going to help us a lot for us to sit here and you keep on comparing one sentence after the other.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just point out what I want to do at the end of the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Please, please perhaps you should do that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The important fact here Mr Chairman, is the question were there assaults or were there not assaults. Now it is important to establish how the versions of these applicants came about, what was stated to the Attorney General, how it was changed later, why it was changed and how the statements eventually looked like because at the end of the day Mr Chairman, I want to argue that the versions established and provided to the Attorney General, were versions that were manipulated Mr Chairman and that those versions were not the truth.

And that relates to the question of the assaults, because if that is the case Mr Chairman, and these affidavits and especially Mr Koole's affidavit and the differences in this affidavit and Mr Koole's version ...

CHAIRPERSON: But how can the question whether or not somebody had a big hat or windbreaker, how is that going to help us to resolve the question whether there was assault?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, no, it is about the credibility of the version.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, there are limits. You know, there are certain limits within which you will be entitled to cross-examine, and you may have to keep within those reasonable limits.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, if you say to me without pointing that out to the witness, I can argue the differences ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the differences will be there, are they not contained in the affidavits, you can point them out when you argue.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Right, Mr Chairman, then I won't confront the witness with them, I will simply argue it.

If you will just bear with me Mr Chairman. Now, Mr Mogoai, your testimony was that at the airport, you were not required to do anything, you just had to sit in the vehicle, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But, you were taken with the vehicle, or you were requested to go with the vehicle to the airport?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct My Lord.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you also testified that four to five whites were present to apprehend the three activists?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct My Lord.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mogoai, why if there were four to five whites to apprehend the activists, why was it necessary for you to be present at the airport?

MR MOGOAI: I explained earlier on that there was really no need for me to be there, I did not know the reason for me to be there. The people who took me there, can best provide an answer as to why we were there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, they did provide an answer Mr Mogoai, they said they needed you to apprehend the three activists, because you were blacks who were not known in the area.

MR MOGOAI: There was no time at all where they explained to me that we were going to arrest people and even when those people approached, we were not told go, arrest them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mogoai, we will argue about that. Your testimony was that you were requested by Captain Venter to ask Mr Hashe questions, is that right at Post Chalmers?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And how many questions were you asked to ask?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know, I didn't count. I can't remember very well.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And in what language did you ask him?

MR MOGOAI: I explained that I was speaking in Xhosa, that I was not fluent enough in and I was using English too.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, you also testified that and admitted that Mr Niewoudt was there who was fluent in Xhosa, is that right?

ADV DE JAGER: He didn't mention Niewoudt's name.

MR MOGOAI: I do not know Mr Niewoudt.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, well that there was a person who was fluent in Xhosa? You said there was a person who was fluent in Xhosa?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did he do the interrogation?

MR MOGOAI: He was also interrogating.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now why Mr Mogoai, did Captain Venter ask you to ask certain questions if there was somebody who could speak Xhosa?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see I find it totally improbable, I put that to you.

MR MOGOAI: I was taking orders because I was being given orders, he was my Captain. When he orders me to do something, I have to do.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you also did not state that in your statement when you applied for amnesty, in your affidavit isn't that right?

MR MOGOAI: What sir?

ADV DU PLESSIS: The fact that you were asked to ask certain questions to Mr Hashe by Captain Venter, you did not state that in your affidavit?

MR MOGOAI: When I left Vlakplaas, even when I was out of Vlakplaas, everything that I would do would be under a command, I wouldn't do anything that was outside the command.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but what I want to know is why that fact wasn't contained in your statement?

MR MOGOAI: Where was I supposed to put it sir?

