CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, today is the 20th of
October 1999. We are still proceeding with the evidence of Mr Prinsloo, the applicant, being represented by Adv Prinsloo.
MS VAN DER WALT: May I just place on record, I am Louisa van der Walt, I appear for the applicant, Mr D J Kruger. I was not present yesterday.
CHAIRPERSON: It has been duly noted, Ms van der Walt. We adjourned yesterday whilst Adv Botha was still busy cross-examining Mr Prinsloo.
Mr Prinsloo, you are reminded again that you are still under your former oath.
HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Adv Botha, you may proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: (cont)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Prinsloo, I would just like to put it to you that insofar as your version is contrary to the application of Mr Momberg, I would like to put to you that his evidence would be that your version is the wrong one.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I stand by my evidence and my recollection of the events.
MR BOTHA: And then to conclude, specifically Mr Momberg will testify that the person who drank coke along the road did not have a mark on his forehead.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I can just stand by the injury that I saw in Mbizana.
MR BOTHA: I thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no more questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOTHA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Botha. Mr van Heerden, for the victims?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Prinsloo, you were comprehensively cross-examined about a number of aspects yesterday. I would just like to deal with a few aspects with you this morning. Will you just tell us what the complaints were about the Obet Masina group? The charges on which they were accused.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I beg your pardon, just a moment. I would just like to see if I can find the document.
Chairperson, the initial investigations which were initiated was an attempted murder with regard to a landmine which was placed under a police vehicle and not enough evidence could be obtained in order to prosecute them, and then it was in Silverton, where there was a landmine explosion, Pretoria Road, where several people were injured and damage was caused to property, and there was the matter of the murder of Mr David Lukhele and his sister, Elizabeth Dludlu, as well as the attempted murder of Mrs Lukhele, where they were attacked with AK47 rifles. Then there was the murder of Const Seuntjie Vuma of Mamelodi, where AK47s were used to kill him.
ADV PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, if I might be of assistance. According to the judgment, in the summary of the Appeal Court, of 1990, volume 4, page 709 and specifically page 712, where Mr Justice Freedman delivered the judgment and under (e)
"First Appellant was convicted of murdering Orphan Chaupe, also known Shlube, on the 25th of January 1978. First and second Appellants were convicted of murdering Seuntjie Joseph Vuma on the 16th of March 1986. First, second and third Appellants were convicted of murdering David Lukhele and Elizabeth Dludlu on the 6th of June 1986."
And then there are further other charges, which the applicant has already referred to.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I confirm that and there were several charges of the unlawful possession of arms and ammunition and explosives.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And there were also confessions made by the accused.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Do I understand you correctly that they implicated this person Mandla, in their confessions?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I cannot definitely say whether it was during their questioning of whether it was in their confessions, I would have to go through those documents.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And there was also direct testimony against this person Mandla?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: The persons who were arrested, was this in about September 1986, 13th of September 1986?
MR PRINSLOO: It is quite possible, Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And the trial, or may I ask you as follows, when did the trial start?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I would imagine it was during 1987 somewhere. I cannot say exactly now, I would have to go back and do some research. I was involved in many trials and investigations during that time.
MR VAN HEERDEN: If I would tell you that it was possibly the 2nd of February 1989.
MR PRINSLOO: It is possible, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Is that probable?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it's possible.
MR VAN HEERDEN: It was the 2nd of February 1989.
ADV PRINSLOO: Maybe I can assist Mr van Heerden and the Committee. According to the judgment
"On the 1st of March 1989, after a number of witnesses had been called by the State, the Appellants were convicted on a number of counts ranging from ..."
So that could be correct, ja.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, I am indebted.
Let us leave that aspect there. I would like to return to the arrest of Mandla. I assume he was an important person for your to find.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: May I also assume that there was an intensive search for Mandla?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Because he was part of this group that had already been arrested.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. Amongst others, I was looking for him for the murder of Brig Malope of Bophuthatswana Police in Mabopane during the group's actions in the Pretoria/Bophuthatswana area.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Were there people permanently deployed for this task, in the tracing of Mandla?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it's difficult to say whether - if one searches for a person, then all the units' informers are tasked, so there are several handlers. So it is possible that quite a number of members who had informers were focused on it and would intensively search for him, as well as operationally follow up information to find if we could not trace him.
