Amnesty Hearings

ERIC GOOSEN: (sworn states)

MR ALBERTS: Madam Chair, might I just at this stage before commencing with the leading of Mr Goosen's evidence, just request that they adjust this microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Alberts.

EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Thank you Madam Chairlady.

Mr Goosen, your application with regard to the Mandla incident as you call it, appears in bundle 2 and this goes from page 49 up to page 125, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Are you aware of the contents of those pages?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: I shall be as brief as possible with you. The general background where you state your political motivation appears amongst others, from pages 49 to 92 of the bundle.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness of the contents?

MR GOOSEN: I do, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: The incident itself is dealt with on page 92 up to page 104.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And then there are summaries and certain annexures from page 105 and further. Do you confirm the correctness of the contents of those pages?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you refer from pages 93 to 104, amongst others?

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. Mr Goosen, for present purposes I shall only deal with singular aspects with regard to the incident and I will mainly concentrate on the differences between your evidence and that of Mr Prinsloo, which has just been completed.

From whom did you receive your instructions?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I received my direct instructions from Brig Cronje.

MR ALBERTS: And what was that instruction?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, to dispose of a corpse and to destroy all identification of that corpse.

MR ALBERTS: And under whose command would that take place?

MR GOOSEN: That would have taken place under the command of Capt Prinsloo as I understood, who was the Unit Commander of Unit C.

MR ALBERTS: Which unit were you?

MR GOOSEN: Unit A, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: It is common cause that Lt Momberg was also involved there, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: In which unit was he?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he was also attached to Unit A.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. We know that before your involvement or before you really became involved in the execution of this operation, you built an explosive device, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And thereafter, according to your statement, there was a meeting between yourself and Lt Momberg and Capt Prinsloo, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, it was approximately a day after I received the initial instruction and the explosive device was prepared by myself already and I was called to Capt Prinsloo's office and I found Lt Momberg there as well.

MR ALBERTS: And what was said during that meeting?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, no detail was discussed with us with regard to person Mandla, he only asked us if we were ready for the operation and we answered in the affirmative and he arranged a time for us to meet in order to execute the operation.

MR ALBERTS: And what was that time?

MR GOOSEN: It was approximately 8 o'clock that evening, the same evening of this meeting in his office.

MR ALBERTS: And where would your meeting ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue.

What time was the first meeting during that day?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was the afternoon of that particular day, but it was after lunchtime on that day.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Alberts.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. And then you agreed to rendezvous that evening, where would you meet?

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue. I apologise for interrupting you.

Where were your offices?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, also on the first floor in the Compol building but on the left wing and Unit C was on the right-hand side of the building.

MNR MALAN: "U kantore was op dieselfde perseel, dit was nie 'n lang reis na ...(tussenbeide)"

MR GOOSEN: No, on the contrary it was on the same floor in the same building, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Where would you rendezvous that evening?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the agreed point was in front of the Compol building in Pretoria Street.

MR ALBERTS: Because Capt Prinsloo's evidence was that you agreed to meet on the other side of the Hartebeespoortdam on the Britz road, that you would meet there.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I deny that rendezvous point, we met in front of the Compol building as I have mentioned in my documents.

MR ALBERTS: And you say that you then did meet there.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. Lt Momberg and I arrived in a yellow Ford Sierra. Firstly we arrived at the Compol building and in front of the building there was a yellow demarcated line where police vehicles could stop and we stopped there and a few minutes later Capt Prinsloo stopped in front of the Compol building in his blue Cressida official police vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: And which vehicle did you use from there?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, all three of us climbed into the Cressida vehicle and we departed in the Cressida vehicle. Capt Prinsloo was the driver, Lt Momberg sat in the passenger's seat and I sat in the back.

MR ALBERTS: I get the impression that already at that stage it was decided that you would drive in the direction of Rustenburg.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson, the area Rustenburg was initially identified by Capt Prinsloo as the place where we would move to. While we were in the vehicle he informed us that the person or the man was already in the boot and that we would directly move to the Rustenburg area.

MR ALBERTS: Why would he tell you that?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I can only assume that as I understood the instruction that we had to get rid of a corpse and the time that we met at Compol, that we would first initially move to another place where we would load the corpse and from there we would move to Rustenburg. For clandestine operations we very seldom at 8 o'clock in the evening in front of Compol building.

MR ALBERTS: If I understand you correctly you are saying that 8 o'clock was exceptionally early for the start of the execution of this type of operation.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. The following point which I would like to deal with is the aspect surrounding the coke that was given to Mandla. If I understand your evidence correctly you drove from the Compol building up to the Rustenburg road and there at some point, Capt Prinsloo pulled the vehicle off the road underneath an overhead bridge.

MR GOOSEN: That is affirmative, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And everybody disembarked there and while you were standing there Mandla was fetched from the boot.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct. Capt Prinsloo unlocked the boot and at that stage it was not known to me that it was Mandla, and I saw a black man in the boot.

MR ALBERTS: And that is not what you expected?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, the instruction that I received from Brig Cronje, and as I understood it, was to destroy a corpse and my interpretation thereof would be that the person in the boot was already dead.

MR ALBERTS: It is common cause between yourself and Mr Prinsloo that Mandla was given a coke to drink there. What reaction did Mandla show after he consumed this coke?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as in my statement the coke had an immediate affect on Mandla, upon which he showed indications of dizziness and he was on the point of collapsing when Capt Prinsloo pushed him back into the boot of the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Alberts.

How immediate was this reaction? Would you say he immediately reacted after a minute or two? Can you approximate?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was a minute or three. He finished the coke and minutes thereafter he showed these symptoms. It was not that he was in the middle of drinking the coke and the coke fell, he finished the coke and thereafter, after a minute or three he showed these symptoms, upon which he was pushed back into the boot.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Alberts.

MR ALBERTS: Did you see anything on his body during the time that he was standing there and he was drinking the coke?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, after Mandla was made to stand at the rear of the vehicle, the handcuffs were removed by Capt Prinsloo, upon which Capt Prinsloo gave him a coke. All of us were standing at the rear of the vehicle. Capt Prinsloo testified that there were burn marks or signs of injury on his forehead, but there were no burn marks on this person's forehead.

MR ALBERTS: Was he dressed?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson yes, he was dressed, he was wearing pants and a long-sleeved shirt and he was wearing shoes as well.

MR ALBERTS: And from there you drove and according to the statement ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue.

Did you and Prinsloo and Momberg also consume coke there?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson. Directly after Mandla's were removed and he received a coke, Capt Prinsloo also gave us cokes and we drank this in his presence. We were still drinking our cokes and he was rushing Mandla to finish the coke, and afterwards he showed symptoms and he was pushed back.

MR MALAN: Can you recall where the cokes were fetched from?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, Capt Prinsloo moved to the car.

MR MALAN: So he did not fetch the coke from the boot, he fetched it from inside the car.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did you not see it inside the car while you were travelling?

MR GOOSEN: No.

MR MALAN: You did not see a cooler bag in the vehicle?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, not that I can recall. I had a carry bag that I carried the explosives in, I placed in the back of the vehicle. I cannot recall whether I put it on top of another bag, but I know I put my bag at the back.

MR MALAN: Can you recall whether there was a different approach to the handing out of the cokes, or did you think that all of you received the same coke?

MR GOOSEN: I thought all of us received the same coke.

MR MALAN: It was cans of coke?

MR GOOSEN: It was cans of coke and while we were all present we opened these cokes. Mandla also opened his coke.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: And from there you continued in the direction of Rustenburg?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. I beg your pardon Mr Goosen, there is one more aspect that I need to cover. If I understand the evidence, or if I recall the evidence of Capt Prinsloo correctly, he denies these events as you have sketched them here with regard to the embarking and disembarking and the handcuffs, but he denies pertinently that he had pushed his finger into Mandla's eye when Mandla was pushed back into the vehicle while he was under the influence of this coke. Would you please tell the Committee what your experience of it was.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, after this person had shown these symptoms and after he had drank the coke and was pushed back into the boot, Capt Prinsloo took his finger and pushed it into Mandla's eye. I cannot recall the exact words, but he wanted to ensure that the person was in this condition and not putting on.