ADV DU PLESSIS: In your statement, it is nowhere in your statement that you were requested to ask questions and to participate in the interrogation, it is not there?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I understand the line of questioning from my learned friend, and I don't want to object here but what is stated in paragraph 12 my learned friend has just drawn my attention to that, is they were interrogated by Captain Venter, Mamasela, myself, Koole and Beeslaar and two unknown white men.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we perhaps get some clarity here from the witness. Mr Mogoai, whose questions were these? Were these Mr Venter's questions being put to Mr Hashe through you speaking as a medium or was he asking you to ask Mr Hashe questions about a particular topic or theme, what exactly was happening?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, Captain Venter was telling me the questions to ask Mr Hashe. He would speak in Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that really to say that you were acting as a sort of interpreter, were you translating his questions for Mr Hashe from Afrikaans to Xhosa or English?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, at that time I was.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know of any reason why Mr Venter could not put the questions directly to Mr Hashe himself and not involve you?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know the reason why sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see you testified - according to my notes, you say

"The following morning just after waking up Hashe was taken and removed from the room"

And then you go on and say:

"Venter called me, he was together with one of the unknown White men, Koole, Beeslaar and Mamasela was there, he asked me to sit facing Hashe and asked if I could speak Xhosa, I said: "Not fluently", said: "I should ask him in English". "How was Pebco formed and what were the functions"? Hashe said how it functions. Venter asked told me to ask him what he knows about the AK47".

Now, this part of the evidence Mr Mogoai, you didn’t state it in such a way in your affidavit? If you can’t answer that then I will give you an explanation why you testify about that now.

The explanation is simple, it is to find a reason on your version, to have been involved in this operation at all because on your version, if you weren’t involved in the interrogation there was not reason whatsoever for you to have been involved in the operation and that is why you are now saying that you were asked to ask certain questions specifically yourself and that you participated specifically yourself in the interrogation, what do you say about that?

MR MOGOAI: Sir, in other words you are explaining that I was not present at all in these events as they were taking place? Are you implying that I was not present when these men were interrogated and assaulted?

I know I was present, I was together with Captain Venter and the gentleman I do not know and I do not know how many were they. I’m explaining that I was there, you Sir, - yes, it’s possible that I cannot give my evidence as it happened but it does not mean I was not there and it doesn’t mean I did not take part.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Interpreter I think with respect, he’s saying I may not be able to give the evidence as it is written here not as it happened.

INTERPRETER: The interpreters ask for apology Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mogoai, under on page 35 the last paragraph, over to page 36 you refer to what you said

"the third time when you assaulted Mr Hashe was"

Is that right?

MR MOGOAI: Please repeat your question Sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: On the top of page 36, you refer there to the third time Mr Hashe was assaulted?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: That was after they found out about the AK47 and that he had lied, is that right? Is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Mogoai, you testified and I’m going to read you my notes

"I don’t remember well who took part and who didn’t, it was turmoil and the Whites were emotional. I realised that Beeslaar was involved. Captain Venter aside later"

Or to the side I think, it was to the side or aside later. You don’t refer in this paragraph to Beeslaar and Venter having been involved in that at all, in fact on the top of page 36 you say:

"You only refer to the people of Port Elizabeth"

Do you see that?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I can see this.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now why do you say now that Venter was involved there?

MR MOGOAI: The question that was asked was about their whereabouts. If you can read well, I saw them but I did not explain whether they were taking part in assaulting people but they were there.

CHAIRPERSON: He’s not saying on the top of page 36 that it is the Post Elizabeth people who assaulted him.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you read it closely he says

"The people of Port Elizabeth heard it and became angry about it. They said that he must not play games with them and started to assault him again"

CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry.

ADV DU PLESSIS: That’s what I’m referring to Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It carries that meaning.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I think so, in the Afrikaans Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Mogoai, there’s only one thing that I can’t really understand. You could tell us there were so many cars, you told us you knew Beeslaar and Venter and then you told us there were four or five other people - Whites, is that correct or could it be three other people?

I know you can’t remember the faces but you know how many cars there were, you could count that and over a period of more than one day - actually two days, there’s not recollection about how many Whites from Port Elizabeth assaulted this man, how many were there and yet you’ve seen them for a full day at least. Can you perhaps explain why you can’t give us the number of Whites being there?

MR MOGOAI: I would be able to explain, as I’m looking at you now with the congestive situation, I would be able to remember your face. There situation which was there, we were not settled or sitting like we are now, it was not the same situation. It was a tense situation which your mind is always surprised and you ask yourself what is happening here.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but if I see people assaulting a man brutally before me, I can’t understand why you can’t tell us whether it was three people assaulting him or whether it was five or whether it was one.

MR MOGOAI: If I look at people at the street but here I will not tell how many there were. They were just kicking and I was not counting, I was not looking at their faces so I don’t know - I have that problem.