MR VAN HEERDEN: How was Mandla found then?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I've already testified, by means of information from an informer of mine I found him in Eersterus, Pretoria.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And the physical arrest, were you personally present?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was personally present.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And who was with you?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I've already mentioned in my evidence the members who I think were present and I conceded that I may have been mistaken about one or two members' names.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, we really have to try and finish your evidence, just respond to the question. Who was present with you during the arrest?
MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall it was Capt Crafford, Lt Roodt, myself and I think Mathebula and Matjeni and possibly More was also present.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he arrested in a house?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, in a house.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And were there other people in the house?
MR PRINSLOO: Not at that stage, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he alone?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he was alone.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you report the arrest to Brig Cronje?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, that was normal procedure.
MR VAN HEERDEN: He was must have been chuffed that the arrest had taken place.
MR PRINSLOO: I assume so, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And from there he was taken to the Compol building.
MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he walk into the building with you?
MR PRINSLOO: The evening after his arrest, yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: How long after his arrest did you arrive at Compol?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I would say a maximum of half and hour, because we went directly from Eersterus to Compol.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he then indicate his willingness to cooperate before you arrived at Compol?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, he said that he would cooperate, he would give us his full cooperation.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he tell you what he was involved with?
MR PRINSLOO: Only after I questioned him and confronted him with certain information and facts to my availability, then he made some confessions to me.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I would assume it was in the form of a confession to you as an officer.
MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And such a confession could be used in Court against him.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, if I followed the correct procedure by taking him to a magistrate.
MR VAN HEERDEN: But you were also an officer at that stage.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, I was involved with the investigation and judgments which were brought out with regard to confessions to the investigative official and the person who arrests you, did not carry much weight in a Court.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You would certainly - could you not possibly have asked another officer?
MR PRINSLOO: I could have, Chairperson, but after my conversation with him and my questioning of him, I had already come to a decision that he was a possible askari, that I could possibly turn his head.
MR VAN HEERDEN: So at this stage you had enough for a successful prosecution against Mandla?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I believed so, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You could have added him as a fifth accused to this matter.
MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you tell Brig Cronje that this man was cooperating with you?
MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall whether I informed him about it or not, because I was busy right through the night while I was questioning this man. So I cannot say exactly. I know that I told him that the man had been arrested. It is possible that I informed him. I believe that I would have informed him that this man was giving his cooperation.
MR VAN HEERDEN: How often did you see Brig Cronje in your daily work circumstances?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, almost on a daily basis if I was not out of office or he was not out of office because he was at the offices. We shared offices in the same building.
MR VAN HEERDEN: The trunk that was used to transport Mandla out of the building, can you describe to us how large was this trunk.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was a reinforced tin trunk and I would say it was approximately two feet by five and a half feet/six feet, somewhere around there.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What was the trunk used in the offices for?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was used in Court cases where much documentation and pieces of evidence had to be transported to Court and to keep it safe.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And you say Mandla gave his permission to climb into this trunk?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson. I told him that he had to leave the building under cover and proposed to him that the trunk was the only method available, and if he would climb in. He said yes, he climbed in, we closed the trunk and we carried it out.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he fit comfortably into this trunk?
MR PRINSLOO: No, it was quite a struggle.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you help him to get in?
MR PRINSLOO: No, I didn't help him, but the lid could not close properly. It closed enough so that one could not see what was inside, but not enough so that one could lock it.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Who carried the trunk out?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I don't know whether I participated myself, but some of the members of my unit, and I cannot recall who it was, carried the trunk out to the vehicle.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden.
Did you explain to Mandla why you had to leave the building under cover?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, yes, it was about his willingness for cooperation when I told him we have to leave from Compol because they may find out that he is there, the ANC might find out that he was there in the Compol building and that we had to go to a safer place where we could speak at leisure.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Heerden, you may proceed.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chair.
