CHAIRPERSON: Today we will hear the testimony of Mr Moni, and Mr Loader is representing Mr Moni. Are we in a position to commence, Mr Loader?
MR LOADER: We are indeed, Madam Chair. In the circumstances, I then call Mr Linda Moni to give his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
Mr Moni, what language will you use when you testify?
MR MONI: English, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any objection to taking the oath?
LINDA OSCAR MONI: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR LOADER: Mr Moni, you are one of the applicants in this matter, seeking amnesty relating to the deaths of - and we've established the names of the three deceased, Mr Casius Nceba, Kaswell Khumalo and Mr Richard Ngwenya, who were then known to you as Nceba, Castro and Elias respectively, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct.
MR LOADER: In your original application for amnesty you deposed to an affidavit which was then commissioned on the 16th of October 1996, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct.
MR LOADER: Madam Chair, for purposes of the record, that affidavit appears at page 51 to 69 of the bundle.
Do you confirm that?
MR MONI: That's correct.
MR LOADER: Subsequent thereto an amendment has been effected to in particular, one of the paragraphs of that affidavit, paragraph 51 thereof, which we'll deal with in due course, but do you confirm that there has been a change brought to that affidavit?
MR MONI: That's correct.
MR LOADER: We'll get to that in due course. I'd like to just take you through the affidavit and confirm the contents thereof. You deal at the outset, and in particular from paragraphs 3 running right through to paragraph 15, with your background, how you were introduced into and within the ranks of the ANC, you deal with the type of training that you received, you deal with a period during which you were in exile out of the country, during which period of time you received further training, and from paragraphs 11 through to 15, you talk about your return to South Africa. Do you confirm the contents of all of those paragraphs?
MR MONI: I do, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader, may I interrupt you?
MR LOADER: Certainly, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: The victims seem to be experiencing some problem of some kind, they can't pick up, I think, the Zulu translation or the Sotho translation. Can we request the assistance of our technicians. Thank you, Mr Loader, you may proceed.
MR LOADER: May it please you, Madam Chair.
Mr Moni, in paragraphs 15 and 16, you make mention and describe the circumstances surrounding your arrest and then following that arrest, in paragraphs 17 to 25 of your affidavit you describe in some detail the circumstances surrounding your incarceration following your arrest. Do you confirm the contents of those paragraphs insofar as that that is what occurred to you in brief terms, during your incarceration?
MR MONI: I confirm, Chairperson.
MR LOADER: In paragraphs 26 through to 28 you've dealt further with the events that surrounded you and your position as a State witness in the trial of Khumalo, Dlhomo and Ramlakan respectively. Do you confirm the contents of those particular paragraphs?
MR MONI: I confirm, Chairperson.
MR LOADER: You then set out in paragraph 29 and paragraph 30, how it came to be that you were introduced to and met with Mr Eugene de Kock and the suggestions that were put to you insofar as them attempting to solicit your co-operation with the South African Police. Do you confirm those paragraphs?
MR MONI: I confirm, Chairperson.
MR LOADER: Consequent upon that meeting, or the introduction to de Kock and the various discussions that were held with him and the events at that particular point in time, you deal thereafter in paragraphs 31 and 32, with how it came to pass that you were then ultimately released from detention and in 33 through to 38, you then deal with your involvement with de Kock and his colleagues at Vlakplaas and you describe in broad terms the type of training, the type of operations and in general terms the manner in which you were utilised as an askari at Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR MONI: I confirm, Chairperson.
MR LOADER: In paragraph 39 in particular, you describe in some detail an incident that took place at Vlakplaas with Mr Eugene de Kock, which you've described as something of an acute process of intimidation that was effected by de Kock upon you in particular and others in general in order to effect discipline within the junior SAP members' ranks and the askari ranks in particular, is that correct?
MR MONI: I confirm, Chairperson.
MR LOADER: Just dealing in very brief terms with this particular incident, first of all you confirm what you have set out there, that that is in fact what happened.
MR MONI: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR LOADER: How did this change the way you viewed Mr Eugene de Kock from that point onwards?
MR MONI: I can say that generally I had no problems with all the things that he did and the other people that he beat up all the time, but when he put me at that shooting range that particular day, I became extremely perturbed and I saw another side of him, which said to me this is not the kind of a person to mess around with. And having said that I never had problems with him, after this particular incident I was extremely scared of him, I had the fear of God that was instilled in me.
CHAIRPERSON: Just by one incident, Mr Moni?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, I'd seen other individuals at that particular farm being assaulted and mishandled by the gentleman, Mr de Kock, and I thought I'd never get to the wrong side of him, but somehow he picked up a rumour and he placed me in this unfortunate position.
MR LOADER: Perhaps it's - if I may interject, Madam Chair, if I can clarify this particular aspect.
Perhaps it's important Mr Moni, for you to describe in further terms what the standard of discipline was like at Vlakplaas under Mr de Kock and what he expected of his members.
MR MONI: Madam Chair, dwelling on the circumstances there, one would ...(indistinct) facts such as the fact that there was extreme military discipline at Vlakplaas, which was accompanied by occasional beatings, almost on a weekly basis on the various members who happened to indulge in unauthorised use of alcohol or who happened to ill-treat their wives or who happened to have had some other social problem or the other which is as a result of ill-discipline. And there was very little tolerance for defiance of orders, whether from junior officers or anybody. I can also say that there was no questioning of orders that were issued by the gentleman, Mr de Kock.
MR LOADER: You've referred to the beatings, was this limited to the black members that were there?
MR MONI: No, Madam Chair, the beatings were across racial lines, anybody was a candidate if they should transgress the disciplinary lines that were set.
MR LOADER: If we can move on then. In paragraph 40 you refer to the fact that in approximately June of 1989, de Kock called you into his office and asked you whether you were prepared to go and work at a friend or colleague of his in Soweto, presumably relating to another mission. Is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: Did you agree to do so?
MR MONI: Yes I did, I had no other option, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: This was just part and parcel of the ordinary instructions he would carry out to you.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: This was then when you were soon thereafter to be introduced to Mr Pretorius, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: The friend that he spoke about or referred to, was that in fact Mr Pretorius that he was referring to?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: You've said in paragraph 41, that during that period of time a policeman by the name of Manuel Olifant - that's one of the other applicants in this application, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: ... whom you say you believed to be an ex-member of Koevoet and was a Mozambican, came to fetch you at Vlakplaas. There's already been some dispute at a rather later stage following the evidence of Mr Pretorius, as to whether or not Mr Olifant went to collect you or whether he didn't. What is your recollection in this regard?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, I definitely do recall, or recollect that Mr Pretorius did actually pick us up on the first occasion. However, we've had ins and outs with Mr Manuel more than with Mr Pretorius at the particular farm, Vlakplaas. Meaning that during the period that we were busy with this particular action and the ins and outs at Vlakplaas, we had been to Vlakplaas more times with Mr Manuel Olifant than with Mr Pretorius. And just for the sake of clarity there, in my mind I had more dealings with Manuel than I had with Mr Pretorius, but I do recollect that Mr Pretorius himself picked us up at the farm.