ADV DE JAGER: So you can’t see them in the turmoil but you’ve been there for the whole day seeing the people walking there and you can’t tell us whether it was three strangers because there were only a few strangers, you knew all the others. You can’t tell us whether there was one stranger, two strangers or three strangers or four strangers or five and yet you’ve been there for a night, a full day and another night having even a braai with them.

MR MOGOAI: Sir, let me explain it this way, the way you explain it, it looks simple, you’d be able to identify those people but it was not like that. The way it was - even Captain Venter, he didn’t even call me and say to me - introduce me to these people. I saw that they were doing their things and then continued or proceeded with the operation, I don’t even know them today and that is hurting me - for not knowing them.

ADV DE JAGER: I can understand that you don’t know their names, I can even understand it that you can’t recognise their faces but what I can’t understand is, how could it be that you can’t tell us how many strangers there were.

MR MOGOAI: I believe that they do not know me and they don’t know how many Blacks were there.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your estimation of their number?

MR MOGOAI: That’s why I said: "Four or five".

ADV DU PLESSIS: And do you say that there were four of five at Post Chalmers as well or where there more because the four or five you just mentioned in relation to the airport?

CHAIRPERSON: When did he go to the airport? When did he go back to the airport?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, I’m referring to page 33 where he says in his statement

"There were suddenly four to five White men with the Black men"

CHAIRPERSON: I was still on page 36 when the Port Elizabeth policemen were angry and said they are not here to play. I thought we were at Post Chalmers.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I thought he was referring to the four to five on page 33, I may be wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s why Advocate de Jager is speaking of spending the night, the whole day because we all thought that we estimating the number of people at Post Chalmers.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I will keep to that point.

So you say there were four to five people at Post Chalmers, four to five White people?

MR MOGOAI: Those I did not know.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And did some of them come and go, can you remember?

MR MOGOAI: I did not notice their movements.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right. Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me, I’m nearly finished.

Now Mr Mogoai, you testified that you were forced to drink together with the others by Captain Venter, is that right? - that’s what you testified.

MR MOGOAI: Yes. Sir, you’re still referring to me as Mr Koole.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mogoai I’m sorry, I beg your pardon.

MR MOGOAI: Yes, he forced me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I presume you don’t want to be Mr Koole, Mr Mogoai? Now, Mr Mogoai, what I find strange is that your evidence pertaining to that issue - pertaining to the question of the drinks and the fact that you were forced to drink and your evidence about the questions that you were asked by Captain Venter to ask and your evidence about the fact that you hit Mr Hashe twice with a fist when you asked the questions, that that was never put to any of the other witnesses during cross-examination. Did you ever tell that to your legal representatives or this the first time you’re testifying this now or telling anybody about this now?

MR MOGOAI: I explained to him the nature of the assaults and today as I was cross-examined I was explaining. The second point, it was not the first time that Captain Venter forced me to drink liquor, it was the second time.

The first time it was when I was from the hospital and I had just been diagnosed as a diabetic and he forced me to drink liquor. I did not write these things in the statement, they are coming to me as I relate and when you ask me they come to my mind and I tell them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mogoai, I just want to make it 100% clear that my question is not directed in such a way that I want to reflect on Mr Lamey, I want to make that clear because I saw in Mr Lamey’s face that he thinks that I did that. I just want to test your evidence and it’s no reflection upon Mr Lamey. Now, Mr Mogoai - Mr Chairman, just bear with me please, I’m nearly finished.

Mr Mogoai, did you determine exactly who these three activists were - did I understand you correctly, did you determine who they were during the time you were at Post Chalmers?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, Sir.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you determine it there?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you turn to page 38 please, paragraph 3 - you see, there you say

"Later I heard from Captain Venter that Sipho Hashe was the Secretary General of Pebco, that Godolozi was the Chairman and that Galela was the treasurer"

Now what does that mean?

MR MOGOAI: It means that Captain Venter explained that these three gentlemen, each one of them had a portfolio within Pebco.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, Mr Mogoai, why would it have been necessary for Captain Venter to inform you of this later on if you partook in the interrogation?

