Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. As was mentioned when we adjourned on Friday, that Mr Rautenbach would be calling a witness today. Mr Visser, have you got any witnesses to call or not?

MR VISSER: May I just remind you that Gen Du Toit has not yet been cross-examined.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, yes, there is Gen Du Toit first, but after Gen Du Toit, what will be the position?

MR VISSER: We will call no further witnesses Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And then Mr Prinsloo has indicated that he may, depending on what transpires. Are you in a position after Gen Du Toit, to continue Mr Rautenbach, health permitting?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, as I indicated I had a suspicion when I rushed through Gen Du Toit, through his evidence in chief, that I may have left out a few things. May I beg leave just to deal with one or two matters?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly.

PETRUS L DU TOIT: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: (continued) General, you are still under oath, do you understand that?

GEN DU TOIT: I confirm that Chairperson.

MR VISSER: General, maybe we went through it very quickly, but in paragraph 8.8 you did refer to this, I would just like to ask you to just make it a bit more clear, as far as your point of view is concerned regarding your behaviour.

You have already testified and is it correct that the government and the National Party had a policy to fight the onslaught which they considered a total onslaught, with everything within their power?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And it was also so in order to protect and maintain the government at that time?

GEN DU TOIT: That is true.

MR VISSER: Now we know which is evident from all the evidence that was submitted to the Amnesty Commission as well as the evidence of Gen Van der Merwe, with regards to this incident, we know that the ANC/SAC alliance founded its struggle on four pillars, is that not true?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Now with regards to the incitements of the masses and the isolation of South Africa on international level, Mr Bopape's death, would it have had an influence on those two pillars or aspects as far as the furtherment of the ANC/SAC alliance and their struggle?

GEN DU TOIT: I believe that.

MR VISSER: You already testified that for except the fact that you were a Policeman, you were also a supporter of the National Party, is that not true?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Your behaviour, when you helped to cover up the death of Mr Bopape according to you, why did you do that?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, it was directed to save embarrassment for the National Party and to prevent that the SAC/ANC alliance movement being furthered.

MR VISSER: So you see your behaviour as a support for the National Party government?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: After you testified, you told me that you are not satisfied that the reasons why you went to have a look at the body of Mr Bopape, was put clear enough.

Can you tell us why did you go and have a look at the body?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I did it because of my experience as an Investigating Officer and a Policeman. Those were the reasons that I went to have a look at the body.

MR VISSER: Did you expect, before you went to the body now, did you expect to see something when you had a look at the body?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I did not expect that I wouldn't find anything else than what was told to me by, I think it was Major At van Niekerk and Zeelie and also Gen Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Didn't you go and have a look because you suspected that Mr Bopape's body would show signs of serious assault?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, I had no reason to doubt the words of my colleagues and it never occurred to me that I would find anything else than what was reported.

MR VISSER: But why did you so blindly believe in what was reported General?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, these members, Van Niekerk and the others, members of the Investigation Unit were people that I have worked with for several years and a lot of cases were investigated.

They told me a lot of things, and I never experienced that anything that they ever said, was not true. And for that reason I never believed that these members were not telling the truth.

MR VISSER: During that time span, would you have thought that these members would have gone overboard and to torture a person, in this case, Mr Bopape, to death?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, I did not believe that.

MR VISSER: Consequently did you believe as you were informed, that the death of Mr Bopape must have been unexpected?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

MR VISSER: To cut it short, was that then also the reason why you didn't remove the body's clothes in order to further investigate the body?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

MR VISSER: I do not know if you have testified to this or not, but did you report to Gen Erasmus what your observations were after you had gone to see the body?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, yes, I went back to his office and if I remember correctly, I reported to him in this way.

MR VISSER: Gen Erasmus, according to your evidence, you were at John Vorster Square since 1989, no sorry 1984 until 1991, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Sorry, I addressed you as Gen Erasmus, I met Gen Du Toit. During that time, can you just tell the Committee how many cases, except for that of Mr Bopape were there where political detainees died in detention whilst they were at John Vorster Square?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, if I remember correctly there weren't any other cases where John Vorster Square Security Branch was involved. There were, if I remember correctly, there was one incident where a person who was kept in the cells at John Vorster Square died, I think he committed suicide.

If I remember correctly, I think it was a Mr Sithole but it was a Soweto Security Branch detainee and our Branch which in other words, the Witwatersrand, did not deal with that matter. We did not question him, we were not involved with the investigation.

MR VISSER: Sithole, was his first name Sizwe?

GEN DU TOIT: I think so yes, Sizwe Sithole.

MR VISSER: Firstly, round about when did this happen, which year?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I am not quite sure, but I think it was in the vicinity of 1989/1990.

MR VISSER: Why was he kept at John Vorster Square and not at Soweto?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, it often happened that the Soweto cells would be full and because John Vorster Square's cells were constructed in such a manner specifically for keeping Section 29 detainees, it happened that other divisions made use of those cells and to keep their people there.

MR VISSER: In other words this was something that happened often that Soweto Security Branch would keep their political detainees at John Vorster Square?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson, and of course we will be informed that such a detainee are there, for purposes to contact the Magistrates and District Surgeons etc.

MR VISSER: And your evidence is then that while he was detained there, he was detained there under the authority of Soweto Security Branch and not Witwatersrand Security Branch?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Please Mr Chairman. General, you testified that it was expected of you to work in impossible circumstances during this time of war? Is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: On the one side, there was a war led by the ANC and on the other hand it was also the pressure of the politicians to fight the total onslaught against the country and you had to fight it?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And the politicians expected of you, to act as if you were in a war situation?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: In this specific incident, were you aware of the fact that the leader of this group, on the 15th of April, blew himself up at the Sterland complex in Pretoria, Maponya that is?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: It was also reported in the media and on the same day there was also an explosion in front of Van Aswegen's shop in Church Street, one at Sterland, one at Van Aswegen, it happened on the same day, the 15th of April 1988. Can you remember it as such?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I cannot remember the dates, but I remember Sterland well because it was part of the information that was submitted to me and where Mr Bopape was involved.

MR PRINSLOO: As is evident from Exhibit C, it is already in front of the Chairperson, a lot of acts were committed by this group in the Pretoria vicinity? You remember it like that?

GEN DU TOIT: Yes, that is definitely so.

MR PRINSLOO: Friday the 10th of June 1988, when you authorised the warrant for the arrest of Stanza Bopape, you were aware of the fact that he was involved with these acts that this group committed, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct. I also learnt this from information that Investigating Officers, Van Niekerk, etc, told me.

MR PRINSLOO: Colonel Van Niekerk, the applicant, as a person you testified that you considered him to be a very responsible person at all times, and on this specific day he went to Gen Erasmus and yourself and told you what happened exactly on that specific day, you never doubted it?

GEN DU TOIT: No, I never doubted it Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: What you found when you looked at the body, is indeed that it was a person with no definite marks or injuries?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, and the circumstances, if the fact was known on that day that this person died in detention, out of your own experience did you know that the ANC often had a night vigil and things could have come from that?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: General, at that time there was several attacks in the country and committed by the ANC, and we are talking about acts of violence.

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You also testified in your evidence that in 1987 at the Magistrate's court in Johannesburg which is close to John Vorster Square, there was an explosion there, can you remember that?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that explosion was preceded by another bomb which exploded and afterwards a car bomb was triggered in a subtle way which was close to a parking space where a lot of people have access to. It was a very horrible scene?

GEN DU TOIT: Yes, it was.

MR PRINSLOO: You had to deal with that?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Regarding this total onslaught which prevailed, how could it have been expected of you to make use of the normal rules and regulations in order to fight a war? You have the ANC on the one side and then the politicians on the other side, expecting things of you and you were only a few people who had to fight this war, how could you fight it using the normal rules and regulations which the Police had to adhere to, was it not impossible for you?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, yes, I think we often testified that it demanded of us to deviate from the norm in certain cases.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Van der Walt, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson. I refer to Exhibit R, paragraph 7.3 where you testified that you placed Stanza Bopape under Section 29 and the reasons he gave, you describe in 7.3, namely that you told him

that the case against him was investigated, he was a trained terrorist and he was a member of the Maponya group and that there is a probability that he was involved with several terrorist attacks, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I want to refer you to a statement which you can find in Volume 3, page 761 Chairperson, it is a statement of Pieter Maluleka. Volume 3.

General, it is a statement of the accused, he was number Toka case, he was a member of the Maponya group who was responsible for the acts you would find in Exhibit C. Just to refer to your evidence, and I refer you to the first paragraph where Pieter Maluleka said that Stanza was a member of MK in Pretoria.

And MK is then the Umkhonto weSizwe, the military wing of the ANC, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then Mr Maluleka continues and in paragraph, the fourth paragraph it is quite evident that he was trained as a member of MK and he was then trained to use explosives and AK47's, and that supports the information which you had and which the Security Branch was then investigating, is that not true?

GEN DU TOIT: Yes, it does support the information.

MS VAN DER WALT: General, is it also correct that if it was mentioned that Stanza was a member of MK, it can only be training as far as continuing the armed struggle, it is not a cultural organisation?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson. The term trained terrorist means the use or the handling of all these weapons as it is put here by the Advocate.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then in the next paragraph Pieter Maluleka mentions that he did have access to weapons and ammunition, he got them from me, that is Pieter Maluleka. So the investigation which was led by the Security Branch was once again confirmed here because it is quite evident that Stanza Bopape was in possession of weapons that he received from Pieter Maluleka, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: From that statement it is quite evident, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: If you look at this statement and I am going to refer you to the statement of Mr Nkosi, it would seem that the Security Police with all the information they had, they concentrated on questioning these people, Maluleka and Nkosi in order to obtain information from Stanza Bopape if you look at the second last paragraph on page 761, we were questioned regarding Stanza during the interrogation.

If you look at these two statements in its entirety, then he did concentrate on the actions of Stanza Bopape.

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: If you turn to page 762, the third paragraph, mention is made of Mr Mpo, do you know this name, can you say that it is an MK name, can you help the Committee?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I know this name.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know who this person Mpo was?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I have clean forgotten the name, but if I remember correctly I think it was the person who pointed out Stanza's house the night he was arrested.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can it be Helen Mogale?

GEN DU TOIT: I think that is the person Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment please Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Here a person is implicated who would then have done certain things, or would have made certain pointing out, I would ask that you would be careful not to implicate someone if you are not quite sure about the facts, because it might be disadvantageous to people. Please just be careful.

These people are not here to defend themselves, I don't know if she received notice of these proceedings.

GEN DU TOIT: I take notice thank you Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like you to refer to page 646, it is a statement by Mr Mbeki Nkosi, 646. There was already testimony before this Committee that Mbeki Nkosi, this particular evening, he was arrested with Stanza Bopape. On page 646, paragraph 27, it seems that Bopape and this Mbeki Nkosi were kept in different cells, but at the same police station, and if we go back to page 662, it seems it was Roodepoort police cells, could you have a look at that please and see if you agree?

Page 662, it would be paragraph 107. This was the first evening when they were arrested and they were detained in Roodepoort police cells.

GEN DU TOIT: It seems to be so from the statement, yes Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to refer you then to Volume 6, this is the Incident Book of Roodepoort and I want to refer you to entry 780, it is on the printed page 49.

Unfortunately General, not in any of these books they had the names of the people who were arrested, they did not make any entries in there, but would it seem from there and if I understand incorrectly, please help me, that suspects were arrested at Kagiso MR and they were detained in two different cells namely 85 and 86 and they were detained for the charge terrorism, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: It seems so from the entry Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I would like to refer you to entry 834, that would be on Friday, it is the same day, just later in the day, the 10th of June 1988, it seems that the prisoners were released as per cell 85 and 86. I would just like to know from you, page 834, it seems that these persons at the entry 870 at 01H50 were detained at that time, and were released at 11H45.

Can I put it to you in this manner, if a person was arrested, will he be detained under Section 50, is that so?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And if a person is to be detained according to the regulations of Section 29, would they make an entry in the Incident Book that the specific persons who were detained under Section 50, were released and according to a Warrant of Arrest, he is detained under Section 29, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt, just a question here. It says the prisoner was released. What is the following word there, as per cell number, were they released?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, it seems so from the Report Book, I was not involved there, but it seems so.

MS VAN DER WALT: General, I am trying to, I am seeking assistance you know more of these things, of the Incident Book, I am trying to understand what is happening here.

Would you say if this person was detained under Section 50 and the Police want to detain him under Section 29, then he is released in the Incident Book under Section 50 and is rearrested in accordance with the new Warrant for Arrest under Section 29 and he is detained in the Incident Book under Section 29, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, that is correct, but this entry is at Roodepoort, that is where he was detained during the early morning hours. At 11H45 he was released.

I would say in this Incident Book, the entries are not entirely correct because indeed we know from testimony that this man afterwards was detained at John Vorster Square.

MS VAN DER WALT: What is the situation General, if a person is detained in Roodepoort and is transferred to John Vorster Square, what would appear in the Incident Book then?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, the entry should have been that he was transferred or is taken by Investigation Officials and he is transferred to John Vorster Square.

They would issue the Release Warrant at that station and is then transferred to John Vorster Square.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see General, it is difficult because there are no names in the Incident Book, but here is a statement, it is just a loose statement, Exhibit G that was handed in of Mr Cornelius Johannes Bezuidenhout and apparently at that time, he was a Police Official and he was involved with the investigation of this Maponya group and it seems that this particular evening, there was an investigation and the police station that they worked from, was Kagiso.

If there was such an investigation, would a dossier be a Kagiso dossier, what is the situation?

GEN DU TOIT: In all probability it would have been so Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: If I can take you back to Mbeki Nkosi's statement and I want to refer you to page 648, this is in Volume 3, once again this is just in support of what you have testified when you had placed Stanza Bopape under Section 29, it is clear that the questioning is on page 648, paragraph 36, and it concerned the question if Stanza Bopape had military training.

Do you see that and does this support your testimony?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Van der Walt. Mr Rautenbach, do you have any questions to ask this witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: General, if you can just to start, can you tell us when this incident occurred, what was your position with reference to the other members, in what position were you? Can you explain the line of command, who was above you, who was your senior and who was your juniors?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, at that stage I was second in command, Deputy Divisions Branch Commander at

Witwatersrand. Members involved in this incident served under my command.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I wish to ask you, you say you were second in command, was that at the Security Branch?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct, Security Branch Witwatersrand.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, when you were contacted or you were contacted by Erasmus, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: You went to John Vorster Square where you met with Gen Erasmus is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: At that stage it was already decided by the two other Generals, was that decision, were you informed of that decision?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: You, a person who were under the command of Gen Erasmus and did you accept this decision and did you bind yourself to it?

GEN DU TOIT: I reconciled myself to the decision, and I bound myself to it.

MR RAUTENBACH: You didn't have much of a choice did you?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, the understanding was such that I was the second in command and a decision was already taken, so yes, I didn't have much of a choice.

MR RAUTENBACH: I would then assume that in the light of the fact that that decision was taken, and it was already taken and you were informed of it that the political situation, did not play much of a role with yourself, you saw yourself bound to that decision?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, yes, I saw myself bound to this decision, but I would also say that the experience or the position that I was in at that stage, logic told me that this was the best decision that could have been taken under the circumstances.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, I would like specifically to refer to the 10th, the 10th was a Friday?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: There was testimony here, I think it was Engelbrecht who said that Bopape was warned, he says between three and four, does that sound accurate to you?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, no, I would say it would have been a little bit later. If I recall correctly, it was after office hours and although I was still in the building I was not in my office any more.

MR RAUTENBACH: What time would you then say if you could just estimate, or can't you recall?

GEN DU TOIT: I cannot recall the precise time, but I am sure it was after four o'clock.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then General, with reference to the process that we speak of, the Section 29, Bopape, when you warned him and issued the Warrant of Arrest for the Section 29, at that stage you testified that you made notes or you had notes before you that the members had, with reference to the information that was available on Bopape if I understood you correctly?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Those notes, is this placed before you so that you can become conversant with what is in there, that there was enough information that one could use Section 29 to detain a person?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, it is norm, it is practice because I have detained many people in this fashion, it is to have all the documentation, statements, information, to have it available and to see it and to be conversant with what is in there. To make sure that the facts that we have available to us, and this places the person within the boundaries of the law, according to the security of Section 54.

MR RAUTENBACH: It would seem General, we have a situation here, we know that it was not put to you that this is the statement who says the following of Bopape, it seems to me there was notes that had this information, notes that came from interrogation?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson, and people who informed us.

MR RAUTENBACH: And it would seem then General that that information was information that you got during interrogation?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, the testimony is clear, it is as clear as daylight, there were meetings on the 10th and on the 11th, between the Security Branch of John Vorster Square and Krugersdorp where Kleynhans gave information to these members.

It is not correct then to say that the notes came from interrogation, because that is not the testimony before us.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he is entitled to ask whether it does or doesn't, it is for the witness to say, because we know there were interrogations. It might be both, we don't know.

MR RAUTENBACH: In any case General, you had something in the form of a statement, you had it here, basically you had the notes of the persons who questioned this detainee, thereby you decided if this person had to be detained under Section 29 or not?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I said notes and other information.

MR RAUTENBACH: You mean information from people who told you, who were involved with the questioning?

GEN DU TOIT: Not specifically people who were involved with the questioning, Colonel Van Niekerk and other members who did the questioning.

MR RAUTENBACH: You would then recall General there was a suggestion from the family, if he was detained under Section 29, do you remember that that suggestion was made?

GEN DU TOIT: I remember it Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: I would just like to refer you to the record, page 159. I am not sure if it is Volume 1, it is just records.

Please you would see there on page 159 Ms Van der Walt, and is that what you and Mr Engelbrecht were busy with on the 10th, then Mostert answers and he says, yes, that is correct.

Then he says further, I would like to read it to you, he was then placed under Section 29, the deceased. Was he taken to the District Surgeon at any stage? I personally didn't take him. Constable Engelbrecht and someone else took him on the 10th, 1988 to the District Surgeon and then it is asked was that after the processing had started? Mostert replied, I think it was before the processing.

Ms Van der Walt, and did you do any interrogation on that particular day? Mostert's reply was, no, we did not. Would you then say, what is your attitude when you read this?

Do you agree with it or not when he says there was no questioning?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, if he says there was no questioning that day, then I would accept it as such.

ADV DE JAGER: No questioning on the 11th? No, I did not see him on Saturday the 11th. We attended a conference at Krugersdorp?

CHAIRPERSON: No, it is before that.

MR RAUTENBACH: In the centre of the page, it starts with is that what you and Mr Engelbrecht were busy with on the 10th, yes, that is correct. And then the question is being asked, Mostert answered, I personally didn't take him. Constable Engelbrecht and someone ...