MR ALBERTS: Did you see this happen?

MR GOOSEN: I confirm that, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Did Mandla show any reaction to the fact that Mr Prinsloo's finger was placed in his eye?

MR GOOSEN: None whatsoever, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: What was the condition of Mandla as you observed him before you drove further?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, if I could summarise it, and I think in my statement I said he was lifeless and limp.

MR MALAN: Before you drove now, what did he say when you stopped there under the overhead bridge? Why did you stop?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he said that - he stopped and he said that we will all drink a cooldrink and the man was in the boot. He bought cooldrink for us and he wanted this man to drink a cooldrink and we should drink as well. And after Mandla's handcuffs were removed and he was given the coke, Capt Prinsloo mentioned to myself and Lt Momberg, he said the person was Mandla. He did not say the man was MK Mandla, he said that this man was just Mandla, but no further discussion ensued as to who and what Mandla was.

MR MALAN: You said in the vehicle, but in your statement you say that when he opened the boot you said that the man was alive. Why only were you surprised then when he told you in the car that the corpse will also have a cooldrink? The "corpse".

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, this is where it came to light and my first assumption was that it was not a corpse. When we stopped and the boot was opened this black live man was lying in there.

MR MALAN: But you knew he was alive when you stopped because he would drink a cooldrink.

MR GOOSEN: I don't know whether Capt Prinsloo might have used the wrong expression there, but the real first impact that I had when I realised that this person was still alive was when the boot was unlocked.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Alberts.

About the road, was this the Britz/Rustenburg road which now goes to Pilansberg, which runs parallel to The Dam road?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the present road I do not know, but I know when you go over Silkaatsnek you turn left before you get to Britz, up to a four-way stop street, there one turns right and a short way from there one turns right and then you are on a double carriageway and that is the road on which we stopped. It is in-between the Britz and Rustenburg road.

MR MALAN: Yes, that is the same road. I just wanted to get clarity about that.

MR ALBERTS: You got to destroy a corpse and now you fetch a man from the boot who is still alive, his handcuffs are removed, you stop along the road and if we look at time at that stage, we must be referring to quarter to nine or 9 o'clock at the latest, there must have been other cars passing on that road. Was there no risk to that, did you not discuss any risk? Did you not ask anything?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, we did not discuss any risk and no reference was made to a risk during this stoppage and the drinking of cooldrink there.

MR MALAN: Did you not say anything to Capt Prinsloo about your surprise about this live person?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, if you read my application correctly, after I received my initial instruction from Brig Cronje he said that for the duration of the operation I would be under the command of Capt Prinsloo. At that stage I was only a Sergeant. During the observation that it was no longer a corpse but a living person, I did not indicate any reaction as a junior. I cannot recall whether Lt Momberg expressed his surprise, but if I recall Capt Momberg's demeanour I would think that he would have said something.

MR MALAN: Mr Goosen, we cannot recall somebody's nature. Mandla did not say anything about his travelling? He stands up there, he is not drugged at that stage, he's fully conscious, he was satisfied with driving in the boot, he climbed out and he drinks a coke.

MR GOOSEN: I did not ask him whether he was satisfied, but he did not indicate whether he was dissatisfied driving around in the boot of the vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: Before we move any further, Mr Goosen, when you saw this man alive and well there and you realised that it was not a corpse which you were dealing with, what did you think then, how did you think the operation would continue from there onwards?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I realised in the execution of our instructions that the person had to be killed. I did not think in which manner specifically at that stage, but I knew that with the blowing up of such a person he has to be killed in some or other manner. What I can also add is that from my initial discussion with Brig Cronje and discussions which followed with Capt Prinsloo, the instruction may have been amended, of which I am unaware, I can only speculate about this. But I would just like to mention that my instruction which I initially received from Brig Cronje, which I only received on one occasion, might have been changed because I was under the command of Capt Prinsloo.

MR ALBERTS: So you realised now that - to use the language of that time, you realised that the man was to be eliminated?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And if I understand you correctly, you were under the command of Capt Prinsloo at that time.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And would you be responsible for it or would Momberg be responsible for it or would he himself be responsible for this elimination?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I do not know who would be responsible for the killing of Mandla, but I associated myself with the fact that the person had to be eliminated before we could get to our initial instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose ...(intervention)

ADV MOTATA: You're saying that after you drank the coke and you realised that the man was alive, did you yourself say I had to kill the man before he was eliminated. Was this before the coke or afterwards?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the affect of the coke I saw as a method of neutralising this man in order to execute this man. I regarded that as the method.

CHAIRPERSON: May I, with your leave Mr Alberts.

You had been instructed by somebody quite senior, who was a Divisional Commander of a unit and that's Brig Cronje, that you had to dispose of a body and your instructions were quite precise and clear. Now when you realised that this person was quite alive and to use your expression, you thought that the instructions had been amended, did you take up that issue with the person under whose command you were, in the name of Mr Prinsloo?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, no, as junior member I would not discuss this amended plan or direct any questions to Capt Prinsloo about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Your curiosity did not even allow you to make an enquiry, without have to question the amended instruction?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, with many of these instances the principle of need-to-know is applied and it was drilled in if something is not disclosed to you, you do not ask questions about it, if people want to inform you they will inform you.

CHAIRPERSON: And you then thought the need-to-know principle was applicable in this instance.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson, from my side. Of the amended plan, I would not have asked if the plan was changed, why is it not a corpse? I as a Sergeant would not question a Captain at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you after the operation had been carried out, discuss your findings in relation to a living person with Brig Cronje, who had initially instructed you to be part of the operation?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, no, because the operation was under the command of Capt Prinsloo, it was the normal practice that the senior member would report to the Brigadier and the Brigadier did not ask me about this anymore and therefore I would not out of my own have discussed this incident with the Brigadier.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not have a duty as a person who had been directly instructed by Brig Cronje, to go back and personally report to him?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, once again I did not know whether there were amended plans placed on the desk or on the table by Brig Cronje from Capt Prinsloo. So I was approached, we were there at the scene, my instructions were (a) and now we found (b), I don't know why it is (b), but I would not question it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: I do not understand why you refer to an amended plan, because your job was still to get rid of a body.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct. The point here is that the initial order that I received, according to this I understood that the person would be dead and that there would be a corpse that we would be destroying. That is how I interpreted my order.

MR MALAN: Yes, but it remained your order that you were to destroy a corpse. All you found out was that the corpse was not yet a corpse.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: In other words, the basis upon which your plan had been formulated, the basis upon which your responsibility would come into effect had not been established yet.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct.

MR MALAN: But that is why I don't understand why you refer to an amended plan, or are you simply trying to say that you thought that the person was already dead? Is that what you mean?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: And then you found out that he wasn't dead and that you call an amended plan, so I don't understand this.

MR GOOSEN: That was my interpretation. I understood that the person would already be dead and upon arrival at the side of the road the person was still alive. I don't know whether any discussion took place between the Brigadier and Mr Prinsloo, that upon the execution of this operation the person would become a corpse. I understood that it would be corpse, that is why I inferred that there could have been an amendment.

MR MALAN: As I understand you, you understood that it would be a corpse from the time that you spoke to Brig Cronje.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And then you found out that you were still to destroy a corpse, but that this person was not yet a corpse.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Very well.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think your evidence in this regard is quite clear. After that you drove to Rustenburg.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And during this journey to Rustenburg and further you were informed regarding who and what precisely this man in the boot was.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And what his political participation was and so forth.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: That he was a terrorist and so forth?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I think that Capt Prinsloo has given evidence about this previously. I will refer to the handgrenade incidents, the shooting of Seuntjie Vuma, the planting of a limpet mine at a bus stop in Silverton among others. This was the discussion which was held by Capt Prinsloo to give us a brief background about the man.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. It isn't necessary for us to refer to it in detail, I don't think that there can be any dispute surrounding those facts.