Did he not find it strange that he had to leave the building?
MR PRINSLOO: No, not as far as I know. He accorded with it. As I say he climbed into the trunk and we wanted to find the easiest manner, and as I say, the lid could not close properly. It was only from my office out of the building into the vehicle.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And how far was that approximately?
MR PRINSLOO: The offices were on the first floor, we took the lift down. I would say, maximum 30/40 metres in totality.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was the trunk then placed into the vehicle?
MR PRINSLOO: That's correct. As far as I can recall it was a kombi vehicle with a sliding door, it was placed directly into the kombi.
MR VAN HEERDEN: He was then transported in the trunk?
MR PRINSLOO: No, after the vehicle pulled away he climbed out of the trunk.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was this still in the parking area of the building?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no, I think I'm incorrect when I spoke of the parking area of the building, it was right in front of the building. It was at night, it was right in front of the building.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You have been asked about several aspects already. I would just like to pause at one aspect for a while, this was the stage when Mandla decided not to cooperate anymore. You say this was about after five or six days.
MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall exactly but I would assume five to six days.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What was the change that you observed?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I've already said, when I arrived there that day I spoke to him and I greeted him and then I saw that his attitude was negative towards me and I spoke to him in general and then I realised that he was no longer spontaneous as in the days beforehand, since his arrest. Then I decided that I will continue with the questioning and then I questioned him about Kibuza and that is when he told me that he is no longer interested in cooperating and he will not disclose anything further. I tried to surmise what the reason was, but he did not tell me what his change of heart was. The last time I saw him our relationship was still going strong and he was still spontaneous.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What information did you have about Kibuza at that stage?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I cannot recall everything right now. All that I can recall is in regard to his involvement in the infiltration of MK units into the RSA and then communication with them and information, I would say information which was obtained by the unit which could be used later, that was channelled by him further onwards in the hierarchy of MK.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And then he no longer wanted to cooperate with you?
MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you try to convince him to give further cooperation?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, I did. I held a long talk with him and I tried to determine why he had a change of heart and a change in attitude towards me, but he did not really want to communicate with me, he only said that he will not say anything any further.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you explain the implications of this to him?
MR PRINSLOO: I believed that he was aware of the implications because there was this sword hanging over his head, the possible charges against him. My task at that stage was to see if I could not convince him to give his cooperation again.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Isn't it true, Mr Prinsloo, that he had up to that stage cooperated only with regard to information that you had extracted from the Masina group, with regard to his involvement in the activities of that group?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, yes, that and the other information which he disclosed, which I initially heard via the informer and which he confirmed by means of his reconnaissance which he had done of police officers in Mamelodi as well as possible informers and I was in the process of determining whether he would not disclose this to me, so that I can take this out of circulation because he said he did not send the information to Kibuza yet.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So apart from that there was no other cooperation that you attained from Mr Mbizana?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, yes, he went amongst others, the questioning was about whom he knew, his training, names of persons who trained with him. This he gave willingly because MK members are trained in various camps, which assists us because if he can mention names and say in which camps these persons were, to determine who these persons are and to which machinery they are attached. And some of the persons who had left the country from the area, could be identified. And in that sense he was also cooperative.
CHAIRPERSON: And was he cooperative with regard to the names of the policemen he had targeted, to avenge for the arrest of the Masina group?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, at that stage not, he did not want to tell me, he said he had it in writing, it was in a safe place. And at that stage he did not want to disclose to me where it was.
CHAIRPERSON: When was he questioned with regard to that information? Was that questioning done whilst he was still at Compol?
MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson, he only confirmed. At Compol I confronted him and told him that I am aware that he had done reconnaissance and that he had drawn up possible sketches about where these persons stayed and who they were and that we will talk about that later as well. This was based on information which I received from the informer. He then confessed there and I left it there at Compol. At that stage it became light and people were starting to come to work. It was only at the farm when I continued with this line of questioning.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say he confirmed that information, what information did he give you with regard to that information?