ADV DE JAGER: He was then placed under Section 29.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he then taken to the District Surgeon, when did this happen? When was he taken to the District Surgeon for instance, was that on the 10th or the 11th?

MR RAUTENBACH: The 10th.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you, okay.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I would like to refer you to, I just want to get to the correct page, page 310, it is the same volume of the record, it is right at the end, once again it is questioning by Adv Van der Walt.

It started at the top of the page, on the 10th of June, you were still on duty and did you have anything to do with Stanza Bopape? On the 10th of June, this is now Engelbrecht this time, I didn't have anything to do with him before approximately twelve o'clock in the afternoon. Yes, and what did you do? I was informed he was being transferred from West Rand to Johannesburg, John Vorster Square. Did you interrogate him on that particular day and once again the answer, no, I didn't. It was a Section 29, there was a procedure that was followed and things that had to be completed and processed. Do you see that?

GEN DU TOIT: Yes, I see that Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: And it seems from this, and once again I say that he was not questioned.

GEN DU TOIT: It seems like it Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I would like to refer you to Engelbrecht's testimony, page 382, it is in the second part of the record, I think it is in the second Volume.

Now, if you can find it, page 382, okay, there you would see at the top of the page, and I am going to read it to you what the question was and the answer.

The question comes down to the following, if you ask him if he is going to cooperate, well, it would be senseless to ask him are you going to cooperate. The question would have been are you prepared to talk, are you going to tell us about your involvement with Maponya or these different acts of terror, is that correct. Engelbrecht's answer is I don't think that would have been the line that was followed because I have not yet had all the information. We got the information on the Sunday morning, that was conveyed to me by Mr Mostert.

It would seem that this specific conversation, and if you look at the previous page, it would seem that this is what he says with regards to the 11th, he didn't have the information yet. So this involvement with regards to the Maponya group, seems at a later stage. For what reason was he kept under Section 29?

GEN DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, if I remember correctly there was evidence that these people on that specific day, had discussions with Krugersdorp and they got the information there.

MR RAUTENBACH: But it is the 11th General? The evidence is that those discussions took place on the 11th and not on the 10th?

MR VISSER: My learned friend is misleading the witness, I object. You only have to turn to page 39, I don't know where all the evidence is in the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 39 of?

MR VISSER: Of Volume 5, paragraph 6, I am sorry paragraph 7, where it is quite clear that Kleynhans spoke to members of the John Vorster Square Security Branch on Friday, the 10th. My learned friend keeps on putting to the witness that it was on the 11th.

It wasn't, it was on Friday the 10th. On the 11th, there was another meeting in which the information which was given on the 10th, was confirmed. That is the evidence.

MR RAUTENBACH: I object to Mr Visser saying that I am misleading the witness, he is wrong to do that. He shouldn't be allowed to put it in that manner in any event. He is referring us now to a memorandum on a specific day by Colonel Van Niekerk which talk about discussions.

I am busy questioning the witness and I refer to evidence that was given here under oath, not to memorandums.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I am of the view that he can continue with this line of cross-examination. There is the evidence of Engelbrecht there, that says they only got the info on the 11th.

The fact that there might have been meetings on the 10th, doesn't obviate or doesn't preclude Mr Rautenbach from asking questions, surely.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGCOBO: The document that you have referred us to on page 39, this is the document, this is the memorandum which was prepared by Colonel Van Niekerk, I assume after the death of Mr Bopape? To what extent does one put weight to this document?

How much of this is a cover up, how much of this is the truth? I mean how much of this was prepared in order to fall in line with the cover up, do we know these facts?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I hear what the Honourable Justice Ngcobo says, if you don't want to place any store in that document, can I refer you to page 8 of the record.

The evidence of A.P. van Niekerk, dealing with Friday the 10th of June 1988. He says he was called by his Commanding Officer Erasmus and then certain things took place and over the page, at page 9, all referring to Friday the 10th of June, page 9 of the record, at the Roodepoort police station, Captain Kleynhans gave me information with regard to two people that I have referred to earlier.

That we know is Bopape and Nkosi. That those two people had been arrested in relation to ANC terror attacks and activities and that Mr Bopape was involved in the Maponya terrorist group, and that he had contact with the group and was involved with the group.

That is the 10th, those are the facts, that is the evidence Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it is also said, Gen Du Toit said that he had received notes. I mean this sort of discussion, you wouldn't expect him to keep notes, would you? He didn't say so.

MR VISSER: I don't know, and I don't know whether Mr Van Niekerk was asked about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: And I repeat Mr Chairman, it is an incorrect basis to put to this witness on the evidence that this Committee has received, that it could only have happened on the 11th, the only discussions took place on the 11th, it is not the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman. But Mr Visser, if I understand this position correctly here, Mr Rautenbach is now presently questioning or examining the witness on the basis of Engelbrecht's evidence. And you refer to Van Niekerk's evidence which is clearly different from that of Engelbrecht, is it incorrect, is Mr Rautenbach not entitled to examine this particular witness or applicant on those issues?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, clearly he is. The only dispute that I am raising is that my learned friend cannot put as a fact to this witness, not as a fact, that the meeting took place only on the 11th, because a meeting also took place on the 10th. That is all I am saying.

MR MOLOI: In view of Engelbrecht's evidence to which he refers, what disentitles him from that?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have made my point, if you are against me on this point, I will address the matter in argument. I feel it is unfair to a witness to put to him as a fact, not Engelbrecht says that there was no meeting on the 10th and a meeting only took place on the 11th, that is a different matter.

As a fact put to him that the meeting was on the 11th, without any reference to the fact of the meeting of the 10th, it is not according to the evidence, and that is my objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Rautenbach, you have seen the evidence of Mr Van Niekerk on page 8 and 9 where he does make mention.

MR RAUTENBACH: I will keep that in mind, Mr Chairman, I will keep that in mind.

General, I am going to refer you to this same memorandum which was then written by Van Niekerk, have a look at page 40. We know that this memorandum, according to allegations, were written on the 13th of June if I understand your evidence correctly.

Look at page 40, do you have it in front of you, it is Volume 5? I am going to read to you paragraph 13, it reads on Saturday, 11th of June 1988, at nine o'clock discussions were held at the Security Branch, Krugersdorp regarding the relevant investigation and during these discussions it came to light that Bopape was trained in Pretoria by so-called Maponya.

Can you see that? Is your evidence General, that that information was already available to you, the fact that he was trained by the Maponya group on the 10th?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Rautenbach, paragraph 11 mention is made of a questioning by Mostert and Engelbrecht on the 10th and this questioning took something like six and a half hours, from 13H30 to 19H50, after which Bopape was kept at the cells according to Section 29(1).

So according to that there was a long questioning, notes were taken down during this questioning, according to paragraph 11 now, on the 10th. That it differs from Engelbrecht's evidence?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MR VISSER: May I be allowed Mr Chairman, just to put this matter into perspective. Page 309 of Engelbrecht's evidence, he says what he remembers, the bottom of the page, led by Ms Van der Walt, page 309.

ADV DE JAGER: I just want to say that I cannot remember where I was three weeks ago from eight till nine o'clock at night. We are dealing with issues here of things that happened ten years ago and we are talking of hours and minutes here.

I know there are notes concerning this which helps us, but the questioning should also be seen in the light thereof.

MR VISSER: This was in perspective. Ms Van der Walt, now Engelbrecht has just dealt with the fact that these people were arrested and then Ms Van der Walt, did you have any information why these people were arrested? Mr Engelbrecht, we were just informed that West Rand was looking for the person in connection with acts of terror and that he was involved with the ANC and that he was possible trained, there you are Mr Chairman, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: That is the evidence of Engelbrecht.

CHAIRPERSON: That doesn't link up with the five and a half hour questioning?

MR VISSER: I don't have any objection about that, the only point is my learned friend has put it as a fact to this witness that the only information that they had, could have come from a meeting on the 11th of June, which is incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I don't think it is necessary to go into that very question any further, it is a matter of argument.

I am surely entitled to put certain, to put the evidence to the witness and ask him for his comment on it.

General, what I would also like to know from you, when the man died and you were aware of this so-called cover up that was being arranged, and you reconciled yourself with that, would I then be correct to say that surely you wanted to make sure that as far as your involvement was concerned regarding this detainee who died, you wanted to know that everything is going to be correct, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now with regards to the Section 29, you warned the person, there were documents and I am sure he must have signed them?

GEN DU TOIT: That is the practice yes, that he would sign it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know what happened to this Section 29 documentation?

GEN DU TOIT: No, I do not know Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What would be the normal procedure, what would you do with those documents, General, in any case of a person now being detained in terms of Section 29?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, can I just quickly explain. When I am called in in order to inform such a person of the proceedings, then we had a detainee desk, we had a lady who kept the file up to date and the documentation that I had to complete, was placed in front of me and after I learnt the facts, I would inform this person and as it would seem from Volume Q, as far as the detainee notice is concerned, at that stage, 1988, it was already amended. I think this happened in the High Court and the amendment is, let me just find the Annexure, Annexure B, when such a person was informed, then the member who was going to detain him, and in this case it was me, in the middle of the page, there was provision made where you quickly write in your own handwriting, it is a notice which you had to sign to say that this person was aware of what was happening, and then he is right there, in this case he was a trained terrorist, he was a member of the Maponya group who was involved with acts of terror in the Pretoria and the Vaal Triangle vicinity.

This person would be completely informed regarding all of this, as we would call it the Warrant of Arrest or the Warrant for Detention, which we have at the police station, I would sign that. The person was asked who were the members, the family members he wanted to have informed. Such a form would be completed and the documentation would then be taken and the desk would handle it. The report to Head Office would be made and it would be give to me, submitted to me to sign and that is normally what would happen.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember in this case if such a report was put together?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, this memorandum which you submitted earlier, page 39 in Volume 5, that memorandum was put together under my instruction by Gen Van Niekerk, the Sunday evening.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that what you mean with a report to Head Office, do you mean a memorandum such as this?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, this memorandum is in a different form. Usually when the person was kept under Section 29, you will see Annexure Q that there was certain requirements that had to be adhered to and certain information was wanted by the desk who handled the detention and this memorandum would then be reported according to Section 29.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, is this a convenient time for the break?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We will take the tea adjournment at this stage.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

PETRUS DU TOIT: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: (continued) General, we spoke of where I referred to the Section 29 documentation. You said it went to a desk, who was the person who would deal with this completed documentation with reference to Stanza Bopape?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, if I could recall correctly at that stage it was a woman Deputy Officer, Shiela Brown.

MR RAUTENBACH: Would she have put this in a file or what would she have done with it?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson. All documentation surrounding such a detainee would be placed in a file.

If I could just mention further, according to the instructions, there was an instruction that a file was kept at the cell where the person was kept, by the Uniform Branch in other words it had to be kept there, this file.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, with reference to or did you at any stage, the report of the District Surgeon, did you get to see it?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, not that I can recall.

MR RAUTENBACH: And not where the meeting took place after Bopape's death at John Vorster Square when you spoke to Gen Erasmus there, did you then still not see the report of the District Surgeon?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct, I did not.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you think, I would think then General that this is a situation where a person died, it was a problem that you found yourself in.

I would like to put it to you I cannot understand that at that stage at least by Gen Erasmus or yourself, would have just looked at it and asked the Officers where is the District Surgeon's report, what does he say about the condition of the deceased, can you explain that to us?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, no we did not look at it. The person had already died and I cannot see there would be any purpose in it.

JUDGE NGCOBO: As I understand the reaction of the senior Officers including yourself, you were somewhat shocked by the death of Bopape, were you not?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Were you shocked because you did not expect that he would die, having regard to the amount of electric shock which was supposed to have been administered to him?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, if I could recall correctly I said I was shocked and upset. Shocked because the man died, and upset because of the methods that had been used.

JUDGE NGCOBO: His death, were you told that the Officers involved did not expect that he would die from the electric shock that they had administered?

GEN DU TOIT: That is how I understood it Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: In other words they did not expect that he would die because of the shock that they had administered, now in view of that, did you not consider it perhaps necessary to have a look at the District Surgeon's report so as to determine what was the condition of this man, why would this man die in circumstances where Police Officers involved said they did not expect him to die?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, at that stage the man if I could recall correctly, I did not even know that he was already at the District Surgeon.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you make any attempts to make out whether he had been taken to the District Surgeon and if so, what was the report?

GEN DU TOIT: No, I did not Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: At what stage is a detainee supposed to be taken to the District Surgeon?

GEN DU TOIT: The instruction was that as soon as possible after detention in terms of Section 29, the District Surgeon would be informed, and he would be taken to the District Surgeon.

JUDGE NGCOBO: We have a Section 29 detainee who dies in circumstances where the Police Officers tell you we didn't expect him to die, because the electric shocks that we administered, we did not consider them to be lethal. No attempts is made by you as a Senior Officer to establish what was the condition of this man from the District Surgeon's report? Is that what happened?

GEN DU TOIT: That is indeed what had happened Chairperson, at that stage the investigation was in the hands of the Detective Branch in terms of the mock escape.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me just ask one more question. If a detainee is detained under Section 29, it is a requirement is it not, that you have to notify the Commissioner of Police, is it right?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You also have to notify the Minister?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson, that was done by a desk at Head Office.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And this is not done merely by picking up the phone and phoning the Minister and saying we have detained Bopape, you have to send him the documents which were completed when the person is being detained under Section 29, is that right?

GEN DU TOIT: As I have said Chairperson, we report to Head Office and Head Office reports to the Minister and the Commissioner.

JUDGE NGCOBO: But do you report by sending in the documents or copies of the documents that were completed when the person is being detained?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson. The documents that is completed is kept locally. Just at the prescribed manner it is reported to Head Office, I think it is in Exhibit Q, the requirements were that Head Office put to us the points that we had to report on.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What do you have to tell the Minister in your report?

GEN DU TOIT: As I have said Chairperson, this was done by Head Office desk and I would accept that would have been name and the particulars and the facts of such an investigation and the reason for detention, that would be put to the Minister.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Do you know whether that was done?

GEN DU TOIT: I would not be able to say Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Thank you.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, this report was this done by - you referred to Deputy Officer, what was her surname?

GEN DU TOIT: Brown, Shiela Brown.

MR RAUTENBACH: Would she be the person who would be responsible for informing the Commissioner and the Minister to say that a person is detained in terms of Section 29 and what the reasons thereof was?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, the Chief Investigation Officer, the Head of the Unit, the one who knew the facts, would draw up such a report. Shiela Brown, in this matter, would coordinate everything and keep it in the file, but all the reports in terms of the investigation would be drawn up or reported by the Investigation Unit.

All the other requirements, the visits by the Magistrate, the arrangement for the person to go to the District Surgeon and whatever was concerned with that, would be handled by that desk, in this matter Shiela Brown.

MR RAUTENBACH: Tell me General, concerning the visiting District Surgeon as I understand your evidence, practice was that the person usually would as quick as possible after he becomes a detainee in terms of Section 29, he would be taken to the District Surgeon, do I understand it correctly?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Would you then say ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just while we are on this documentation, I see from Annexure B to Exhibit Q, that there is space for a witness to sign. Do you know who the witness was who signed, can you remember?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, no I cannot recall. Usually there would be at least two persons present when such a person is notified. Usually he would also be asked if needed an interpreter and if they use an interpreter, it was my practice, to have the interpreter have the sign, but I cannot recall who the person was who was present there.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, would it not be normal practice that a person is taken to a District Surgeon before the Section 29 process is launched?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, I would not say it is out of the norm.

MR RAUTENBACH: That report that is available from the District Surgeon, what does it entail when you receive it from the District Surgeon, what do you do with this report, can you tell us?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, this report would be kept at the detention desk. It is sent to the Division Commissioner. If this person had any previous complaints or needed medical attention, it was our duty to see that it was done.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, if you say it is also sent to the Divisional Commissioner, who was the Divisional Commissioner in this matter?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I cannot remember right now who was the Divisional Commissioner at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when you talk about the Divisional Commissioner, are you talking about the Divisional Commissioner in the Security Branch or in the Witwatersrand Command or the whole of the South African Police Headquarters?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, at that stage it was the Divisional Commissioner, it is known today as a Provincial Commissioner. It is an Officer who is in control of the whole Police Force, in this matter the Witwatersrand. At that stage it was a Brigadier.

MR RAUTENBACH: Who was this person?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I am trying to think. We can find out. There were many Divisional Commissioners in that time.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, we can find out objectively who is this person, but you say - do I understand you correctly, it is sent to him this report of the District Surgeon concerning the detainee, is it a copy that is sent to him or how does it happen?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: So in reality this document is kept in a file with all other documentation by Brown, and then a copy would be placed in the possession of the Divisional Commander, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Let's think for a minute that the person died and we take a normal case, he was arrested on a Friday, Saturday he was questioned or Sunday and Sunday night he escaped.

Would all those documents, are the documents sent over the weekend or on the Monday, when is it sent to the Headquarters firstly, and secondly, if there was a real escape on that Sunday, and because of that he was released from Section 29, what would be the position then as far as reports are concerned?

GEN DU TOIT: Mr Chairman, I don't think a report would have been made over the weekend, it would have happened on the Monday. That would be the first opportunity because on Saturdays there is only a skeleton personnel doing service.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr De Jager is asking you is, you say that it wouldn't be made over a weekend, because you say you only informed the detainee after hours on Friday and then during the weekend there is an escape.

Would the escape have any effect on the reporting procedure, would the normal report go through notwithstanding the fact that the detainee has escaped in the interim period?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, in this case I cannot say whether the normal procedures were followed on Monday or not, because the person escaped before a report was made, so I think the memorandum which we then sent would probably have been sufficient to inform the people. The Divisional Commissioner and the Officers of the Uniform and Detective Branch would have been informed about the escape or the mock escape in this case.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, what I also would like to know and if you could just answer this question. When it became apparent that the detainee was dead and that this cover up was about to take place, at any stage, you or Erasmus or Van Niekerk, did not one of you made sure that at least all the paper work was done, the District Surgeon's report as well as the Section 29 documents, to ensure that there is a file regarding all of this?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, I did not make sure of that. I accepted that a file would be available.

MR RAUTENBACH: One further aspect referring to Exhibit Q, on page 6 it refers to an Inspector of Detainees. Who would that be? It is on page 6?

GEN DU TOIT: The Inspector of Detainees, if I remember correctly it is a person who was specifically appointed and if I am not mistaken, I think he was appointed by the Department of Justice, I am not quite sure.

MR RAUTENBACH: You said that you went to have a look at the body. Can you remember if you physically went to have a look at the body, I just want to ask you that?