MR MOGOAI: At the time of the interrogation I did not know the positions of each - I did not know the position of Mr Hashe, Mr Godolozi and so on.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, but Mr Mogoai, on your own version Captain Venter asked you to ask Mr Hashe questions about the structure of Pebco, are you saying to us that Mr Hashe didn’t tell you anything about the structure of Pebco or that you didn’t get anything in the interrogation?

MR MOGOAI: He talked but he did not tell whether he was the Chairperson or the Vice President, he did not give us those.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What did he say? What information did he give you?

MR MOGOAI: Who?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Hashe - when you interrogated him?

MR MOGOAI: Sir, I do not know, you’re now taking me back and I do not understand what - you asked me, it was during the time of the interrogation and you’re now taking me back, I don’t know where you’re moving now.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Mogoai, let me just put it to you this way. I find it extremely strange that you were involved in the interrogation, you say you were there when the assaults took place, you testify about the assaults but you never knew that Hashe - you never knew the positions of Hashe, Godolozi or Galela during that time, you only found out about it later when Captain Venter told you about it - I find that totally improbable. Do you want to comment?

MR MOGOAI: When we were interrogated them, it was not said: "Go get the Chairperson so we therefore did not know their positions.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Mogoai, I’m putting it to you that the probabilities that you were never told about anything of these people because there was no urgency in respect of the interrogations and there were no assaults to get information, you were simply not involved.

MR MOGOAI: I did this application for this Committee so that I can come and tell the truth about what happened and what happened is just what I’ve explained to you according to my recollection.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you really think Mr Niewoudt would spend his time trying to find out from Mr Hashe what his position is?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, the point I’m trying ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Did you really think the positions of the deceased in Pebco, could have been an aspect for interrogation?

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman but the point is, if this witness was involved in the interrogation that would have been something that he would have been informed about or that he would have known about or that he would have found out while he was involved in the interrogation Mr Chairman, that’s the point I’m making.

CHAIRPERSON: I hear you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Lastly Mr Mogoai, can you explain to us why Captain van Zyl, Mr Niewoudt and Mr Lotz say - while they were present there, testified that there were no assaults and to certain extent Mr Beeslaar supported this evidence although his evidence wasn’t 100% clear on this, that there were no assaults. Mr Beeslaar testified that he couldn’t see any signs of assault. Can you explain to us why these people all say there were not assaults and you come with this evidence about these grievous assaults, do you have any explanation for that?

MR MOGOAI: They do not want to tell that these people were assaulted, that’s how see it and they really surprise me why they speak like that and I would not come here and ask amnesty for the assault without having assaulted the people.

I did this application so that I can come and tell the whole truth as I know it and that is how I know the things. I was really surprised to hear that these people were not assaulted, they really surprised me why they didn’t give that reason and it is true these people were assaulted.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Mogoai, what I’m going to argue at the end of the day is that there are so many inconsistencies between the version of yourself and Mr Koole and so many improbabilities in your version that one cannot come to any other conclusion but that there were no assaults.

MR MOGOAI: Have you finished talking Sir?

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to respond?

MR MOGOAI: Yes. Sir, I wanted to respond the way I’m thinking and I will respond in English.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR MOGOAI: Your Worship, I had all along wished to pay my last humble respect to the deceased Pebco 3 and the only way I thought so far was to speak the truth and tell all as far as I can remember to the best of my ability and to illustrate to all that I was part of the imperfection of human justice of the past and the inadequacy of human compassion towards each other in the past South Africa. I thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: We are trying to think whether we should go on to 5 o’clock, if that will suit everybody because we are worried that we are far behind but that is subject of the approval of all other people involved and in particular the interpreters because they tend to tire in the afternoon, understandably so. We are just trying to find out from them whether they will be in a position to go on until 5 o’clock.

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, the interpreters would request an adjournment, they can’t take the afternoon any further, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The interpreters are understandably tired, you can understand the boxes in which they are sitting are just too hot and we will adjourn until tomorrow and start at half past 8 and we are going to appeal to the people to please co-operate and not make a lot of noise during the proceedings.

We have lost a lot of time but if you co-operate I’m sure we’ll be able to cover a lot of ground tomorrow. And if we are to start at half past 8 those who want to come we would encourage them to take their seats before half past 8 so that we could start punctually.