MR PRINSLOO: He only told me that he had undertaken reconnaissance and that he had left the information in a safe place.
CHAIRPERSON: You did not question him further with regard to the identity of the people that he had reconnoitred?
MR PRINSLOO: Not at that stage at Compol. At the farm, yes, and that is when he told me he was not prepared, up to the point that I interviewed him about it for the last time, to tell me exactly where the information was being stored or with whom it was being stored.
CHAIRPERSON: But whilst at Compol he gave you an impression that he was willing to give you the information and the necessary sketch plans?
MR PRINSLOO: He confirmed to me that which I had put to him and I told him that I was aware that he had undertaken reconnaissance and he confirmed this. I left it at that when we were at Compol, with the further eye on further interrogation about this on the farm, which is what I did.
CHAIRPERSON: How long would you say your first interrogation session at Compol lasted with Mr Mbizana?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, since our arrival there, probably the whole night until it became light. It was a number of hours, easily six hours or more that I spent interrogating him.
CHAIRPERSON: Six to more hours, could it be more than 10 hours?
MR PRINSLOO: More than six hours, six to eight hours I would say, maximum.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you proceed with your interrogation the next morning?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, but not full-time, there were just singular aspects that I touched upon lightly with him. He was tired at that stage, so I left him to sleep and rest.
CHAIRPERSON: And would you say that he was giving this information quite freely?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, that was my impression.
CHAIRPERSON: So you were able to gather speed without having to have difficulties in having to extract information from him.
MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, Chairperson, I don't understand the question.
CHAIRPERSON: You were able to gather speed, because you did not need to use any method to extract information from him.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, it wasn't necessary for me to apply violence in order to obtain the information.
CHAIRPERSON: No persuasion?
MR PRINSLOO: As I've already testified, I told him and confronted him with the facts which were already at my disposal and in conjunction with what he told me on the way from Eersterus to the Compol office, he told me yes, that he admitted that he was with the group.
A case that I can recall specifically regarding Malope's murder, I interrogated him about that at Compol, regarding the shooting, how many shots they had fired because many AK47 shells were picked up there according to the Bophuthatswana Police. Not only one or two AK47 shells were picked up there. At that stage I was still under the impression that the entire group had possibly been involved, seen in the light of the number of shells which were picked up on the murder scene. And he assisted me with that and told me that only two persons had actually been involved and that he was one who had fired and that he had emptied an entire magazine.
CHAIRPERSON: So the information was volunteered by him without wasting time, there was no need for you to persuade him to volunteer this information. You had his absolute cooperation.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Heerden.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
You must have been somewhat disappointed when he decided not to cooperate with you any further.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, that is why I've stated that he offered his cooperation up to a certain point. And what it was that happened, I still don't know. Something must have happened in my absence, but I don't know what it was. When I saw him again he had undergone a complete change in attitude towards me and he said that he would not give any further cooperation, that he would not disclose or expose anything further.
MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, just answer the question. You were disappointed or not?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was disappointed.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you make any enquiries with your colleagues to determine whether or not they had noticed anything which could have led to this change in attitude?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I believe I must have done so. I cannot recall specifically with whom, but I did so.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Therefore you made enquiries?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And what feedback did they give you?
MR PRINSLOO: That nothing had happened to him, that they couldn't give any reasons for this change in his attitude.
MR VAN HEERDEN: The information regarding Kibuza, was this important information to you?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, indeed. And also the fact that he had gathered information which would have gone to Kibuza where it would have been dealt with further.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I think you testified yesterday that during other sessions of interrogation you had indeed applied violence.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did you not do so with this particular session while you seeking important information from somebody who was in your custody?
MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to Mbizana himself?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: My primary objective up to that stage, when he said that he would not cooperate any further, was still for him to offer his cooperation ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, the question is when he refused, why didn't you use violence? When he refused to offer any further cooperation. Just listen to the question and answer it.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I've already stated that I held lengthy discussions with him, during which I attempted to persuade him to offer his cooperation again.
M' MALAN: The question Mr Prinsloo, is why didn't you use violence? Why didn't you apply violence at that stage to attempt to obtain further information from him?