GEN DU TOIT: Yes, I went to have a look at the body Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: That what you did when you looked at the body, it must have been just lifted up the covers and looked at it and left again?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: The reason why I am saying this because it was a very superficial process. As far as you can remember he was laying on his back, he was stretched out. In your evidence you indicate the fact that he was in a foetal position shortly after his death. What do you say about that?

GEN DU TOIT: What I can remember Chairperson, he was laying on his back and he was covered with a blanket.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you also said that he was stretched out, maybe you made a mistake?

GEN DU TOIT: That is how I remember it. He was laying on his back.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then you also said General at one stage during your evidence, if I remember correctly that if the body was not in a good condition, in other words if it was apparent to you that when you looked at the body that torture did take place, then you testified you might have investigated it, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, what would such an investigation have entailed?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I am sure of it that we would have taken certain steps against the members, because as we have often testified it was the case that if a person assaults or tortures someone and leaves the person in such a condition, it is quite apparent that the person was assaulted, he will expose himself to a lot of problems, despite the fact that he would also place the Department and the government of the day in embarrassment.

MR RAUTENBACH: What steps would you then have taken if it was obvious that the body was tortured?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, me myself, I wouldn't have been able to take steps myself, but it would have been discussed with Gen Erasmus and then we could have taken possible steps.

One of the steps could be to make sure this person doesn't participate in further investigations of this nature.

MR RAUTENBACH: General you heard at that stage, you became aware of the fact that the method which was used was electrical shocks which was applied to the prisoner. If I understand your evidence correctly, not you, nor any of the other Generals decided to take any steps whatsoever against the members or not even to talk to them or to reprimand them, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: What was your attitude concerning this, you already said what Gen Van der Merwe and Erasmus said, but what was your attitude or did you accept that if somebody had to take steps, it would have had to be them, can you just clarify that for us please?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I accepted that it was an unfortunate situation and there was no intent to kill the person and I think when I made contact with the members, their body language and everything else indicated to the fact that they were shocked and also quite surprised that something like this had happened.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, what did you think, what was the message which was sent to these members by the fact that you did not even reprimand them for what they had done?

GEN DU TOIT: It is so that they could have had other perceptions regarding this, but I was of the opinion that these people rather realised that what had happened was an embarrassment for the Security Branch and also the government of the day and that they would not make themselves guilty of this again easily.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, would I be correct if I say that the information that was conveyed to you by Van Niekerk, this information you believed it and that might have been the reason why you did not ... (tape ends) ... You also testified that on the Monday you also warned Mbeki Nkosi in terms of Section 29 and you made him a Section 29 prisoner by giving him the necessary warnings, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: What information did you have regarding Mbeki Nkosi which could make you capable of detaining him under Section 29?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I think in his case it is something which only came to my attention now with the trial, we can't remember all these things, but I would say that he had information which we wanted from him which in terms of the law, Section 124 - it was relevant to that.

MR RAUTENBACH: What exactly General, I just want an indication from you, what information, what was available with regards to him that you could be able to say that this person could be kept in terms of Section 29, what information, what facts did you have, if anything?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I cannot remember what I had. The indications were that there was information that he was involved in the group. I can give you the assurance I detained many of these people and I was involved with a lot of court interdicts and I did not keep a person under Section 29 lightly.

MR RAUTENBACH: This death of Bopape in detention, surely it must have made an impression on you, that the events around his death at that time, must have been quite important to you?

GEN DU TOIT: That is true Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: In the light thereof I would like to ask you with regards to Mbeki Nkosi, you knew it was the person who was arrested with Bopape is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you knew that Monday when Nkosi was warned in terms of Section 29, that this was the person who was arrested with Bopape, Bopape is dead and his death was covered up, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: In the light thereof and in the light of the events which existed around the death of Bopape and the impression which it must have made on you, can you not remember why Mbeki Nkosi could have been detained, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, no, I cannot remember the details.

MR RAUTENBACH: I want to put it to you was he not merely detained because he lived at the same place as Bopape when he was arrested, was that not the only reason?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, like I have said I cannot remember what the reality was, what the facts were, it doesn't help me to speculate about that.

MR RAUTENBACH: I would just like to put it to you at this stage that as far as Nkosi was concerned, you had no information which entitled you to keep him under Section 29.

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I would not agree with that. I have already testified and I think as far as all the members here are concerned, they can testify that I would not detain a person under Section 29 if the facts did not place him within the parameters of that law.

MR VISSER: May I ask Mr Chairman, whether there is going to be evidence to this effect because the statement as a fact that was made to this witness, is in entire conflict to what you have in Mbeki Nkosi's own affidavit, in Volume 3, page 650 relating to literature which was found in his possession.

I would just like to know Mr Chairman, is there going to be evidence to support the statement that my learned friend has just made?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I could have put it to the witness, I could have said to him that that will be argued on behalf of the family, and that is exactly what will happen.

General, when you brought your application for amnesty I noticed that you did not indicate there in the application that you were the person who warned Bopape in terms of Section 29, is that correct, it doesn't appear in your application?

GEN DU TOIT: I am not sure, but I don't think it appeared there, no.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Visser, do you have any re-examination?

Mr Steenkamp, you haven't got any?

MR VISSER: Did Mr Steenkamp want to ask a question, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: No, he doesn't.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, just perhaps one matter. When my learned friend asked you questions, Ms Van der Walt, you said that if a person was transferred from one police station to another, then a release form, you used the English, a release form would be signed. What exactly is this form, can you just explain to us?

GEN DU TOIT: I think they call it a Release Warrant Letter.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the term, I don't know if it is the same as used by the prisons, but it is called a Warrant of Liberation, I think. I don't know if it is the same thing.

MR VISSER: I believe that is correct Mr Chairman. What would then happen, this means then to put it simply, that he would be taken from those cells in that police station, he would be released from those cells?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then he is accompanied by someone else and he goes to another police station?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct. He could either be released or he might be taken away to another police station.

MR VISSER: So it doesn't necessarily by this release form, mean that he was actually released and put outside the station and said you are now free?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Moloi, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

MR MOLOI: Mr Chairman, thank you, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Jager?

ADV DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe?

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you Mr Chair. General, when you gave Bopape that Section 29 notification, what did he say to you? Did he respond at all to what you were reading to him, that

is verbally respond to you at all?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, what I can remember is that - let me rather put it this way - there weren't any problems, he didn't have any demands, nothing of that nature. He accepted what I told him, and he signed it.

ADV GCABASHE: He didn't protest and say but I've got nothing to assist you, the Police, with, there is nothing I can say to you. I have told the Roodepoort chaps exactly that, that I've got no information at all. Did he say any of those types of things?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, not that I can remember.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you. Then one other aspect, you referred to John Vorster Square having cells that are constructed to keep Section 29 detainees, this is why people were placed at John Vorster Square. Can you just describe these to me, explain what you mean by this?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, let me put it this way, there were several floors, the cell block at John Vorster Square and at one stage it was decided to fit out these cells in such a fashion that only security detainees would be kept. There was a charge office where there were Policemen on duty who only made sure and looked after those specific detainees.

They were normal cells but they were changed so that only security prisoners could be kept there.

ADV GCABASHE: But this didn't mean that only Security Officers had access to those people, ordinary Uniformed Policemen would also have access to those detainees?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, persons on duty there, let's say at the charge office, were members of the Uniform Branch. They were under command of the Station Commander of that station.

Those people including District Commandant, Divisional Commissioner, Policemen who did inspection there, they had access to those cells.

ADV GCABASHE: Then one final aspect, if I didn't get this wrong, Mr Rautenbach asked you why you did not ensure that a proper file had been prepared, after Bopape had been killed, a proper file had been prepared so that all the documents would be at the right place and your response was that you expected the file to be available.

Now, who would ensure that all the documents would be in that file, would it be Brown, Shiela Brown? Who did you expect to make sure that everything was in that file?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, it would be Shiela Brown. She was under the command of Colonel Van Niekerk who was the Personnel Head.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you General. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge Ngcobo?

JUDGE NGCOBO: What was the purpose of the District Surgeon's report?

GEN DU TOIT: I don't know if I understand you correctly Chairperson, but it was instruction that the person was taken to a District Surgeon and in every case he has to write out a report.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I think what I want to find out from you is, in the context of the detention in terms of Section 29, why was it necessary that a detainee must be seen by a District Surgeon shortly after being detained in terms of Section 29?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, firstly this was prescribed by law and secondly, if such a person is arrested, it is just logical that a person, one would get him to a District Surgeon to see if he had any injuries or if he had some illness.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And I suppose that if there are any visible injuries, those would be recorded by the District Surgeon?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Presumably later on when he is released, the detainee would not falsely accuse the Security Branch of having inflicted certain injuries, because whatever injuries he may have had prior to being detained, would be recorded by the District Surgeon?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Last week you told us that when you, the reason why you went to see the body was to ensure that he had no marks on his body, is that what you said last week?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson, no visible injuries.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Is that still your evidence today?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Why was it necessary for you to go and ensure that the deceased had no visible injuries?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, as I have explained today, it was done instinctively. It was from my experience as a Police Officer and an Investigative Official to be conversant of the facts that were reported to me.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I see. You testified today that because of the difficult circumstances under which the Security Branch had to operate, sometimes you had to go beyond the regulations?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What do you mean by going beyond? Who do you mean by saying we, does that include you?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You also went beyond the regulations in the course of your duties with the Security Branch?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What do you mean when you say you went beyond the rules?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I am involved in other incidents for which I have applied for amnesty.

JUDGE NGCOBO: General, I am not asking you to tell me what you did on these other occasions. All I want you to tell us is when you say you went beyond the rules, what do you mean? Do you mean that you also were involved in torture, what do you mean?

GEN DU TOIT: No, Chairperson, I was not involved in any other instances of torturing, it was bomb explosions.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Last week you told us that you, yourself, were never involved in any torture?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, I never partook in torturing.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And I think if I recall your evidence correctly, you went further than that and said that as an individual you did not approve of torture as a method of extracting the truth?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: At the beginning of this hearing, we heard evidence from Mr Zeelie to the effect that you were present when he interrogated a detainee by the name of George Martins, I think it is. Let me just get the relevant page.

I think, yes, thank you I think the passage I have in mind is the one which occurs at page 473 I think, a couple of lines from the bottom, I think it is.

I think there Mr Zeelie said, well, he is recorded as having said this person, that is now referring to George Martins, was assaulted by me and some of our members in the presence of Du Toit. What do you say to that, is that true?

GEN DU TOIT: I cannot recall this Chairperson, I think he went further, he could not even remember the place, the date or the time or the method of assault that was administered. I cannot recall it.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Gen Du Toit, would you please forget about evaluating the rest of his evidence, what I want you to do is to comment on this statement that this person, George Martins was assaulted by Mr Zeelie and some members of the Security Branch, presumably, and this occurred in your presence. What do you say to that?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, it may be so, I cannot recall it.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So it may well be that Mr Zeelie is telling us the truth when he said when he assaulted a detainee, you were also present?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You told us that you didn't approve of this method. How would you stand by if a detainee is assaulted given your attitude towards torture and this methods of interrogation?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I think I testified that I did not approve of torture of detainees.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You approved of assault?

GEN DU TOIT: I would not say that I would approve of assaults, but it does happen sometimes that assault of a light nature, takes place during interrogation.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You would approve of that?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, I would not say that I would approve of it, but circumstances might exist where something like that happens, and every case is handled on its own merits.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You were told by Colonel van Niekerk that the deceased, Mr Bopape, died in the course of interrogation and when they administered electric shock?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: The administering of electric shock to a human being, does that in your view, amount to torture?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I am not an expert, but I would place it in the category of torture.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So in effect then, General, you were told by Van Niekerk that they tortured Mr Bopape and that unexpectedly he died, that is in essence what you were told, right?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Given your attitude towards torture, you did not take any steps against these Police Officers?

GEN DU TOIT: No, I did not Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Notwithstanding your declared attitude against torture and that if there was evidence of assault or torture, you would have taken certain steps against these Officers?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, the person was already deceased and certain decisions were already taken and as I have explained already, the reason why I did not take any steps.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You see, I just want to understand your attitude towards what occurred because I thought I understood you to be suggesting at one point, that if there had been evidence of torture, you would certainly have taken steps against the members involved. Did you not tell us that?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Now the deceased had been tortured, and yet you didn't take any steps?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Why?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, there were no marks, bruises or superficial to the deceased that indicated that he was tortured severely and in the light thereof, of what was decided beforehand, and I decided no steps would be taken.

JUDGE NGCOBO: The steps that you were going to take, were those going to be dependant on the severity of torture that had occurred?

GEN DU TOIT: That would be so Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: General, a person was tortured and a person died as a result of that torture, you didn't regard that as being serious enough to warrant steps against these members?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, if this person was tortured in such a fashion that he had severe injuries, it would not change anything to this matter because this would have just indicated that these members placed themselves in a position where it would put us in a big embarrassment, the Security Branch and the government.

I believed in that light, steps would have been taken against them.

JUDGE NGCOBO: General, isn't the fact of the matter this, that when Gen Erasmus came to you, he indicated to you that a decision had been taken together with Gen Van der Merwe that this death ought to be covered up in view of the pending June 16, and that you had no option but to fall into place with that plan, isn't that the fact of the matter?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Why don't you tell us that? You also testified that you had no option other than to resort to the methods that you have described and some of which you have been applying for amnesty in dealing with the onslaught, is that right?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: In terms of Section 29, a person could be detained indefinitely, is that not right?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: A person could languish in jail until he has given you the information that you wanted?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, after six months there must be a revision which was led by a Judge and oral evidence would have been given why it was deemed necessary to detain the person further.

There were mechanisms to ensure that you could not detain a person without good grounds.

JUDGE NGCOBO: The Security Branch worked on the basis of the informers presumably who would tell them that X, Y and Z has been involved in P and O activities, is that right, is that a fact?

GEN DU TOIT: We worked with informants.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And all that you required was or presumably, was that the detainee concerned should ... (tape ends) ...

GEN DU TOIT: In several of the cases, information would be obtained from arrests and normal investigation work.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And that information would ordinarily be sufficient to send the person to jail and in some cases, to send the person to the gallows, isn't it?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, the dossiers were prepared and it was handled by the Attorney General or one of his Advocates. And we also had several cases where prosecution did not take place because of deficient testimonies or evidence, but it was important for the Prosecutors within the Magistrates court to have information to prosecute, to charge them with.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Thank you General.

CHAIRPERSON: General, the fact that a Section 29 detainee escapes, that wouldn't in your eyes mean that the escaped person is no longer a Section 29, can be detained in terms of Section 29? In other words if he was rearrested you wouldn't go through the whole process again, saying I've got the information, he is Annexure B, sign it, etc, he would just be rearrested and charged with escaping maybe and continue with his Section 29 detention?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So that being so, then the fact that there was this mock escape relating to the deceased, shouldn't then have been a bar to the detainee's desk informing the Commissioner of Police of Mr Bopape's Section 29 detention?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Then if one takes a look at paragraph 6 of Exhibit Q, it says that once a person is detained in terms of Section 29, then the following must be informed thereof: the Commissioner, the Divisional Commissioner, which you have mentioned, the Inspector of Detainees, the Magistrate of the District wherein the detainee is held, that is in your case Johannesburg, in Mr Bopape's case Johannesburg, as well as the relevant Regional Representative of the Department of Health.

In other words a number of Officials had to be as a matter of routine, informed about the detention and one would imagine that such informing would be done in writing?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then also in the case of Mr Bopape, we know that his escape, his disappearance became a big issue. Several queries were addressed to the Security Branch by his legal representatives, asking about his whereabouts, etc. The matter was raised and taken up by Amnesty International and also it reached the point where the Minister of Police or Law and Order, was required to answer questions in Parliament concerning the deceased, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know how the Minister's office works, but one would expect that if he was required to answer questions in Parliament, that his office would call for a copy of the file, the relevant file?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, I cannot testify exactly how it happened, how it worked, but I believe that the relevant desk would write a memorandum with the details that he wanted to know.

CHAIRPERSON: Because the heat was on, I think mention has been made in Headquarters having a section that dealt with the media, Public Relations section, I don't know what it was called - would they in the circumstances, would you have expected them to have a copy of the file to field any questions that may be slung at them?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, as far as I know, they had no copy of that file. They would also have gotten the particulars from the specific desk.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you be of the opinion that in these circumstances, surrounding Mr Bopape, that there would still have just been the one file kept, no copy would have been made of that file?

There would just have been the one file kept at the cells where he is held by the Uniform Branch?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, no, there will be a file at the cells. There would be a file at the Investigation Department of the Security Branch where the Officer was Brown. There would also be a file at Headquarters, at the detainee section.

CHAIRPERSON: And also, if the and we accept that the, we know that there was a cover up and this mock escape, from an official point of view, as far as the Police were concerned, beyond the Witwatersrand Security Branch and Gen Van der Merwe and the Eastern Transvaal members who were involved, as far as the Police were concerned, Mr Bopape had escaped and that was the situation right up until the recent past?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So his escape docket would be open, they wouldn't close it, it would be an open Police investigation still alive?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't one then expect that his file would not be destroyed in the normal way, seeing that his case is still open and under investigation and it wouldn't be destroyed because it is now ten years old or seven years old or whatever?

GEN DU TOIT: That is so Chairperson. I was also surprised to hear that the files were destroyed.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you then agree that their destruction would be unusual in the circumstances, that they shouldn't have destroyed it?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, yes. The people who kept those files up to date, obviously did not know the circumstances. I doubt whether even Brown knew about it.

To make an exception of this specific file would have been abnormal.

CHAIRPERSON: But then, if you've got cases that - how long do you wait until, when I say you, I mean how long was the - how old did a file have to be before it was destroyed?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, in my time I don't think we ever destroyed any files. As far as I know, there is no time span concerned. The destruction of current files, I cannot comment on that, I have already left the Police then.

CHAIRPERSON: General, did you at any stage after Sunday the 12th when you were informed about the death of the deceased, did you at any stage hear at all from any source that the deceased had attended I think it was the Hillbrow Clinic, prior to his arrest, Princess Hospital in Hillbrow, prior to his arrest? Did you hear anything about that?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, yes I have learnt of this during the trial.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say, just during these hearings now?

GEN DU TOIT: Yes, and also during the consultation that preceded it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, do you have any questions arising out of questions asked by the Panel.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, there are some.

Gen Du Toit, it was put to you by Judge Ngcobo that the Police and specifically the Security Branch had informants who

reported to the Security Branch concerning the activities of activists, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: It was also put to you that when - regarding this informant and if you then wanted to detain a person according to Section 29 and you detained him in such a fashion, that clearly it was only about the fact that you wanted confirmation from him with regards to what you already knew, because you received the information from the informant.