And lastly, I’ve been ask to ask of the audience to please leave the earphones behind so that you are able to use them tomorrow. We’ll adjourn until half past 8.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION - THURSDAY 30TH NOVEMBER 1997

KIMPANI PETER MOGOAI: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thursday, 30th November 1997, we will - Mr Lamey is it - no, it’s not your turn. Mr Nyoka?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV NYOKA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Mogoai, you said it was Mr Koole who communicated with Mr Venter and who then conveyed instructions to you Askaris, not so?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: In other words there was no direct communication - at all material times, between you and Mr Venter?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: And any instruction that could have come from the P.E. security branch were not conveyed directly from them to you but to Mr Venter who then conveyed them to Mr Koole and then to you, not so?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: That although you were together at the airport and at Cradock, there was never direct communication - at all material times, between you and the P.E. security branch, not so?

MR MOGOAI: No, there was no direct communication Sir.

ADV NYOKA: You further said that you were made to sleep in the Kombi without blankets for two nights and it was cold in winter, not so?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: You further said you were never told why you had to go the airport except at the 11th hour and you did not even know why you were to abduct the people that you did, not so?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct Sir.

ADV NYOKA: It seems to me - if you agree with me, that the Askaris were not treated equally with and by your other security colleagues in the operation, would you agree with me?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: Is it perhaps - having anything to do with the fact that you Askaris were not respected by your colleagues simply because of the fact that whilst you had fought against the National Party regime, you turned and fought against the people who fought against it, in other words you had 10 coats. Not so?

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you could say - unless you wanted to ask something drastically, instead of saying: "not respected", maybe you could say: "You were not trusted, they didn’t trust you".

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we were not trusted. I would explain it this way, the way I saw it we were used as instruments then when they had done their job they would throw them away.

ADV NYOKA: And because of that you felt that you had at all costs to please your masters, that is the security branch seniors and handlers, not so?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: I therefore have a full understanding why you felt or your feel you’re lost today between the ANC or National Party camp? Do you wish to comment?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: You said that although you cannot recall the faces of the people - that is the P.E. security branch who were at the airport and at Cradock, you said you were sure of the fact that one of them who conducted the interrogations did so in Xhosa, not so? - or in an African language?

MR MOGOAI: That’s correct.

ADV NYOKA: Is it perhaps - not having anything to do with the fact that as Askaris you had to be constantly in the company of White security policemen because you could not be in the township, that is why you cannot remember the White security policemen at that stage, not so?

MR MOGOAI: It might be the reason Sir.

ADV NYOKA: And that is why perhaps it sticks in your mind that one of them did something that was unusual - speaking an African language, that’s why you can remember that one, not so?

MR MOGOAI: I’m asking that you may please try to simplify your question or put it in a direct way.

ADV NYOKA: I’m saying that you are remember that one of them spoke an African language because it is unusual for a White person to speak an African language, that is why that stuck in your mind?

MR MOGOAI: It seems that the one who was speaking an African language, he knew that language.

ADV NYOKA: I’m saying, because of the fact that he was speaking an African language, that was the distinguishing fact that made you remember that today.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: Do you have any reason to say that assaults occurred at Post Chalmers if at all no such assaults occurred?

MR MOGOAI: I’ve no reason to say something which never happened - like assault which happened, I have no reason to say it if it didn’t happen.

ADV NYOKA: And do you have anything to gain by saying so if at all such assaults did not occur?

MR MOGOAI: I didn’t expect to have any kind of gain in saying a thing which didn’t happen.

ADV NYOKA: If there were no assaults at all and you did not assault also, you will simply have applied for abduction, not so?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: Do you have anything to gain by saying that assaults did occur when in fact you do not even recall the White security policemen that allegedly committed those assaults?

MR MOGOAI: May you try to slow down please.

ADV NYOKA: I’m going to try 50 kilometres an hour. Do you have anything to gain by saying that assaults did occur when today and before you cannot recall the faces of the people who committed the assaults except yourself and Mr Koole?

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you should simplify it.

ADV NYOKA: I don’t know how simple I can make it, I think it’s simple enough.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, it can still be simple, just repeat it again and let’s see whether maybe we can see another perspective to it.