MR PRINSLOO: That would have defeated my aims and my purpose was to turn him.
MR MALAN: But you had already decided that he could not be turned.
MR PRINSLOO: I stated that he had changed his attitude and that he had stated that he wouldn't cooperate any further.
MR MALAN: And that is when you decided to eliminate him. The question is, why did you take that decision instead of deciding to torture him somewhat to see whether or not you could obtain any further important information from him. That is the question.
MR PRINSLOO: It wasn't something that I considered at that stage.
MR MALAN: The question is, why not, Mr Prinsloo.
MR PRINSLOO: I cannot answer that.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Would you agree with me that this does not make any sense?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you considered information about Kibuza to be of importance and all along Mr Mbizana was cooperating with you and the only time he doesn't cooperate, you don't take any other action to prompt his cooperation. And you cannot tell this Committee why you couldn't or did not decide to use a method that would have assisted you to extract what you are terming as important information which you wanted to have from Mr Mbizana.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, during my discussion with Mr Mbizana, in an attempt to persuade him to offer his cooperation again, he assumed the position that I could kill him if I wanted to. He stated it in so many words, he said "You can kill me if you want to, I won't expose anything". And I spent a long time talking to him. I threatened him and when I saw that this would not elicit any reaction from him - as I've stated he was a dedicated member of MK, I then realised that I had reached a dead-end with him and that there was no further purpose with this.
CHAIRPERSON: How did you threaten him?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I threatened him with violence and told him that he could be charged.
CHAIRPERSON: You only threatened him with violence, but did not proceed to effect such violence?
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. Chairperson, after my lengthy discussion with him and my threats and my attempts to persuade him and after having told him what he could expect, I realised that there was nothing further to be obtained from this person and that it would be senseless to continue.
CHAIRPERSON: Neither did you seek the assistance of the other members of your unit to try and extract that kind of information.
MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson, that is why I went to Brig Cronje and told him that I had reached a dead-end with this man and that is when I suggested that he be eliminated.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you discuss this with Mr Crafford who was your senior at that stage?
MR PRINSLOO: I believe that I discussed it with him. Yes, I discussed it with him.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you not try and elicit his assistance with regard to the interrogation of Mr Mbizana?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no. At that stage, as I have already stated, one needed background regarding what it was about and Crafford did not possess that background, he wouldn't have known how the MK organisation and background and methods connected with one another.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson.
You have testified that he said that you could kill him if you wanted to. This is the first time that you have stated something like that, why have you not mentioned it before?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it appears in my written application, it has just reoccurred to me when I was examined in detail regarding my discussion with him after his change in attitude.
MR VAN HEERDEN: With what sort of violence did you threaten him?
MR PRINSLOO: I told him that I would hit him if he didn't want to provide any information voluntarily. There were many methods at our disposal. MK members were aware of the methods which were applied by the Security Branch at that stage.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Then I will not take it any further.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, may I be assisted by Mr Prinsloo.
Where is it stated that he said you could kill him if you wanted to, he was not prepared to cooperate and divulge the information that you wanted? Can you draw our attention to the particular paragraph or page in your application? The incident with regard to this issue is dealt with at paragraph 5, which starts from page 339 until 340. Now where else is this dealt with because my reading of paragraph 5 does not show anything to that effect.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that is the paragraph that I have referred to. In the fifth line
"The determination with which he stated that he and another group of MK members would murder these persons should he have the opportunity to escape or should he be charged."
It was within that context that he also told me that I could kill him if I wanted to because he wasn't prepared to say anything further. He was absolutely dedicated.
MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, the question is - you did not state this in your application.
MR PRINSLOO: No.
MR MALAN: Well then don't tell us any stories, just answer the question. If you have made a mistake then say so, because you are wasting a tremendous amount of time. Just answer the question.
CHAIRPERSON: So it is correct that that was never stated by you in your application and neither did you say that in your evidence-in-chief. Neither did you say this in your evidence-in-chief.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson.