Now I have two questions for you with regards to this. Firstly, could it have happened that in a specific case, you only wanted confirmation?

GEN DU TOIT: It could have been yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Could it also have been that with regards to other detainees under Section 29, there might not have been any informants information, but that you just basically wanted the information from him personally, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: To use an example, let's look at this case. When it was suspected by the Security Branch, let's look at Soweto Day, that there might be explosions and you suspected that a person who you had under arrest, had information concerning where these explosives might be put, then that would have been one of the reasons why you would detain him, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Over time, a lot was said in the past about the time span and it was put again to you today, that a Section 29 prisoner could have been detained for a very long time, but the reality of the situation was it such that you had a lot of time to wait for him until he talks, or was it more a fact that the information which you wanted, was crucial, you had to have it immediately?

GEN DU TOIT: Generally speaking the information, we wanted the information immediately.

MR VISSER: I think you have already said it, just to conclude, people's lives were of importance here, you were working with internal security?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now just with regards to the charging of people you detained according to Section 29, political activists, that is, was this an easy process or would you say there were a lot of problems with the charging of these people and the conclusion of persecutions of these people?

GEN DU TOIT: I don't know if I understand your question very well.

MR VISSER: Sorry. There was talk of informants, you have an informant and it is easy to prosecute him and to find him guilty and to send him to the gallows, was it that easy?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson. There were many cases which was based purely on investigation and witnesses were called in basically leading from investigators and procedures.

MR VISSER: And the informants, were they asked to give evidence in court?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, as far as possible, we did not make use of informants to give evidence.

MR VISSER: Why was that?

GEN DU TOIT: That is because we wanted to protect these people, because otherwise you expose them to revenge. These people might be killed.

There were cases where such people were killed.

MR VISSER: According to your knowledge and also according to the evidence of the ANC, which is in front of the Amnesty Committee, were the informants so-called irredeemable government stooges, they were often killed these informants?

GEN DU TOIT: That is absolutely true Chairperson, specifically in the 1980's.

MR VISSER: In response to the questions by the Honourable Chairperson, I think a confusion might have been created.

You said that there would be three files with regards to a Section 29 detainee and as you remember it, there would have been three files.

One would be at the Security Branch where the person was detained, and a second one would be at the cells and then the Divisional Commissioner, I think you said, would also be in possession of a file with regards to the specific person, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Now the first aspect concerning this, we must accept now that what would go into the file of the Security Branch, would be the continuation investigation and the results thereof, all of that would be in that file, is that not true?

GEN DU TOIT: The continuation of the investigation would be in the case dossier.

MR VISSER: Would the same information also be in the other files?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, the files at the cells would only be concerned with the detention of the person within the cells, with effect to that. And as far as the Divisional Commission is concerned, only that which affects him.

And reports of the Magistrates and the Inspectors, and that type of thing. I think the files of the Security Branch and the specific division and that of the Headquarters would basically be the same, except the one in Headquarters would also contain reports with regard to the Minister and the Commissioner.

MR VISSER: So in effect, in practice, there was basically one file which contained all the information with regards to the detainee and that is the Investigation File?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions, but may I be permitted Mr Chairman, to rectify something which I believe I may have said, which might have misled the Committee and which may have given raise to the questions which you have put.

I have a terrible suspicion that I said that the docket in the escape inquiry ...

CHAIRPERSON: De Deur docket, I mean that local Police docket?

MR VISSER: Yes, had gone missing, but I was wrong, because it is, I am sorry, it is in 3 and I made a mistake. As far as that may have given rise to your questions relating to missing dockets, then I do apologise Mr Chairman.

I am sorry Mr Chairman, there appears to be one more question, I am sorry.

No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions arising out of questions that have been put by the Panel?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Please Mr Chairman. General, is it so that at the cells at John Vorster Square and the detainee's files, there would be a Section 29 Warrant of Arrest copy as well as visits would also be indicated, visits by the Inspector of Detainees, that is, as well as that of the District Surgeon as well as that of the Magistrate? There visits would be noted down in that file?

GEN DU TOIT: Yes Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: General, are you aware of the fact that in 1990 there was an instruction from Head Office that all detainees files must be destroyed?

GEN DU TOIT: No Chairperson, I am not aware of that.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt, do you have any questions arising?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, please Chairperson. You were asked with regards to the cells at John Vorster Square and you said that they were used in such a fashion that the security prisoners were kept there, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You also said that these cells were under the control of the Uniform Branch and also under the control of the Station Commander, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: General, do I understand it correctly then that the Occurrence Book which was kept at the cells as well as the Cell Register, was under the control of the Uniform Branch and that the Security Police had no control over it?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: If you then look at Volume 5, page 3, then the Occurrence Book of John Vorster Square from the 10th of June 1988, entry 399, at about 20H05 Mr Bopape, a Section 29 of the Internal Security Law was kept according to that, he was brought by Mostert and medication was also administered to him.

So if you kept Stanza Bopape or placed him under Section 29 that afternoon, and he was brought to the cells, then it is the duty of the Uniform Branch to make this entry and they must have evidence that he was kept under Section 29?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: So can one go through this Occurrence Book, page 4 where Stanza Bopape with other Section 29 detainees, were detained in cell 228, this is when they were transferred, you say they were transferred and received?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: So this entry, if there was an allegation that Stanza Bopape was not detained in terms of Section 29, this entry then and it continues along the same vein where Mr Bopape receives medication and where he is transferred. I can see there is one detainee if you look at page 4, an M. Dhlamini, he was detained in terms of Regulation 3, do you see that?

GEN DU TOIT: I see it Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: So all these entries where he is placed in terms of Section 29, this is the Uniform Branch? The Security Branch then could not put anything there if he was not placed under Section 29?

GEN DU TOIT: No, it was not possible, because they were not under our command.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Van der Walt. Mr Rautenbach, do you - sorry.

MR MOLOI: Refresh my memory, I do recall at the beginning of this year when the matter came before us, there was some evidence to the effect that there was Occurrence Book entries which were falsified in order to - do we know which Occurrence Book was that in? It is not this one, but ...

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, no, really it is not really my case, it is the case of Mr Prinsloo and Ms Van der Walt, but as I understood the evidence, there were no false entries, but after Mr Bopape had died, false information was given which led to entries.

The entries were correct on the information which existed, but the information that was entered in regard to his escape, that was obviously false, but based upon information given by the Security Branch. Mr Chairman, I will find that entry for you, it is at page 23 of Volume 5, Mr Chairman.

It is entry 456 and 488. I think that is the one you are looking for. Volume 5, page 23 and if you look in the middle of the page, there is almost illegible entry which says late entry. It says WO Mostert reports that M. Bopape at 00H40 close to De Deur escaped while out on investigation.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Now, would that be the continuation of the Occurrence Book to which Gen Du Toit has been referring to?

MR VISSER: That is part and parcel of the same Occurrence Book, yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It is the original.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Okay. As I understood here, Gen Du Toit's evidence to the effect that that Occurrence Book was kept by the South African Police Services, and that the Security Branch would have no access to it, did you say that?

These late entries though, were made by the Security Branch?

MR VISSER: No, no, Mr Chairman. I believe I do understand the problem of Justice Ngcobo. The answer is this, the Cell Registers and the Occurrence Book must reflect the whereabouts of each of the Units as they were called.

This particular Unit was taken out on investigation on the Sunday, therefore there had to be a report back as to why he didn't return to the cells and Mostert reported back that he had escaped.

CHAIRPERSON: But members of the Security Branch actually made their own entry because this entry 399, is made by Mr Mostert, H.A.B. Mostert and that is Hendrik Albertus Beukes Mostert?

MR VISSER: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless there is another H.A.B. Mostert of the Uniform Branch.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, you will have to ask Mr Mostert that. But he couldn't have made the ...

CHAIRPERSON: But you can look at the original.

MR VISSER: He shouldn't have made that entry.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You see, I am left with the impression that the Security Branch had no access to this book, but this entry on the face of it, appears to have been made by H.A.B. Mostert.

ADV DE JAGER: And the same with the first entry on page 3, it was signed, his signature appears there.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes. And this is the book which was supposed to be with the South African Police.

MR VISSER: Yes, but Mr Chairman, the fact that the man who either brings a Unit in or takes it out on investigation, signs, he's got to sign. It doesn't mean that he makes the entry, but I think you must just call Mr Mostert and ask him with respect, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGCOBO: No, it is just to understand, to put it in context the evidence of Gen Du Toit, because he left me with the impression that this Occurrence Book was in the custody of the South African Police and the Security Branch had no access to this book.

There are entries, but perhaps that could be clarified. Gen Du Toit, are you suggesting that the Security Branch could not have made an entry into this Occurrence Book?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, he could have made an entry into the Occurrence Book.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So the Security Branch had access to this Occurrence Book?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, yes, I would say the Security Branch had access to such a register.

MR VISSER: May I ask a question flowing from that Mr Chairman? Who had control of the Occurrence Book?

GEN DU TOIT: Chairperson, the registers at such an office is under the control of the Uniform Branch.

MR VISSER: Just another aspect Gen Du Toit, the scenario that Judge Miller sketched for you was in a case where a Section 29 detainee escapes and already all the forms were completed and a dossier was opened. What happens after the escape, does it mean that if such a person is arrested again, you just continue with the same dossier and he is not detained again in terms of Section 29, do I understand when you said yes, you continue with the same dossier, he is not arrested in terms of Section 29 again, is that what I heard you say?

GEN DU TOIT: Is that correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions, but while we are on the point, the witness is clearly wrong Mr Chairman, if you refer to page 738 of Volume 3, this is part of the docket of the escape docket, if we may refer to it like that, of De Deur and you will see at page 738 that the second form, Warrant of Arrest, if you run down that document, you will also observe the words, it is put to him or her arrest this person and in accordance with Section 50, to bring this person to court.

So with respect Mr Chairman, the whole process starts afresh.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that is also a question of argument. One can't say from that document because when you escape, you are committing a crime and this document is in respect of that escape, but if I escape while being detained under suspicion of murder and I have been charged and I am half way through my trial and I escape, that doesn't mean that when I get rearrested, they have now got to restart the murder docket?

This Warrant is just for the escape, they don't have to now arrest me again for the murder and start with an A1 statement, that sort of thing.

MR VISSER: I didn't understand that distinction from your question, but I just wanted to make it clear that at the time when they arrest him, he will again be arrested in terms of Section 50.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, for the escape and then he will be charged for that.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But what I, that is when I asked the question I preambled it with saying that a person who escapes from being a Section 29 detainee, is regarded as being a Section 29 detainee immediately he is rearrested. They don't have to go through this whole process again, send out all fresh notifications to the six Officials referred to here, other than reinform them that he has been rearrested.

MR VISSER: Yes, if that was the question and the answer, then obviously I was unfair to my own witness.

GEN DU TOIT: Yes, Chairperson, I think I was wrong. It was testified that Stanza Bopape - the regulations concerning the Section 29 was lifted, but he was arrested again, but when he was arrested again, it had to just continue again.

ADV DE JAGER: I see on page 667 the Police writes to Cheadle Thompson & Haysom, I have to inform you that Mr Bopape was exempted from the provisions of Section 29 on the 12th of June and in a later 669, he was exempted as he escaped from custody. I don't know what is the meaning of exempted, but that is what the letter says.

CHAIRPERSON: I think if we can get back to our procedure. Mr Rautenbach, questions arising?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: General, this process where a person is taken to a cell, would I be correct in saying that the person who takes him to a cell, if there is a person who makes an entry into the Occurrence Book, let's say it is Mostert, comes there with a detainee and he tells this person, listen I am booking this person back, it is a detainee in terms of Section 29, he writes the information down there, is that correct?

GEN DU TOIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you General, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED: .

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, just one brief point and then I see it is one o'clock. Mr Chairman, we get the sense that you are concerned as we are, about the fact of the non-availability of documentation.

It is easy for me Mr Chairman, with respect to exculpate ourselves, we have no control over those documents and we have attempted to find them, but if you feel that it is necessary or desirable, we are quite willing to bring witnesses to you, to come and give evidence about the Occurrence Book, for example the very people who made entries here, to come and tell you about that.

For example witnesses from the legal department of the South African Police who worked with this particular docket at the time, we can bring those witnesses. I can tell you now, they are going to tell you they don't know where the papers are.

CHAIRPERSON: We, well I certainly know that a great deal of effort has been made to trace documents. Not only before the hearing commenced, but as a result of the application made by yourself at the adjournment of the last portion of this hearing.

I think we basically at this stage, taking into account all the efforts that has been made, the unsuccessful efforts that have been made to trace the documents, have to unfortunately accept that they cannot be found.

We have got numbers in this Volume 5, one can see the extent to which effort was made to trace documents, and one here is not after all looking for the odd piece of paper, one is looking for files, complete files and they are not found, so I don't think we will be asking as a Panel to call, that witness be called to tell us that documents can't be found.

MR VISSER: If it is at all being considered to hold that against us in any way Mr Chairman, we are quite willing to bring as many witnesses as we can find in this regard. But as I say, our information is that none of these documents still exist.

The paradox is that they may exist, but they can't be found, that is the paradox of course.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Rautenbach, we will take the lunch adjournment now, I see it is one o'clock and then after that we will commence with your witnesses, thank you.

We will now adjourn for the lunch adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Rautenbach.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, with your permission I would just like to correct something on record. I didn't have the opportunity when we spoke about the Occurrence Book of John Vorster Square and it might create a wrong impression if I do not point this out to you.

In Volume 5, page 3, you will find an entry, page 339 and the statement which I made to Du Toit that Mr Bopape was booked into the cells by Mostert. Mr Mostert is not under oath here, but I would like to point it out to you and it is also my instruction, that it is not his handwriting, he signed.

I want to point out to you that he would not spell his own name incorrectly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and it is also a different pen as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it is a different Force Number. The one which was written is incorrect, so the person who made the entry could see that it is correct and it is also the same with the late entry.

It is not his handwriting, he didn't even sign there, and once again his Force Number is written incorrectly.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words what you are saying then Ms Van der Walt is that entry number 399 was written by some person whose name is unknown to us but signed by Mr Mostert with his correct number?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then the late entry relating to the information of the escape is the same, except that that is not even signed?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: 488?

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Rautenbach.

MR VISSER: I am sorry, are we going over to Mr Rautenbach's case. Mr Chairman, there was a discussion between myself and my Attorney and my applicants during the lunch break. We believe that it is necessary to recall Gen Van der Merwe on one brief aspect. Perhaps more from a point of view of providing some information to the Committee, judging from the questions that had been put Mr Chairman. Would you allow me to recall Gen Van der Merwe on a brief aspect?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Sorry Mr Rautenbach?

JOHAN VELDE VAN DER MERWE: (still under oath)

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Yes, I am Chairperson.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Gen Van der Merwe, questions were asked with regards to the existence or the non-existence of documentation with regards to Bopape.

For as far as the perception might exist that the documentation which have regard to Mr Bopape would have been destroyed because there was an offence on the side of the Police, regarding Bopape or on the other side, that a perception might exist that Mr Bopape was the only Section 29 detainee and with regards to whom no documentation exists or it was destroyed, I would like to ask you with regards to the question of destruction of documents which was under the control of the South African Police, what was the historical facts and background behind that? Could you just explain it to the Panel, beginning now on the 2nd of February 1990?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I would very much like in the light of the confusion, to clarify certain aspects. As you are aware the ANC declared on the 2nd of February 1990, they were not longer illegitimate, and this caused that we the South African Police, were involved, together with the other parties, at the negotiation.

Obviously exemption and amnesty was from the beginning an aspect that attention was paid to. And necessarily this also caused that certain investigations with regard to offences or alleged offences with regard to the law of Internal Security in certain cases, came to an end because there was a whole new process.

MR VISSER: Are you talking about the unbanning of the previously banned organisations?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: That is correct Chairperson, for example the ANC as well as the South African Communist Party, the PAC and several other organisations.

MR VISSER: Proceed.

GEN VAN DER MERWE: In the process Chairperson, the South African Police also decided to join the Detective Branch and the Security Branches into one Unit which was known as the Crime Prevention ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry General, the Interpreter is having difficulty with his microphone. Can we just wait for a minute so that he can be sorted out please.

I think if we can start from the point where you said that the Detective Branch and the Security Branch were brought into one Unit, the Crime Prevention Unit with the two legs.

GEN VAN DER MERWE: The Crime Combatting and Investigation Unit Mr Chairman, just to give you the English terms as well, CCI, and then there was the Crime Investigation Unit and the Crime Intelligence Unit, which included the Security Branch, I am talking about Crime Information Service.

This also caused that the whole approach with regards to security investigations, changed. At that stage preparations were made for a new dispensation and the management of the Crime Intelligence Service and this is hearsay, but if there were questions around it, the other people can come and give testimony, this is how I understood it, they decided that all files, security files that is, of which the contents was of such a nature that it was placing the identify of informants in danger, and also it was no longer necessary for the functions of the Crime Intelligence in the new dispensation, and these files then had to be destroyed.

Such an instruction was given to all the branches of the Crime Intelligence Services and files were destroyed on a large scale.

As I have already mentioned Chairperson, all the investigations which was still relevant to the old dispensation, as the law for Internal Security required and made provision for, if I remember correctly Chairperson, during 1992 during the negotiation process, there were certain differences that came into play as far as the provision of exemption or amnesty and it became apparent that the ANC at that stage, was no longer willing to agree with total amnesty.

MR VISSER: You say total amnesty, you mean general amnesty?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Yes, general amnesty. Because of that I went to the Min of Law and Order, Mr Kriel, and put it to him that if that is the situation, we have no reason why the pending investigations as far as alleged offences by members of the ANC, the SAC and all the others, we no longer needed to investigate that.

He agreed with me and I went back and gave the instruction that those investigations must once again be re-opened.

After it became known that we were continuing those investigations, I got instructions from Mr Kriel which said that we must stop these investigations and he also informed me and once again this is hearsay, before I have already given evidence to this extent, that Mr Mandela now President Mandela, approached De Klerk and made an objection that our investigations were jeopardising the negotiations.

Afterwards we stopped the investigations.

MR VISSER: In the process General, a lot of files were destroyed. Can you give us an example?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, yes. Maybe I must just take this a little bit further, after 1994, after the elections and the new dispensation came into being, all the Police Services were joined together and a complete new system came into play.

In this process, files which they didn't consider important or necessary was placed in several different places and my impression is that very few of the previous files, is accessible. This includes information which was previously accessible on computer, because in several cases, we tried to obtain documentation which is now quite important, just to determine that they cannot be traced.