ADV NYOKA: If you did not know the persons who committed the - I don’t know how to put it Mr Chairman.

You don’t know the people who committed these offences, surely it could be easier for you to say: "There were no such assaults" because you’re not trying to implicate them because you don’t know them.

I don’t know if that’s better Mr Chairperson.

In other words you have left out the assault completely.

MR MOGOAI: I was supposed to say it even if I don’t know the people who committed this offence because it happened.

ADV NYOKA: It was commented that despite the fact that that incident occurred 12 years ago you still remembered it. Were you ever involved - in the past 12 years, in a similar operation?

MR MOGOAI: Do you mean the assault incident?

ADV NYOKA: A similar operation, abduction, murder, assault, a similar one exactly like this, in other words for you to mistake it with any other incident.

MR MOGOAI: Yes, there is.

ADV NYOKA: Which one is that?

MR MOGOAI: That is Mogomezo’s case.

ADV NYOKA: Are you sure that the facts in Mogomezo are not being mistaken for this incident?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I certify that I’m not mixing the two cases.

ADV NYOKA: When the instruction that came to you that you must pack your clothing for three days, did you understand it to mean that you would be away for about two to three days?

MR MOGOAI: I didn’t know how many - the duration of our stay outside Vlakplaas, I took clothes which would help me to stay for three days.

ADV NYOKA: There has been an emphatic denial that the three were blindfolded, handcuffed and legs shackled, what do you say about that?

MR MOGOAI: They were handcuffed. The first time they were cuffed at the car seats and even at Post Chalmers they were handcuffed and their faces in the Kombi were covered. At Post Chalmers there were times where they were blindfolded, they were times where the blindfolds were removed.

ADV NYOKA: Would you have any reason to make that up if it did not occur?

MR MOGOAI: Truly, I do not have any reason to speak of something that did not happen.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Nyoka, could I just clear something here?

At Post Chalmers at a stage the blindfolds were removed, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And was it at any stage replaced or once it’s been removed, did it remain - their eyes remain unclosed, they remained unblinded?

MR MOGOAI: During the time of interrogation the blindfolds were removed.

ADV DE JAGER: And after they’ve interrogated them, did they again blindfold them?

MR MOGOAI: I will not remember very well because when they were taken back some of them I did not see.

ADV NYOKA: Are you sure that the term: "hardegat" was used by one of the security policemen at Vlakplaas?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, Sir.

ADV NYOKA: Because the applicants before you said that the activists were co-operative and were not refusing to divulge information, would that be true?

MR MOGOAI: It is not true Sir, they were prepared not to tell anything regarding any kind of questioning. They were prepared not to take out any information, they would rather die.

ADV NYOKA: Further, the applicant before you Mr Niewoudt said all three offered to work as informers, could that be true?

MR MOGOAI: Maybe I did not understand the gentleman that is interpreting, can you repeat your question Sir?

ADV NYOKA: In the light of the fact that the activists were stubborn so to speak, if someone said they all offered to be informers, would that be true?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Nyoka, you - it’s not clear whether you are asking the witness to state what he heard or if you want him to express an opinion on whether - bearing in mind that these people said they were prepared to die, they could have offered themselves to be informers - it’s not clear on what level you are putting your questions.

ADV NYOKA: It’s flowing from my previous question. I want him to state his opinion in the light of their stubbornness, I want his opinion.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you should make it clearer that way.

ADV NYOKA: Okay, thank you Mr Chairman.

If someone said that they offered to be informers, would that be true?

MR MOGOAI: I do not believe they would offer themselves to be informers.

ADV NYOKA: And it was alleged that the AK47 story came voluntarily, in you opinion would that be true?

MR MOGOAI: It came out because of the assaults and the kicks.

ADV NYOKA: And if someone said there was no liquor at Cradock, would that person be telling the truth?

MR MOGOAI: He would not be telling the truth, there was liquor.

ADV NYOKA: And it was not only four beers, not so?

MR MOGOAI: It was not only four beers.

ADV NYOKA: Did any ...(end of tape - no follow on sound) the morning after the abduction?

MR MOGOAI: I did not see anyone arriving Sir.

ADV NYOKA: So it is possible that no-one arrived, all the people were there all along, not so?