MR LOADER: You mean Mr Olifant.
MR MONI: No, no, Mr Pretorius.
MR LOADER: Mr Pretorius at a stage.
MR MONI: Yes, on the first occasion.
CHAIRPERSON: So you then want to correct the fact insofar as paragraph 41 is concerned, which would suggest that you were picked up by Mr Olifant. You now recollect that you were initially picked up by Mr Pretorius himself.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LOADER: You do refer in that paragraph to the fact that
"During that period, a policeman by the name of Manuel Olifant came to fetch us"
During that period of time, Olifant did in fact come to and from Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR MONI: Many, many times, yes Chair. He actually took over from there. He was the person that was bringing us and taking us away from the farm on the various occasions.
MR LOADER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader, I don't think you need to take this matter up. I think that paragraph stands corrected, because when you read further the impression created was that Mr Pretorius was met after Mr Olifant had picked up Mr Moni, and to that extent we accept that he wishes to amend.
MR LOADER: May it please you, thank you.
That then introduced you to what has been described and is known as Gys Farm, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And that was one of the offices from which Mr Pretorius worked, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Loader?
MR LOADER: Certainly, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: When Mr Pretorius initially picked you up, did you pick you up to take you to the farm in Zuurbekom(?), the Gys Farm?
MR MONI: Most likely, yes Madam Chair. I think most likely we went directly to the ...(indistinct).
CHAIRPERSON: Was it the first time you met Mr Pretorius? You had not met him before.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Loader.
MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
You then describe in paragraph 43 of your affidavit, that Mr Pretorius gave a description to yourself, Mr Olifant, Mr Lengene and Mr Monyane. Perhaps I must just deal briefly with that. Monyane was one of the other members from Vlakplaas that were seconded for this particular operation, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And you describe that it was explained by Mr Pretorius that there was a group of young comrades in Soweto who wanted to go for military training. Now we've already heard the evidence from Mr Pretorius, that he won't dispute this and doesn't necessarily dispute that this is how it was explained initially. Do you confirm that?
MR MONI: I do confirm, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And that Lengene was going to be the link between yourselves on the one hand and these comrades on the other, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: The operation was described as being one of the false flag methods, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And you understood what that meant.
MR MONI: Correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: You say that the reason why you were brought into this operation was that you had a better knowledge of the use of weaponry than the operatives in Soweto, and this was how it had been explained to you by Mr de Kock. Do you confirm that?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: In paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 you deal with the steps you took in preparation for completing this particular operation and the arrangements that were put in place. And in paragraph 46 itself you describe the process of utilising a hotel in Hillbrow, at which place you were going to meet these comrades, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: You confirm the contents of those paragraphs.
MR MONI: Yes, I do, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: In paragraph 47 you describe going with them to the hotel, showing them various pieces of weaponry, in particular explosive devices and rendering an explanation to them as to how one properly uses these explosive devices, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: Paragraph 48, you describe the further preparation that was to be employed in approaching this particular mission. I need to deal with one or two aspects in this paragraph for purposes of clarification ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: What paragraph is that, Mr Loader?
MR LOADER: I'm looking Madam Chair, at paragraph 48 and in particular I'm looking at page 28 of the affidavit, or of the statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LOADER: And I'm going to read from that and ask for certain comments from you, pursuant to some of the evidence that was led yesterday. You say
"Pretorius further told us ..."
... now I'm reading from the second line down, Madam Chair.
"Pretorius further told us that he was going to speak to his friends in Pretoria to supply him with doctored or booby-trapped limpet mines. Peter Lengene immediately said no to Pretorius' suggestion and he further indicated that he'll never be part of this plan. Peter Lengene stated the following reasons for his non-participation: the comrades are known to him; his family stays in Soweto; other people might link him to the comrades' disappearance since they might have seen him in contact with them. Pretorius made it clear that even if Peter does not want to participate in one way or the other, the comrades will be taken care of."
Now it was put to Mr Pretorius as to whether Mr Lengene voiced any objection in this regard, and Mr Pretorius indicated that that was not the case, that he doesn't recall Lengene offering any opposition to the plan that was to be enacted. What is your recollection in this regard?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, I recall that there was no definite defiance, there was no clearly cut defiance from Peter Lengene. He didn't defy the order, except to raise these concerns that are stated in sub-paragraph 48.1, .2 and .3, that he was concerned about this issue and the issues raised thereof and that he wished that this particular action was not carried through. I understood that as being a strong objection, considering the seriousness of this particular act that was to be committed or that was contemplated.
And somehow I recall that myself and Mr Anton Pretorius went out of the car and he said to me we'll have to do something for this operation, we'll have to carry out this operation and if Pete (as he called him) was pulling out, he at least can ask him to make these individuals, these activist individuals available, so that we can carry out the operation, somehow we have to find a way of carrying that through. So it is in that spirit that I wrote that he had an objection towards the carrying through with this operation.
MR LOADER: As it turns out it's of course common cause that in fact Lengene did participate and was involved in the operation. So is it fair to say that while whatever preconceived misapprehensions he may have had at that stage, they certainly didn't prevent him from participating?
MR MONI: That's correct.
MR LOADER: There is an additional aspect that requires clarification. I'm looking in the same paragraph, but the latter portion thereof Madam Chair, on page 29. Where you've dealt then with what transpired a few days later. You were called into Pretorius' office, he showed yourself and Monyane three limpet mines and two AK47 rifles and a Tokarev pistol. He asked you whether you were familiar with the usage of the weapons. He indicated that Lengene was going to meet the comrades that afternoon and would arrange a further meeting point. Do you confirm all of that?
MR MONI: I do confirm, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And the balance of that paragraph?
MR MONI: I do confirm.
MR LOADER: Later that day you were then driven around with Pretorius to view and assess the proposed targets, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: At Nancefield and Kliptown and New Canada.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: You've described the targets as sub-electrical power stations in your paragraph 49, situated next to or near the railway lines. How did you understand the targets to be? What did you understand the targets precisely to be?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, not being a specialist in electricity, I presumed that these were substations or stations that had something to do with electricity. It is just a colloquial language that I use there, or a common saying that they had something to do with electricity on the railway lines.