If I can name an incident, the case docket with regards to the Magistrate bomb attack and all relevant documents, cannot be traced. I am aware of the fact that there are several other documents, which at this moment, cannot be found which it might still be somewhere or it might have been destroyed in the process which followed.

MR VISSER: As far as your personal knowledge is concerned, firstly do you know if Mr Bopape's files, his Section 29 files or any other relevant files which cannot be traced now, do you think that it is being destroyed?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: No Chairperson, at this stage I cannot tell you whether it is destroyed or it might still be available somewhere. All I can tell you is that we have done everything within our power to trace those files as well as the documents.

I personally spoke to the people, hoping that there might still be some of our people who can remember where some of this documents might be, but up until now, they could not help me.

MR VISSER: What would you say if the idea exists that Mr Bopape's file is the only file or one of the only files of a Section 29 detainee, which was destroyed because of the fact that the Police themselves committed an offence?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: No Chairperson. The Commission itself investigated the destruction of files, and there are several other cases which is similar to this, and we cannot find those documents, all of them aren't in the same circumstances concerning the fact that Bopape died, but where amnesty applications are in play at the moment, but also from the side of the ANC where they want amnesty and even those documents aren't available.

MR VISSER: You are aware that another file of a Section 29 detainee was looked for and could not be discovered. Whose file are you talking about, is it Timo's file?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Yes, but except for the file, Timo's file, we also tried to find the documents relevant to the inquest and as far as the information, as far as we know, it were complete untruths and yet we could not trace those documents or the inquest which should be available, is not available.

There are several other accounts of files that should be available, but we cannot find them and it is quite evident that this process after 1994, was handled in such a manner that documents, files, etc which was not necessary for the change which was about to take place around it, these files were buried away somewhere and no written statements were made concerning where they were, and it is almost impossible to trace them.

MR VISSER: Is there anything else that you want to add General?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: No, thank you.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Prinsloo, are there any questions on this new evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: General, is it possible for you to say this process which took place, the destruction of the documents, who would be the people who would decide this file should be destroyed, and this one not? Who would have made that decision?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, the instruction was issued by the management of the Crime Intelligence Service. The intent was dual. The person who decided on this, would have been the relevant personnel at the division or the Security Branch.

Each one, in the light of that instruction, they would have decided themselves which documents were to be destroyed and which not.

MR RAUTENBACH: I accept that if such a decision was taken on that, that files should be destroyed, then there would be certain documents that one don't want to have destroyed. Can you remember if any steps were taken to prevent destruction of certain files?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, you must remember at that stage everyone was of the opinion that a new dispensation is on its way where the past would be placed in the background and we are moving towards the new future.

And nobody did for one moment think that we would be confronted with the process as we are confronted with today, the amnesty process.

MR RAUTENBACH: General, as far as your own personal knowledge is concerned, you can't take it any further than to say - you can't say if they exist and you can't find them, or if they are destroyed, or they never existed. You can't help us?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, it definitely existed, I have no doubt about it, because for no minute can I think that the people at Security Branch, who did the investigations of the legal representatives, would have told them that there would have been these documents and that they would have adhered to the requirements, because an Advocate treated it. I am sure these documents did exist.

MR RAUTENBACH: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, any re-examination?

MR VISSER: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moloi, any questions?

MR MOLOI: I have none, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Jager?

ADV DE JAGER: General, you say that this decision to destroy or the stopping of further investigations, was this taken by you as the Commissioner or was the decision taken by the management of Crime Intelligence Service?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, no. The decision that after the 2nd of February 1990, we would not continue with investigations which was then relevant to the old dispensation, was made by me in consultation with Kriel, I made that decision.

ADV DE JAGER: And then you also referred to the management of Crime Intelligence Service who also made a decision, which decision did they make?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: They decided after 1991 that all files of the Security Branch which contained information or which could have exposed the identity of informants or in the light of the new dispensation to which we were going, it was no longer necessary for their functions, and that those files then be destroyed.

ADV DE JAGER: You testified that it was conveyed to you, were you not part of that management?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: No, Chairperson, personally I was not involved with that decision. After the destruction of files came into play, I was told that.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know who that management was?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Yes, if I remember correctly Gen Johan Roux and the member of his personnel who was involved with the Crime Intelligence Service.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe?

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you Chair. General, if one had to consider a file such as the Bopape one as an active file, that is somebody who has escaped, was a distinction made in the destruction of files, between those that might still be active, that is these people should be found if possible and those as you say, sensitive for whatever reason?

GEN VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, the file of Mr Bopape would not be handled in any other manner than any other, because it was in the same category. The only difference as far as Mr Bopape was concerned, was the fact that he escaped and at that stage it was very technical because allegations or the information that we had surrounding his detention in the light of the new dispensation that we were entering into, was for all practical reasons not applicable.

Besides that there was an investigation into his escape which was very technical at that stage, after the 2nd of February 1990, nobody would be interested in Mr Bopape's movements.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you General, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Judge Ngcobo?

JUDGE NGCOBO: No questions, thank you sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising Mr Visser, Mr Prinsloo, Ms Van der Walt or Mr Rautenbach?

MR VISSER: None from me, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER: .

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO, MS VAN DER WALT OR MR RAUTENBACH: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you General, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I call a witness, the witness that I am calling is Mr Mbeki Nkosi.

MBEKI NKOSI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Nkosi, where are you employed?

MR NKOSI: I am employed by the Gauteng Provincial Legislature as a member.

MR RAUTENBACH: Of which party?

MR NKOSI: Of the African National Congress, ANC.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Nkosi, you knew Stanza Bopape, the deceased, well, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: I would like you to start, to tell the Committee about, starting with the arrest, with other words we know that you and Mr Stanza Bopape actually shared a flat, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And there was evidence during these hearings, about the arrest. Would you please tell the Committee how the arrest took place?

MR NKOSI: It was the evening of Thursday, I think the 9th of June, when myself and Stanza Bopape were preparing to sleep and I was actually working on my books and he was reading in bed.

Somebody telephoned and asked to speak to S.T. and Stanza said that he is S.T. and that person said that they had met during the day which Stanza denied. Later on another call came and Stanza replied to that call, but he then, after dropping that call, telephoned somewhere.

Moments thereafter, we heard a hard knock on the door of the flat and Stanza stood up to open the door, and on opening, the door was just flung open and about 20 Policemen came in with guns and they came into the flat and one of them held a gun against my head while the others concentrated on Stanza.

They kept on asking questions to Stanza as to who brings bombs, whether his name is S.T. or Walk Tall and he replied that some people do refer to him as S.T. or Walk Tall.

At that point, Stanza was punched in the stomach by Zeelie who was part of that team and he fell on the bed, and the other Policemen was busy registering books that he found in the flat, asking if Stanza was drunk in Afrikaans, and also punched him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Before you proceed, you mentioned Zeelie, do you see Mr Zeelie in this room?

MR NKOSI: Yes, it is the gentleman that side with the bald head.

MR RAUTENBACH: The old man? You can proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: He indicates Mr Zeelie?

MR RAUTENBACH: That is correct.

MR NKOSI: Thereafter Zeelie then concentrated on me and said who is the small one that looks so innocent and put his gloved hanger on my neck and asked who brought Stanza bombs to the flat and I said I do not know.

The Police then noticed a message that Stanza had written on the door that check a flat number and they went to that flat number, while I remained in our flat at 1414. We were later then taken out of the flat into vehicles that were parked outside the flat. We were then driven to Roodepoort police station.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Nkosi, if you could just speak a little bit slower for the interpreters please, because they have to interpret this into Afrikaans and Sotho as well. Not much slower but just a little bit slower.

MR NKOSI: On our way - we were then taken down to the cars that were parked downstairs on Smit Street where we were driven to Roodepoort police station and in the car Stanza was asked about several names and he replied to him knowing those names.

The only name I could recognize was that of Mpo, who used to call at the flat, it is a female. On our arrival at Roodepoort police station we then enquired from the cops who were handling us, in terms of what Section were we being arrested and the one black Policeman said we will know in the morning.

We were then asked to hand over our watches and our bank cards and any personal particulars that we had, which we did. At Roodepoort police station some black Policemen were also called in to confirm whether, I mean who Stanza was and one of them did say this was, Walk Tall.

We were then put on different cells on the opposite sides of the same passage and we spent our night there. In the morning Stanza was then taken out earlier than myself, because I could hear the sounds of chains rattling and then I was taken also out of the cells and I was told that I was being taken to John Vorster Square.

On the way the cops kept on asking me who I was, which I did say where I came from and the like. We then went to John Vorster Square on the 10th floor where I was being interrogated or questioned by Warrant Officer Syffert and Chris Wilkinson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkosi, when you went to John Vorster Square, did you go together with Mr Bopape or separately?

MR NKOSI: Separately. The questioning on myself continued throughout the day. During that questioning what the Police was trying to establish was who I was, my political history, whether I knew people that visited Stanza in our flat and who they were.

During that interrogation a Policeman who was questioning Stanza, kept on coming into our interrogation room to confirm certain things that he had asked Stanza, apparently whether I worked with Stanza at CRIC, what I was doing and who also worked at CRIC. That interrogation continued throughout the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Nkosi, worked where?

MR NKOSI: CRIC.

MR RAUTENBACH: What does it stand for?

MR NKOSI: It stood for Community Resources and Information Centre.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR NKOSI: It was a non-governmental organisation at the time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Stanza also worked for CRIC?

MR NKOSI: Yes, he did.

MR RAUTENBACH: The Policemen that you described that was questioning Stanza that came into your interrogation room, can you recall who that was?

MR NKOSI: Yes, they referred to him as Mossie.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is he here in this room?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Where?

MR NKOSI: It is the gentleman there with the grey suit.

MR RAUTENBACH: With the grey suit?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: That is Mr Mostert.

MR NKOSI: My interrogation then ended around in the late evening, where I was then taken out to Sandton police station. At Sandton police station I think I stayed there until late in the night when Syffert and Wilkinson again came back and continued the line of questioning, whereafter they then radioed a Major who came to the police station and when he arrived, he asked me almost similar questions, whether I had a passport, whether Stanza had a passport, whether I had been to neighbouring States, and if I knew whether Stanza was able to use his passport and to my knowledge at the time, Stanza did have a passport but he was not able to use it.

I had not used mine.

MR RAUTENBACH: The Major that you are referring to, the person that you say was a Major who came to see you, is he in the room or not?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Where, can you just ...

MR NKOSI: Just next to Zeelie.

MR RAUTENBACH: Next to?

MR NKOSI: Zeelie.

MR RAUTENBACH: The person next to Mr Zeelie.

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: That seems to be Colonel Van Niekerk. Yes, proceed.

MR NKOSI: I was kept at Sandton police station the following day.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say he was a Major, did you see that from the pips or how did you know that he was a Major?

MR NKOSI: No, Syffert and Wilkinson referred to him as a Major and that is how I knew it, he didn't have a uniform on.

I stayed there. On Saturday Chris and Syffert came to inform me that they were charging me for possession of banned literature which they found in the flat and asked if I wanted to make a statement which I said I couldn't if I didn't consult with my lawyer first.

I did admit to certain of the literature that was in, was found in the flat. I stayed the whole of Sunday in Sandton police station and on Monday, two black policemen were sent to the police station to take me to John Vorster.

I was told that I was going to be taken to court and on arrival, my finger prints and my photo's were taken. Before, just before I went to court, before I was escorted down to court, Syffert came to the room and another Policeman also came and said is this the man and then he said yes.

Then they said there are new information with this man and then they informed me that they were going to detain me under Section 29 of the Internal Security Act. A Colonel then came into the room and informed me of my rights in terms of Section 29 and if I recall well what he did say at the time was now you have to start talking and he left.

I was then taken to the District Surgeon, Kraus, who examined me and asked if I had any ailments and I informed him that I had minor ulcers. I was then taken back to the police cells on the 10th floor of John Vorster Square.

Later during the night of that day, two white policemen came into the cells to book me out. One was young, I don't think that was more than 20 and the other one was about between 30 and 35.

They took me out of the police cells and took me to the underground parking in John Vorster Square and just as we were entering the garage, they then said that they would want to put a balaclava over my face and put rubber inside that balaclava and when I asked why was that, they said it was because I was going to show them some places and for my security.

They then put me in the car and we drove for some time.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they then put that balaclava on?

MR NKOSI: Yes, they put the balaclava and the rubber inside. We drove for some time and arrived at a place where I was taken up a flight of stairs to the second floor of that building.

At that point, I was then stripped naked by the people who were in that room, I would guess it was the Police. They stripped me naked, untied my handcuffs and then they put me on a chair which has arm rests in that naked state and then began tying what felt like a tube on both of my hands and on my legs, tied tightly to the chair.

Then they began applying electric shocks to my body. One was put on my leg and on my hands in a concentrated manner and the other one was applied throughout my body, on my genitals, on my backside and everywhere else. As they were doing this, this cop who was responsible for it, kept on asking me if I was a trained person, if I knew anything about B-cells and the like.

The torture continued as, I mean, I thought if they were not satisfied with the answers that I gave, they then applied the electric device on my body in an intensified manner. I was screaming and I was held onto the chair, I think by Policemen who put a cloth or a rubber around my waist to hold me tight to the chair, because as the electric shocks were being applied, I would jerk and jump.

That continued for some time and they took breaks in between and then would tie me again and apply the electric shock. I think they took two breaks and then thereafter I was then untied and given what felt like cream to smear on my face and they then said that I shouldn't say to the Police at John Vorster Square that I had come to Pretoria Headquarters and whatever happened there, because they would then come to me after three days and do the same thing.

I was then taken out of that place again, down that flight of stairs and back to John Vorster Square. That was on the Monday. On Tuesday I went back for interrogation. I had difficulty walking because my legs were very stiff and I couldn't walk properly, but I still had to go to the 10th floor to continue the interrogation by Syffert and Chris Wilkinson which continued along the same lines, where I was trained and the like and Syffert did say to me that he understands that I was taken to Pretoria in the night.

On Wednesday, Syffert then during the interrogation went out and came back and said that he's got bad news for me and when I asked what about, he said it is about your friend, and I said which of my friends? He said Stanza. That Stanza was taken out of the Police cells on Sunday to show the Police a DLB somewhere in Sebokeng and on arrival there, he then ran away and the cops shot and killed him.

I then said to Wilkinson that I wouldn't believe that Stanza, I mean to Syffert that Stanza could do such a thing, ran away from cops when he knows that he was under arrest. I couldn't continue the interrogation, I was then taken back to the cells and came back the following day and the interrogation continued.

I asked Syffert specifically whether Stanza's family was informed to which he replied that he doesn't know as he was just informed at the time. Then one day, during one of our interrogations, Mossie then came in, into the room and said something to the effect that I am lucky to be alive.

He said he should have seen how his friend died, but I didn't reply to Mossie. I stayed in detention for that time, until I was released somewhere, a month later, around the 13th of July.

MR RAUTENBACH: Tell me Mr Nkosi, you originally had the idea that you were going to be charged because of the possession of the banned literature. What happened, were you ever charged for possession of the banned literature?

MR NKOSI: I was not charged with possession of banned literature, in fact that was abandoned altogether when I was put under Section 29. Even when I was released, there was no mention of me being charged for possession of banned literature.

MR RAUTENBACH: Were you ever charged with anything?

MR NKOSI: Subsequent to that?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes?

MR NKOSI: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you were released from your Section 29 detention and not charged?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I would also like to know, at the time when you were sharing this flat with Stanza Bopape, what did you know about Stanza Bopape and any political activities that he was involved in, what was your knowledge?

MR NKOSI: I knew that Stanza was one of the founder members of the Mamelodi Civic Association and he had participated in the formation of the Mamelodi Youth Organisation and was at a particular time a student activist at the University of the North.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that all that you knew?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you not know about any activities regarding arms or firearms or hand grenades or any involvement with that type of thing?

MR NKOSI: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: Nothing?

MR NKOSI: Nothing.

MR RAUTENBACH: I see in the statement, you made some mention that at some stage you were asked about the Mamelodi - let me just get this there - ...

CHAIRPERSON: What is that Volume number Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want to get to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Volume 3?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, it is Volume 3, that is right. Is it the Mamelodi Youth Organisation?

MR NKOSI: It was the Mamelodi Youth Organisation of which I was vice-President at the time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall that you were questioned?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it number 73, is it?

MR RAUTENBACH: It is page 655, that is right. That you were questioned about the possible links that the Mamelodi Youth Organisation had with the ANC/SAC and probably also with the UDF?

MR NKOSI: Yes, I mean the Police were not asking me whether the Mamelodi Youth Organisation was affiliated to, they were telling me that the Mamelodi Youth Organisation was affiliated to the UDF and alleged that it had links with the ANC and the KGB, SAC.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I would like you to look at the - when you were dealing with the electric shocks, is it possible for you to just tell us, at that stage while you were shocked, did you have the balaclava still over your head or not?

MR NKOSI: Yes, the balaclava was on my head with the rubber, but at a particular point ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Nkosi before you proceed, what was the purpose of the rubber, do you know, was it to stop you breathing, was it to suffocate you or - why would there be a balaclava with a rubber lining?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairman, I would assume that it was meant to obscure my sight, because a balaclava does have threads.

CHAIRPERSON: So this covered?

MR NKOSI: Yes, to doubly make sure that ...

CHAIRPERSON: All right, and then your breathing, did it affect your breathing?

MR NKOSI: Yes, it did affect my breathing. In fact at a particular point as we were driving to this venue, the young Policeman did ask if I was suffocating and then put his finger so that I could at least breathe.

MR RAUTENBACH: I am just looking for something in the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) paragraph 80, I see something about an electric cord in Pretoria.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall that you said, or can you recall anything that has a cloth and water with the shocking?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson, as I was being shocked, they would use a cloth to apply to the areas where I was going to be shocked, with water, and then they would put the electric shocks and do it from time to time.

Like when they were going to concentrate on my genitals, they would wet that area and then apply the shocks, wet that area and apply the shocks.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you ever see the instrument that they used to shock you with, did you see it or didn't you see it?

MR NKOSI: No, I didn't see it.

MR RAUTENBACH: While you were at the John Vorster, that is on the 10th, when you were taken from Roodepoort to John Vorster, you say that Mostert for instance came over to the room in which you were in. Did you at that stage have any idea as to where Bopape was, or what was happening to him?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, at that stage Stanza was in an adjoining room, across the passage.

MR RAUTENBACH: Across the passage?

MR NKOSI: Yes, because Mr Mostert, Mossie, would come into my room and then go back to Stanza's room and the like. He was busy with the interrogation of Stanza.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you hear him at all?