Eventually you arrived at the scene where among others you would be responsible for the explosion.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct. After we left Rustenburg and travelled on the appointed road, Momberg explained us into a remote road which he knew rather well. We turned into that road. The terrain allowed for the vehicle to turn back in the direction of the road from whence we had come.

MR ALBERTS: And after you had stopped, what took place then?

MR GOOSEN: The three of us climbed out. Capt Prinsloo opened the boot and I think with the assistance of Momberg he lifted Mandla from the back onto the ground and then from this point onwards, Capt Prinsloo dragged him to the back of the vehicle, approximately two or three metres, upon which I took out the explosives from the back seat and placed it next to the passenger door and Momberg and I began with the preparation of the explosive device.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. What happened to Mandla? And what was Capt Prinsloo's conduct while you were busy there at the left back door of the vehicle, while you were compiling this explosive device?

MR GOOSEN: While Momberg and I were busy with the composition of the explosive device, Capt Prinsloo went back to the back of the vehicle to the boot space, he said that he just wanted to determine that this person wouldn't move, which would then mean that the explosives would move from their designated spot and that would hamper any kind of identification process.

He took the spade out of the vehicle and moved back to where Mandla was positioned and administered a few blows to him. I have stated that this was with the sharp end of the spade, and I must just add that the cracking sounds which came from where the blows were dealt with the spade to the head were not dull thudding noises, these were sharp noises. And upon placing the mini-limpet mines on the body, I saw the cuts on the head of Mandla.

ADV MOTATA: But could you at that moment determine whether or not the man was still alive?

MR GOOSEN: No. From our departure from the meeting place next to the road to this point where we opened the boot and lifted Mandla out, he was still lifeless, he was not conscious. We placed him on the ground and he was dragged away from that point and he was still unconscious or lifeless in my opinion. He was not awake.

MR ALBERTS: Did you make any attempt to determine precisely what the man's condition was at that point while you were making preparations for the explosion?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: They couldn't, Mr Alberts, they were a few metres away from where Mr Prinsloo was left with the body.

Is that not your evidence, Mr Goosen?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, I was occupied with the carry bag and I was packing out all the devices on the ground, I didn't go to feel whether or not this person was alive or whether there was any pulse.

MR ALBERTS: Perhaps I may have phrased the question weakly. What I actually meant is that while you placed the explosive device on the body, immediately before the explosion took place, in other words, when you were in the immediate vicinity of Mandla's body, during that process did you make any attempt to determine whether or not there was still any life in this person? Did you feel for a pulse, did you check for breathing or any such sort of thing?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Then could you briefly tell us how you prepared the body for the explosion, what the position of the body was and where these mini-limpet mines were placed and so forth.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, after the preparation of the mini-limpet mines I found the body position on the left side ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I don't think it's necessary for us to elaborate on this. Does your evidence differ from Mr Prinsloo's?

MR GOOSEN: No.

MR MALAN: Can we leave it at that?

MR ALBERTS: In my submission there is indeed a difference because Prinsloo referred to some form of draping with a limpet mine in the lap and so forth. Is that what took place, Mr Goosen?

MR GOOSEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, I think Mr Prinsloo ultimately conceded to what you put to him with regard to how he ultimately ...(intervention)

MR ALBERTS: If that is so, Madam Chair, I won't pursue it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: That is so.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. And thereafter the explosion took place while you were driving away, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct, we were approximately 150m away as we had moved onto the gravel road. After I had activated the explosive I climbed into the vehicle, the others were already in the vehicle, I climbed in, we drove away and as we got to the big road as such, and turned right, I looked back and firstly I saw the flames and then I saw the explosion.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. Then there are just two other aspects that I would like to touch upon. In fact there are three.

Let us just return to the explosion for a moment. In all fairness towards Mr Prinsloo, yesterday upon your instruction I put it to him that immediately before he hit Mandla over the head with the spade he said something. Can you recall this?

MR GOOSEN: Captain Prinsloo?

MR ALBERTS: Yes, that is correct.

MR GOOSEN: He walked back to the vehicle after he had dragged him away and said that he just wanted to make sure that this person would not shift, which would then make the explosive devices shift and then hamper the identification of the body.

MR ALBERTS: I'm sorry, you have already given evidence about that, let us move on. There is another aspect which was discussed with Mr Prinsloo during cross-examination yesterday and that was the situation regarding Sam Maropa, or better known as "Drumsticks". Could you briefly inform the Committee what your knowledge is regarding that issue.

MR GOOSEN: My knowledge is limited to hearsay. A few years after this incident we left the Security Branch and became an intelligence unit and many of the former C-Section black colleagues came over to the intelligence component. Based upon hearsay it was a general fact among my black colleagues that they were aware or at least that the suspicion existed that Sam Maropa's condition ...(intervention)

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect, Chairperson, what is the value of this evidence? What is the relevance of it to the relevant facts of this matter? He doesn't know when this took place. It could have taken place quite a number of years later. Or is this a question where one of those cans of coke was used which would have been very old by the time of this incident? I don't see the relevance of this.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was definitely after this incident because if the hearsay reached me before this coke incident I would have known due to the immediate effect of the coke, that I could link Sam Maropa to Mandla's incident for what it's worth.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) - no microphone)

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot say with certainty whether it was a year or six months, I cannot say with certainty.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, maybe you can help us by ...(indistinct - no microphone) Maybe this is an appropriate time to take a ten minute adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ERIC GOOSEN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, we adjourned when we were still considering the importance of the evidence you are trying to lead in relation to the Sam Maropa matter. Can you indicate to us if there is really any property value with regard to the evidence you now seek to elicit from Mr Goosen?

MR ALBERTS: Madam Chair, in view of the fact that I do not have any accurate instructions as to the time lapse between this incident and the Maropa incident, I'm going to leave it here. I won't touch on that any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And I suppose that concludes your evidence-in-chief of Mr Goosen.

MR ALBERTS: There is one aspect that I will still lead Mr Goosen on briefly and that is something that is not contained in the papers because - well, that came up in cross-examination and that concerns the discussion between Mr Goosen and Mr Prinsloo in The House of Coffees.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, House of Coffees.

MR ALBERTS: I'll deal with that and that will then conclude my evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: (cont)

Thank you.

Mr Goosen, where were you stationed during approximately November 1996?

MR GOOSEN: I was stationed at the Intelligence Unit of Internal Security, Gauteng.

MR ALBERTS: And where is that located physically?

MR GOOSEN: Our offices were in Johannesburg and we also had a temporary office in Pretoria.

MR ALBERTS: Were you in the Johannesburg office?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And where was Mr Prinsloo at that stage?

MR GOOSEN: During this period in time that I've referred to he was still with head office in Internal Security.

MR ALBERTS: And is that in Pretoria?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And during November 1996, did you have any discussion whatsoever with Mr Prinsloo?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct. From my discussions with some of my black members, it came to light that many of them were in confusion regarding the TRC activities and whether or not they should apply for amnesty. And it also came to light that some of them had been approached by the A-G's office in order to be State witnesses and I brought those facts to the attention of Capt Prinsloo.

MR ALBERTS: How did you do so?

MR GOOSEN: Since 1989 when I left the Security Branch, I had not had any contact with Mr Prinsloo again. After a number of calls I managed to obtain his cell number which was his official cell number, upon which I contacted him.

MR ALBERTS: So it was a telephonic admission?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And at the end of that month, which would be the beginning of December 1996, you were busy with your legal team in preparation of your application.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And at this point in time while you were in preparation, you once again spoke to Mr Prinsloo.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, he telephoned me upon which we arranged a meeting at The House of Coffees in Pretoria.

MR ALBERTS: And did you then meet him there?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: What did you discuss?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, among others we discussed the Mandla incident and the fact that it was my intention to apply for amnesty, and I knew that the involvement of me and Momberg existed and I told him that I would be applying for amnesty.

MR ALBERTS: Did you indicate to you whether or not he would be lodging a similar application or not?

MR GOOSEN: At that stage Mr Prinsloo indicated to me that he would not be applying.

MR ALBERTS: Was that during the meeting or during the telephonic discussion that he told you that he would not be applying?