MR MOGOAI: There is that kind of a possibility Sir, that when we were interrogating and assaulting, such a person would have arrived without us or without myself realising the arrival of such a person.

ADV NYOKA: Finally, as you had left for Glen Connor - at the end whilst the three were still alive, you cannot say what happened to them eventually, not so?

MR MOGOAI: I did not bear knowledge of what happened to them.

ADV NYOKA: No further questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV NYOKA

CHAIRPERSON: Miss Hartle?

MISS HARTLE: Thank you.

Mr Mogoai, are you unable to assist this Committee by identifying those of the applicants who have applied for amnesty here as being the person who were present there on the day of the assaults which you witnessed?

MR MOGOAI: Mr Chairman, that is my problem, I cannot remember them at all. Even if I look at them now, in my mind it’s difficult to say: "That one did this" - it is my big problem and this hurts me.

MISS HARTLE: Why can you not remember them, is there a medical reason, is there a reason that you’d rather forget the incidents? Was there little time to actually have an opportunity to identify them? Why is it that you can’t recall them?

MR MOGOAI: I saw the applicants and I give myself time to think but I cannot think. Even the one who has been appearing on television on several occasions, I tried to recall having seen his face but I cannot.

MISS HARTLE: Mr Mogoai, are you sure that no pressure has been brought to bear on you not to name the applicants?

MR MOGOAI: If there was any pressure I would inform my legal representative first and I would go further to report that matter to this Committee, if there was any pressure not to reveal their names. I’m not afraid of them, I’m not scared of them, I don’t have any problem with them, it’s just that my memory can’t serve me well.

MISS HARTLE: Mr Mogoai, I have no further questions but my clients just want to commend you for the tremendous courage that you have shown.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: No questions, thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether any of the strangers there - those you didn’t know, whether any one of them left at any stage and came back with food or meat?

MR MOGOAI: I did not realise who left and who came back.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, if you don’t realise who went I can understand that but did anybody go?

MR MOGOAI: I do not know Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I know you’ve already said that you’re not scared of these people now, were you scared of them at any stage?

MR MOGOAI: All these security policemen, I regarded them as fearful people and every time I saw them I was scared of them Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time you made your statement to the office of the Attorney General, did you think then that if you saw them you could identify them?

MR MOGOAI: No, Mr Chairman. I did not have their pictures in my mind as to how they looked.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall their names being mentioned there at the scene? You know today you must have seen them since last week, we have a Mr van Zyl, a Mr Niewoudt, we had ADV DU PLESSIS, we had Mr Lotz, had you forgotten their names as well? In other words had you forgotten both their faces and their names or was there a name which you could still remember?

MR MOGOAI: I did not know their names when we were here, that is during the time of this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: One of the advocates asked you yesterday exactly what you think your part or the role that you thought you were going to play when you went to the airport was, what exactly did you think was the purpose of your going to the airport?

MR MOGOAI: I did not know what we were going to do at the airport Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I did not understand your answer to a question put to you by Mr Booyens yesterday. He asked you: "Suppose the deceased - once in the Kombi, decided to run away - to get out of the Kombi and run away, what would you have done"? I’m asking you this question again because I didn’t exactly understand your answer.

MR MOGOAI: I do not know what I would have done Sir because I was sitting at the back and the two gentlemen were sitting in front of me and the other one was in the front and there was the other one in the middle. I do not know - if one of them tried to run away, what I would have done because I was not given an instruction before that if they tried to run away I must do something.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you not - as a matter of natural reaction to the situation, have given chase?

MR MOGOAI: If it were possible to chase him away, who was going to take care of the others? Sir, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Let us say they had all run out of the Kombi, wouldn’t your natural reaction have been to give chase - given the fact that you’re an Askaris, you were working for the security branch?

MR MOGOAI: I take it that there were White people outside who would help chase them.

ADV DE JAGER: From the airport to the first stop a short way from the airport - two kilometres or whatever it might have been, you were the only one in the back of the Kombi and the only other security person was the driver, isn’t that so?

MR MOGOAI: We - where we left - the reason behind leaving the place where we were parking was because of the light, we had to go to a dark place and the Whites were still outside - it was at that time when Mr Mamasela was already at the Kombi.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but didn’t you drive out of the airport for a distance into a dirt road next to the airport?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, from the point - after the three people were put into the Kombi until you met the other people in the dirt road, who was travelling in the Kombi with the three people?