MR NKOSI: Stanza?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes?

MR NKOSI: Yes, I did hear him produce heavy sounds.

MR RAUTENBACH: Like what?

MR NKOSI: Like he would say ugh, ugh, as if reacting to something, I mean to strikes of punches.

MR RAUTENBACH: So all that you heard was the sounds that he made?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: The Monday that you had to go to court, what was the situation with - can you recall that you were warned in terms of Section 29?

MR NKOSI: Yes, as I was - when I was booked under Section 29, I was taken to a different room where a Colonel came and informed me that I was no longer being charged for possession of banned literature, I was now going to be put under Section 29 of the Internal Security Act and went on to explain certain things in terms of that Section.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you see that Colonel here or not?

MR NKOSI: No, I can't remember.

MR RAUTENBACH: You can't remember?

MR NKOSI: Can't remember him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that person was a Colonel?

MR NKOSI: That is how he explained to me that he was a Colonel.

CHAIRPERSON: He introduced himself as a Colonel?

MR NKOSI: Yes, as a Colonel. I forgot the name.

MR RAUTENBACH: You deal in your statement, you deal with the fact that you were later on, you were arrested again.

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: When was that?

MR NKOSI: That was in 1988, I think around August/September. I was then arrested in terms of the emergency regulations and taken, detained at Modderbee prison.

MR RAUTENBACH: For how long were you so detained?

MR NKOSI: I think that detention lasted for about four months.

MR RAUTENBACH: Were you ever charged with any offence after this?

MR NKOSI: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Yes please, Mr Chairman. Mr Nkosi, did you know Mr Pieter Maluleka?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you aware of the fact that Mr Maluleka and Bopape were very close friends?

MR NKOSI: Yes, they were friends and co-leaders in the Civic Association in Mamelodi.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you also aware that Mr Maluleka also served on the Civic Association in Mamelodi?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know Mr Maponya?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you hear or did you know anything about an explosion that took place at Sterland here in Pretoria on the 15th of April 1988 in which Mr Maponya was killed?

MR NKOSI: Yes, I did know that.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know about it or did you hear about it?

MR NKOSI: I heard about it.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you hear anything about an explosion that occurred at Van Aswegen's store in Church Street, here in Pretoria on that same day? Mr Maluleka was alleged to have placed a limpet mine in front of that shop, Van Aswegen's?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, Mr Maluleka was charged for such things in what was called the Delmas trial, that is how I knew about it.

MR PRINSLOO: And are you aware that Mr Bopape was arrested as it was alleged that he was involved with the Maponya group and others, for instance it occurred here in Pretoria and elsewhere on the West Rand?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You would not be able to assist the Committee as to what Mr Bopape was up to and Maluleka and others in Mamelodi and other places?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, as far as I am concerned, these were two leaders in a community in which I stayed. To the best of my knowledge, particularly Stanza, I didn't know anything about him being involved in any military activities in Pretoria or elsewhere.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkosi, are you a Mamelodi man?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: So was Mr Bopape from Mamelodi, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You can't say what Mr Bopape was doing and what Mr Maluleka was doing?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I did explain that these - let me start with Stanza - that Stanza was a founder member of the Mamelodi Civic Association, involved in processes to establish that organisation from 1984 until it was launched in 1985.

Beyond that he was also a founder member of our Youth Organisation and did participate in those structures. He was a person with a high political profile in Mamelodi and as far as Mr Maluleka is concerned, I think he also was part of founding the Mamelodi Civic Association and that is the extent to which I know.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, are you aware that Mr Maluleka arranged accommodation for Mr Maponya in Azozo, in a backyard of his parents' home, are you aware of that?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, no.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you aware of it that - do you know Mr Maponya's lady friend, Helen Mogale, also known as Kidibon?

MR NKOSI: No, Mr Chairperson, I only Mpo, that is the name that I know because she used to call at our flat and then speak to Stanza.

MR PRINSLOO: So Mpo is the one who visited the flat where you lived in Johannesburg? Is that what you are saying?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, Mpo didn't visit at the flat in my presence, Mpo called on two occasions in the flat. I was in the flat when she called, I never saw her in the flat.

MR PRINSLOO: Mpo called at the flat to come to see Stanza?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I say in my affidavit ...

CHAIRPERSON: When you say call, visited or telephoned?

MR NKOSI: I mean she telephoned, yes. I think the correct word is telephoned. She telephoned Stanza on two occasions when I was in the flat. I don't know what they were arranging, I couldn't have heard that discussion over the telephone because I was in the bathroom.

MR PRINSLOO: This Mpo you are referring to, that is the same lady I am referring to as Helen Mogale, that is the lady friend of Mr Ordele Maponya, who was blown up at Sterland, that is what I am putting to you as a fact.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I didn't know that fact.

MR PRINSLOO: ... your arrest, there was a lady that pointed out a place where you were.

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson, there was a lady that went down to the parked cars, who was sitting on a Policeman's lap. She was light in complexion, I wouldn't have ...

MR PRINSLOO: Sitting on a Policeman's lap?

MR NKOSI: Yes. Laying on the Policeman's lap.

MR PRINSLOO: Laying on the Policeman's lap? That lady being Mpo, Helen Mogale, do you hear what I am putting to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo is putting it to you that that lady who was with the Police, was Helen Mogale also known as Mpo. What do you say about that?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, it was during the night, I didn't know Mpo before and I wouldn't have recognised her in those circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Was she at that stage a stranger to you, I mean you wouldn't be able to pick her out on the street?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: This lady, Mpo, that she was arrested by the Police for allegedly being in possession of limpet mines, do you know anything about that?

MR NKOSI: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that Mpo and one called Bomber, demonstrated and showed Maluleka and Stanza Bopape as to how a limpet mine and a hand grenade as well as an AK47 operate.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I am not sure that there is a basis to make that statement, unless there is evidence somewhere that - that will make a statement that he was actually shown by them to operate it. I don't know, there is no basis to make that statement without any evidence. I haven't seen any evidence of such nature.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, if Mr Maluleka is going to be called as a witness, that is why I am putting this to this witness. If he is going to be called, that is what I asked my learned friend earlier as to which witnesses he intends calling from the Police side, because such evidence will be adduced if necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: You can put it. I don't think it is doing any harm if the witness doesn't know about it, he can say so, if he knows about it, he can say so.

Sorry Mr Prinsloo, you said that she and a person called Bomber ...

MR PRINSLOO: Maponya, Mr Chairman ...

CHAIRPERSON: She and Maponya? I didn't catch the name, you said she and somebody showed them how to use ...

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, Maponya who blew himself up in the hand grenade explosion and a person called Bomber, it is the one accused in the case of Toka and Others.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it Bomber?

MR PRINSLOO: He was known as Bomber, yes, like a ...

CHAIRPERSON: Bomber?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Showed Stanza as well as Maluleka, do you know anything about that Mr Nkosi?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson, I don't know anything about that.

MR PRINSLOO: Well, I've put that to you but I will proceed with what you have testified to, seeing that you don't know about their activities. When you were arrested in this flat in Johannesburg, you say Mr Zeelie said who is this small one who looks so innocent, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: If you look at Mr Zeelie, he is smaller than what you are, why will he call you a small one, if he is smaller than you?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, at the time I think I was around 24 or so and I was indeed young.

MR PRINSLOO: But did you grow shorter in the mean time?

MR NKOSI: I beg your pardon?

MR PRINSLOO: Did you grow shorter in the mean time, or taller or what?

MR NKOSI: My height Mr Chairperson, is 1.72, I didn't know if I grew shorter or what.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie at no stage put it to you who is this small one that looks so innocent. He denies that. Any comment about that?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, when the Police entered the room, as I indicated earlier, one Policeman concentrated on me and just put a gun against my head and Zeelie and another Policeman concentrated on Stanza, asking him several questions.

It was only after that they had finished this brief questioning with Stanza that Mr Zeelie turned to me and he did say who is this small one who looks so innocent.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, I put it to you that nobody at no stage, pointed a gun at Stanza's head or at anybody.

MR NKOSI: The gun was put on my head, against my head, not on Stanza's head.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie denies that anyone put a gun against your head, it is not even the procedure, there was no need for it.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, it is a fact that when the cops came into the room, they had guns and the one that specifically pointed the gun at me said I must not move and I should sit on the bed, which I did.

There was no reason for me to sit down and relax in those circumstances, there was a gun put against my head.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, you say it was a gun. Can you describe this gun to the Committee please? Describe the gun to the Committee?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, it is a gun that is usually carried by the cops, it is about this size and black in colour.

CHAIRPERSON: The witness indicates approximately 20 cm, would you agree, six to eight inches. Just indicate again. It is about eight inches.

MR PRINSLOO: What you are describing Mr Nkosi, are you describing a pistol or a revolver, what would you say?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, it is a pistol.

MR PRINSLOO: A pistol? Now I put it to you whenever a place is searched in the fashion where people are suspecting that ANC people are involved, they went in with R1's or submachine guns, not with hand guns, what do you say to that?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I know as a fact that they did carry pistols on that day. This cop that held it on me, he was holding a pistol against my head.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see any automatic rifles, R1's or whatever, R4's or ...

MR NKOSI: Yes, they also had those.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, this pistol was pointed at your head for no reason?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I would assume it was to prevent me from running away or from doing any other thing because the cops do say now that they suspected that there were ANC trained people in that room.

I was indeed restrained.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you make an attempt to run, gave them any reason to point a gun at you?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, the speed with which this happened, I wouldn't have had any chance to run. They just came into the room and this one Policeman jumped on me and pointed that gun, and that was it.

MR PRINSLOO: This Policeman jumped onto you, were you laying down?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I was getting out of bed and he held a gun to me to say I must sit still.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you in the process of getting out of bed?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, when Stanza went to open the door, I got out of bed. I was in that process.

MR PRINSLOO: Was Mr Zeelie armed at all?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I didn't see if Mr Zeelie was armed, because he had an overcoat on. He didn't have a gun in his hands in my opinion.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it your evidence that Mr Zeelie punched Stanza?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see that?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: But you can't tell the Committee as to whether he had a gun in his hand, Mr Zeelie?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he can't say whether he had a gun because he had an overcoat on, but he didn't have one in his hand. In other words the implication or the inference was that there may have been a gun under his overcoat, in his belt in a holster, in a shoulder holster or something, but he didn't say - he specifically said he didn't see one in his hands.

MR PRINSLOO: Describe this coat to the Committee that Mr Zeelie was wearing.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, it is a very big overcoat that is usually worn by Police. I can't remember exactly what the colour is, but it is about this, I mean it stretched up to his thighs, at thigh level.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, what you are referring to is that Mr Zeelie was wearing part of a uniform coat, is that what you are saying?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson, it was not a SAP uniform.

MR PRINSLOO: You said what Police normally wear? If it is something civilian, then you can't be correct then?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I was detained by cops several times, and they do wear those, but whether the Security Police at that time, did wear coats of some sort, it does not camouflage. I can't remember exactly what the colour was, but it was an overcoat.

In all my detentions, if I recall they came into my house, wearing those things.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, I put it to you Mr Zeelie was wearing a jacket, it only comes up to his waist on that particular day. Any comment about that?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson, he was wearing a coat.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie will deny that he at any stage, punched Mr Stanza Bopape in the stomach as you testified.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I was in that room and Mr Zeelie did punch Stanza and he fell on the bed.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that all that Mr Zeelie did, punched Mr Bopape, nothing else he did?

CHAIRPERSON: The question was is that all that Mr Zeelie did, was to punch Mr Bopape? He is asking you if that was all that Mr Zeelie did?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, Mr Zeelie was questioning Mr Stanza Bopape and it was only later that he punched him and he fell on the bed, so that is not the only thing that he did, he did ask him if he was S.T., if he was Walk Tall and the like.

MR PRINSLOO: You say Mr Zeelie asked him whether he was S.T., whether he was Walk Tall and what else?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, that was the only thing.

MR PRINSLOO: And did Mr Bopape respond to that, before he was punched?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he did reply that other people do refer to him at S.T. or Walk Tall.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, but then I don't understand, he gave the information that was required of him, why would he then be punched, for what reason?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, that can be asked to Mr Zeelie, I wouldn't know, I am not a cop and in the circumstances, wouldn't have controlled anybody in that room.

MR PRINSLOO: You are the one giving the evidence Mr Nkosi, that is why we are asking you for a reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, he said he doesn't know, I mean it has happened before that people have punched other people for no apparent reason. He says he saw him punch him.

I know it is denied, but now you are asking him, what reason. He is saying well, you must ask Mr Zeelie, I don't know. I mean what else can he say.

MR PRINSLOO: I will leave it at that Mr Chairman.

Mr Nkosi, did you tell the Police that you were a member of the ANC?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson. I was a member of the Mamelodi Youth Organisation and that is the only organisation I belonged to at that time.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, who took you to Roodepoort police station?

MR NKOSI: We were taken in a car with two Policemen. I don't know the identity of those Policemen, in terms of name and the like, but they were part of those who came into the room.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you handcuffed?

MR NKOSI: I was not handcuffed, only Stanza was handcuffed.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, at the flat where you were arrested, did anyone else punch Mr Bopape?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, the Policeman who was registering the literature that was found in the flat, punched Mr Bopape. After Zeelie punched him, he fell on the bed and that Policeman asked if Stanza was drunk, and then punched him.

MR PRINSLOO: Did Mr Bopape appear to be drunk, in order for him to punch him?

MR NKOSI: On that day Stanza hadn't taken liquor Mr Chairperson, I was with him at work and we walked together to the flat from work, he wasn't in any way drunk.

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you Mr Zeelie's version is that no other Policeman punched Mr Bopape as you have indicated.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, there was a Policeman that punched Stanza and as I indicated, the Policeman that was registering books, because Stanza fell on the bed and he asked him if he was drunk, and then punched him.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Prinsloo, are you putting it to this witness that no other Police Officer punched Stanza?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I am putting it to the witness that no other Policeman in Mr Zeelie's presence, punched Stanza as the witness testified.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: At the police station at Roodepoort, Mr Nkosi, you indicated to the Committee that your items were taken from you and were you given a receipt then by the Police, by the charge office?

MR NKOSI: Yes Mr Chairperson, we were given receipts of items that we handed over to the cops.

MR PRINSLOO: That is now for yourself as well as for Stanza?

MR NKOSI: The receipt for my items was given to me and those for Stanza, was given to him.

MR PRINSLOO: Did both of you collect your items the following day when you were booked out of the Roodepoort cells?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I did collect my items, using the slip that I was given the previous night. The Police who took me out of John Vorster, out of Roodepoort police station, asked me to book Stanza's items out. He apparently didn't take them out.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you book Stanza's items out?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you actually, physically take his goods?

MR NKOSI: No, they were taken by the cops. I just booked them out and the cops took them to John Vorster. I didn't have any of those items after that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, when you say you booked the items out, do you mean the items were kept in the possession of the charge office staff, is that what you are saying?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And that particular receipt, did you sign it or did you put your thumb print on it?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson when I say I signed out, it means I put my signature on it.

MR PRINSLOO: So that particular document, which is called a SAP22 in the charge office, will then reveal that you signed the receipt of Stanza's property, is that what you are saying?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You were taken to John Vorster Square police cells on Monday and detained there, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I was taken to John Vorster Square on Friday and interrogated on the 10th floor. After which I was taken to Sandton police station. I was then returned to John Vorster Square on Monday after which I was kept at John Vorster Square until my release somewhere in July.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Mr Nkosi, the question was, were you taken to John Vorster Square on Monday, being the 15th of June. I beg your pardon, the 13th of June, the Monday and were you detained there at the time 15H28, Occurrence Book entry 510 which is in possession of the Committee Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Page 510?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, that is in the original Occurrence Book Mr Chairman. Unfortunately I only perused this over the lunch adjournment, I got it from Mr Steenkamp.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Prinsloo, maybe it will be well if you could read that into the record, because we don't have it anywhere else on record.

MR PRINSLOO: I will do so Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, you've got the record in front of you, would you mind just reading out what 510 states?

MR RAUTENBACH: In the book it appears Monday, it is written the date and time, Monday, 13-06-1988, inscription 510, the time given there is 15H28, detention. One, it says S.M., it would probably indicate black man, Simon B. Nkosi is detained in terms of Section 29 under the Act of Internal Security 1982, Act 72 of 1982. Deputy Officer McPhearson, K15315T, Security Branch John Vorster Square. Then it seems to be extension 151, it is in another pen. This entry was done in a black pen and it was signed in a blue pen by McPhearson who gives his Force number next to it as well as WO for Warrant Officer.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nkosi, you say you were booked out that same evening by a young Policeman and then you were taken somewhere where you, as you testified you were shocked and so forth?

MR NKOSI: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You were taken back again you said, in your evidence, to John Vorster Square, where you were again detained in a Police cell, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You then continued to be detained in the cells at John Vorster Square after that, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You say you were detained there until the 13th of July when you were released?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: During your detention at John Vorster Square, you were detained in the Police cells and those cells were under the Uniform staff, do you agree to that?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I wouldn't know who was in control of those cells. The people that came, took us to showers, unlocked and gave us food, were the SAPS, but when the Security Policemen needed you, they would come and book you out.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, at that stage, I put it to you, whilst you were detained at John Vorster Square cells, the Uniform Branch was in charge of you and they guarded you and visited you. Do you agree to that, people wearing a uniform?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, the SAP Uniform Branch as I indicated, were responsible for taking us to showers and giving us food. And as I indicate to you, when the Security Police did want you, they would come and take you out.

MR PRINSLOO: Just concentrate for a moment on who was protecting you and guarding you Mr Nkosi? I am not asking you who booked you out and the people who visited the cells frequently, including Officers, were members of the Uniform Branch of the South African Police, do you agree to that?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, Security Policemen did come into the Police cells at John Vorster Square from time to time. I remember that during my detention, they did come to check on my condition and one coloured Security Policeman even asked me who inscribed things on the wall. In terms of - taken out for showers and the like, it was the Uniform Police, but the Security Police did have access to those cells.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, without wasting time, did members of the Uniform Branch, Officers come to visit those cells, and visit you in particular?

MR NKOSI: If I may get clarity, what does visiting mean?

CHAIRPERSON: I think by visiting, I am sure Mr Prinsloo doesn't mean a social visit where they come and have a chat, by visit you, he meant that they come and ask you if there are any complaints, come every hour, check if you are in your cell, that sort of thing.