MR GOOSEN: I have to correct myself. During the telephonic discussion he told me that he was not interested in applying, but at The House of Coffees he then indicated that he would be applying for amnesty.

MR ALBERTS: Did he make any suggestions to you during the meeting at The House of Coffees with regard to your application and his application, or not?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he said that we should apply from one camp, that we should have one joint story which we could offer as input.

MR ALBERTS: And with regard to the so-called joint story with regard to this incident, the Mandla incident, what did he indicate to you should the story be?

MR GOOSEN: He indicated that we should not refer to the meeting point at Compol in any way, also not to the administering of the coke to Mandla at the rendezvous point on the road and also not the fact that a spade was used to hit Mandla with.

MR ALBERTS: What was your attitude towards this?

MR GOOSEN: At that stage I did not differ with him, but I realised that I was already in the process of formulating my documents and that this would be contradictory to my version.

MR ALBERTS: And in terms of that realisation, what did you do?

MR GOOSEN: After we had finished our coffee I went directly to the advocate's chambers and I went to your office and told you about the influence which was presented to me.

MR ALBERTS: Did you take any further steps?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, I immediately made attempts to contact Mr Momberg with whom I had not had contact for years, via a former colleague of ours. At head office I obtained Mr Momberg's cell number and I contacted him with this number.

MR ALBERTS: And did you subsequently meet Mr Momberg or not?

MR GOOSEN: On the same day that I telephonically contacted him, I did indeed meet Lt Momberg. As you are aware you were also present along with my brother and the firm Weavind and Weavind.

MR ALBERTS: And on what day did this meeting take place with regard to the meeting that you had earlier had with Mr Prinsloo?

MR GOOSEN: On the very same day.

MR ALBERTS: So the sequence of events was that you were contacted by Mr Prinsloo, after that the meeting at The House of Coffees took place and then you contacted Mr Momberg and on the very same day, all these events took place on the same day, you then also met with Mr Momberg on that day?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Goosen.

MR MALAN: May I just interpose. On the proposed version of your evidence with regard to Mr Prinsloo, what would he have said about the way that Mandla died, if you could not refer to the spade?

MR GOOSEN: I cannot recall the details, but the three points which occurred to me immediately was the rendezvous point at Compol building to which we were not supposed to refer, the factor of the coke specifically, the coke on the side of the road and the spade. We were not to refer to any of these points. And I cannot recall precisely in which manner it would be presented that Mandla had been immobilised. That I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

MR ALBERTS: Madam Chair, might I ask one further question following on the question from the Panel?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may ask only one and only if it emanates from the questioning by Mr Malan, you may do

so.

MR ALBERTS: I will attempt to do so as best I can.

Mr Goosen, let us just get to the point. After this discussion and after this suggestion by Capt Prinsloo, what was your fear? I mean what was everything steering towards?

MR GOOSEN: My interpretation was that we were not supposed to present a true and full disclosure of facts and that this could be to the detriment of all my other applications, and particularly with regard to this incident.

MR ALBERTS: Did you draw any inferences regarding who would then be directly responsible for the death of the person?

MR GOOSEN: According to the scenario presented to me, it would have been me, Mr Momberg and Mr Cronje.

MR ALBERTS: And was this essentially what took place at that time?

MR GOOSEN: No.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe it would be appropriate to start with Mr Prinsloo, to cross-examine Mr Goosen.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, if I understand your evidence correctly, you are applying for amnesty for a person's death in which you were an accomplice and that you were also later involved in the destruction of the body of this person. Is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, among others that is what I am applying for with regard to this incident.

ADV PRINSLOO: But those would be the primary points?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well. And Mr Goosen, I accept that in your mind there was no doubt that the reason why this person had to be killed and the reason why his body had to be destroyed had nothing further than a political objective. There was no personal gain, no sense of malice, it was the execution of the express or implied duties that all three of you had.

MR GOOSEN: I can answer in the affirmative, because my divisional commander had given me the initial order and I knew that this was to take place in my official capacity with a determined motive. Also with regard the point where the person was blown up and the fact that this situation was presented to me there, convinced me that we had to do with a political activist and also explained why he could not be released.

ADV PRINSLOO: What I have just referred to is what you found in the presence of Mr Prinsloo, that you found a living person there, that this person was taken and blown up. This is what I am referring you to and upon that basis you agree with the facts?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Now with regard to Brig Cronje and the order that he gave you, it was that you were to destroy a corpse.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And furthermore you would receive further instructions from Mr Prinsloo with regard to the destruction of a corpse, is that correct? That is the order that the highest authority, the Commander, Brig Cronje gave you.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is partially correct. Any further instructions would have been received from Prinsloo, not only with regard to the destruction of the body, but any other instructions would have been received from Mr Prinsloo, because I would have fell under his command at that stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, you will accept that Brig Cronje must have taken a very well thought out decision regarding this person whose body was to be destroyed, according to your version?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I assumed that.

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes. And the order was specifically about a person who was already dead, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is how I understood the order when mention was made of the destruction of a corpse.

ADV PRINSLOO: And when you got to Prinsloo you found that you were dealing with a living person?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you had already then been asked by the Honourable Member, Mr Motata, about when this person was supposed to be destroyed. With regard to the coke. The three of you and the deceased were standing there, he was alive in your opinion and you had the cokes and you were told that he was the one who was going to blown up. There was no-one else in the boot. Brig Cronje told you about the explosion of the body of a dead person. Can you explain this to us?

MR GOOSEN: When I first realised that this was a living person in the boot, I realised that my order had been to destroy a corpse and this was a living person and that this person in some or other way would have to be neutralised or eliminated before I could execute my order of destroying the corpse by means of an explosive device. Because one would not manage to get a living person to lie down voluntarily in order to be blown up.

ADV PRINSLOO: What did you then decide, what were you going to do in order to blow up the body of this person? What would you do to kill the person?

MR GOOSEN: I didn't think of any specific method at that stage of the events at the rendezvous point on the road between Britz and Rustenburg, but as I saw the person's condition deteriorating I saw that this might be the way to neutralise or eliminate the person.

ADV PRINSLOO: But Mr Goosen, before that person had shown any sign of what you had just referred to, while all of you were innocently drinking cokes, what did you think? How, when and where would you kill this person?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I will repeat. I was not thinking of a specific method, my order was to destroy a corpse and I was not thinking of how this person would be neutralised or eliminated because that was not my order.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, let us just take a step back. You stated that Mr Prinsloo met you that afternoon at Compol, along with Mr Momberg and where a discussion was held about certain actions.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: What was discussed?

MR GOOSEN: No detail was discussed regarding Mandla as such, Capt Prinsloo simply wanted to know from us whether or not we were ready for the operation. It was obvious that Capt Prinsloo had also discussed the matter with Brig Cronje. This correlated with the orders which I had received from Brig Cronje. And no detail was discussed during that meeting.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did Mr Prinsloo tell you there that you were going to blow up a corpse?

MR GOOSEN: No reference was made to any person or corpse, reference was made to an operation and we were asked whether or not we were ready for the operation.

ADV PRINSLOO: Nothing else regarding the operation was said, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Except that we would have to meet at a specific time at a specific place.

ADV PRINSLOO: And where would that specific place be?

MR GOOSEN: At the Compol building.

ADV PRINSLOO: And at what time?

MR GOOSEN: At approximately 8 o'clock that evening.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well. So you had no particulars about what was going to be done from Prinsloo, except for the fact that you were supposed to meet at 8 o'clock at the Compol building?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, and also that Brig Cronje had given me the instruction that we would be responsible for the destruction of the identification of the corpse.

ADV PRINSLOO: Then you met there at 8 o'clock according to your version, is that correct.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And did you climb into your car?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was anything said by Prinsloo about what was happening at that point?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Capt Prinsloo stated that it was no longer necessary to pick up the man or to go to another place to pick up the man, we could drive out directly to Rustenburg.

ADV PRINSLOO: What did you deduce from that?

MR GOOSEN: That the man referred to the person or the body or the corpse which was already in the boot when we were picked up.