MR LOADER: They've been described by - that is the targets have been described by Messrs Pretorius and Steenberg, as "sinjaal houers". Do you agree with that?
MR MONI: It could be that they were signal ...(intervention)
MR LOADER: ... signal points.
MR MONI: ... signal points or something like that, but they had electrical cables or they looked like some sort of substation.
MR LOADER: Okay. But it's clear we're talking about the same thing?
MR MONI: Absolutely correct there, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: In the balance of that paragraph you deal just then with the pre-operation preparation, how the groupings were to be set up, which is precisely in line with the evidence that's already been led in this matter, and you confirm all of that.
MR MONI: I do confirm, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: You later in paragraph 50, describe how you were each furnished with a limpet mine, you were furnished in addition, with an AK47 rifle and you then proceeded to go and meet the comrades. The person that you were to take out, was known to you then as Elias, is that correct?
MR MONI: It's probably the correct person, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: Perhaps now is an appropriate point to deal with this. The three comrades that were to be the targets of this particular operation, were they at any previous stage known to you?
MR MONI: Not at all, except for the one or two occasions where we went to show them the arms and ammunition that we carried with us.
MR LOADER: And that was part of the operation itself, the introductory part?
MR MONI: That was part of the actual operation.
MR LOADER: Prior to you embarking at all on this operation or even being seconded to Pretorius, did you know any one of these three people?
MR MONI: Not at all, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: In fact did you know what their proper names were?
MR MONI: Not at all, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: When did you discover what their names were?
MR MONI: When I was issued with the Section 19 invitation by the TRC ...(intervention)
MR LOADER: In these particular proceedings?
MR MONI: In these particular proceedings, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: We then move on to paragraph 51, and you describe driving to the targets, each one of you taking the particular comrade to whom you'd been assigned to the respective target. Which one of the targets were you taken to, or did you go to and take the comrade to?
MR MONI: The one in New Canada.
MR LOADER: New Canada.
MR MONI: Yes.
MR LOADER: You describe showing the target to the comrade and you informed the comrade that he would only pull the pin out after attaching the limpet mine to the target. It was dark then, you left him there and walked back to your car. Do you confirm that?
MR MONI: I do confirm, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: Okay. We need then to deal at this particular juncture, with the amendment to the statement previously furnished by you in October of 1986, in relation to the incident. Madam Chair, if I can refer to page 67 of the bundle, and I'm going to read from that particular portion of the paragraph what was originally stated. You say
"Before I could arrive at the car, I heard the comrade shouting and screaming and at that moment there was gunfire from an automatic weapon. I returned fire with the AK47 in my possession, towards the direction from where the shooting came. I think I fired about 15 shots. I was panicking at that stage because I thought that I was under attack, but I could not see where the attackers were. I entered the car and drove back to Gys Farm. At this moment I lost my mind because I was confused as to the purpose of the attack and the assurance by Pretorius that we will be covered by his unit."
Okay, I want to pause at that stage. In your new amendment dealing with that specific incident, you describe it as follows -
"Before I could arrive at the car, I heard the comrade shouting or screaming. I opened fire on him as instructed by Pretorius, and I deliberately shot him at the legs. Before driving to Gys Farm as instructed by Pretorius, I drove to Eldorado Park shebeen where I bought myself five or six quarts of beer."
And then you carry on. And we'll deal with the balance of that in due course.
It's perfectly clear that the essence of the amendment is that in your earlier statement you hinted, in fact you went beyond hinting, you sought to draw the direct inference from what you said, that you heard the comrade shouting and that either he or someone else thereafter commenced shooting at you, consequent upon which you then returned fire. So you seem to create the inference that you were acting then in self-defence, whereas in your new amendment you indicate that that simply never happened and that you were the one who fired on instructions. Is that correct?
MR MONI: I confirm, Madam Chair, that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: May I on a question of clarity, find out if you thought initially you were acting in self-defence against who, against the comrade? Did you think that maybe the gunfire could have come from the comrade?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, the paragraph itself which you referred to in 68, in the bundle there, is a complete lie. I wrote that particular statement because I was not sure where the TRC was going to take me if I tell the truth. However, two months after I had written that particular statement, I had a discussion with the TRC Investigators, who advised me that I do not have any misgivings - I shouldn't have rather, any misgivings with regards to telling the truth. Because I had told them that I had definite misgivings in committing myself in an affidavit of this nature to have committed a murder, which is what we had done, and they advised me that they think the documents of the TRC were in good hands.
And I must also mention that most of us and in particular myself, had serious misgivings about the TRC. I heard that there were going to be prosecutions etc., etc., and I never had applied or seen anything like the TRC before and I knew where I was standing with regards to the criminal Courts. So it was in that mind that I drafted this affidavit, the first affidavit which I'm saying here now that it was a lie. The truth is set out in the amendment and is set out in paragraph 51, as said by my counsel, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you not assisted by an attorney in drafting the affidavit that you signed in December of '96? - no, in October.
MR MONI: In October, no, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: At whose instance did you approach the TRC, when you submitted this affidavit?
MR MONI: On my own volition, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Loader.
MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The amendment was drawn, as is reflected, on the 25th of December 1996, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And it was at that early stage that you had already made the decision that it was imperative for you to set out precisely what happened in its true terms, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And you confirm now under oath, that when you heard the comrade shouting for you, you then immediately, and of your own volition on instructions, fired at him, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: Okay. You then describe that you went and purchased five or six quarts of beer. This is an aspect that I wish to deal with because one, on a reading from that paragraph, seems to gain the impression that you thereafter perhaps went on a drinking binge. Was that the case?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: Well straight afterwards, did you go on a drinking binge?
MR MONI: From the scene of crime I drove straight to Eldorado Park, as I have said, and I remember my aim was to try and link up with Mr Manuel Olifant so that we can try and you know, I could explain to him what had transpired. I had doubts about the fact that I had actually executed the comrade as instructed and I had serious misgivings about what had happened in the scene of the crime and I wanted to link up with him to find some solace. And I didn't find him at his place and I drove through around a corner and that's where I purchased these five quarts of beer ...(intervention)
MR LOADER: But did you drink them all?
MR MONI: No, no.
MR LOADER: Now that's what I - when I say you were on a drinking binge, I mean you were set about finishing all of these beers. Is that what you did?
MR MONI: No, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: Did you take then back to Gys Farm with you?