I see in your application you state that Mandla stated it unequivocally that he and another group of MK members would murder these persons should he have the opportunity to escape or be charged. Do you confirm this?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: This sort of statement, isn't that merely the regular kind of statement which who had been arrested would make with regard to security related transgressions?
MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson, it would vary from case to case.
MR VAN HEERDEN: But it taken place in the past?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And it also took place after this case?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Perhaps I can just qualify. It appeared from other cases and investigations and interrogations that they wanted as soon as possible to manipulate you to charge them so they could have contact with a legal representative who could then channel further information through the ANC, or at least provide information regarding where concealed information could be found.
MR MALAN: Wasn't that the case with all prosecutions?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct. But once again I must reiterate that it would differ from case to case. Some of the wouldn't adopt that attitude.
MR MALAN: But we are referring to the capacity or the opportunity to channel information.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.
MR MALAN: It was the same for everybody, Mandla was no unique case.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did Mandla ask you to charge him?
MR PRINSLOO: At that stage he merely told me that I could charge him if I wanted to, he didn't care anymore, he wouldn't be saying anything further.
MR VAN HEERDEN: These plans that he had with regard to informers, do I understand you correctly that the plans that he had for the informers was the catalyst for your decision to eliminate him?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, in conjunction with the policemen. MR VAN HEERDEN: That would then be the SAP members and the informers, which led you to your decision?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes. And furthermore, I didn't know what other information could be contained with the sketch plans and so forth.
MR VAN HEERDEN: This situation is similar to most of the prosecutions with which you were involved. That policemen and informers were involved.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN HEERDEN: So this wasn't a sudden crisis with which you were confronted.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.
MR VAN HEERDEN: These things would occur in the execution of your duties?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That policemen and informers could be compromised in the process.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What was the relationship between you and Crafford like?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I think that we had a reasonably healthy relationship, although I regarded him as my junior with regard to specific security work.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you have a good relationship?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I think so.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you recognise him as your senior?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, necessarily in official terms I had to. We also had a number of differences regarding certain aspects, due to his ignorance at that stage regarding the activities of the Security Branch.
MR VAN HEERDEN: When you say that there were official differences you mean that he was your senior in official terms, therefore he was appointed as the commander of your section at that stage, but you regarded yourself as the commander in actual fact.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And in such a sort of a situation these factors would filter through to the other members I'm sure.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I believe so.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Would the other members have listened to Mr Crafford if he had issued an order or would they have confirmed it with you first?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he was the commander and if he issued an order and if it was a legal order, they would have to execute it.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Were you and Mr Crafford ever in any kind of open conflicts with each other?
MR PRINSLOO: There may have been one or two situations where we were in conflict with each other. I cannot recall.
MR VAN HEERDEN: My question was whether or not there was open conflict between the two of you.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, but not consistently, only with regard to specific points.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And the other members of the unit must certainly then have been aware of this.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I believe so.
MR VAN HEERDEN: The typical human reaction to this would have been tension in the team, if there was a leadership crisis.
MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall that there was any real tension within the group as such, because work came first.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, where is this taking us?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I will leave that question then.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Do I understand your evidence correctly that Brig Cronje gave the order for Mandla to be eliminated?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was after I suggested it to him and he said "Yes, eliminate him".
MR VAN HEERDEN: And you also informed him that Mandla was a member of the group that had been arrested.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he was completely up to speed regarding the relevant information.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr van Heerden, you are re-examining his old evidence. If there is anything new that you wish to put about this, why don't you just ask him to confirm that particular aspect of his evidence so that you can get to the point that you wish to make?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly.
The place where the tents had been put up, I just want to know whether the owner of the farm was aware of the activities which were taking place on the farm.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I have testified to that already. I have explained what the purpose was.
CHAIRPERSON: We do have that evidence, Mr van Heerden.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Chairperson. I've got no further questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Heerden. Ms van der Walt?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Mr Prinsloo, Mr Kruger who I am representing was under your command during that time.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have a bundle there before you and I would like to refer you to page 358. Mr Kruger will testify that the information - if you consult paragraph 2
"According to information available to our investigative unit .."