ADV PRINSLOO: And when you stopped, as Commissioner Malan has already put it to you, did you think that there would be a person in the boot? Did you believe that there would be a corpse in the boot?

MR GOOSEN: At that stage we were told that we would have cooldrinks and I did not draw the immediate inference that there would be a living person, I only realise this when the boot space was opened and I saw the living person in the boot.

ADV PRINSLOO: Who suggested to take the Rustenburg road?

MR GOOSEN: As far as I can recall the initial proposal came from Capt Prinsloo himself, Rustenburg in the Bophuthatswana environment.

ADV PRINSLOO: And who proposed the point where the person was ultimately blown up?

MR GOOSEN: I've already explained that after we went through Rustenburg, Momberg suggested a remote road that he knew of and we moved in that direction.

ADV PRINSLOO: So you told the Amnesty Committee that there was a lot of silence about an aspect which could not be taken lightly, that a person was going to be blown up and that there was no real discussion about the particulars of the operation, you were just told to drive out.

MR GOOSEN: Capt Prinsloo told us to drive out to Rustenburg and I assumed that there would be a predetermined place where the explosion could take place.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, to be open, in the Security Brand there wasn't any kind of rank pulling among people, everybody respected one another's ranks, but there was a greater situation of confidence among the members and you definitely had the right to ask Mr Prinsloo what was going on and how you were going to do it, because this was a joint effort, it wasn't something that was done individually.

MR GOOSEN: I differ from that because on the basis of the need-to-know principle which was applied at the Security Branch, I as a Sergeant would not be able to question a superior officer surrounding his activities. He was in command of the operation and I trusted that he would have covered these aspects.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, the need-to-know basis existed but under these circumstances in which all three of you were in the same vehicle and were going to experience the same thing at the same time, you could not hide behind that need-to-know principle. Please be honest with the Committee.

MR GOOSEN: I am being honest. Certain facts were discussed or disclosed on the way to Rustenburg after we had departed from the rendezvous point. It was during that time that certain facts were made known to us.

ADV PRINSLOO: So there wouldn't have been any meaningless driving around, there would have been a planning about when and where.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you were aware of this.

MR GOOSEN: No, I was unaware of the precise place that we were going to in the Rustenburg environment.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did Mr Momberg know?

MR GOOSEN: I can only speculate, I don't know.

ADV PRINSLOO: He's a very good friend of yours, there's a very good understanding between the two of you and there was also a very good understanding between you, Momberg and Prinsloo, isn't that so?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: When you reached the stopping point where the man received the coke and according to you became limp and lifeless, you realised that you were no longer executing Brig Cronje's order but a new order from a different person in the form of Capt Prinsloo. And according to you, you were supposed to blow up a corpse and this was a completely new aspect, the living man.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct. The initial order had to do with a corpse and when we stopped next to the road I realised that this was not a corpse and I assumed that some or other step would have to be taken to neutralise or eliminate this person before we could get to the execution of our order.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, this would then have been an illegal order to kill this man, whether Brig Cronje was the one who issued it or whether it was Prinsloo. Do you agree?

MR GOOSEN: I do not know what the Brigadier or the Captain may have discussed after my initial discussion with the Brigadier. I was acting under order of the Brigadier and ultimately, under the direct order of the Captain.

MR MALAN: The question is, did you know that this was going to be an illegal order to kill the person under these circumstances?

MR GOOSEN: I would not have regarded this an illegal order, I had an order to destroy a corpse, we were involved in an operation.

MR MALAN: Did you believe that it was legal to destroy corpses?

MR GOOSEN: I knew that it was illegal.

MR MALAN: But that's the question.

MR GOOSEN: No, I knew that it was illegal.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, you knew that this person was according to the law killed illegally because you are not allowed to kill a person unless this person received the death penalty from the Court at that time.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you knew that you were doing was in promotion of a murder at that stage, under the order of Brig Cronje. Forget the fact of whether the man was living or not.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you associated yourself with it.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, and I was also involved with other operations where similar actions were performed.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well. Now this order which Brig Cronje gave you was there and then you received a new order from Capt Prinsloo, and that was to kill the living person who was standing there in front of you.

MR GOOSEN: I did not receive any direct order from Capt Prinsloo to kill the man, I regarded the substance in the coke as the method to neutralise the man or an agent which led to the elimination of the man, so that his body could be destroyed. I was never instructed to eliminate the man, not by Capt Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: But at that stage you associated yourself with it because you saw that he was taking illegal action by giving the man the coke which would lead to the death of the man.

MR GOOSEN: I associated myself with it.

ADV PRINSLOO: But you associated yourself with whose order?

MR GOOSEN: I did not associate myself with a specific order, I associated myself with an action on the scene.

ADV PRINSLOO: Well with regard to that action on that specific scene it has to do with the death of the person. The question here is, under whose order did you do this? Which enquiries did you make about this man who was standing here that had to be killed? And then he was killed and immediately thereafter his body was blown up and completely destroyed and after that everybody kept quiet. It is common cause.

MR GOOSEN: Later I realised that the substance in the coke had not led to the death of the person, seeing as Capt Prinsloo at the scene where the body was destroyed, made the statement that he was afraid that the man would move and for that reason dealt several blows to the man's head with the spade.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, what took place later is academic at this point. At that stage when you were standing there and you decided to associate it yourself with this action of Capt Prinsloo's, you realised that this man would ultimately be destroyed and be blown up by you and Momberg, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And that is what this question is about. I'm giving you the opportunity to respond. Do you not hamper your amnesty application, because you were involved in these actions and you have presented certain aspects which are not correct and I am asking you what happened there at the scene. Prinsloo gave the man a coke which he had taken out of the boot and after this the person became lifeless according to you, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I associated myself with the fact that the initial order with regard to the corpse had not realised and that I was now dealing with a living person and that in some or other manner this person had to be killed and destroyed in order to destroy his physical body. I associated myself with that.

ADV PRINSLOO: But how did you know that you had to do with the man Mandla, that you were going to be destroying?

MR MALAN: With respect, he did not know that this person was Mandla, not from Cronje and not from Prinsloo, until they were travelling.

ADV PRINSLOO: I understand your point, Mr Malan.

You received the order from Brig Cronje that a dead person, not a specific person, a body or a corpse ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MNR MALAN: "Nee, nie 'n spesifieke persoon nie, 'n liggaam of 'n lyk".

MR MALAN: ... no name was ever attached to it at any point.

ADV PRINSLOO: That a corpse would be blown up.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: But now were blowing up another person, a living person.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I'm a lay person when it comes to medical terms. When I blew the person up I did not know whether or not he had died as a result of the blows dealt by the spade. By means of my detonation I may have murdered him or killed him. On the other hand I may simply have destroyed a corpse. I don't know whether I killed him or whether I simply destroyed him, but I did associate myself with this action because I was on the scene.

ADV PRINSLOO: The question is that you were blowing a person other than a dead person ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: With great respect, Mr Prinsloo, it was not another person other than a dead person, he was going to blow up someone who was not yet dead.

ADV PRINSLOO: I will leave the point at that, Honourable Chairperson, but then we must accept that the same person that Brig Cronje referred to is this person who was blown up.

MR MALAN: Well I think that's clear. The person that Brig Cronje referred to according to the evidence of the applicant, was indeed not yet dead. At no stage was there any doubt that this could have been somebody else. There is no such evidence before us. Or do you wish to lead such evidence? Because from your side there was also no such evidence from Mr Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect, that is not what I am putting Honourable Commissioner, it is the fact that Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg have put it that Prinsloo had already killed a person that they were going to destroy. And it is on the basis of that that I am leading this cross-examination. They received an order from Cronje to blow up a dead person, then they encountered another person, a living person, was this then the same order, because this appears to be something different.

MR MALAN: I think he has answered this question about four times already.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, may I try and understand your enquiry, because I'm a little confused as to where you want to go to. The way I understand the evidence is that there is no conflict from the version given by Mr Prinsloo and the version given by Mr Goosen, that the order that was given by Brig Cronje related to the person who was ultimately killed and blown up through the explosives used by Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg. I don't think there is any dispute with regard to that piece of evidence, either from your side nor either from Mr Goosen.