MR MONI: We actually participated in drinking the beers, myself, Peter Lengene and Monyane and I think Mr Manuel also.
MR LOADER: And when was that?
MR MONI: Whilst we were in the process of going to dispose of the deceased.
MR LOADER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: So I think the suggestion as reflected at paragraph 52 of your application, of your affidavit, and that's the fifth line from paragraph 52, that you drank the beers and then drove back to Gys Farm, because that's where you linked up with Lengene, Olifant and the rest, is incorrect.
MR MONI: Precisely, Madam Chair, it gives an impression that I completed the whole consignment.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MONI: The truth is that I had them with me and we were drinking the beers in the process of completing this action that we were busy with.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And the suggestion contained again at paragraph 52, and that's the third line thereof, that you deliberately shot him at the legs, should remain as is. It was your intention not to kill, that is why you shot him at the legs?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: You knew then immediately that you had not executed the orders given by Pretorius, that in the event that the planned operation should abort, you should then immediately use the AK47 that you had been given to kill the comrade, or the activist. You knew then that you had not executed the order.
MR MONI: Madam Chair, I have a problem with the length of the question, however I do understand that the instructions to complete the mission were clearly defined, that here we were instructed to execute by way of elimination of these individuals. I had no doubt about that. The shooting to the legs came with my, I can say fear if not conscience of one of the elements that operated there. I actually faced the weapon more towards the lower parts of the body, and I remember that instinctively because it feels like I didn't want to carry out this action, or somehow I knew it was an incorrect thing to do.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The only reason why I'm raising this question is because having said that, you then went on to ...(indistinct) that you wanted to link up with Olifant because you had doubts about whether you had executed the orders correctly.
MR MONI: Absolutely correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: Perhaps if I may come in at this stage, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Loader.
MR LOADER: While indicating that you shot towards the lower region of his body, you were using an automatic weapon were you not?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And you discharged numerous rounds, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And you were surely aware of the fact that he at the very least would have been grievously injured, if not killed, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: How many rounds, Mr Loader, were fired?
MR LOADER: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRPERSON: How many rounds were fired?
MR LOADER: Perhaps I must clarify that with the witness.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LOADER: Do you recall precisely how many rounds were fired?
MR MONI: I cannot recall the exact amount, but it was in the region of 15 rounds, not more than 15 or somewhere there, plus minus 15 rounds.
MR LOADER: The weapon was on automatic mode, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: You later met up at Gys Farm and that's when the report-backs were given ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Sorry, just before you proceed, Mr Loader.
Mr Moni, you heard the evidence here that the victim was shot in his upper body and also in his face, on his cheek. Did you hear that evidence yesterday?
MR MONI: I did hear that evidence, Madam Chair.
MR MALAN: Did you see any other wounds on the body, or did you observe these?
MR MONI: I do not dispute that evidence at all, Madam Chair. There is - obviously the fact that there was blood all over and I doubt that anyone of us can for certain say that the blood that was seen on the cheek consisted of a wound, or any other part of the body. But I cannot dispute that. We ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: What distance were you from the victim when you opened fire?
MR MONI: I estimate six metres, not more than ten metres, Madam Chair.
MR MALAN: Could you see him that night? Was he visible to you?
MR MONI: It was dark, relatively I could see the shadow. It was a shadow form that I saw, Madam Chair.
MR MALAN: You said he shouted, what did he shout?
MR MONI: He shouted something like "Commander" or "Comrade", "Commander, Commander" you know, as he was coming back from the target, and it was then that I cast a glance in that direction of the shout and I saw this figure coming towards my direction, Madam Chair.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: So you shouted towards the screaming? Sorry, you shot towards where the screaming was coming from?
MR MONI: Towards the shadow. I did see the shadow, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: As well as the screaming.
MR MONI: Yes, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: And according to you, would you say that the screaming came from where you would see the shadow?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: And you are certain about that?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: What time of the night was this?
MR MONI: I recall that the operation itself was set for 12 o'clock exactly in the evening, so we're talking something like a couple of minutes after 12 o'clock, ten minutes or five minutes after 12 o'clock.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr Loader.
MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think we must get clarity on this aspect because there's room for some misconception about it. You've indicated that while you aimed at the lower part of the body, you don't dispute the nature of the injuries that were described by Mr Pretorius, is that correct?
MR MONI: I do not dispute Mr Pretorius' observations.
MR LOADER: Do I understand you then to say that it's quite possible, you may well have hit him in the head, you may well have hit him in the body?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: You are saying you subjectively thought you were aiming towards the lower part of the body but you in fact could well have hit him in the manner described by Mr Pretorius.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair. If I may comment. It explains the fact that the individual having come back to ...(indistinct) the scene of the crime was still alive, or he was still alive, that's correct.
MR MALAN: Mr Loader, sorry for the interruption.
Mr Moni, if one comes clean at these hearings, one comes clean. It seems to me that you've - and I'm putting here an impression, I want your comment on this, that you've left in this paragraph what you put initially in the earlier paragraph, in order to sustain the impression that you did not want to kill. Even in the amended paragraph you're not saying that you subjectively, as it was put to you, thought that you were shooting at his lower legs, you say explicitly -
"I opened fire on him as instructed by Pretorius, but I deliberately shot him at the legs"
Now do you really stand with this, or are you coming clean, saying I fired and I fired at the shadow? You have an opportunity to come clean and we have to believe your story. I know I'm putting you under pressure, but I don't want you to lose an opportunity to get amnesty by not being frank, clear and open with the Committee.
MR MONI: Madam Chair, I will try and understand the definition of the terminology that I used whilst I was drafting this affidavit. When I say I deliberately fired at the legs, I'm referring to the lower part of the shadow that I had shot at. I also do make an observation, or cast an observation to yourselves Madam Chair, that that action, that particular action of not seeing to it that this particular individual was finished, was as a result of probably the fear of committing this heinous murder, or was as a result of my conscience having operated.