MR MOGOAI: Two White men came into the car, they drove the car. Two White men got into the car and they drove the car, they took it from Mr Koole.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but that was after you stopped at the dirt road, wasn’t that the position according to what you told us yesterday?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we stopped at a gravel road.

ADV DE JAGER: And then the White driver took over from Mr Koole?

MR MOGOAI: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: But Mr Koole drove the Kombi from he airport up to the dirt road, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That’s correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And at that time - am I correct in saying according to your evidence, you were the only security policeman in the Kombi with the three abducted people - Mr Koole driving and you sitting in the Kombi with them?

MR MOGOAI: According to my recollection it looks like that.

ADV DE JAGER: And a that stage they weren’t handcuffed?

MR MOGOAI: They were not yet cuffed.

ADV DE JAGER: So, at that stage you were the only person who could guard them?

MR MOGOAI: I take it that way Sir.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Mogoai, maybe something is not entirely clear here, did you know why the three gentlemen were in the Kombi?

MR MOGOAI: I thought that they were arrested Sir.

ADV SANDI: Did you know what was going to happen from there?

MR MOGOAI: No, Sir, I did not know.

ADV SANDI: Are you then saying you did not consider yourself - in those circumstances, to be in charge of those three gentlemen that if they run away maybe you would have to give chase?

MR MOGOAI: I would say I had a responsibility but it was not only my responsibility because the Whites were also present - the other car was in front and the others were at the back.

ADV SANDI: Is that to say that you all had a responsibility to give chase if any one of them runs away?

MR MOGOAI: I had the full responsibility Sir, even if they succeeded to run away there wasn’t anything I would do.

CHAIRPERSON: Another thing in your evidence is that you seem to say that at the airport the three got out of the car and all three of them were simultaneously arrested and brought to the Kombi.

MR MOGOAI: That they were arrested at that time Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Let me frame this. There is a version that when they arrived at the airport two got out of the car, one drove away with the bakkie to go and park it somewhere and the two who were first arrested and brought to the Kombi and the third person was arrested separately after he had gone to the parking where he was parking his vehicle, could it be you are wrong in the recollection of the events?

MR MOGOAI: No Sir, I know that the three of them went to the Kombi driven by the Whites - that they were not arrested together I do not know, they arrived the three of them at he Kombi.

CHAIRPERSON: And yet another of your aspect of your evidence was, when you left on the morning of the 10th, these people were still alive. Do you remember? - that’s what you told us.

MR MOGOAI: I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: While on the other hand we have got a version from some people that the deceased were killed on the night of the 9th and therefore they could not have been alive on the morning of the 10th.

MR MOGOAI: Mr Chairman, it is so that I did not see them in the morning, I only heard the scream from Mr Galela and for that reason I took it that they were still alive.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see anybody collecting a pile or collecting some firewood and piling them together?

MR MOGOAI: No, Sir, I didn’t see anybody.

CHAIRPERSON: You have never seen a huge collection of firewood?

MR MOGOAI: I never saw a pile of wood at all Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see anybody carrying diesel with a container - it could have been diesel, maybe it could have been petrol?

MR MOGOAI: I never saw it Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, just one question in re-examination.

Mr Mogoai, you said that at the airport while you and Mamasela and Koole were sitting and waiting in the minibus, you said in your statement there was suddenly four to five White males with the Black men. I just want to ask you, that estimation of the four to five, would that include or exclude Captain Venter?

MR MOGOAI: It is including Captain Venter.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I’ve got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV LAMEY

ADV DE JAGER: And Beeslaar?

MR MOGOAI: I do not remember seeing him at the airport.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you see Beeslaar at the farmhouse the first night?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: And did you see him there the second night?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know whether he slept there?

MR MOGOAI: I took it that he slept there Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: Where were they sleeping?

MR MOGOAI: They were sleeping in the house.

CHAIRPERSON: At the airport you never saw him at all - Beeslaar? You don’t remember seeing him at all?

MR MOGOAI: I do not remember seeing him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may stand down Mr Mogoai.

WITNESS EXCUSED