What is it that you are trying to ascertain from Mr Goosen through your cross-examination with regard to the body or the identity of the person who was ultimately blown up by them?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, my question was not directed at ascertaining the identity of the person, because Mr Goosen wouldn't know that because he was only told that a particular person, a body had to be blown up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And the enquiry was already - I directed that, I'm satisfied with the answers I got from him and I'm going to move forward to another question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: I'm satisfied with that.

Mr Goosen, when you were driving in the vehicle along with Mr Prinsloo, according to your version, where did you think the body was to be found?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I had no specific idea as to where we would pick up the corpse. I was not placed in Unit C and this operation was a Unit C operation, so I cannot comment.

ADV PRINSLOO: You know what is written in the documents and that is that this person was on a farm in the Hammanskraal area.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. As a member of the Security Branch during that time I was unaware that Unit C had such a farm.

ADV PRINSLOO: I speak of the documents, Mr Goosen, I don't want to waste time.

MR GOOSEN: I read the documents afterwards and I heard of the farm.

ADV PRINSLOO: I speak of now, to place you in the picture. And you know according the version, Mr Prinsloo went to the farm.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you know that the other person who were there at the farm were sent away.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that was testified, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And that this person, Mandla, remained there with Mr Prinsloo.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: So when did Mr Prinsloo, if he was alive there on the farm and when the other people were there, when would he have time to get back to Compol to come and see you there and then drive with the body in the boot?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, Capt Prinsloo's said that it was during daylight when he heard of the assault and he gave him the ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: It is not necessary for you to summarise the evidence.

Mr Prinsloo, is the evidence not that the meeting was supposed to be 3 o'clock and then the other meeting was 8 o'clock? Now I do not understand your question.

ADV PRINSLOO: The point, Honourable Chairperson, is that according to Mr Goosen, Mr Prinsloo was there that afternoon at Compol.

MR MALAN: That's correct, yes, that is his evidence, but he said it was approximately 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock, after lunch. It was a very brief meeting where he asked them if they were ready and we shall meet later that evening, 8 o'clock, in front the building.

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect Commissioner, he then drove to the farm where he saw the farmer and where this person was apparently assaulted.

MR MALAN: But I cannot understand why you want to assume any knowledge from Mr Goosen about this, because you are now asking him about your client's movements. ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV PRINSLOO: My point is, how does he arrive at Compol with the body in the vehicle.

MR MALAN: But that's a matter for argument. The applicant cannot assist you.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV PRINSLOO: ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, isn't it Mr Goosen's evidence that he didn't know where the body was being kept?

ADV PRINSLOO: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that cardinal to your enquiry?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Madam Chair, but with respect, surely one must consider the evidence in the light of the probabilities here, as to whether Prinsloo would be able to be at Compol, going back to the farm, speak to the farmer and then going to Mandla, find him in an assault state, send off the other people, waiting with him and then be back at 8 o'clock. So how does that fit in if he had to go to Hammanskraal.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand what you are trying to do. If you do wish him to respond to what you will later on argue, you may proceed to put it him and get his comment. But his evidence is he didn't know where the body was being kept, so he wouldn't have known how long it would take Mr Prinsloo to go to where the body was being kept and how long it would take him to come back to where they were supposed to be picked up, which was in front of the Compol building, because the meeting that he had with Mr Prinsloo was right in Compol.

ADV PRINSLOO: I'll argue the probabilities, Madam Chair, I'll leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may however put it to him and get this comment on what you will be arguing upon.

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo, I actually ignited this thing with my questions here, but is the obvious thing not that you will tell the applicant that you will argue that it is improbable that Capt Prinsloo at half past two or 3 o'clock could have been at Compol building and then fetched the corpse and sent people away, or fetched the person and sent the persons away, give him coke and be back at Compol at 8 o'clock? That is what your argument will be, does he wish to comment.

ADV PRINSLOO: I will leave that for argument, Chairperson.

Mr Goosen, do you agree that it would be stupid to drive with a still living person in your boot in the city?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as I've said, I would not have assumed that he would have come to Compol with a living person in the boot, my understanding was that it was a corpse and at the meeting at the Compol building I also assumed that it was a corpse that Capt Prinsloo arrived there with.

ADV PRINSLOO: But now we know that it was a living person, Mr Goosen.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, Capt Prinsloo also said that he gave the man a coke on the farm at Hammanskraal before our meeting. I think evidence was led in depth about that. So I don't know whether this person was entirely conscious when he arrived at Compol.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you accept that he did give him a coke at Hammanskraal?

MR GOOSEN: I can only go along with what Capt Prinsloo said. He gave him a coke twice, one on the farm and one on the way to Rustenburg.

ADV PRINSLOO: And where this person was helped out of the boot where you stopped, did you assist?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, Capt Prinsloo lifted his legs out of the boot and he was cuffed and then he helped him by holding on his upper torso and helped him out of the boot.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was he leaning or what was his position?

MR GOOSEN: He stood with the back of his legs against the back of the rear. It was a built-up backside of the car, it was not like these new cars.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was it dark?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, it was dark. It was underneath an overhead bridge.

ADV PRINSLOO: So he could have been tranquillised there at that stage, or still under the influence of the tranquilliser.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, my observation of the person that was standing there was that he was not under the influence of anything.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, you went along here to kill someone, can you explain to the Committee how you could see in the dark that this man was not under the influence?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, we were a few steps from each other, it is not unnatural that we make some observation in the dark.

ADV PRINSLOO: Under an overhead bridge. That says something that you wanted to be in the dark under the overhead bridge, and you are telling the Committee that you looked at that. Was there any reason for you to observe that this person had taken any tablets or not, or what his condition was or whether he was under the influence or not?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was his bodily attitude, he did not seem to me as if he was someone under the influence of tranquilliser or inebriated, he was solid on his foot. I based this on, if I could call it his body attitude that he disclosed there and what I observed there. What I observed there was entirely normal to me.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, according to you he leaned against the vehicle. Where would you be able to observe this? He was not walking, he was in leg-irons according to you, his hands were cuffed according to you, so where could you observe it?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he did not have to press with his hands against the car, his handcuffs were removed and he was standing.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was he still leaning against the vehicle?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Against the rear of the vehicle?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you specifically observe that, Mr Goosen?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: In this case where you would kill a person you make this correct observation, for what purpose? - that he was normal at that stage.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, that is how I recalled it when I drew up the documents and that is my recollection with regard to that specific event at the place where we stopped on the Rustenburg road.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you are also saying that you did not observe any injury on his forehead?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, was there any reason for you to make such an observation whether he was injured or not?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, the evidence that was led by Capt Prinsloo was that he was injured. I knelt by him when I placed the limpet mine and I did not see any burning mark.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any reason for you to look at his forehead when you placed the limpet mine?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson. I could recall it after the evidence that was led by Capt Prinsloo, that there was a mark on his forehead, but from my recollection I can recall that there was no such mark when I placed the limpet mine. It is not something that I pertinently observed.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, when was the first time when it became necessary for you to reconsider this detail? When did you go and think about this in detail, whether there was a mark and about the person's attitude or his body composure? When did this happen?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the wound I thought about after Capt Prinsloo's evidence was led and as to the rest, it was also, it was already part of my preparation.

ADV PRINSLOO: And the rest, what is the rest, is it where he stood leaning against the car?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I would have mentioned a drugged person who was not steady on his feet, leaning against the vehicle. I'm certain that I would have referred to that for the sake of completion.

ADV PRINSLOO: Then you are very thorough in your application.

Mr Goosen, this putting the finger into the eye, can you explain that to the Committee. Where did this happen and how did it happen.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, this happened after Mandla, a few minutes after Mandla had consumed the coke and he showed indications that he was losing his consciousness and he was unstable on his feet. Captain Prinsloo pressed him back into the boot of the Cressida, he placed so that he could swing his legs back into the vehicle and we were all standing at the rear of the vehicle and he pressed his finger into the eye of the person and he said he wanted to make sure that this person was not putting on.