I'm trying to explain in that particular paragraph or sentence, Madam Chair, that because of the fact that the individual was still found alive, it was because of the fact that I hadn't shot at the individual the correct way. And I'm not trying to be evasive with any evidence here. The order was to commit this murder and I was part of the order to commit this murder and I set out to go and commit this murder and there is no dispute about that, that we had the intention to commit this murder and to execute and eliminate these individuals. The terminology I may have used could be slightly unfortunate or unintentional, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We are only concerned about what you have used after you have been duly assisted by your lawyer, the words that you used. I mean what seems to be troubling us is what you are conveying to us. You are suggesting that you had no intention to kill the activist after the planned operation had aborted. That's what you are suggesting. You deliberately did not shoot him in any part of his body that would have rendered his death immediately, but shot at the lower part of his body in order not to kill him. Now you seem to be underplaying your role in the whole operation, particularly when it comes to the killing of Mr Ngwenya. Could you - if a person was six metres away from you and it's dark at five past twelve in the morning, could you say that you could deliberately shoot at a certain part of his body? When you are consumed by fear, don't you just shoot instinctively without having to think where you are going to shoot, I mean which part of his body are you shooting at?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, there's no dispute also about the fact that I shot this comrade anywhere whilst I was shooting, even though I had this feeling that I had shot too low, the chances that he would have died still remains ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm not concerned about that. You are suggesting that you were consumed by fear, now when you are consumed by fear, don't you just shoot without having an opportunity to think now do I shoot at the upper body or at the lower body? Do you have room to be thinking about which part of his body should I be shooting at, when you are consumed with fear?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, there was room for that. What normally happens, having participated in a variety of other actions in my life where you have the choice or you have actually a chance of committing, like shooting at the person from the upper body or the lower body or actually knowing whether your firearm was actually faced in the position that would normally result in most of the bullets going at the upper body or lower body. You can determine that, Madam Chair. The element of fear normally doesn't play much role in that fashion, Madam Chair.
But I'm saying here and I'm repeating this, Madam Chair, that I'm mentioning this simply because I'm trying to explain the fact that we still found the individual alive. It's stated - I've read various affidavits, because the gentleman was still alive at that stage, that's why I'm mentioning the fact that I shot at the lower parts and it was for that reason, but it was my intention to kill the activist concerned. I have no other way of explaining what was operating on that evening, Madam Chair.
ADV MOTATA: Whilst discharging these bullets, could you determine where you're hitting him even though you had deliberately intended to now shoot him on his legs?
MR MONI: I hoped that the dispersion of the ammunition that was discharged from the firearm would go towards the lower part of the body, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this is an assumption?
MR MONI: Yes, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Up to today you don't know whether you did hit him at the legs or not.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR MALAN: May I just ask, what is your first language?
MR MONI: Xhosa.
MR MALAN: During some of the questioning here - I just want to make sure I got my note correct, you say that there's no doubt that you set out to commit this murder. When you were shooting you were indeed at that time, shooting to kill him, then you developed doubts - and I'm now paraphrasing, as to whether you really hit him and killed him and that's why you were looking for Olifant. And then you come now with this explanation as to why he was not dead, that maybe subconsciously you were shooting at the lower body. Or are you saying you can remember that when you were shooting at this shadow and screaming, that you tried not to hit him in any other part than the lower body? What really is your version?
MR MONI: The latter part of what you've just said, Madam Chair, is not the version that I'm trying to present here. I do subscribe to the first part of your suggestions, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader, you may proceed.
MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let's just get clarity on this. You knew as a fact afterwards that he was found alive, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And you had misgivings when you left as to where you had in fact shot him and that's why you were looking for Olifant.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose. We've come back to this, I thought we had actually gone passed it. I would like us to move further.
But can you explain to us why you were looking for Mr Olifant?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, I trusted Mr Olifant very much as a friend and I wanted to sit down with him, or just to tell him my misgivings or that I'm not sure whether this whole thing has gone the correct way and try to solicit some advice from him. And I also know that he was supposed to be my covering, in the covering group.
CHAIRPERSON: And you had not seen him around, you hadn't heard anything from him during the shoot-out.
MR MONI: Not at all, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Loader?
MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
You then further in your statement deal with the disposal of the bodies of the three activists, having discovered that only one of the limpet mines went off, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And you've heard the evidence of Mr Pretorius in this regard, which I understand you have no difficulty with and agree with, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: I anticipate that my learned friend who is representing the victims and the families in this matter, is going to pose certain questions to you as to where the bodies were disposed of precisely. Are you in a position to state with any precision where they were disposed of?
MR MONI: I wouldn't be in a position to state precisely or exactly where they bodies were disposed of, but I do remember that we drove towards the direction of Randfontein, which I think is in the West Rand, and along the route I could see signboards that were written Rustenburg/Magaliesburg/Hekpoort. And somewhere along that road we diverted into a gravel road and there was I remember, a stream, sort of a dried river where the bodies were thrown into. And then I also remember that there was a fire that was set onto the bodies.
MR LOADER: Okay. Do you believe that you would at all be in a position to assist, should the victims wish to recover or try and recover the remains?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, I would do anything to help the families of the victims to achieve that goal.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you be in a position to identify the spot?
MR MONI: I doubt that that would be easy, Madam Chair, but I would help a lot if I have to help in identifying the spot.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think Mr Visser can also come to your assistance. Between Mr Pretorius and Mr Steenberg, I'm sure you can reply the tapes as to exactly where in Randfontein or around Randfontein the bodies were disposed of.
MR VISSER: It was somewhere in the Western Transvaal, between Rustenburg, Magaliesburg and Randfontein. I'm not quite sure. Of course we'll assist, but we specifically led the evidence, as did my learned friend just a moment ago, that they don't have much hope that they will find the exact spot, but obviously they'll assist, sure.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that will be appreciated.
MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
You describe in your very last paragraph of your affidavit, that -
"We had reported to de Kock about the incident"
You're now talking about when you were then reintroduced back to Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER
"... and he said he would think of something and after some time he gave us (referring to yourself and Monyane) R2 500 each"
And then you say -
"He said it was from the people of Soweto, presumably Anton Pretorius"
Do you know that as a fact?
MR MONI: I do not know that as a fact.
MR LOADER: That was an assumption that you made?
MR MONI: Well I presumed that it was - when he said that here's an envelope from the people of Soweto, I presumed that he was referring to this operation that had been carried out.
CHAIRPERSON: Was this the only operation that you had carried out in Soweto, when this envelope was given to you?
MR MONI: Of this nature, yes Madam Chair. Of this nature.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say "of this nature", what other operations had you carried out in Soweto of a different nature?
MR MONI: We would get information that there were certain people who were armed in Soweto and we'd go and look for them and we would drive out to Soweto, go around Soweto looking for criminals, ordinary criminals, murderers, rapist etc., and now and then we'd apprehend them and there would be no reward. This was now the normal police work that we'd be carrying out. So it is on that basis that I presumed that he was referring to the assistance that we went to render to Mr Pretorius.
CHAIRPERSON: Was this the first envelope you received from Mr de Kock?
MR MONI: Yes, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader?
MR LOADER: Thank you.
Were any promises made by Pretorius that you would be rewarded at all?