The paragraph that contains this information would be paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5. This was information which you gave to those persons in your section who served under you. He was not involved in the investigation, he is aware of this information because you gave him this information.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And furthermore he will testify that he and Sgt Ludick and Lt Roodt were instructed to guard this person. Are you aware of that?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it is possible. As I've already testified yesterday, I'm no longer certain of precisely who guarded Mbizana when.
MS VAN DER WALT: According to Mr Kruger you selected specific persons who were not involved in the investigation of such a matter, and his reason for that was that it was your policy to appoint persons to guard a person who were not aware of anything, so that the subject could not be intimidated by the guards.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was part of my modus operandi, yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr Prinsloo, do you want to re-examine?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Prinsloo, this group, are you aware that they received amnesty?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes.
ADV PRINSLOO: And if a person such as Mandla were to be arrested he would have been detained in terms of Section 29 and you would then have been obliged to notify his family and dependants regarding that detention.
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that would have been legislative requirements.
ADV PRINSLOO: So they would have been aware that he was in the hands of the police?
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.
ADV PRINSLOO: It appears from what is put here that Goosen and Momberg received an order from Brig Cronje to blow up a corpse, did either Goosen or Momberg at any stage when they saw that this was a living person, state that this was not their order? Did they ever state anything like that to you?
MR PRINSLOO: No.
ADV PRINSLOO: The fact that Mandla was detained on the farm where the interrogation took place, according to your evidence, it appears that various members from Compol were on the farm. Was this all with the knowledge of Brig Cronje? Was he aware that they were all there?
MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, Brig Cronje was informed that we had set up a temporary base from where we were operating in order to collect information.
ADV PRINSLOO: Because it would appear that there were various persons, among others, the Branch Commander, such as Crafford and various others, who were there on the farm.
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.
ADV PRINSLOO: So Compol had much of its staff members on the farm and not in the office. Would Cronje have been aware of this?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he would have been informed as a course of procedure.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr I interpose, Mr Prinsloo.
Mr Prinsloo, the applicant, are you saying that Brig Cronje was aware that Mandla was being held at the farm for purposes of interrogation?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, what I meant was that Brig Cronje was aware that there was a temporary base outside Pretoria, from where we were operating and I cannot recall whether or not I told him that I had transferred Mandla to the farm. It may have been discussed, but I cannot pertinently state at which stage I discussed this with him.
ADV PRINSLOO: May I proceed?
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.
ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Prinsloo, after this person Mandla had been killed and his body had been blown up and you reported this to Brig Cronje, did Brig Cronje at any stage approach you subsequently and tell you that Momberg or Goosen had reported to him that there was no longer a corpse, but that they had to assist in the killing and blowing up of a living person?
MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson.
ADV PRINSLOO: But you did mention to Brig Cronje that this task had been completed?
MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I briefly informed him that our work had been completed.
ADV PRINSLOO: And as I understand your evidence, just for clarity's sake, the point in time when you received an order from Brig Cronje to eliminate this person was a number of days before the actual elimination and assault took place.
MR PRINSLOO: I think it was two days before the execution thereof. Yes, it was two days before.
ADV PRINSLOO: In an affidavit which has been served before the Honourable Committee, Exhibit A, this appears to be an affidavit from Jakob Jan Hendrik van Jaarsveld, in paragraph three of that affidavit it is stated
"I was present on the cold winter's day when Mandla was questioned by Crafford and burnt with a burning log. Crafford informed me that the interrogation would take place and that he suspected that information about the attack on W/O Mahlangu's house could be obtained."
Do you know anything about this?
MR PRINSLOO: No, I can only imagine that W/O Sithole was attacked.
ADV PRINSLOO: Is there any information that you had which indicated that an interrogation of the person, Mandla, would take place with regard to the attack on W/O Mahlangu?
MR PRINSLOO: No.
ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo.
Mr Prinsloo, I am happy to ultimately say you are excused as a witness.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you very much, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, who is going to be the next witness?
MR BOTHA: Madam Chair, Mr Goosen will be the next witness.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