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage lay a charge against the Police for taking you out on the Monday night, and treating you as you testified?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Why didn't you lay a charge against them?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, for two reasons. The first one was that after my detention, after I was released, I consulted with my lawyers who then, I mean after I related the story of my torture, and showed them marks on my arm, then took me to a Medical Practitioner, I have forgotten his name, and in the opinion of that Medical Practitioner it was going to be difficult for me to prove that these marks had been inflicted by electric shocks.

Mr Chairperson, secondly it is my experience that at the time, the South African Police were a law unto themselves and laying a charge against the cops, would result one in me being redetained, secondly, I would be sought after for a long time.

My experience in Pretoria is that people who lay a charge against the Police, never had those cases investigated against the cops.

MR PRINSLOO: So your answer is Mr Nkosi, whilst you were in detention, although you were asked whether you had any complaints, you never laid a charge or never said to the person visiting the cells, that you were assaulted by the Police?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, nobody asked that and during my torture, the people that were torturing me, threatened that if I did so, they would return three days after and do the same thing, and in the circumstances, I believed them.

MR PRINSLOO: Whilst you were detained in the cells at John Vorster Square, Mr Nkosi, were you visited by a Magistrate or by an Inspector of Detainees or a Medical Practitioner?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I was visited by a Medical Practitioner, I can't remember any other visitor.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you complain to the Medical Practitioner and show him the marks on your body which were inflicted by the Police during this torture you described to the Committee?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I did not.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you not complain to the Medical Practitioner, he is an independent person?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, as I indicate, my experience is that that would have led to the Police as they threatened at the time, returning after those three days and as I explained to you Mr Chairman, the circumstances in which I was, required that I made an intelligent choice, and my intelligent choice was not to lay a charge against the cops.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, that is not the question whether you informed the Doctor that you had been assaulted by the Police and there was indeed an entry in the Occurrence Book, it is entry 584 Mr Chairman, on the 15th of June 1988, 08H28 the time, Dr Schoeman visited the detainees.

Entry 584 Mr Chairman, that is correct?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I did say that I didn't complain.

CHAIRPERSON: I will just read it into the record. The entry 584 appears on the 15th of June 1988, Wednesday. The time is 08H28 and the entry reads as follows: Dr Schoeman visits detainees and it is unsigned.

He admits that he was visited by a Medical Practitioner, but he didn't tell him about the injuries he had.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, is it also correct that there was a prescription given to you by the Doctor where you were initially examined, and you were given regular medication, according to the Occurrence Book, which is in the possession of the Committee, whilst you were detained in the cells in terms of Section 29, do you admit that?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: So indeed, the Police treated you well, provided you with medication and proper care?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, the Police had an obligation to check on the health of their detainees at the time. They didn't treat me well, I mean they were obliged to provide medicine if I was sick, so it has nothing to do with being treated well.

MR PRINSLOO: Just to follow up, after your release you say you spoke to your Attorney, who was the Attorney concerned to whom you complained that you had been assaulted by the Police?

MR NKOSI: I complained to Nonga & Monoy.

MR PRINSLOO: And where is this Doctor which you referred to, where about is here premises, seeing that you can't remember his name?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Are you asking about the Attorney or the Doctor?

MR PRINSLOO: The Doctor Mr Chairman, after he was released from custody, he said he went to a Doctor and the Doctor advised what he found on his body, would not stand in a trial.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, as far as I remember the Doctor was situated in Braamfontein at a block of offices.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it a Doctor you visited regularly or only the first time?

MR NKOSI: Only the first time Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did he give a report to your Attorney, this Doctor, a written report?

MR NKOSI: I can't remember Mr Chairman, I am not sure.

MR PRINSLOO: If he did, I presume that that report would still be in the possession of the Attorney?

MR NKOSI: Yes, if he did.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Prinsloo, in all fairness, it is ten years since this took place, and I don't know whether Attorneys would keep their records for ten years.

At the time when I was an Attorney, you were allowed to destroy the files within, after three years. I don't know whether this would bring us any further.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what the witness has, what has been conveyed by the witness is, if he's still got them and if there was a written report, it may still be there. This is as far as you can take it, is that right?

You don't know whether there was a written report?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, when you say you were tortured that particular night, according to the occurrence book, entry 515 Mr Chairman, and the time being given as 21H09, the certain Nkosi was put out of the John Vorster cells by a Constable Bothma.

CHAIRPERSON: I will just read, for purposes of the record, I will read the entry. It is entry 515 of Monday, the 13th of June 1988. The time is in the entry noted as being 20H09 and it reads as follows: Prisoner out, one S/M Simon B. Nkosi is booked out for further investigation by Detective Constable Bothma, W418201H, Sandton Security Branch. It is signed by Bothma and once again as with a lot of these other entries, it appears that the writing of the entry was not done by Bothma who signed it, because the name Bothma is spelt differently to how Bothma signs his name and it is in a different pen as well.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Nkosi, this whole exercise that you are referring to, that you were assaulted, tortured as you put it somewhere, how long did it last?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I think it lasted for more than an hour.

MR PRINSLOO: Now were you questioned by this Constable Bothma or by whom were you questioned?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, the people that questioned me, I didn't even see them. They were all referring to each other as Charlie in that room. I had a balaclava on with a rubber inside that balaclava.

I couldn't have seen anything of them, they didn't identify themselves, they used only one name, Charlie.

MR PRINSLOO: Now according to the Occurrence Book, you were taken out by a Constable Bothma and were you then returned by Constable Bothma to the cells at John Vorster Square afterwards?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, the Police persons who booked me out, didn't identify themselves. They just came there and booked me out. I don't know if it is Bothma or if it is not Bothma.

MR PRINSLOO: But the same person that booked you out in the cells, it is the same person that took you away, is that what you are saying?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: According to the Occurrence Book, the person who identified himself to the staff at the cells, was a Constable Bothma, so we can accept then that it must have been Constable Bothma?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I say that the cops who booked me out, did not introduce themselves to me.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are not disputing that it was Bothma who signed, saying he took you, you are not disputing that?

MR NKOSI: From the record, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you?

MR NKOSI: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Where was the balaclava and the rubber put onto you?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just repeat the question.

MR PRINSLOO: Where in the building or wherever was this balaclava put over your face?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, as we were going down to the ground floor where the cars are parked at John Vorster Square, the Police then who were in front of me, turned and said that they would put the balaclava on me as I indicated, for my security. I was going to show them some places and then they continued to put it and put the rubber in.

It was at the basement.

MR PRINSLOO: So the person who took you out of the cells, took you down to the basement, that same person, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And that is the same person who put the balaclava over your face?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there anyone in the company of this person who took you out, Bothma?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, there were two Police persons that took me out. One as I explained was youngish and the second one was between 30 and 35.

MR PRINSLOO: And the other one, you don't know his name?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson, as I indicated earlier, they did not introduce themselves to me.

MR PRINSLOO: But you definitely heard their voices, although you had a balaclava on and when you were questioned and tortured, was it the same voice which you heard and saw prior to being camouflaged?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson. The person that was applying the device on my body, had a different voice and would presume that he was a bit older. It was not the same voice.

JUDGE NGCOBO: May I ask you, you testified that two Police Officers came to take you out from the cells?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And I think one of them is reflected in the records as being Bothma. The voice that you heard now, I think was the question, you know whilst you were being interrogated there, was it the same voice that you had heard prior to being, prior to have the balaclava put on your face?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: It was a different voice altogether?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Could you make out whether there were still two Police Officers at the time of the interrogation?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, at the time of the interrogation, there were many people in that room. It was not two people, it was - because they had, Mr Chairperson, to hold me to the chair, using that cloth behind the chair and the other one applied this device. I think it was more for my right, and that is the one that was questioning, using interpreters in that vicinity.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Judge. Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nkosi, what information did they require from you during this interrogation and torture?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, they wanted to know if I was trained, if I know anything about B-cells which I denied.

MR PRINSLOO: I couldn't hear you.

MR NKOSI: I said they wanted to know if I knew anything about B-cells, if I was trained and I denied those things.

MR PRINSLOO: You said B-cells, I couldn't hear Mr Nkosi what you said. What do you understand by that?

MR NKOSI: I didn't understand anything Chairperson, this person kept on asking me that, do you know anything about B-cells, B-cells and I said I do not know. That is what I captured in my affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know now what a B-cell is?

MR NKOSI: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Nkosi, did you make a sworn statement to the Police prior to your release from Section 29 detention?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I was asked to make a statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that a sworn statement?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you take the oath?

MR NKOSI: No, Mr Chairperson, they wrote and I signed. I didn't take an oath.

MR PRINSLOO: Who took that statement from you?

MR NKOSI: Mr Syffert.

MR PRINSLOO: And that statement that you made to Mr Syffert, did you make it freely and voluntarily?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment Mr Chairman. Mr Nkosi, you testified that you were interrogated by Mr Wilken and Syffert, is that correct, on the 10th of June?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not quite sure, if you can just clear this up, I have seen the name Wilken and I have seen the name Wilkinson. I presume it is the same person with wrong names being used. Do we know what his name is, is it Wilken or Wilkinson? Do you know?

MR NKOSI: He introduced himself as Chris Wilkinson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I am told that the person concerned is Mr Chris Wilken.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us call him Chris Wilken, it is shorter. MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nkosi, Mr Wilken, Chris Wilken as we will call him now, what was the direction of his interrogation, what did he want to know from you?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, Mr Wilken and Mr Syffert asked basically the same questions, whether I was trained, whether I had undergone any military training, whether I believed in

violence and the like. That was the line of questioning.

MR PRINSLOO: When you say trained, do you mean trained by the ANC, receiving military training, is that what you are referring to?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, we indicated that we might be sitting a bit later today. I wonder if we shouldn't just take a short break to give the interpreters a bit of a break and then ...

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR RAUTENBACH: May I just point something on record as well. I have expressed my concerns last week about the 10th, now that difficulty has disappeared in the meanwhile, so the urgency isn't ...

CHAIRPERSON: So the urgency isn't that urgent.

MR RAUTENBACH: And as far as the next two days are concerned, unless other parties are going to call other witnesses, I may well be in a position where I will finish with our witnesses tomorrow, by close of business tomorrow.

I just want to give you that indication.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Perhaps we must just ask Ms Van der Walt, if she has any questions, it is not quite four o'clock yet.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: I have a few questions, yes. Mr Nkosi, you need to use your hearing apparatus, because I speak Afrikaans.

Mr Nkosi, can you hear me now? You gave an indication that Mr Zeelie was present when you were arrested on the 9th. Do you know anybody else who arrested you who is present here at these proceedings?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I can only recognise Mr Zeelie.

MS VAN DER WALT: Before you started, you and your legal representative sat there, that was before the Committee members came in and you had a look at all the applicants behind me here, and you studied them, and you spoke to each other, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Nkosi, Mr Mostert who is sitting behind me with the grey suit, you pointed him out. When did you see him the first time?

MR NKOSI: I saw Mossie the first time at John Vorster Square, on the 10th floor, when he was coming into my room, I mean into the interrogation room to confirm if I worked with Stanza and who worked with us.

MS VAN DER WALT: You speak of him as Mossie, how do you know that it is his nickname?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, that is how they referred to him, as Mossie. He didn't introduce himself to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: That particular day, did you see him and never again, or what is the situation?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I subsequently saw Mossie when he came into the room and mentioned that statement that I am lucky to be alive and I should have seen how my friend died.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because I want to put it to you that Mr Mostert was present when you and Stanza Bopape was arrested, the day, the 9th of June.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, there were about 20 Policemen and I can't remember all of them.

MS VAN DER WALT: I furthermore put it to you that the only opportunity, it was the only opportunity that Mr Mostert had that he dealt with you at any time. He never entered into a room where you were interrogated and he had no discussion with you, not at John Vorster Square and not at Sandton either.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, Mossie did come on Friday, did come into the room in which I was interrogated.

As I indicated, he wanted to confirm if I worked at the Community Information and Resource Centre, if I worked with Stanza and he did com e later and made that statement. I saw him twice.

MS VAN DER WALT: You say that while you were at John Vorster Square, that is on the 10th, I would assume were you interrogated when Mr Mostert came in, was it the 10th of June?

MR NKOSI: Yes, on a Friday.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. I couldn't follow your testimony clearly. What did you hear there and see there on the 10th?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, when I was being interrogated by Syffert and Wilken, Mr Mossie did come into the room just to, as I indicated, to confirm if I worked at CRIC, are you working with Stanza in CRIC, yes. Who else works there and I informed him of that. Any other thing that I had was Stanza, producing these sounds as I described, I mean saying ugh, ugh all the time.

Yes, that is it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Nkosi, how do you hear these sounds, you are in one room and Stanza is in another room, you do not know where he is, is that true?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, if I recall well, Stanza had a very high voice. The proximity of the rooms resulted that you could hear any other thing that was said in the room across.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is at John Vorster Square that this interrogation takes place?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, do I understand you correctly, you could hear them speaking in the other room too, what is being said in the other room?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I could hear that there were people speaking in the other room, the voices I could hear, but not exactly what was said.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you hear the sounds ugh, ugh?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: You cannot hear what they are saying?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I couldn't hear what they were saying, but I could hear that people were speaking.

MS VAN DER WALT: If Stanza Bopape had such a strong voice, then you would have heard if he said anything, because if you mention this sound that you heard there.

MR NKOSI: Can you repeat that question, sorry.

MS VAN DER WALT: If Stanza Bopape had such a high voice as you put it, then you would have heard if he said anything, especially since you mentioned this sound that he made if you could hear that sound.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, as I indicated, I heard him make this sounds. I didn't hear him speak or get what he was saying and the like.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to put it to you that the corridor on the 10th floor of John Vorster Square was a wide corridor, it was almost as wide as the office was wide.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, my recollection of that passage is that it is not wide. I can't put an estimate on how, what the actual length of that passage is, but it is not wide.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Nkosi, the statement that you made, that is in Volume 3, from page 652, you did this in front of an Attorney, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you were, there was no stress, it is a very long statement that you delivered of 22 typed pages, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Nkosi, you knew that you are making this statement and you are giving information concerning Stanza Bopape and concerning the Police Officials that were involved there, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Nkosi, why didn't you in this statement to your Attorney where you were relaxed, where you could mention these sounds that you heard and that Mr Mostert came into the room where you were and spoke to you and then went back to Stanza Bopape. Why did you not mention it?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, the fact that Mostert was crisscrossing our room, is mentioned in the affidavit, it stands there. The sounds, I only recalled later that these were made and that was after the statement was signed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Nkosi, the only thing concerning Mr Mostert here, was on page 648, paragraph 40. I only knew one of the Security Policemen who was apparently, apparently Mr Nkosi, questioning Bopape, called Mossie, a white, tall Policeman who is very aggressive.

You do not even mention that he came in and out of the room, and you do not mention that he confronted you with certain aspects. According to this statement to the Attorney, you were not even sure.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I was sure that Mossie was interviewing or interrogating Stanza. As I indicated to you earlier that as he came from Stanza's room to my room, he was asking me to confirm if I did work with Stanza, and he would go back to that room, to do so.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you do not tell this to your Attorney?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I did mention to the Attorney that this Policeman who was crisscrossing was Mossie.

MS VAN DER WALT: But he does not write this in your statement?

MR NKOSI: I don't know Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you confirm that Stanza Bopape, he was called S.T.?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, that is what he, when he was receiving calls and people were saying S.T., he would take the call and answer them. I didn't know, Stanza is Stanza and in township language, like my name is Mbeki, people would refer to me as Libeko, which is derived from the name Mbeki. So Stanza, S.T. for me, correlated.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then one could be sure that in the statement of Pieter Maluleka that you knew and who knew Stanza, that it would be correct what Pieter Maluleka says, Stanza did have training as an member of the MK and that he was called in that Unit as S.T?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, I indicated that I did know, I did not know if Stanza was trained and I only knew Stanza as a community leader. I did not know if he was trained and that is all.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it seems from your statement that the Police concentrated on Stanza when they interrogated you and especially in terms of military training.

MR NKOSI: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Seeing that Mr Rautenbach says that there is no real necessity to make up for time, I think this will be a convenient time to adjourn. We shall adjourn till half past nine tomorrow morning.

We have come to the end of today's hearing and we will adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning, at the same place, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS TILL 9TH JUNE 1998

ON RESUMPTION: 9TH JUNE 1998 - DAY 7

M NKOSI: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkosi was still being questioned by legal representatives. Mr Nkosi can I just remind you that you are still under your former oath. Thank you. Mr Visser do you have any questions to put to the witness?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I understand my learned friend Ms Van Der Walt wants to address you first.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. Ms Van Der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson if you will allow me just a single aspect which I would just like to discuss with Mr Nkosi?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly Ms Van Der Walt. Mr Nkosi Ms Van Der Walt has just asked to be allowed to put some more questions to you and this has been allowed. Ms Van Der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Nkosi you testified yesterday that on the 10th June you heard a noise, I think in English you described it as high pitched, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The interpretation is not getting through to the witness. He’s just changing his mikes and let’s see, I wonder if you could Ms Van Der Walt please repeat the question? Just give it a minute.

MS VAN DER WALT: Are you ready? Can you hear the interpretation? Mr Nkosi you testified yesterday that on the 10th June when you were detained at John Vorster Square you heard a sound and as you testified in English it was a high pitched sound, is that correct?

MS GCABASHE: If I might just interrupt here Mr Nkosi? My understanding of the evidence Ms Van Der Walt was that the man spoke, had a high pitched voice, his tone was a high pitched one as compared to a low pitched one. I don’t know if that might change your question? That’s how I understood the evidence. It’s not that there was a noise, it was highly pitched.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the evidence as far as I can recall it of Mr Nkosi was that Mr Bopape had a high pitched voice and the sounds he heard were an "ooph ooph" sound.

MS VAN DER WALT: That’s correct. You said that Mr Bopape’s voice was high pitched. I would like to refer you to your statement that you’ve made that of the twenty-two pages which is contained in volume 3, page 662, right at the top of the page and this is after you were released and you were visited by the police and a cassette was played to you of someone speaking on this and then you said that you did not identify the voice and they asked you if it was Stanza’s voice and you said, "definitely not Stanza’s voice" as the voice had no stammer and was not hoarse enough. Is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir I would just like to put it to you that this differs from your testimony yesterday because I would like to tell you that the two voices, high pitched and hoarse are completely different.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson the voice that was played for me on the tape as I testified was not Stanza’s voice and as I describe here that it was not hoarse enough and that couldn’t have been Stanza’s voice.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would further put it to you that you testified that Mr Mostert came in and out of the room when you were being questioned and then he put certain questions to you. I would like to refer you to the evidence of Mr Mostert in front of this Committee and is on Page 158 of the evidence. I’m referring to this so the Committee could know about it, where Mr Mostert says on the 10th June he and Mr Engelbrecht they were busy with Mr Bopape and they were busy with a process, a processing process and this entails the taking of finger prints, the taking of photographs and several sets of finger prints are taken and then as completely as possible they take down the background of the person being questioned, who his parents were and so forth and at that stage no questioning was done with regards to Bopape’s involvement in military activities.