MR MONI: Not at all, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: So there were no expectations by you before this mission or operation, of any particular personal reward, is that correct?
MR MONI: Not at all, there were no offers or promises or anything, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: In the process of completing this operation you understand that you rendered yourself guilty of a number of offences, including murder, conspiracy to commit two murders, obstruction of justice and perhaps certain other criminal offences. You're aware of that, is that correct?
MR MONI: I am aware of that, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: And in respect of all of these offences you are seeking amnesty before this Committee, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LOADER: Madam Chair, I'm indebted. I have no further questions for the witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOADER
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Can we allocate a number to the amended affidavit as handed up by you, Mr Loader? Will that be Exhibit F? That will be Exhibit E. The last exhibit was Exhibit D and that was of General Nienaber.
MR LOADER: That's in order, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. I think before allowing Mr Visser an opportunity to put questions to Mr Moni, we'll have a 10 minutes adjournment, just to enable the family members to compose themselves. Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Moni, just before you ended your evidence, you said that you ask for amnesty for all offences committed by you in connection with this incident. I take you're also applying for amnesty for all delicts that you might have committed during the incident. Is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Is it also correct that you were actually seconded from Vlakplaas by de Kock to Soweto, to go on a temporary basis to help out in this particular incident?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Is it correct what Pretorius told this Committee that later he actually asked for you to be transferred to Soweto and work with him on a permanent basis?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: And did that then happen?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: I only received your affidavit, Exhibit E, this morning and I haven't had time to correlate that with your statement, so I will largely refer to your statement in bundle 2. What I want to deal with first of all is, in paragraph 46 you dealt with the training which you gave to these three victims in the hotel room in the Harris Reef Hotel, and the only point I want to clear here is this. You say that you remember that this session lasted - that's at the bottom of the page, at page 64 Chairperson...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm with you, Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: ... lasted for a period of about two to three hours. Would that be correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Mr Peter Lengene at page 233, paragraph 48, the last line, suggested that you, and he refers to you by name, Linda Moni and Monyane, taught the three gentlemen with explosives for about two weeks. Is he making a mistake with that? It couldn't have happened over a period of two or three weeks, isn't that right?
MR MONI: I'm referring to sessions, Madam Chair, and I presume that Mr Lengene is referring to acquaintance, the period within which we were acquainted with the individuals, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Yes. The only point is that weapons training which you were involved in, lasted in total for two to three hours, is that right?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: But for how long did the training go for, was it two weeks?
MR MONI: If I recollect correctly, we met the victims on two occasions over the period of these two weeks and on both occasions we had sat for two hours to three hours, or an hour. I think on one occasion we didn't sit too long, maybe we sat for an hour or two. But I recollect that I only knew these individuals for a period of not more than a month, not more than two weeks, somewhere around there, within a month, but I met them only twice or even less than that.
MR VISSER: Yes, the question is, was there weapons training on both those occasions or only on the one occasion that you refer to in your affidavit?
MR MONI: I'm inclined to think that, to recollect that it was on both occasions, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Yes, but aren't you sure?
MR MONI: I'm not hundred percent sure.
MR VISSER: Right. Did you report to Pretorius that it was clear to you that the comrades had previously received training in the use of AK47s and handgrenades, as he testified here?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: If we could turn to page 66, paragraph 48. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but you said
"Pretorius ..."
... and that's paragraph 48 and it's two-thirds down that paragraph -
"Pretorius further said that when we go to the targets that evening, there will be people who will be covering us should the plan abort."
Now at the bottom of that page you say - well, let me first ask you, what precisely do you intend to say with this sentence?
MR MONI: What I intended to say with this sentence, Madam Chair, is that usually during such actions a few things go wrong and you can't anticipate all of them and that you would always have a covering group should the people in the operation itself, or who are involved in the operation itself, get injured or should things not go according to plan. That's the abort that I'm referring to.
MR VISSER: Yes, that accords with the evidence of Pretorius before this Committee. You see what I don't quite understand, and I must perhaps be fair to you, you said that in this affidavit you did not speak the truth, you referred only to one paragraph. Were there other issues that you also held back on because you did not trust the amnesty process when you filed this affidavit?
MR MALAN: What is your question to him, Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Should I repeat the question, perhaps simplify it.
You were courageous enough today to tell this Committee that initially when you signed the affidavit which we're dealing with now, you mistrusted the amnesty process, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: And you said that you told a complete lie with reference to paragraph 51, is that correct? Or 52.
CHAIRPERSON: 51.
MR VISSER: 51, yes.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Now I'm simply asking you, were there other issues also that you held back on, that you didn't tell the complete truth in this affidavit?
MR MONI: To my best recollection, Madam Chair, I've told everything except for the paragraph in question, where I intended to protect or I thought I was protecting myself against criminal prosecution.
MR VISSER: Alright. Now if I go to the bottom of page 66, the last sentence there reads, well the second-last
"Pretorius informed us that the covering group would comprise of Stone Steenberg, Manuel Olifant and himself."
And then you say -
"I think the purpose of the covering group was to eliminate us should we fail to carry out instructions as planned by Pretorius. Manuel Olifant has since acknowledged this."
Now does this mean - well first of all, do you still stand with this statement?
MR MONI: This is what I thought at the time, Chair.
MR VISSER: In fairness to you, Mr Moni, you did say that, you say you thought. So was there nothing ever said to you or indicated to you that if you did not kill the comrade, that you would be shot yourself or killed yourself?
MR MONI: There was nothing that was said to me of that nature or that sounded like that, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Yes. Because you see, Olifant you told this Committee was a trusted person by you.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: And you would not have expected him to kill you, would you?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: And in fact when things did go wrong and Elias was only wounded, Olifant didn't kill you. We know that.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: In fact, on your evidence he wasn't even there, because you went to look for him.
MR MONI: I went to look for him at his house, not at the scene of the incident.
MR VISSER: Yes. But he was supposed to be your backup, but he wasn't even there when you looked for him.
MR MONI: That's correct.
MR VISSER: Yes. And you wanted to go and tell him that things had gone wrong.
MR MONI: That's correct.
MR VISSER: Yes. Now Mr Moni, in fairness to you also, reading paragraphs 49, 50 and 51 at pages 66 and 67, it does appear that you were to a greater or a lesser extent under the influence of alcohol that evening. Would I be correct in saying that?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: You say in paragraph 15
"I had consumed lots of alcohol in order to suppress my fears and conscience"
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Alright. I'm not going to deal with the differences between your old paragraph 51 and the new one, but I just want to ask you a few questions other than that.
When you got to Gys Farm and you reported what had happened to Pretorius, you said at page 68, paragraph 52, the first part of that, the last sentence that - "Manuel ..."
... that is Olifant, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER
"... arrived and told Pretorius that he was at the scene ..."
... and I interrupt my reading by referring to the scene as the scene where Elias was shot, is that right? - by you.
MR MONI: That's correct.
MR VISSER: Yes.
"... was at the scene where I was deployed and that he saw everything"
That can surely not be correct.
MR MONI: It is correct that Manuel was paged by Pretorius. It is correct that Manuel did arrive and he did tell Mr Pretorius that he was at the scene and that he saw everything.
MR VISSER: But he couldn't have done that because you went to look for him in Eldorado Park, to tell him what had happened.
MR MONI: I went to see him at Eldorado Park, to discuss with him what fears I had, what fears I had about what has transpired in the scene of the crime, being the person that had actually fired the shots.
MR VISSER: Alright.
ADV MOTATA: But there's a backup - sorry, Mr Visser.
But as he was your backup, after you had shot at Elias, did you see him at the scene?
MR MONI: I didn't see him, Madam Chair.
ADV MOTATA: That's what Mr Visser is asking.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Mr Moni, you know if you can't remember these things, please feel free to just say so because it is 10 years ago and nobody will blame you or hold it against you for lack of how you remember matters. So please do feel free if you don't remember, just to say so.
As far as this issue of where you shot Elias, did you go along to collect Elias after you had been to Gys Farm?
MR MONI: I did go along to collect Elias after, from Gys Farm.
MR VISSER: You heard the evidence of Pretorius that he was still breathing, I think properly translated what he said was breathing shallowly or he was still just breathing. Is that your recollection?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Because in paragraph 52, page 68, you mention that
"We heard someone groaning and calling for help"
Is that really what happened or was he just breathing and not calling for help?
MR MONI: I heard the deceased saying "Help me, I'm injured".
MR VISSER: I see, alright. Now did he die before you got to the dry river bed, as far as you're concerned? - at any stage.
MR MONI: I think I'd be on the safe side if I say he died before we reached this area where we dumped the bodies.
MR VISSER: Do you remember that Casius was first picked up from where he was? Can you remember that?
MR MONI: I do remember that, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Do you agree that his body was then placed in a bluegum bush?
MR MONI: I agree with that.
MR VISSER: Yes. So did you hear Pretorius say that after you picked up Elias and you drove to the bluegum bush, that by the time you reached that point where Elias was - I'm sorry, where Casius was, that Elias had died?
CHAIRPERSON: Castro.
MR VISSER: Is it Castro. I'm sorry, Chairperson. When I refer to Casius, I'm told that I should be referring to Castro. Pretorius' evidence was that Elias was dead by the time they reached the point where Castro was in the bluegum bush. Would you agree with that?
MR MONI: I don't dispute that, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Right. Did you see blood on his upper body, Elias' upper body, when you found and put him into the vehicle?
MR MONI: That's correct, I saw the blood.
MR VISSER: Okay. The issue of Lengene expressing, as far as you understood it, reservations of his participation in this incident, I hear you to say now that what he was really saying was that the comrades are known to him and that his family stays in Soweto and other people might link him to the comrades' disappearance and those were really his concerns, is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: The question I want to ask you is simply this. At the end of the day, was he forced or compelled in any way by anyone to participate in this incident or did he do so freely from his own will?
MR MONI: He did it in his free will I presume, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Yes, I'm not saying that you did not act under orders, because I take it your evidence is that you acted, as well as Olifant and Monyane, acted under orders and it was orders that you were supposed and expected to comply with, is that right?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: You see, because I just want to put to you one thing that does appear to be logical, and that is that if you really wanted to wound, only to wound Elias, it would have been a very dangerous thing to do, wouldn't you agree, because he would have been found later and he might have identified you and the others, isn't that so?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Yes. Now you say that you received R2 500 and you were told that it's from Soweto and you took that to be from Pretorius.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Well I'm informed by all three the applicants for whom I appear that none of them knows anything about this.
MR MONI: I don't dispute that, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Were you an askari at the time, what is generally referred to as an askari?
MR MONI: Well that's correct, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Yes. And how were you paid as an askari?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, we were appointed members of the South African Police and we were paid salaries on a monthly basis and we had benefits as all members of the South African Police, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: Well you see that was really the first question. Had you already been appointed in 1989, in April '89, as a member of the Police Force?
MR MONI: I was already appointed, Madam Chair.
MR VISSER: And what was your salary then? Can you remember?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, I think it was in the region of R1 500.
MR VISSER: Or R2 500?
MR MONI: It could have been.
MR VISSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: What benefits did you also enjoy as a member of the Police Force?
MR MONI: We were afforded housing subsidies, medical aid, clothing allowance and such similar benefits, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: I've just been reminded, I thought I was finished, but there is one issue that remains and that is this. And again I know this happened a long time ago, but I want to refer you to page 66 in paragraph 48 of bundle 2. You heard the evidence of Pretorius here that his recollection was that both yourself and Monyane and Lengene were given an AK47 to take along that evening in case things went wrong. Now you said that there were two AK47 rifles and one Tokarev pistol. Could you be mistaken as far as that's concerned?
MR MONI: I am not mistaken, Madam Chair, there were two AK47s and one Tokarev was given to, the Tokarev pistol was given to Monyane. I don't recall - well in my presence, Monyane was never given an AK47 in my presence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Would a Tokarev be similar to a Makarov?
MR MONI: It's more-or-less, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Because Mr Visser, Mr Lengene said Mr Monyane was issued with a Makarov pistol and definitely not an AK47. - page 234.
MR VISSER: Yes, he spoke of a Makarov in paragraph 15, that's quite correct, yes. Yes. Chairperson, those are the questions which I have, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe?
MR VAN DER MERWE: I have no questions, thank you, Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Moni, just to come on one aspect here, on page 66 of your first ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, could you please speak up so we can also try and hear. It's very inconvenient to have to go through this if there are alternatives.
MR LAMEY: Mr Moni, I'm referring to page 66 of your initial statement, on the bottom. Mr Visser has also asked you questions on this point, where you stated that you think
" ... the purpose of the covering group was to eliminate us should we fail to carry out the instructions as planned by Pretorius. And Manuel Olifant has since acknowledged this."
What did you intend to convey by the last sentence -
"And Manuel Olifant has since acknowledged this."
MR MONI: Well I met with Manuel Olifant on a regular basis since I was introduced to him from the first time when we were picked up by Mr Pretorius and he was always raised concerns, he has mentioned or raised concerns in the presence of myself and Peter Lengene, that there was a possibility or a potential for us to be used against each other. And he jokingly - I remember at one point he jokingly said he's of the opinion that if Mr Pretorius can give me R50 000, I wouldn't hesitate to kill him. We laughed it off. But that obviously left an indication to me that there is, I thought that he doesn't have to tell me specifically that he knows something about these issues, but I had taken that as a definite warning that there is such a possibility.
And I must also add that in such circles, such arrangements, such presumptions are fairly safe to take, because I had seen previously at Vlakplaas where members were used against each other, where members of the SAP were used to kill other members. ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Mr Moni, sorry for interrupting you. I think the question is a very specific one. The last sentence, and I don't know whether you have page 66 of your original application before you, the question is, has Mr Olifant ever told you that he had instructions to kill you should you not carry out the mission, on this specific occasion?
MR MONI: No.
MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: So this discussion that you talk about happened afterwards?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LAMEY: It was speculative talk, what you say.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LAMEY: May I just have a moment, thank you, Chairperson.
Alright. My instructions from Mr Olifant, he doesn't recall such a discussion, but clearly he never had the - there was never an instruction from his point of view, that he should eliminate you or that any of the other people that had to serve the cover had instructions ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, he's already conceded that. Please.
MR LAMEY: I'll step off that point, thank you Chairperson.
Then you have testified here that on route to the place where you had to dispose of the bodies, that there was drinking. Now I gathered from your evidence that you're not exactly sure what the position was with Mr Olifant. Is my impression correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LAMEY: I can just put it to you then. His version is that he was the driver of the vehicle that night, do you agree with that?
MR MONI: That's a possibility.
MR LAMEY: And my instructions are that he didn't partake in any drinking.
MR MONI: I wouldn't dispute that, Madam Chair.
MR LAMEY: Now just one other aspect. My instructions from Mr Olifant are that he didn't - after the shooting had taken place, he was there in the area where he, at the point where he gave the cover, but he saw you. Is it possible that you just had missed him when you were looking for him? Or are you saying that you exclude totally that he wasn't there? Because my instructions are that he was still there, he saw you, he heard the gunshots and he saw him moving out but you apparently didn't see him.
MR MONI: I didn't see him. The intention was not to see him. I'm saying the intention in that we never planned to see each other, or I can't dispute that he was there. I'm not saying he was not there either.
MR LAMEY: So it's possible that you were looking out for him, but you missed him?
MR MONI: I never looked for Manuel at the scene of the crime itself.
MR LAMEY: You went to look for him at his home.
MR MONI: At his home.
MR LAMEY: I see. Then when you went back to - I take it you reported back at the farm at some stage. That is now after you bought the beers, because you had to report what transpired. Is that correct?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
MR LAMEY: Now can you recall that there was a delay about Monyane? Or can't you recall anything in that regard?
MR MONI: I can't commit myself.
MR LAMEY: Let me just get to the point. Manuel Olifant says he didn't go along, he wasn't there with all the people when they picked up the bodies. Prior to that departure he went out to look for Monyane and he came back to the farm and the people left and he remained there. He wasn't with the group that picked up the bodies, but he went along when they disposed of the bodies. What are your comments about that?
MR MONI: Firstly, I do not dispute Manuel's version. If I was to comment, it's that during the process of this operation, as it would be obvious, we interacted with each other on a variety of levels and it would be fair to say that one would place an individual at a place where he was not. So I'm not saying it's incorrect if he says that he was not present when the bodies were being collected.
MR LAMEY: What he also recalls is that at the arrival of the vehicle with the victims, he saw that one of them was still breathing and apparently still alive, but he died on the way to the disposal site. What are your comments about that? Is that possible?
MR MONI: I cannot dispute that, Madam Chair.
MR LAMEY: And then one aspect which you've already rectified, I just want to put on record about the collection of yourself at Vlakplaas initially. As you rectified it, Mr Olifant agrees with you. He also agrees that he was involved in taking you to Vlakplaas, but not at the first time when you were picked up to go to Gys Farm, but subsequently when for the purposes of your needs you were taken to Vlakplaas on occasion during this period. I just want to put to you that he agrees with that.
Chairperson, thank you, those are my questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr van Heerden, do you have any questions to put to Mr Moni?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, just one aspect.
Mr Moni, are you're willing to assist the families to locate the place where the bodies were disposed of?
MR MONI: I am more than willing, Madam Chair.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Have you ever been back to the scene?
MR MONI: I've not been back to the scene, Madam Chair.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Are you prepared to go back?
MR MONI: I am prepared to go back, Madam Chair.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Are you willing to go back in your time and see if you can locate the bodies or the place?
MR MONI: Yes, I am and of course in conjunction with the TRC, as we're operating this thing within the ambit of the TRC.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. I have no further questions, Madam Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Heerden. Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair, no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: I have no further questions, thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?
ADV MOTATA: I've got none, Madam Chair. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moni, during your evidence you've stated that you advised Mr Pretorius that the activists had previous training in weaponry. You recall saying that?
MR MONI: I do, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Now how had you established that fact that they already had training in weaponry?
MR MONI: Madam Chair, during my interaction with the activists we had spoken about the very particular weapons that we were carrying, being the grenades, the AKs, and they had specifically told me that it was not the first time that they've been introduced to these weapons.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware that prior to your interaction with the activists, Mr Lengene had already been giving the activists some training in the use of weapons?
MR MONI: Not at all, Madam Chair, that I can bind myself into. I was aware that he had met them before, but I was not aware of the extent or whether they had actually received any training from him.
CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying that you were not aware of Mr Lengene's involvement in the training of activists in the use of weapons?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you've also testified that prior, well as you were going to where the target had to be destroyed with Mr Elias, you were very nervous because you knew that Elias was going to die.
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: My question is, was this the first occasion on which you had to participate in an elimination of this nature?
MR MONI: That's correct, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you know old Mr Monyane was?
MR MONI: Not more than 25, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: At the time of this incident?
MR MONI: At the time. Yes, he must have been 22/23.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, emanating from my questions, do you wish to re-examine? Are you bold enough ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Loader.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader, sorry, do you wish to re-examine?
MR LOADER: I have no re-examination, thank you Madam Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LOADER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry about that, Mr Visser. I hope I didn't instil the fear of God in you.
Mr Moni, you are excused as a witness.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR LOADER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Loader. Mr Lamey, is this your turn to lead the evidence of Mr Olifant?
MR LAMEY: Yes, it appears so, Madam Chair.