ADV PRINSLOO: This was while he was lying in the dark boot that you see him pressing his finger into the eye?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you could see that in the dark, is that what you're telling the Committee?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot recall whether the Cressida had a light in the boot or not, I would have to speculate, but I would not recall this fact if I did not observe it.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, you would not have had to speculate, you would have said that the Cressida's light was on, because I asked you if you could see in the dark, and now you come with this. Let us leave it there, we'll argue that.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, there was moonlight, there was other light, it was not so dark that you could not see your hand before your eyes. If a person bends down and someone presses his finger into his eye, one does not need a torch to see what's happening because it was only a metre or so from where I was standing.

ADV PRINSLOO: Within a minute and a half he became lifeless from this coke, after he had consumed it.

MR GOOSEN: In my document it says a minute or two. It could have been three, but it was very speedily.

CHAIRPERSON: In your viva voce you said it could be a minute to three minutes.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did he collapse there or what happened?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as I have indicated in my documents he became unstable, upon which Capt Prinsloo pushed him back into the boot.

ADV PRINSLOO: What do you mean with unstable?

MR GOOSEN: His legs were wobbly and it was clear that his consciousness was affected by the coke.

ADV PRINSLOO: Like a person who fainted?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then Capt Prinsloo just loaded him back into the boot?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he didn't load him into it, he just pushed him back because he was already standing leaning against the boot. He pushed back the torso and lifted up the legs. It was not that he had to pick him up from the floor.

ADV PRINSLOO: And did Capt Prinsloo say what he did with the man?

MR GOOSEN: Afterwards from there, from the point where we departed, we did not discuss this person's condition, but Capt Prinsloo briefed us about the background of Mandla.

ADV PRINSLOO: So it was only after he was given this sub-stand and he almost fainted and was pushed back into the boot? Is that what you're saying?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, we did not discuss Mandla afterwards, what we discussed was Mandla's background and with what he was involved and the situation of Mandla who was on the point of being recruited as an informer and that this had failed and so forth. As I explained in my documents.

MR MALAN: Mr Goosen, ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR MALAN: Was that the first time after he was placed back into the boot that you were briefed about Mandla?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: You were not on your way up to the place where you stopped told anything about Mandla?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And afterwards, before you drove, did Prinsloo tell you where he would drive to?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, already when we departed from the Compol building he said that the man was already in the vehicle and that we could move to Rustenburg. He then did not mention once again that we would move to Rustenburg, he already indicated that at the Compol building.

ADV PRINSLOO: How did you know where you were going to because you and Momberg would blow up the person? Which of the two of you would know this place where you were on your way to?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, what I can recall is that Capt Prinsloo made the proposal of the Rustenburg area and after we went through Rustenburg, Lt Momberg indicated that he was familiar with the area on the outside Rustenburg. But he will be able to testify as to how he became familiar with that area. And on his instruction we turned off this road where the body was destroyed or where the person was blown up.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, what is very strange is all these long stories. It was very easy for Capt Prinsloo to call you and Momberg and say meet me at the farm, there at Hammanskraal where he was and drive from there.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot talk on behalf of Capt Prinsloo as to why he did not call us to the farm.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, I'm not certain whether I understood the question. For purpose of safety?

ADV PRINSLOO: It would have been more practical Honourable Chairperson, to say meet me at the farm and then we will drive directly to a place where we will do away with the person, because there was nobody on the farm, only him according to the version of Goosen.

MR GOOSEN: I don't understand the question because I was not aware firstly of the farm. I cannot speak or answer on behalf of Capt Prinsloo as to why he did not call us to the farm.

ADV PRINSLOO: Who proposed the place and on whose request was it that the place be looked for where you could eventually blow up this person?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, from my rusty recollection what I can recall here is that the Rustenburg area, there it was still Bophuthatswana area and most of these operations were executed in the then Bophuthatswana from an investigation point of view. And if we refer to Rustenburg, I assumed that it would be in the vicinity of Bophuthatswana. I would have not made the interpretation that it would have been in Rustenburg, I assumed that it would be in the adjacent Bophuthatswana area.

CHAIRPERSON: The question Mr Goosen, is who proposed the place where you were to execute your order?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as I've already said, Capt Prinsloo said that we would move out to Rustenburg and after we moved through Rustenburg, Lt Momberg mentioned that he was familiar with this area and he indicated this specific road to Capt Prinsloo, where we executed this deed then.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, you say Capt Prinsloo spoke to you in The House of Coffees and said to you that this aspect of the coke and the stopping alongside the road and the striking with the spade and also the meeting at Compol you must leave out of your application, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did he propose this to you?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, what he had indeed done was that in general he made a proposal as to how the set-up and the run-up of this application should read without those details in there.

ADV PRINSLOO: But I would like to understand from you, because you place a dark picture before the Committee about Prinsloo, that he had influenced you, you wanted to influence you so much so that you immediately after went to your advocated. That is what you say.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I confirm those facts, I saw it as irregular influencing to diverge from the true version which I would state in my documents and that I was already busy drawing up. It was of great concern to me and that is why I immediately contacted my legal representative and informed him that this was the proposal to me.

ADV PRINSLOO: What is very strange Sir, is that Capt Prinsloo testified himself as to what you have spoken about now. If he wanted you to diverge from those points, then I do not understand you. And then I would like to put to you that you have a personal vendetta against him.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I have no personal vendetta against Prinsloo. On the contrary, after I had informed my legal representative of these facts, I think afterwards there were several attempts in trying to contact the applicant Prinsloo and Adv Prinsloo in order to see how this thing could be discussed and be solved, these differences which came to the fore at The House of Coffees.

ADV PRINSLOO: Well I am not a witness, but no-one ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The question here is Mr Goosen - may I interpose? The question is Mr Goosen, do you have a personal vendetta against Mr Prinsloo, yes or no?

MR GOOSEN: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Goosen, at that stage, if I understand you correctly, Prinsloo would have said that he was not even going to apply.

MR GOOSEN: I correct myself there, I said during our telephonic discussion he said he would not apply, but at the meeting at The House of Coffees he indicated that he would apply and he proposed that we would approach this from one legal camp.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo never knew what you said in your application, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct. I did not react to the proposals that Capt Prinsloo made. At that stage I was already with Weavind and Weavind and with Adv Alberts, I used my right to remain silent and I went back with these facts to my legal representatives. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

ADV PRINSLOO: And Mr Prinsloo did not even know about that, that you went to your legal representative?

MR GOOSEN: Well Chairperson, I would not have jumped up there and told them I was going to my advocate, I don't think that is my style.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose again, Mr Prinsloo.

But was Mr Prinsloo, the applicant, aware at the time of the meeting at The House of Coffees that you were busy preparing an amnesty application?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, that is correct. During the initial telephonic discussion I indicated to him that I was in the process of applying and that I would be applying and I will make use of the opportunity that the TRC has placed before us and I will actively participate in this process.

ADV PRINSLOO: But at no stage did you afterwards tell Prinsloo what you said in your application, am I correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, I did not tell him, but we repetitively tried to contact Capt Prinsloo, so that I could give him a copy of my documents.

ADV PRINSLOO: But why did you want to contact him, he wanted to intimidate you and influence you according to your version?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was obvious that there was a conflict of interest in the end with the Committee, and I wanted to avoid that at all costs. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

ADV PRINSLOO: So this small aspect, the meeting at Compol, which does not affect the essence of this application and The House of Coffees story afterwards? Is that all?

MR GOOSEN: No, it is about the truth, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: I am not an applicant here, but you did not approach me, I can assure you of that.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, messages were left at the advocate's office.

ADV PRINSLOO: When you took the person away from there and arrived there at Rustenburg where he would be blown up, did you have a look whether he was still alive or not?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I've already said that I did not look after he was taken out of the boot and dragged away. At that stage I started the preparation of the explosive device along with Lt Momberg and during the same period of time when that happened he was struck a few times with the spade and I went back and he was lying on his side and I placed the explosive device on him without determining whether he was alive or not.

MR MALAN: Mr Goosen - I beg your pardon, Mr Prinsloo.

We have the problem here that you are asked a question and then you answer the question but you give three different stories. So let us just save time please, just answer the question.

MR GOOSEN: No, I did not determine whether the person was still alive or not.

ADV PRINSLOO: This was when Mr Prinsloo fetched the spade, what did you think he was going to do with that, because you were preparing an explosive device?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as I have said, after he dragged the person away he returned to the vehicle and he informed, or he made a remark that he wanted to ensure that this person does not move and jeopardise the placing of the explosive device in order to destroy identification.

ADV PRINSLOO: You know what Mr Prinsloo's version is of this, I will not put it to you.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: One moment's indulgence, Honourable Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, what was your opinion or viewpoint while you were busy with the explosive device and the body? Did it move, or what did you see there?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, is this with regard to the body or the explosive device?

ADV MOTATA: With regard to the explosive device.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, after the thing was connected I took it to the person and I placed it on top and underneath the person.

ADV MOTATA: No, while you were busy working with the body did you see any signs of life?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I did not see any signs of life and I also did not feel for a pulse, but he was lying there lifeless and he had cuts on his head from being struck with the spade.

ADV MOTATA: Would this have jeopardised your work if the person was not neutralised?

MNR GOOSEN: "Sou die persoon nie geneutraliseer was(sic) nie"?

ADV MOTATA: Would this jeopardise your work if he was not struck with the spade?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot comment as to which or what was in the coke, but if we look at the circumstances whatever was in the coke would not have been poison, it would have been a tranquilliser. So the method of further neutralisation was the spade. That is how I summarised it there when the spade came about there.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

That place where the explosion took place, were there any bushes there or was it a bare terrain? What was the situation?

MR GOOSEN: In terms of my recollection we turned off from the tar road to the left. There was a farm road, it was not an even road, there were still grass clumps in the middleman of the road. One could describe this as overgrazed ground. It was an open surface because we drove in. If one took the direction from East to West and where we drove, we turned around so that the nose of the vehicle could point back in the direction of the road. In other words there was enough room there to turn the vehicle.

ADV PRINSLOO: You have heard what ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Were there any bushed around the place?

MR GOOSEN: Not that I can recall.

ADV PRINSLOO: You heard what Mr Prinsloo said about this.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any other residential area in the vicinity which was situated on a high level?

MR GOOSEN: Not that I can recall.

ADV PRINSLOO: Could there have been?

MR GOOSEN: As far as I recall it was dark, so I doubt that there was any kind of residential area in the vicinity. We would have risked launching such an operation in such a high risk area.

ADV PRINSLOO: And according to you there were three marks on the back of the victim's head.

MR GOOSEN: I did not mention any specific number of lesions, I saw that there were marks. There may have been two or three marks, but I did see wounds on the back of the person's head.

ADV PRINSLOO: But in that darkness you saw the marks on this person's head.

MR GOOSEN: Well I was kneeled practically next to the person.

ADV PRINSLOO: Well then how could you observe any wounds if you were busy setting a dangerous explosive device and ensuring that this device was placed properly and that it would go off at the right time? How while you were busy with this would you be able to observe any marks? And you knew that the person had been hit with the spade.

MR GOOSEN: I prepared the explosive device at the left back door of the vehicle, the door was open and the inside lights were on. I used that light to prepare the device, then I took the device two or three metres away from the vehicle to the person and placed the device on the head and the hips and the feet of the person and then I also placed part of the device on the other side of the person near his head and his hands and his feet. There was moonlight, I didn't need any extra light. It was sufficient light in which to manage such an operation.

ADV PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence please.

Honourable Chairperson, I will not repeat Mr Prinsloo's evidence and make any statements, I accept that his evidence is on record. Nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, just one or maybe two.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we hold onto the number you've just stated? - if you should exceed that number.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: You know me too well.

Mr Goosen, I would just like some confirmation regarding certain aspects. You have studied Brig Cronje's application, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And is there anything therein which differs from your version or do you concur with it?

MR GOOSEN: I concur with it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you also heard that during cross-examination I put it to Mr Prinsloo that you and Mr Momberg were the demolitions experts for the Security Branch Northern Transvaal.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, among others we were some of the demolitions experts. There were others as well.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And then finally I would just like to ask you about your experience when you were involved in an operation, whether it be legal or illegal and experience this situation which was unforeseen. What would the general practice be, would the general practice be to stop immediately and to return to head office and to consult Brig Cronje about what you were supposed to do now, or would the regular practice have been to handle the situation there on ground level as it appeared?

MR GOOSEN: I assume that the situation had to be dealt with on the ground level by the commanding officer.

MR DU PLESSIS: And why I ask you this is because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, without interfering with your line of cross-examination, isn't Mr Goosen's evidence simply that once he received the order from Brig Cronje, he then fell under the direct command of Mr Prinsloo?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes. Yes, I'm just alluding to the normal practice so as to be able to argue if it is at all necessary ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is it necessary?

MR DU PLESSIS: ... for me to argue that, about the normal practice, Chairperson. I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you, Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

I have listened to your evidence Mr Goosen, with regard to this person who was in the boot of the vehicle and where you stopped there under the bridge on the double carriageway near Rustenburg, or was it the highway, and please tell me if I misunderstand your evidence, but it would appear as if the man was standing there quite normally and you observed him quite thoroughly, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: My observation was that nothing was wrong with the person, he was somewhat - he appeared normal to me, he did not appear to be dizzy or anything like that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you really expect that somebody who had been burnt with a burning log, especially if one accepts, as I page through the documents, that this man had been burnt on his anus between the buttocks, would you expect that any such person would be able to stand normally, or don't you think he would have been in a lot of pain?

MR GOOSEN: Firstly, I was unaware of the fact that this person had been assaulted and burnt with logs. I was unaware of that fact. Secondly, I would assume that if he had been burnt he would show signs of pain. I'm sure that that would be normal. But that if he had been given some or other pain killer, he would not necessarily display signs of discomfort.

MS VAN DER WALT: I also put it to you that Mr Kruger, my client, who was not at all involved in the arrest or the interrogation, has only one share in this incident and that was to guard the man. And he will state that he definitely had a burn mark on his forehead and between his buttocks and that he himself, Mr Kruger, applied ointment to the mark on the forehead and the mark between the buttocks. Therefore I put it to you that your evidence cannot be correct and that it would have been impossible for you to undertake such observation in the dark. Anything to say?

MR GOOSEN: The light with regard to the stopping point and the point where we committed the act was sufficient enough to be able to make certain observations, such as the pressing of the finger into the eye. I did not see any burn mark on the forehead of this person, neither at the stopping point nor at the point where he lay in a lifeless state as we placed the mini-limpet mine on his head.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you are very ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Ms van der Walt.

Mr Goosen, I am afraid that this matter may repeat itself perpetually. You saw the person laying on his side, you placed some of the mines on top and below him. If the burn mark was on the down side, would you have been able to see it? Is it your evidence that you checked and that you saw that there was no burn mark, or is it simply that you didn't see anything?

MR GOOSEN: I did not observe it because I was not being attentive to anything like that.

MR MALAN: Would you dispute that there was a burn mark on the forehead?

MR GOOSEN: No, I would not dispute it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I have nothing further. Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: I have no question, thank you, Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden, for the victims?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, we take it that you are not bold enough to wish to re-examine.

MR ALBERTS: I have no re-examination, Madam Chair, but Mr Goosen has just mentioned to me that he would like to add something to his evidence and he's indicated that it's addressed to the family of Mr Mbizana, who are evidently present here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he may proceed to do so.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you, Chairperson.

I would just like say to the family of Mandla, as I knew him, that the clock cannot be turned back and that which has taken place I cannot change personally. I would like to seek forgiveness for my share and the role which I played in the killing then of Mandla, and I hope that my version will contribute to sketching the truth to you of how he met his demise.

I thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Goosen, you are hereby excused as a witness.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: With your guidance, may I suggest that this be an appropriate time to adjourn and that we resume at quarter past one. Will that be too short a period? May we then resume at half past one. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the next applicant Mr Momberg?

CHAIRPERSON: That's correct, Madam Chair.