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson as I indicated yesterday, Mr Mossie was coming into the room only wanting to confirm whether I worked with Stanza and with whom we worked at the Community Resource and Information Centre. Mr Mossie didn’t ask about any military training. The only person that did ask those questions was Syvert and Wilkin.

MS VAN DER WALT: The office where you were, I put it to you, it was an office which looks like these booths where the interpreters are sitting in. It had glass panels at the top, that’s what the offices on the 10th floor in John Vorster Square looked like. Do you agree with that?

MR NKOSI: Chairperson it was a room with a, there were no windows around the room.

CHAIRPERSON: Were the walls solid? The walls of the room that you were in. Were they to the ceiling or were they these panel, half panel type?

MR NKOSI: No they were, I’m not sure if it was hard walls but it was up to the ceiling.

CHAIRPERSON: It might have been partitioning, you don’t know, but it was just like a normal, looked like a normal wall?

MR NKOSI: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment please. I would like to put it to you that you say you were friends with Mr Moleleko, Peter Moleleko and there was an interview with Mr Moleleko and according to his evidence they asked him how does Mr Bopape’s voice sound and his answer to that was, "he speaks in a deep tone and he stumbles", so once again as it said in your statement that he speaks in a deep tone and wasn’t high pitched. Would you like to comment to that?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson in my understanding Stanza had a stammering voice and when he speaks he didn’t speak low, he had a high pitched voice. I don’t know what other people would have interpreted that to be.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Van Der Walt. Mr Visser do you have any questions to put to the witness?

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Nkosi I hope I understood your evidence correctly about the questions that you were asked by members of the Security Branch after your arrest. I’m going to just attempt to summarise it and please stop me if I say something which is wrong. I’m not particularly concerned with the person who asked you the question.

I’m more interested in the questions that you were asked. Would it be correct to summarise that after your arrest you were questioned about what was then prohibited literature, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson I was not asked about prohibited literature. It was found in the flat and the only things put to me was whether I owned it or not.

MR VISSER: Right, so you were. And you were asked about your political activities and affiliations?

MR NKOSI: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: And you were also asked whether you knew anything about the activities of Mr Bopape?

MR NKOSI: That’s correct.

MR VISSER: And you were asked about whether you knew anything about explosives which were available to commit acts of terror?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson I was asked about the activities of Mr Bopape, who brought him bombs and the like.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman on that high note I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Rautenbach do you have any re-examination?

MR RAUTENBACH: There’s something which may be strictly not re-examination but I think if I may just ask him this one question. Mr Nkosi as far as Stanza Bopape was concerned were you aware of any heart condition that he might have had or any other medical condition that he had?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, Stanza had a problem of sinuses and in fact at the time of arrest he had undergone an operation and was recuperating from that operation. I do not know if he had any heart condition.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions seeing that that wasn’t strictly his re-examination on this point about the health of the deceased?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van Der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: None thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moloi do you have any questions to ask the witness?

MR MOLOI: Mr Nkosi the evidence we have so far concerning Mr Mossie, I’ll keep to that is that he is a kind person. He is not capable of hurting a fly so to say and you are the only person who says he is aggressive. What do you mean, he is aggressive?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson, during the intervals that Mr Mossie came into the office in which I was interrogated, he asked his question in a very aggressive manner as though demanding an

answer there and then and the reason why I say he was aggressive is because he would insist that he needed an answer, he needed an answer, now he needed a confirmation. He wouldn’t give me a chance to even think over it.

MR MOLOI: The experience you had about this shocks that were applied to you, how severe were those? Was it painful or what was the reaction you had as a result?

MR NKOSI: During the torture itself the, it was extremely painful. In fact I was waiting for any moment for those to stop but they continued and while it was applied on a low level as it went on it intensified and so did the pain. As a consequence of that I had difficulties walking from, I mean in the cell and when I had to take showers and the like. I would walk a few paces and then stop to recover and then do the same.

MR MOLOI: You give on page 658 of your statement how Bopape’s alleged escape would have taken place. Was there any mention when you were informed about his escape of a flat tyre that was being changed or exchanged?

MR NKOSI: No Mr Syvert didn’t mention that. What he said was that Stanza was taking a corpse to a DLB somewhere in Savuke and when they arrived there when he was showing the corpse the material he then ran away and they shot and killed him.

CHAIRPERSON: Is a DLB a dead letter box? What is a DLB?

MR NKOSI: Ya, I think it’s a dead letter box.

MR MOLOI: It appears from your statement and also that of Mr Moleleko that Bopape was, to use your words, "stubborn", so he was a hard nut to crack, was he not?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson I don’t recall saying Mr Bopape was stubborn. I think in my opinion he was a principled person and if that meant we wouldn’t compromise on principles that was it. I don’t think stubborn is the word I used.

MR MOLOI: Mr Chairman thank you I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Moloi. Mr De Jager?

MR DE JAGER: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Gcabashe?

MS GCABASHE: Just one question Mr Nkosi. The electric shock treatment, before they applied the electric shocks to you, was there any other form of assault as part of the interrogation?

MR NKOSI: No there was no assault. When they came into that room they simply stripped me and tied me to the chair and started applying the electric shocks. There was no other form of assault.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you. No further questions Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge Ngcobo?

MR NGCOBO: No questions thank you sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nkosi for how long had you and the deceased been staying in that particular flat in Hillbrow, the flat in which you were arrested?

MR NKOSI: I had been staying with Stanza for about four months but he had stayed there for longer than I did. I joined him around March I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that his, at that time his permanent home or was he moving around from day to day?

MR NKOSI: He was staying in that flat for purposes of going to work and would come to Mamelodi at times during weekends.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you, why do you think you were taken to Pretoria on that occasion where you were tortured? Do you know of any reason why you were taken to Pretoria and were not interrogated at either Sandton or John Vorster Square?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson I, the cops informed me that they were taking me to Pretoria. I don’t know if I was in Pretoria because I was blindfolded and couldn’t see the route that we used.

CHAIRPERSON: But are you aware of any reason why you should be in Pretoria, there wasn’t any specific reason to be in Pretoria itself?

MR NKOSI: I guess because I did come from Pretoria and I had been previously detained in Pretoria Central Prison. That would be the only reason.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Nkosi when you say this Colonel came on that day, were you informed about the consequences of being detained in terms of Section 29?

MR NKOSI: Mr Chairperson he did explain quite a lot that I will be detained under 29, explained whatever limited rights I had, that I will have access to an inspector of detainees and a medical doctor.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you sign a form?

MR NKOSI: Yes after he signed, in fact I signed first and then he signed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo do you have any questions arising out of questions put by the panel?

MR PRINSLOO: Just one question Mr Chairman. Mr Nkosi were you asked any questions that particular night that anything to do with Pretoria?

MR NKOSI: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Van Der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Yes, just one Mr Chairman. You did not mention this in your evidence in chief so I take it and stop me again if I am wrong that today you can’t remember who that Colonel was that spoke to you about your Section 29 arrest, is that correct?

MR NKOSI: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Rautenbach I should have asked you first seeing Mr Nkosi is your witness but do you have any questions arising?

MR RAUTENBACH: No questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Nkosi you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman the position is that we have, there are two persons present here who’ve actually filed affidavits and that was Bezuidenhout and Kleynhans. I’ve discussed this matter with Mr Prinsloo, with the view of us deciding which party will call them so Mr Prinsloo wants to have the opportunity just to speak to them before he takes the decision but after he consulted with them we’ll probably have a discussion as to whether anyone wants to call them at the end of the day but they are present and they are here so in those circumstances I would at this stage just ask for a short adjournment and maybe Mr Prinsloo can take up that matter.

MR PRINSLOO: I did discuss this matter with Mr Rautenbach. Initially it was understood that Mr Rautenbach might call Bezuidenhout and Kleynhans as he had consulted briefly with them but I would like to have the opportunity to consult with Bezuidenhout in view of the fact what Mr Rautenbach informed

him and after that we can inform the Committee as to whether we will call them or not. And we may come to some agreement Mr Chairman. Thank you.

MR DE JAGER: If perhaps you could come to an agreement about a fact it’s not necessary to call the witness if you could agree on the certain aspect that you want to put before us.

MR PRINSLOO: That’s correct Chairperson we discussed that aspect with Mr Rautenbach but it’s possible that it would seem from what that witness would say so that we can agree to a fact. Otherwise that witness will not be necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll then take a short adjournment and if you could please let us know when you are ready to resume. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo have you had an opportunity to speak with those potential witnesses and also with Mr Rautenbach regarding what was discussed prior to the adjournment?

MR PRINSLOO: That’s correct Mr Chairman I did consult with the two potential witnesses and I also spoke to Mr Rautenbach and Mr Rautenbach has drafted a document which he discussed with the family. There’s just one point I think he wanted to clarify with the family, that’s causing the delay at this stage and he will return to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Rautenbach do you need more time?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes Mr Chairman I think it will probably take about 5 to 10 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Sorry, we’ll then take another adjournment and give you time to finalise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, as far as the next possible witness was concerned for the, on behalf of the family I had a discussion with Mr Prinsloo and we basically exchanged information and I would like to put the following on record as being common cause. The first issue is, we say it was alleged by one Mr Peter Moleleko that Stanza Bopape underwent a crash course on the basics of handling explosives and AK47’s in Mamelodi by Maponya.

As far as this part is concerned I just want to make it clear that the family does not admit that he underwent this crash course in basic explosives but we are aware of the fact that Moleleko stated that in his affidavit, an affidavit forms part of the bundles before you. The objective fact that he actually underwent such training is denied.

Secondly, Helen Mohale was the girlfriend of Maponya who died in the Sterland explosion on 15 April 1988. After the death of Maponya a person known as Bomba, Bomber, supplied Helen with limpet mines. Helen did not supply Stanza Bopape with any arms or ammunition. Maponya was a friend of Stanza. I’m going to hand to you the piece of paper. Helen did not supply Stanza Bopape with any arms of ammunition.

Maponya was a friend of Stanza and Helen Mahale, also known as Mpo had an address book with Stanza Bopape’s name in it. This led to Helen pointing out the flat of Bopape on the 9th June. Lastly, and this is just something that we place on record, I don’t think there’s any evidence that contradicts it and I think from Mr Prinsloo’s side he doesn’t necessarily admit this but we just place it on record.

It is the view of the family that Stanza Bopape was never involved in any act of terror. So may I just hand that to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Prinsloo do you have any comments?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in view of the family’s attitude, they are not prepared to admit that Bopape underwent training in a crash course as put by Moleleko. It will be our view that it must be considered to call Moleleko in order to support his affidavit which forms part of Volume 3 at Page 761 up to Page 764 Mr Chairman. So what is admitted by the family that

CHAIRPERSON: This is merely the views of the family.

MR PRINSLOO: That’s correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean whether they hear Mr Moleleko or whether they read his affidavit ten times, is that going to change their view? Because this says here, it is the view of the family that Stanza Bopape was never involved in an act of terror. Now it’s nothing more than their view.

MR PRINSLOO: Nothing more than their view, that’s correct Mr Chairman and what’s before the Committee is the Affidavit of Moleleko which indicates to the contrary but Mr Chairman I will submit with respect, it will be up to the Committee then to call Moleleko if there is any doubt as far as this is concerned. It’s what the Applicants believed at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: You see it’s not the, I’m speaking subject to what my fellow members might say but it’s really not the function of this Committee now to make a finding on whether in fact Mr Bopape was trained or was involved in any acts of terror because that’s not going to change the fact that the security police had certain suspicions and certain information which led to his arrest and detention and in fact that he was subjected to interrogation and this shocking device and died as a result.

On that version or whatever may be submitted by the family that he was arrested and was tortured by the police. Whether he was involved in actually involved in acts of terror or not, it’s not going to really affect the decision of this Committee as far as I see it. Insofar as the application is concerned.

So from the Committee’s point of view, well from my point of view the situation is that I wouldn’t consider him to be an essential witness here to warrant the Committee calling him. That would be my view but maybe my co-members can express their views.

MR NGCOBO: As I understand the Applicants’ case, it’s really that the deceased was in detention in terms of Section 29 and that Section as I understand it allows the police to detain a person who they believe has information. Whether the person has the necessary information or not is really not a matter that would affect the triggering of that act and I mean the witness that you’re going to call us for example, he may tell us that the deceased was associated with whatever the police allege but the family denies that.

But it does not detract from the factor I don’t know of that he was detained under Section 29 from the standpoint of the Applicants.

MR PRINSLOO: I accept that Mr Chairman. I am indebted to the views of the Committee Mr Chairman.

MR NGCOBO: Mr Rautenbach, did you understand what, because the Applicants’ case as we understand it is that the deceased was detained in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act I think it is which allow the police to detain a person purely upon a mere suspicion that you might have the information which might assist them in carrying out whatever investigation they might have. Whether in fact the person had such information is a different matter all together.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman I go along with what you say. I just want to point out that I don’t think this issue is a issue that has to be resolved. What we are, we are also not saying, for instance that the affidavit is a fabrication or that he never stated that under oath. We are saying that yes we are aware of the fact that there is an affidavit where this person alleges that in fact Stanza Bopape was trained.

We are aware of the existence of that document, we don’t admit that it is necessarily correct but I don’t think that issue is an issue that is an issue that has to be resolved.

CHAIRPERSON: Because if this Committee had good acceptable evidence that he was involved in acts of terror or on the otherhand if this Committee had good and acceptable evidence that he wasn’t involved in acts of terror it wouldn’t make any, as far as I can see it, any difference to the decision this Committee has to be arrived at.

Because the fact is, he was detained etc., died while in detention.

MR MOLOI: Mr Chairman, just for my piece of mind. I agree fully with what the Judges have expressed but I don’t know if my copy differs from the copy of other people here. Moleleko’s statement or document by Moleleko, to me does not appear to be anywhere near an affidavit as it’s being alleged so far. Unless my copy differs from, it’s a mere statement. I don’t see any oath being taken. I do not go into the content of the statement but to call it an affidavit, in as far as my copy goes, I don’t think it will be a proper, 7461.

MR VISSER: Volume 3 Mr Chairman there are words that seem to suggest that it was an affidavit. It says the above statements are all true and binding to my conscience. I think that is why everybody has taken it to be an affidavit.

MR DE JAGER: It’s not an affidavit yet.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman if that’s the case the only qualification I can put to it, yes, we are aware of that, there’s a statement, whether that’s under oath or not but that there is a statement in which this person Moleleko professes to have knowledge that Bopape was trained, insofar as that, we know that that statement, that there is a statement existing, saying that, we did not necessarily admit it but I still think, as far as the issue is concerned, it’s not important that that issue should be resolved.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman maybe we can ascertain from Mr Steenkamp as to whether an affidavit was indeed obtained from this particular person Mr Moleleko.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know that Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No, Mr Chairman. The statement, we never actually taken a properly sworn statement, attested to. This is the information we got from Mr Moleleko. That’s all we have from Mr Moleleko.

MR DE JAGER: Could I just put it to both of you. I don’t know whether it’s working. I don’t think that in this document there’s anything stated that we could use as evidence in this case on which to decide either this way or other way. It’s neutral statements, it’s no evidence and I don’t think it would assist us in deciding this way or the other way.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I’ve got nothing to do with this. The only reason why I’m speaking is that is an attempt to be of some assistance. Perhaps one should remind oneself that there is an investigation report before you and in the investigation report there’s an extract of the evidence under oath of Moleleko when he was charged.

I’m sorry as I sit here I can’t tell you whether any reference to any of the issues which have now become involved as a result of Bezuidenhout were addressed but there were also questions put to Helen Mohale in regard to some of the issues which are now relevant and I just want to direct your attention to that fact lest you forget about that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RAUTENBACH: May I just point out. As far as the second and third paragraph there was concerned it actually gives some information as to how it came about that Bopape was in fact arrested. And as far as that picture wasn’t 100% clear before, the attempt was to just add those two paragraphs to make it clear as to how Bopape was eventually arrested and what the relationship was between Bopape and Maponya.

They were friends and we make, we stated there that no limpet mines or other arms were in fact given by or supplied by the person Helen to Bopape. And with that information before you, my attitude at this stage is that on behalf of the family I don’t wish to call any other witness.

MR CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman I’m not calling any further witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Is anybody else calling any further witnesses? Well then that brings us to the.

MR NGCOBO: Can we assume then Mr Rautenbach that you are no longer persisting in your application to call Mr Vlok?

MR RAUTENBACH: I obtained instructions from the family. In the light of the evidence that was presented here we do not intend to persist with that application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. That then brings us to the end of the evidence in this matter. All that remains is for submissions to be made. We had a brief discussion during the adjournment with the legal representatives as to what course to follow with regard to the presentation of submissions. Have the legal representatives discussed this further?

MR RAUTENBACH: We actually did not as far as I know.

CHAIRPERSON: I think probably their best thing to do would be for written heads of submission, heads of argument to be submitted. I don’t know how long the balance of the record will take Mr Steenkamp to be transcribed. Do you have any idea?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman I’ve already asked for a running transcription but probably I would guess between five and ten working days at the most. If we do it on the urgent basis as it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Because if written heads of argument are to be submitted I would prefer it if we have a time limit otherwise we an sit indefinitely. How soon do counsel, assuming that we will get the record by the, in two weeks time, ten working days time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Something in the region of a week should be sufficient.

MR VISSER: As I understand the question Mr Chairman, if we allow ten days it takes us to the 19th or say then the 20th and a week later would bring us to about the 30th, which brings us to the end of the month. I’m quite happy with that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, Ms Van Der Walt, would you be able to get your heads in by the 30th June?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we’ll leave it at that, that the legal representatives submit heads of argument in this matter by the 30th June. Those heads to be sent to the TRC offices in Cape Town.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Chairman I think there may be confusion about heads of argument. I think what we really want is full argument then not only heads because I don’t think there will be the matter would be re-enrolled for further argument unless we deem it necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then I’d like to thank everybody involved for enabling this hearing to take place. I’d like to, in particular thank the people who have worked here every day, the sound technicians, the interpreters who have worked so hard, the television crew. I’d also like to thank the security guards, the witness protection people, people who catered for us and also IDASA for making this very convenient venue available to us for this hearing. In fact I’d like to thank everybody involved in the hearing.

We will then now adjourn and we look forward to receiving your heads of argument. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS