Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Before we commence, I would like to express our apology for not having started timeously. As you all are aware, the reason for starting this late is because of the problems experienced by victims in not having Mr Tusong from the Wits Law Clinic not turning up, pursuant to having been instructed by the victims in relation to the matter, that we are seized with. I hope you will find it in your heart to accept our apologies. It was a matter beyond our control. Today we are going to sit and consider the applications of the applicants who have applied in respect of the murder of Petrus Lubane, otherwise as known as Comrade X. Will counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants kindly place their names for the record.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair, Roelof du Plessis of the Pretoria Bar. I am instructed by Strydom Brits Attorneys and I appear on behalf of Mr Strydom, Capt Crafford and Brig Jack Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr du Plessis.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair, Adv Jansen, instructed by Julian Knight Attorneys, we appear for Mr Jerry Matjeni, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair, my name is Harry Prinsloo, I appear on behalf of H.J. Prinsloo.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.

MS VAN DER WALT: Honourable Chairperson, Louisa van der Walt. I am appearing on behalf of Mr E. Bester, that is applicant number 14, as well as Mr Dos Santos, who is applicant number 15, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms van der Walt.

MR JOUBERT : Thank you Madam Chair, I am Hennie Joubert from the Pretoria Bar, instructed by the firm Meltz Le Roux and Motchekga and I am appearing on behalf of Mr Kenny More and Mr Smuts Mathebula.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Joubert.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair, Naas van Heerden, appearing on behalf of the family of the deceased Petrus Lubane.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Heerden and thank you for having come to our assistance in our greatest hour of need.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Madam Chair, my name is André Steenkamp, I will be the Evidence Leader. If I may, I have been requested to ask you whether or not - certain legal representatives asked me whether or not they can remove their jackets during the hearing for today?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: That request will be greatly acceded to.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I perhaps raise something before we start with this matter. You will recall that I approached you about an affidavit I wanted to hand in of Mr Strydom in the Mandla matter. I have presented the affidavit to everybody concerned in the matter, and I think most of the people, in fact everybody here, were involved in that matter. I know this is not an appropriate time, but may I just obtain a direction from you, when it would be an appropriate time to deal with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, once we have completed this incident, then it would be an appropriate time to raise the matter of Mr Mbizana.

MR DU PLESSIS: All right, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, I recall that I requested you to hand up or just give us copies of Mr Cronje's affidavit. I know one was previously handed up to us.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I have discussed this with Mr du Plessis and copies apparently were made. I think they had been made already, it is just a question of handing them up. I apologise Madam Chair.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, the application that was handed up and the beginning of this set of hearings, of Brig Cronje, containing three schedules, was his second application if I can call it that, that was handed in. The third schedule relates to incidents for which he asks amnesty where he was the Commanding Officer, but of which he cannot remember anything and he cannot really contribute to the evidence pertaining to the matter. This matter of Comrade X is also one of those matters that is just mentioned in the schedule on page 19, but there is nothing further in respect of that. I have copies, can I hand them up to you? I handed the same set to everybody previously.

CHAIRPERSON: I know, I no longer have my set and neither did my members.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am actually referring to the other people here, if anybody need further sets, I have some further copies.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Have you arranged how you are going to lead your evidence? The sequence is which the applicants will be heard?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I will commence with the application of H.J. Prinsloo.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson, may I continue?

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, you have already given evidence during many amnesty applications, particularly before this honourable Committee?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And in as far as it affects this particular application, it appears on page 333 up to and including page 338, do you confirm this?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then also with regard to Annexure B, it appears also on page 348 to 354?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, with regard to this particular incident for which you have applied for amnesty, it deals with a person who was also known as Comrade X, also known as Petrus Lubane, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: At the time of these events, you were stationed at Compol and your Commander there was Capt Crafford?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And Capt Crafford is currently deceased?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And the Overall Commander was Brig Jack Cronje?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: You were involved with the investigations and detections of the so-called terrorists as they were known then as well as the handling of informers at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: In this particular case, is it so that according to information which was on file which dealt with this particular person, Comrade X?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, there was such information.

ADV PRINSLOO: And there was an informer who had information about this Comrade X?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And in this regard, did you instruct a member of your Unit, Mr Kenny More, who is also an applicant, to fetch this person and bring him to you somewhere?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And did you speak to that informer?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Will you then tell the honourable Committee what the purpose was and what plan you had with regard to the informer in this regard, as well as Mr Kenny More who was a member of your staff?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the information which was available up to that point was that there was a person known as Comrade X who was operating form Katlehong on the East Rand to Swaziland and the Northern Transvaal area. According to information, he had obtained instant training in the handling of firearms and explosives. This training would have been provided to him in Swaziland. Furthermore the available information indicated that he was acting as a courier between the MK Commander in Swaziland by the name of Kibusa and a Unit of MK which was operating in the Pretoria vicinity. This courier work included secret communication between MK in Swaziland and MK members within the RSA. And furthermore he was tasked in explosives and firearms and the supplier of these firearms and explosives to MK. Furthermore the information also indicated that he was also recruiting new members for the ANC, that they would receive instant training either within the RSA or outside the RSA. Furthermore the information also indicated that this comrade had received an order from Kibusa in Swaziland to undertake reconnaissance of the police Headquarters in Wachthuis here in Pretoria because the MK aimed to attack Wachthuis in a bomb attack as in the case of the Church Street bombing. And through this, an attempt would be made to neutralise police Headquarters to a certain extent and to disrupt these Headquarters, which would then create the opportunity for the ANC or MK to operate within the RSA.

ADV PRINSLOO: Please continue.

MR PRINSLOO: I also gave the instruction to Cons More to attempt to infiltrate with this person, Comrade with the objective of obtaining military training from Comrade and so-doing to determine where stockpiles for weapons would be within the RSA, as well as obtaining information regarding MK members in Swaziland and possible further actions which were aimed at by the MK in the RSA. More operated under the cover name of Jeff. At a stage after More had linked in with Comrade, he reported to me that he was experiencing problems and that Comrade kept on postponing matters when it came to the training in firearms and explosives. The suspicion arose that Comrade suspected him of being a possible police spy. I discussed the matter thoroughly with More as well as the informer, the relevant informer, who was consistently in communication with Comrade, and seen in the light of the intended strike on Wachthuis and the House of Coffees, which was situated near Wachthuis which was also regarded as a place where members of the Security Branch and Head Office would frequent, I came to the conclusion that the only manner in which we would be able to make any progress in obtaining closer information, would be if we abducted this Comrade. I then instructed More and the informer to make an appointment with Comrade, for him to come to Pretoria and then on the way to Pretoria, he would be intercepted by More and Const Mbatha who is also deceased so that Comrade could be thoroughly, and if necessary, hard-handedly interrogated in order to obtain the information that we needed. At a stage when the appointment with Comrade to come to Pretoria, had been confirmed, I instructed More and Mbatha to contact me as soon as they had intercepted Comrade. One of them, I can no longer recall which one, then contacted me per radio in my office and informed me that they had indeed intercepted Comrade and I instructed them to go to Klapperkop which was outside Pretoria, and I would meet them there. I then went to Klapperkop where I found Mbatha, More and this Comrade. There was a yellow Cortina vehicle and I was told that this was Comrade's vehicle. Beforehand I had spoken to Warrant Officer Pitter who also served below me, and I made arrangements with him to find a suitable place on a farm for the purposes of the interrogation of Comrade. After I had arrived at the place where the members were, Comrade was loaded into the vehicle and I instructed the other two members to follow me in their car, and upon the directions of Warrant Officer Pitter which he had given to me prior to this time, I drove to the farm which was on the other side of Rust de Winter, I cannot recall precisely where the farm was situated or to whom it belonged.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, I noticed that in one of the applications of the applicants, mention is made of a farm which was taken by Warrant Officer van Vuuren, that is not correct. I was at the farm of van Vuuren's father, but this is situated on the old Warmbaths Road between the Casino, known as the Carousel and Warmbaths, and Rust de Winter is completely to the easterly side of that, on the other side of the freeway.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is not the same farm?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Please continue.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, once we arrived at the farm, I took Comrade into the old farm building, into one of the rooms, and I assaulted him by slapping him quite severely in his face a few times. The purpose with this was to intimidate him. I began to interrogate him. This interrogation which was conducted by me personally, took place during various stages, seeing as I was moving in and out of the farm, due to other work obligations which I had to fulfil. During the interrogation by me, and other members as it was conveyed to me, Capt Crafford also interrogated him at a stage, Comrade X then confirmed the information which had already been conveyed to me by the informer, and furthermore, also made mention of the reconnaissance which he had conducted with regard to Wachthuis and the House of Coffees. As a result of the information which Comrade conveyed to me, I found in the panel of the right hand door of his vehicle, a sketch plan. It was a hand drawn sketch plan, upon which Wachthuis was depicted as well as a cellar division below Wachthuis where among others, the Commissioner of Police and other high ranking officials' vehicles were parked as well as a layout plan in proportion to Wachthuis and the House of Coffees, in terms of the precise locations of these places. The Comrade also stated to me that he had had to undertake further reconnaissance with regard to certain structures which would be the pillars and so forth of the cellar or basement floor upon which the foundations of the Wachthuis building rested. During the course of the interrogation, he also made certain identifications in the terrorist photo album as it existed at that stage, and identified various MK members who had been trained militarily.

ADV PRINSLOO: To whom did he make these identifications, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: If I recall correctly, these identifications were made to Const Bester. I gave the order to Const Bester and Const Matjeni that they would be responsible for the guarding of Comrade on this specific farm, from his arrival there.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well, continue. You stated that he had identified these persons as members of MK.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct. Furthermore Chairperson, Comrade provided information with regard to an MK unit which was in the Soshanguve area. At that stage only the name of one of the member of the MK unit was known to us, as one Brown Sugar. Comrade identified him as one Conrad Lekombi, and he also disclosed his residential address in Soshanguve to me. I can recall that at a certain stage, I gave Comrade a pen and a piece of paper with which he was to sketch a sketch plan for me, of the House of Coffees and Wachthuis, firstly it was to determine whether he was the sketcher of the sketch plans which I had found in his vehicle, and secondly, to determine whether he had conducted the reconnaissance with regard to Wachthuis and the House of Coffees himself. These sketches correlated by and large with the sketches which I found in his vehicle. Capt Crafford also discussed certain other aspects with Comrade and interrogated him about these aspects and he and I would co-ordinate information on a regular basis, until we reached the point if I recall correctly, Comrade had been on the farm for approximately four to five days maximum. Crafford and I then discussed the situation, at a certain stage an attempt was made to see whether or not we could persuade Comrade to work for us as an informer. He did not want to. Seen in the light of the fact that the informer and his family could be exposed, due to the fact that I believe Comrade indicated to me that he was aware of who the informer was, as well as this Const More whom he knew, and the other members of the Security Branch, whom he had had contact with on the farm and during his abduction, Crafford and I realised that there was no further progress to be made with Comrade by eliminating him. By this we wanted to attempt to disrupt the line of communication between MK in Pretoria and MK in Swaziland, and to prevent any further feedback of information to MK in Swaziland as well as any feedback from Swaziland MK to MK within the RSA as well as the provision of firearms and explosives. Furthermore we also wanted to create confusion with in the ranks of MK which was a real thorn in the flesh at that stage. We wanted to create confusion in the light of the fact that this confidante of theirs, this Comrade, had simply disappeared without a trace and that he and possibly also others could be traitors within their own ranks, which would then create panic, and possibly disrupt their intended operations. Furthermore as we had the information at our disposal, we also wanted to prevent further acts of terrorism such as the intended bomb attack on Wachthuis and the House of Coffees. Crafford and I then decided that we would make a proposal that Crafford would go to Brig Cronje and brief him thoroughly with regard to the situation and should he grant his permission, we would then eliminate Comrade. If I recall correctly, it was on the third or the fourth day that Crafford returned to me and told me that he had discussed the matter with Brig Cronje and that Brig Cronje had agreed that Comrade be eliminated. I then instructed Officer Dos Santos who also served under my command, to obtain explosives.

ADV PRINSLOO: Just on that point, did you give the order or was it Mr Crafford, when it come to these explosives?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Chairperson, it was Capt Crafford. If I recall correctly, yes, it was Capt Crafford who in my presence, instructed Dos Santos to obtain explosives with which we would then dispose of the body of Comrade. The following morning, if I recall correctly, I went out to the farm. I had sleeping tablets which I had in my possession, which I had ground into a fine powder and I think that I also had six Amstel Lager beers with me. When I arrived at the farm, Crafford was already there along with other members whom I cannot recall precisely. I then said that they should take Comrade to the verandah, the farm house had a verandah and he was seated there on a chair on the verandah. I then went into the house and put some of this sleeping tablet powder which I had made, into a beer. I went out and had a beer and gave Comrade this beer which had been doctored with the sleeping tablet powder. If I recall correctly, I told Constables More, Mathebula and Matjeni to go to a shop, to go and buy something there. I can no longer recall precisely what it was. The primary objective with that was for me to have as few witnesses as possible with regard to what was going to occur. After they had departed and Comrade had finished the beer, he fell asleep and fell off the chair upon which he was seated. Before he fell off the chair, if I recall correctly, I told Sgt Bester and Warrant Officer Pitter and Const Botha to go to a point which was approximately 300 metres away of the farm homestead, it was an old quarry and I instructed them to dig a hole there. This was after Crafford had discussed it with me, seeing as it was our intention to place Comrade in this hole and then destroy his body, by means of these explosives. We then took Comrade to this hole and place him inside, and Capt Crafford who had a pistol which was fitted with a silencer, then fired one shot to Comrade's head and according to my observation, he was then dead. Warrant Officer Dos Santos then placed two landmines above Comrade's body. We left the hole and he detonated the explosives. After the detonation, there was just about nothing left of the body of Comrade and I told the members that we should search the area thoroughly in order to see whether or not there were any remains which were left, which could indicate that a person or that the body of a person had been destroyed with explosives there. There were a few finer remnants which were found and tossed into the hole, which had increased in size due to the explosion. Dos Santos then further destroyed these few remnants with further explosives.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, are you saying that he once again blew up the remnants, the smaller remnants with explosives?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he used a small amount of explosives to destroy the remaining remnants.

MR MALAN: So there were two explosions?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct. At that stage, I noted that More, Mathebula and Matjeni had returned to the farm. We all returned to the farm homestead and Crafford and I decided what would be done with the vehicle, because we had to get rid of the vehicle.

ADV PRINSLOO: That is the yellow Cortina?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that would be the yellow Cortina belonging to Comrade. I can recall that Mathebula at a stage asked whether or not he could have the car, but I said that it was too dangerous, due to certain obvious reasons. I cannot recall whether it was a 10 litre or 20 litre drum, it was a plastic drum which we filled with petrol and if I recall correctly, it was either Mathebula or Matjeni who spoke of a place deep inside Bophuthatswana where it would be suitable to set this vehicle alight. We then drove to the place, once again I am not sure whether Mathebula or Matjeni drove the vehicle. There, in a deserted place in the veld, we parked the vehicle and poured the petrol inside and outside, over the car, and set the vehicle alight, and returned to Pretoria.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, I beg your pardon, please continue, did you want to say something?

MR PRINSLOO: Capt Crafford, according to my knowledge, gave feedback to Brig Cronje with regard to the course of the operation.

ADV PRINSLOO: As I understand your evidence, Capt Crafford gave the order and the final permission was from Brig Cronje?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: There is just one point, if you will look at paragraph 6 of your application you refer there with regard to the abduction, to Const Mathebula and Const Matjeni. You said that it was Mbatha and More?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson, it was an error on my behalf.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you then request that those names be deleted and that the names of Mbatha and More be incorporated, that making is More and Mbatha then?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: This sketch plan which you found in the vehicle and which was later redrawn by Comrade, did these two plans correlate primarily with regard to the details pertaining to Wachthuis and the House of Coffees?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would say primarily.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was it indicative to you that a thorough reconnaissance had taken place?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. A very thorough reconnaissance had to have taken place especially when taking into consideration the basement garage within Headquarters in order to enter those premises and conduct the reconnaissance.

ADV PRINSLOO: Should the ANC succeed in destroying the Headquarters and the surrounding buildings in a bomb explosion, the consequences would have been drastic?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: It would have been a victory for the ANC?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: The burning of the vehicle, with regard to this action, would it have held any further benefits for the country or the police, against the ANC?

MR PRINSLOO: My and Capt Crafford's perspective was that this vehicle had to be found in a burnt out state in Bophuthatswana and by nature of the situation, the police would have been able to determine from the machine number, to whom the vehicle belonged and that it would later emerge that the vehicle had been found in Bophuthatswana, which would then create further confusion within the ranks of MK.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, within the applications of your fellow applicants and I just want to refer to the application of Mr More, which is on page 104 - just one moment Chairperson - you have studied the application of Mr More, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: In paragraph 1 it would appear that he refers that it was not his informer, what do you have to say about that?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, and according to my knowledge, the relevant informer in this case was initially Const More's informer and at a later stage, I handled him with More.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then if you look at paragraph 6 on page 105 ...

CHAIRPERSON: May I Mr Prinsloo, on a point of clarity before we move over to this point, I just find out from Mr Prinsloo, for how long was this informer, Mr More's informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it is difficult for me to say, it was over a period of time, or perhaps I should begin as follows - the handling of an informer was as follows - as soon as he has obtained information, he would submit a report, containing this information which he had obtained, and More submitted various reports over a period of several months, in which I saw that there was great potential in this informer, and I discussed this with More and then began to handle the informer with him. The informer was still his informer, but I began to act as a co-handler in order to send this informer in various directions in order to obtain specific information.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, if I understand your evidence correctly, then with regard to informers, you would operate with regard to reports which were made available to you in the office?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then on page 106 and 107, paragraph 9. In that paragraph ...

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo, Mr Prinsloo, I still have a problem with the set-out of your application. In your application you state or you have given viva voce evidence to us now where you say that there was information on file and on the basis of this information you gave certain instructions to More?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And your evidence here was in line with More's application, while in your application in paragraph 1 you state specifically that More had received information from his informer regarding Comrade and according to this information, which is still the information from More, he had received instant training in the handling and operation of AK47 guns and explosives, now this information is still More's, and furthermore it indicates that he was a courier for the ANC between Swaziland and the RSA and according to this information, he also recruited new members and he also had the order from Kibusa to undertake this reconnaissance of Wachthuis. In your written application, this is all information which you received from More?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is in line with the application which I made, it is in line with what I have testified here. This information came in over a period of time after I had handled the informer with More, it was a collective collection of information.

MR MALAN: Why did you change the story, that is what I want to know because in your written application you stated that you received all this information from More, but in your oral evidence today, you did not make any reference to the information which would then have come from More. Why not?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have just stated that the information collection of More per se with the informer, took place over a period of time. All those reports landed on my desk, where I evaluated them and decided what could be done with the information. That is how I realised that this informer held greater potential than what he was capable of at that stage, that is when I discussed the matter with More upon which a meeting with the informer was arranged, and I acted as a co-handler of this particular informer. After that, the information which emerged, led to More's infiltration of Comrade.

MR MALAN: You see, I want to be certain because in your written evidence, what is stated here is correct, all the information that you had on file, came from More as the source, everything including the Wachthuis operation, the sketch plans and everything else.

MR PRINSLOO: Up to a certain point, I think that Wachthuis came in after I had begun to act as the co-handler of the informer.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: If you then look at page 107, that is the statement of Mr More, there he states that Capt Prinsloo gave him a pen and writing paper to write a letter to his wife and that Capt Prinsloo told him what to write in the letter and that they went outside. Did you tell him what to write in the letter?

MR PRINSLOO: No, the only time that I gave Comrade a pen and paper was when I wanted him to draw up the sketch plans with regard to the House of Coffees and Wachthuis.

ADV PRINSLOO: Furthermore it was stated on page 128 by Mathebula - was this person, Comrade, ever suffocated with an inner tube in your presence or by you?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was he ever kicked?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: And with the exception of the alcohol which you gave Comrade, was any liquor consumed? You said that you had a beer yourself when you gave him the beer, was there anything else?

MR PRINSLOO: No, that was the only stage at which alcohol was involved, when I was present, it was when I gave Comrade the beer to drink and I, myself, had one in order to persuade him as such, to have his beer as well.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, you saw that in the applications of the black members, you stated that you sent them to Pienaarsrivier to purchase more beer.

MR PRINSLOO: I read that, but I cannot recall that I told them to go and buy more beers.

MR MALAN: Do you recall for what you sent them out, what were they supposed to purchase?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall precisely. I told them to go to a farm store which we had passed, and to buy something there, but I cannot recall what it was any more. The primary objective was just to get them away from the farm at that stage. I can no longer recall, but if beers had been purchased, I believe that the beers would have been brought to the farm, and that we would have had some of those beers, but no liquor was consumed, not at that stage.

MR MALAN: They allege that they bought beers, are you saying that they are lying?

MR PRINSLOO: No, they may have bought beers, I cannot dispute that.

MR MALAN: They say that you sent them to buy beers?

MR PRINSLOO: No, then I would say that they are lying.

MR MALAN: Do you say that they are lying?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, in this action of yours, along with Capt Crafford, in the killing of Comrade, did you act in any way for your own benefit?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not at all.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you act out of vengeance?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you believe at that stage, that your action fell within the execution of your express or implied authorisation within the Security Police?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you act in the interest of the country?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was convinced of that.

ADV PRINSLOO: And at that stage, while the struggle was under way, were there many other acts of violence?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And was it during that stage that these acts were relevant?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you then request amnesty for any deeds emanating from the evidence in the case of the abduction of Comrade and any delictual accountability that you may have as a result of this?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr du Plessis, do you wish to put any questions to Mr Prinsloo, the applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, you did not discuss this operation with Brig Cronje at the time when it was taking place, it was Crafford that discussed it with him?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And therefore you would not be able to dispute if Brig Cronje testifies that he knows or recalls absolutely nothing about this incident?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I would not be able to.

MR DU PLESSIS: Brig Cronje will testify that Capt Crafford informed him about the incident when the amnesty applications were drawn up and that he was told by Capt Crafford that he as Brigadier was asked for permission for the elimination of Comrade, that he accepted the evidence of Crafford with regard to that and for this reason he applied for amnesty as a Commander?

MR PRINSLOO: That may be so.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Prinsloo, can you recall the last time when you arrived at the farm, just before you gave Comrade the beer, can you recall what period of time elapsed between your arrival there and your administering the beer to him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was not a long period of time which elapsed, because if I recall correctly, Capt Crafford told me that the explosives were there, and the hole which the members were supposed to dig, would have to be in an already existing hole, which had to be made deeper. I would say that it would have been two to three hours, maximum.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall that Warrant Officer Strydom arrived there with you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I could imagine that he drove with me from my office, he was also a member of the unit.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Prinsloo, can you recall whether there was any interrogation which took place at that point, after you had arrived there, before you gave him the beer?

MR PRINSLOO: Not by me, I don't know if any other interrogation took place.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Are you aware why you took Mr Strydom with?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Strydom will testify that he also cannot recall why you took him with, but he will also testify that it is his inference that you probably did not want to drive alone, and that it was the custom for members of the Security Branch not to drive around alone, so that in the event of something happening, someone else would also be there and that the two members could assist each other in such an event?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Therefore you cannot dispute that this could be a possible reason for him travelling with you?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Excuse me, the custom which is being referred to, was this a possibility or was this an actual custom to not drive around alone?

MR PRINSLOO: It was an actual custom that in as far as possible, it was necessary ...

MR MALAN: You don't have to elaborate, the question is whether or not this was a custom and you answered that it was a possibility?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it was a custom.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon, that may have been my responsibility, I did not phrase the question properly. Therefore you state that there was such a custom?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you agree that that would have been the possible reason why Mr Strydom travelled with you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is a possible reason.

MR DU PLESSIS: His evidence will be that he noticed that there was signs of an assault on Comrade when he arrived there, what do you say about that?

MR PRINSLOO: No, as far as I know, there was no sign of an assault, not that I observed.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and he will also testify that much beer was consumed in the period from your arrival there to the point when Comrade received his Amstel which rendered him unconscious?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, as already testified, I had a six-pack of Amstel Lagers which I brought with from Pretoria with the purpose of administering the drug to Comrade. As far as I know, there were no other beers or other liquor.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and the hole which was dug, it was some distance away from the farm house?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Strydom will also testify that Capt Crafford fired the shot to Comrade's head while he was already in the hole?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct, I think that I testified as such.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Prinsloo, Mr Strydom will also testify that as far as he can recall, you did indeed send the black members away to go and buy more beers?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I have already stated, I don't know that I would have said to them to buy more beers, I simply wanted them to get off the farm. I believe that if that had been the situation, the beers would have been consumed if they had returned, and I cannot recall any such situation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. If we go to Capt Crafford's version, he states and I will read it to you, page 488 of the Bundle, the second paragraph he states

"... at that stage the information was so important for the Security Branch that should we charge the suspect, his handlers would definitely have followed an alternative strategy. The suspect was also not prepared to act as a source. He would also have presented a danger for particularly the security of the black members who were involved in the operation."

Would you agree with this as far?

MR PRINSLOO: No. I agree, except with the point in the second line "should we charge the suspect, his handlers would definitely have followed an alternative strategy". It would have followed if a man had disappeared, but I don't know what was going on in Capt Crafford's mind, as I have already stated, the major aspect here was to disrupt the line of communication and to create confusion among the ranks of MK. I think that what he meant there was that if the man were to be charged, the persons who handled him in the ANC, who gave him instructions in the ANC, would know that he had been captured and would have applied an alternative strategy.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is a possibility. It is just one of the possibilities, you do not really dispute this?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR DU PLESSIS

"... We thus decided to take out the suspect in order to confuse his handlers, this would also enable us, based upon the information which we had obtained from the suspect, to task other independent sources to follow up further information."

Do you agree with this in general terms?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I agree with this in general terms.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, if you will just permit me one second please. Very well, one final question Mr Prinsloo, my instructions from Mr Strydom are that you also stopped at Pienaarsrivier before you arrived at the farm, and that you stopped to buy beers? Can you recall anything like that?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr du Plessis. Mr Jansen, on behalf of Mr Matjeni?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair. Mr Prinsloo, upon a question which was put by Mr Malan, with regard to whether Mr Matjeni and the others would be lying if they said that you sent them to buy beers, you said that they were lying, do you recall your evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, as far as my recollection goes.

MR JANSEN: Now, if I were to put the question to you in a different manner and if I asked you whether or not they were mistaken, whether Matjeni was mistaken when he said that you sent him to buy beers, with the emphasis on the beers, what would your response be then?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I would stand by what my recollection is. Then something would have to have followed from that, because the beers would then have to have been purchased for a specific reason and I cannot recall anything like that.

MR JANSEN: I have watched your evidence over the last few weeks and it would appear that there are many sinister aspects and contradictions in your evidence and also between your evidence and the evidence of others. Just forget what you have said for the moment, if I were to ask you on the basis of whether or not they were mistaken when they said that you sent them specifically to purchase beers, then certainly you would answer that question of mine by saying that they are mistaken?

MR PRINSLOO: No, my answer would be that I cannot recall anything like that.

MR JANSEN: Correct, you would then agree with me that the actual correct position would be that you actually have no recollection of sending them to purchase beers?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I don't.

MR JANSEN: Very well. Just as much as they may be mistaken, you may also be mistaken, would you agree with that statement of mine?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Very well, can you recall during the interrogations whether you allowed the guards to be present during the interrogations, or were they requested to excuse themselves or to be absent during the interrogations?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, there were members who were present during the interrogation which I conducted. I cannot speak on behalf of Capt Crafford and the others and state what the case was with them.

MR JANSEN: Once again it must be difficult to formulate an independent recollection of something of which you may be very certain when it comes to recalling who precisely was present during these events?

MR PRINSLOO: What I can recall is that Sgt Bester and Const Matjeni were instructed by me and this counted for the whole period of time that Comrade was detained on the farm, that they exclusively would be responsible for guarding that person, and Bester also undertook certain interrogation under my orders.

MR JANSEN: No, I think that in that regard your evidence correlates with Matjeni, it is just that Matjeni states that at no stage was the person assaulted within his presence. You cannot really say that Matjeni was there when you slapped Comrade?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot say that because I was not paying attention to who was there or who wasn't.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair, nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, before I get to you, may I just with your leave, put one question again on clarity with regard to whether Mr Prinsloo remembers having sent Matjeni amongst others to go and get beers. In your affidavit, Mr Prinsloo, you concede that you sent them to a nearby shop to buy certain items, you don't describe the nature of the items, you sent them to buy. To your recollection, what items could you have sent them to buy in the shop?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I have already stated, according to the best of my recollection, I have attempted to recall what it may have been that I sent them out to buy but I cannot say with certainty or recall with certainty what I sent them out for. As I have already stated, I don't know whether it was to buy cigarettes, my primary objective was just to get them away from the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: But you do recollect that you couldn't have sent them to buy beer?

MR PRINSLOO: No. Chairperson as I have already stated, I can really not recall that I sent them for that, because if I had, I would be the first to admit that I did, but I cannot recall anything like that. Because I would not achieve anything by denying that I sent them to buy beers. I cannot recall that.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not a question of not being able to recall or it is a question of recalling that you couldn't have sent them to buy beers? These are two ...

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall Chairperson, I say no, I cannot recall that I sent them to buy beers.

CHAIRPERSON: But if they jog your memory and say that they do recall that you sent them to buy beers, why do you insist that they would be lying if they so said?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as Mr Jansen has put it to me conversely, that possibility exists, but I cannot recall it at all, that I would have sent them to buy beers, for what purpose would I have done so? My modus operandi was not to drink and work together, one would work first and once work was completed, yes, then one could have drinks. That was my consistent perspective and modus operandi.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but then the whole intention was to simply get them out of the way. Why not send them out to go and buy beer, not necessarily to drink during the operation, to drink later?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I really cannot recall that I ever gave them an order to go and buy beers. I cannot recall it. If it had to rely upon the balance of probabilities, that their evidence would be the deciding evidence, I would have to concede to that, but on a first-hand basis within myself, I cannot recall anything like that. Try as I might, I would not be able to recall that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, with regard to this point, you stated that you didn't have any beers before you work was completed, it would appear to me that beer was a big part of your work, because if you didn't have a beer, you wouldn't be able to get the drug into his system?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, but that was an isolated incident, I had the beer so that he would have the beer.

MR MALAN: Was it only you and he?

MR PRINSLOO: No, there were others.

MR MALAN: But that is right Mr Prinsloo, why don't you just tell us that you would drink during your working hours, you and your members had beers during your working hours, that is the evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, but it would have to be qualified in terms of what exactly is meant by drinking during working hours, it wasn't just a drunken party from the beginning to the end, I would never have tolerated anything like that.

CHAIRPERSON: But you, yourself, that morning had brought six-pack of beer, is that not, Amstel?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the purpose of bringing more than one beer?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: What was the purpose of you bringing six-pack?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I thought at that stage that if I simply gave him a beer, what would he then think. In other words I just wanted him to think that we were having a beer together, so that he would consume the drug without being aware of it. That was the only reason.

CHAIRPERSON: How many people consumed beer at the time when you gave Mr Lubane the beer?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, there were only six beers, he had one and I had one. So I assume that four other members also had a beer.

CHAIRPERSON: At your instance, you gave them the beer?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, the beer was there, it was available.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and what would have been the purpose of giving the other members beer?

MR PRINSLOO: The beer was simply there.

CHAIRPERSON: But doesn't it go against your practice of not mixing work and drinking?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, I will reiterate. It was not a reckless drinking, beer had been provided with a specific purpose within the set-up, and there were six beers only, it wasn't an orgy of drinking.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

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

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you Madam

Chair. Mr Prinsloo, if I understand correctly, or let me put it this way, the version which you have orally given today in your viva voce evidence, in as far as it differs from your written application, you request that the viva voce version be accepted, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as I may have made certain amendments, with regard to facts after I had studied the applications again, there were certain facts which I could recall, I would request that the two applications be read in conjunction.

MR JOUBERT : You have also testified that the informer was indeed Mr More's informer. Can you recall this as a specific fact or are you simply inferring that he was his informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, as far as I know, the informer was Const More's informer initially, until he had begun to provide the information, at which point I stepped in and became the co-handler with Mr More.

MR JOUBERT : You say as far as you can recall and so forth, so therefore it is possible that you may be mistaken, that he may have been someone else's informer, but as far as you can recall, he was his informer?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT : If Const More were to testify that this was not his informer, you would not necessarily be able to differ from it, as such?

MR PRINSLOO: No, but during the period in which More and I co-handled him, he was More's informer.

MR JOUBERT : You read Mr More's affidavit and he states that he was called into your office and informed with regard to all this information, which was obtained whether it be via the informer or via the reports or whatever, ended up on your desk and that from that point onwards, he was requested to attempt an infiltration with the informer, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: I read More's version. It is not correct that I called him in, he handled the informer and as the informer or information became available, it was provided to me in written form, upon which I then told him that we should jointly deal with the informer and jointly meet with the informer and take it from there.

MR JOUBERT : Very well, Mr More will differ from you that this was not his informer, that he might know who the informer was and that the informer might have known about him, but that this was not specifically his informer.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I may respond to that. The working method was that as soon as an informer, one would have an unregistered informer who did not provide critical information, then there would also be the registered informer who would provide certain important information, and with the registration of such an informer, as soon as the informer was registered, his handler was given as Const More.

MR JOUBERT : Madam Chair, may I just have a moment on this specific issue please?

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?

MR JOUBERT : May I just have a moment on this specific issue, just to have a quick consultation with my client, it will take a second?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You don't mind if I put a question pursuant to what you have just asked?

MR JOUBERT : No, you are welcome, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, may I just understand you, I want to be on the same page with you with regard to you being a co-handler of this informer. What I want to know is what would be the objective of you being a co-handler of an informer which was already being handled by a member of your unit?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, in the first instance, due to the information which up to that stage, had been disclosed in the forms of reports which were sent through by this particular informer, as I have stated, one would evaluate the information and determine what could be done with the information, whether it be proactive or reactive action. I identified the potential within this informer to infiltrate deeper so that we could obtain more valuable information. More at that stage, did not possess the necessary capacity to issue specific directives and orders to the informer in terms of how he had to act further. That is why I discussed it with More and he had no objectives to us dealing together with the informer, the informer also didn't have any problems with this. And from that point onwards, we jointly dealt with the informer.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr More was aware of you being a co-handler of the same informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: How long would you estimate you had been a co-handler prior to the abduction of Mr Lubane?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it is difficult to say, but it was quite some time. It may have taken place over a few months because certain orders were issued which had to be fulfilled by the informer, and then there was also More's infiltration, and one had to prevent that the two did not clash. So quite some time would have to pass, one wouldn't be able to conduct this within a short period of time, I would say a number of months.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not talking about when Mr More became known as Jeff, discounting the period of the infiltration, low long had you been co-handling the same informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Regarding the informer, Chairperson, that was also numerous months. It was numerous months, because the informer was also tasked with other operations as well, within this context of Comrade and his activities.

CHAIRPERSON: By a few months, would you say it could have been longer than three, but less than six months?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, I would say between three and six months.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Joubert.

MR JOUBERT : Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, it is indeed so, I have briefly had a moment to consult about this aspect with Mr More. He states that the man was registered as his informer, but it was only during the course of this matter, during the course of this investigation in other words prior to this, he was not his registered informer?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, he was an unregistered informer before he became a registered informer and as far as my recollection goes, he was then handled by More.

MR JOUBERT : Furthermore my instructions are that you and he were then the co-handlers of this informer with regard to this operation and that he was involved in the infiltrations as such?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, do I understand you correctly when you say that you agree or concede that Mr More says that this man was not his informer until he met him through you, is that what is being put?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it was put to me that he was indeed acting as a registered informer and then More was appointed as his handler, but before this, as I testified, he was an unregistered informer, who was handled by More after which I then was also involved as his co-handler.

MR MALAN: Could this just be clarified for us please, Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT : Certainly. Mr More states that the informer only became his registered informer during this process, before this process, before the matter with regard to Mr Lubane, this man was not his informer, whether it be registered or unregistered?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I know, he was More's, that is how I came into contact with him, that is how I obtained the information, it was via More. The reports which were compiled, also came from More, the reports regarding the information which was provided by this informer.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, I don't understand what you are putting to Mr Prinsloo. You say that the information or Mr More says that he became the handler of the informer during this process. What process are you referring to?

MR JOUBERT : Madam Chair, the process as contained in paragraph 1 of Mr More's application where he says he was called into the office and advised that there was certain information and there was an informer who had provided information, then he became involved with this informer and the file and the registration of the informer was then allocated to him and he was the person to infiltrate.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JOUBERT : It would be at that stage that he became involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR JOUBERT : May I proceed Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.

MR JOUBERT : Mr Prinsloo, you also stated that Mr More operated under the name of Jeff, is it your allegation that he always operated under this name or that it was only in this specific case that he used the name Jeff?

MR PRINSLOO: No, only with regard to Comrade.

MR JOUBERT : Very well. I asked that specifically because this will indeed by his evidence, that in this case he used the name Jeff, but that there may have been other names with other matters. You have also testified that you gave an order to Mr More and Const Mbatha to make an appointment with the informer and then to abduct him as such.

MR PRINSLOO: Not the informer, Comrade.

MR JOUBERT : Sorry, that is correct, Comrade. Do you know where exactly they intercepted Comrade X or at which point they abducted him?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I simply met them at Klapperkop as I have testified, this was after they had told me that they had the man. It was irrelevant to me where they had picked him up. If I recall correctly, I simply asked whether it was safe, whether anybody else had seen when they seized him.

MR JOUBERT : If he were to testify that they picked up Comrade on the corner of Pretorius Street here in the city centre, would you be able to dispute this?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I would not.

MR JOUBERT : At the stage when you went to Klapperkop, and met Const More and Sgt Mbatha there, who was with you in the vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, I think it was Warrant Officer Dos Santos.

MR JOUBERT : Yes, that would be the evidence of Const More, that Dos Santos was also with you at that stage as far as they can recall. After you had departed from there in the direction of Hammanskraal, is it correct that you contacted Matjeni and Mathebula to meet you alongside the road?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JOUBERT : And you went through to this farm in the three vehicles, the farm where the detention took place?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: In Mr Mathebula's application, it is stated that he heard that this was the farm of Paul van Vuuren's father, and you testified that as far as you know, this was not the farm and Mathebula will also say that he cannot testify that this is actually the farm of Paul van Vuuren's father, so he cannot dispute this with you. Then with regard to the order to buy goods at a farm stall near the farm, the version of Mr Mathebula and Mr More and Mr Matjeni indicate that they were sent to purchase beers, you cannot dispute this, you cannot recall it specifically?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I have already indicated that.

MR JOUBERT : Very well. Furthermore they will testify that when they returned after having made these purchases, they found you and one of the other members in the veld near the hole where the explosion had taken place, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JOUBERT : And they will also testify that they were requested to search the area for any remains or any remnants or signs which may have been laying around?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall anything like that Chairperson, I did not issue such an instruction. I would imagine that we had already finished the second explosion? No, we had not. If I recall correctly, at that stage, it was just before Dos Santos would have blown up the last remains, but that they assisted in gathering up these remnants or remains, I do not know.

MR JOUBERT : But you would not dispute that they were given an order by someone there, it might not have been you, but someone may have told them to look around in the area to look around for remnants? Furthermore they state that a remnant of scull was found and tossed into the hole and after this, you moved back to the house where the interrogation or the detention had taken place, would you agree with me?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT : And at that stage when you discussed what was to happen with the Cortina, they had a beer? It wasn't a party or a drinking session as such or any kind of drunken stupor, it was just that from that point onwards, you departed to set the vehicle alight, can you recall anything like that?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot. All that I can recall is that from that point onwards, we undertook the planning regarding the vehicle, that we also waited to get darker, so that we could depart with the vehicle.

MR JOUBERT : But you cannot dispute it, it may have been so?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, if they were drinking, it may have been so, I cannot dispute it.

MR JOUBERT : Well, it is not pertinently stated that you had a drink.

MR PRINSLOO: I didn't see anything myself.

MR JOUBERT : The area to which the vehicle was taken to be burnt, would you agree that this was Bosplaas West, near Hammanskraal?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it is possible, I did not know the area very well.

MR JOUBERT : Mr Mathebula also states that he was involved in the assault of Comrade X during the interrogation and he also states that there was slapping, kicking and suffocation by means of an inner tube. You have already testified that you simply slapped this person, you would not be able to dispute that Mathebula may have kicked or slapped him at any stage?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, I was not on the farm all the time. I don't know what took place in my absence.

MR JOUBERT : Because Mr Mathebula's evidence will be that such assaults did indeed take place, but that he cannot recall what your specific share in it was, or whether you were always present or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, doesn't he actually put Mr Prinsloo at the scene of when he was suffocated by means of a tyre?

MR JOUBERT : Madam Chair, yes, he indicates that as far as he recalls, Mr Prinsloo was present.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JOUBERT : But whether he partook in anything, he cannot testify and when he gives his testimony, he will address this issue specifically. Mr Prinsloo was according to his memory present during some of these assaults, but he cannot say whether he partook in any of these specific assaults as such.

CHAIRPERSON: So you have since had further instructions?

MR JOUBERT : I have received further instructions during consultation, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR JOUBERT : Madam Chair, may I just have a moment to clarify whether there are any other issues, with my two clients?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JOUBERT : Madam Chair, thank you very much, only one issue. Mr Prinsloo, Const More states that he did not compile reports for you regarding the situation. It is just that he recorded in the journal when he had made certain visits to Comrade X?

MR PRINSLOO: No, that is not correct. Perhaps I should just explain what the actual work procedure would be with regard to an informer's file. A file was kept with regard to any informer, whether they were registered or unregistered and when a reward was to be issued, for example in the case of an unregistered informer, one would consult the production which would be measured in terms of the written reports, which indicated which information had been provided by the informer. In the case of a registered informer, this would also be done with regard to the written information reports in order to make an evaluation of the informer and to decide whether or not this would be a monthly, bi-monthly or tri-monthly reward for the informer, because it had to be stated in the application for the reward of such an informer, and there would be no exception to the rule, when it came to this.

MR JOUBERT : Mr Prinsloo, just one further aspect, in paragraph 5 of your application, you state that Const More also proposed that Comrade be abducted with the assistance of the informer and that information could be obtained from Comrade by means of interrogation? If I understand, this is your evidence after consultation?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT : I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: We will have a 45 minute lunch adjournment and we will recommence our proceedings at two o'clock, on the dot, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: We adjourned these hearings when Mr Joubert had concluded his cross-examination of Mr Prinsloo, am I correct Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT : That is correct Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will then ask Mr van Heerden if he has any questions to put to Mr Prinsloo.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I've got no specific instructions to oppose any of these applications, I just need to clarify certain aspects with Mr Prinsloo. May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: When did you become for the first time of Petrus Lubane?

MR PRINSLOO: By means of an Intelligence report which landed on my desk which was submitted by Const More.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was that the very first time when you came to hear of him, of this person?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was then only known as Comrade? Such a report, would it contain any personal particulars of the person, about whom the report was?

MR PRINSLOO: Generally depending upon how many particulars were available regarding this specific person who was being reported about.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall whether there were any personal details which were known about this Petrus Lubane or Comrade?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I believe that I can recall his address and his place of employment. I can no longer recall precisely what they were, but they were contained within the report.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall that he was employed?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: If I were to say to you that he was a representative at that stage, would you say that that makes sense?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it rings a bell, it may be so.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Furthermore in your evidence you stated that the informer was brought to your office, did I understand you correctly?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not to my office, a meeting was arranged. One would not see an informer at the office because that could expose the informer, one would need a safe place where one could meet with such an informer.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How long did this initial meeting with the informer take?

MR PRINSLOO: The first meeting? Are you referring to the first meeting?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: It took quite some time, quite a number of hours if I recall correctly, because due to the circumstances I was a complete stranger and there was an absolute relationship of trust between the informer and the handler, therefore I needed to explain the situation beforehand in order to determine whether or not I would be suitable as a co-handler for this informer.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Very well, I am going to take a leap.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, at the stage when someone agreed to a meeting with you, would he not already have accepted the facts?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, More would go to the informer and tell him I want you to meet Prinsloo, he also wants to talk to you and the informer would agree. I still had to win the trust of that informer as his co-handler, because I then had access to that top secret information which he had provided and also his identity.

MR MALAN: But wouldn't such an informer know that the Commander would be aware of this?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not necessarily because they would work according to numbers, the informers. His identity was exclusively for the information of the handler.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair. Can you recall who the informer was?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Are you prepared to disclose his identity?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, I cannot do so. I am prepared to provide his registered number.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What is that?

MR PRINSLOO: MT(G)402 if I recall correctly.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you know whether he is still alive?

MR PRINSLOO: I have lost contact with him since or before I left the Northern Transvaal Security Branch for Compol.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether this person is still being used as an informer, Mr Prinsloo, by the Security Police?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no, I don't know, I cannot say.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Then I would just deal with a few other aspects with you. The Cortina vehicle that you have referred to in which you found the sketch plan, could you tell us where in the vehicle you found it?

MR PRINSLOO: As I have testified Chairperson, it was in the right front door, where there was a panel which one would pull from the door. It was behind this panel, the section in which the window would move up and down.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was there only this one piece of paper in the panel?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, I think that there were three sheets of paper.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What was on the other two?

MR PRINSLOO: One depicted the precise location of Wachthuis and what the set-up with Wachthuis was, then there was a depiction of the basement garage and then there was one with regard to the House of Coffees, the precise location and what its approximate set-up was on the inside.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you struggle to get Petrus Lubane to tell you about the sheets of paper or did he offer the information himself?

MR PRINSLOO: After my initial assault of him, the discussions that I then had with him, led to thorough information that he gave me.

MR VAN HEERDEN: > And the assault comprised a number of slaps?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, quite severe slaps.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would this information or these sketch plans not have provided sufficient material for a prosecution?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, once again, one would have to examine the possible implications of a prosecution, especially for the informer, because he would have suffered immediately, he and his next of kin. Let me just state that the informer was at one stage, himself with Petrus Lubane in the basement garage and in Wachthuis in order to collect information of what the structure appeared to be on the inside.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And then just the place where the deceased was killed, could you elaborate on that, precisely where it was located?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I have already stated, it is quite difficult for me, I have a vague idea. I know that it is passed the Rust de Winter police station, there are various gravel roads splitting off from the road and we travelled along one of those gravel roads. This was also the first time that I visited the area, therefore I cannot tell you pertinently or give you a precise description. If I were to be placed at the farm, I would be able to tell you immediately whether it was the right place or not.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Therefore you wouldn't be capable of driving there right away?

MR PRINSLOO: No, perhaps Const Mathebula or More or Matjeni would be able to assist in finding the place, but I myself would not be able to find it by myself again. I might struggle somewhat.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You stated that there were two separate explosions. Did you go to the remains again after the second explosion?

MR PRINSLOO: No, because it was very little, small remnants.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you think that anything could have remained?

MR PRINSLOO: I doubt that very strongly.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you know whether any of the other members went to inspect the scene?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I understood from your evidence that you acted sort of under the orders of Capt Crafford, would that be a correct description or not?

MR PRINSLOO: I would answer yes. We discussed it together and arrived at the conclusion. He went to Brig Cronje and gave me feedback, yes, I would say that I acted under his orders.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And you associated yourself with the order?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I have no further questions Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Heerden. Adv Steenkamp, do you wish to put any questions to Mr Prinsloo?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Madam Chair, no questions.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, do you have any questions to put to Mr Prinsloo?

MR MALAN: Yes, please Chair. Mr Prinsloo, I just want to cultivate an idea of the course of time from when you and Crafford decided to kill Mr Lubane and to destroy his body, in your statement you say that he went to Cronje and that he returned and gave you feedback?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Was this on the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And you then proceeded and carried it out?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: When?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I think it was the day after Capt Crafford told me that Brig Cronje had agreed and stated that the man could be eliminated, that was when it took place, because by nature of the circumstances, there were no explosives on the farm and it had to be obtained. The drug was also not there.

MR MALAN: Therefore you went home or back to your office first?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, I moved in and out from the farm, I wasn't there all the time.

MR MALAN: You didn't stay over there?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I didn't.

MR MALAN: But that was not the same day upon which you received permission that you executed the order?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it was a day or so after.

MR MALAN: Very well, and this sleeping drug, we have heard upon previous occasions about this sleeping drug, where did you obtain it from?

MR PRINSLOO: The same as the previous application.

MR MALAN: Did you only use the sleeping drug twice?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: And in none of the other cases for which you have applied, did you use a sleeping drug?

MR PRINSLOO: Just give me the opportunity to think about this. There were three cases.

MR MALAN: And if I recall correctly, last time you testified that you took approximately ten tablets?

MR PRINSLOO: It was between five and ten.

MR MALAN: Yes, between five and ten and you ground this into a fine powder, but you didn't tell us that you had stored some from the previous occasion. Were these the same tablets?

MR PRINSLOO: No, from the same source.

MR MALAN: And you used these tablets three times?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: So how many tablets did you have?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, I did not count, quite a few.

MR MALAN: Very well, you state that one of the reasons why you could not charge or release Comrade, was the fact that the life of the informer and his family would be jeopardised, but you also stated that the information that the informer provided, led to the arrest of Makhubela, Magoirani and Lekombi.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Were they charged and convicted?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Then why didn't you kill them? Wasn't the informer's life endangered in that situation?

MR PRINSLOO: Perhaps I should just qualify, this was information which was given by Comrade to the informer and the only name that we had at that stage that the informer could gain, was Brown Sugar who was a member of the group. Whether he was in command, was only later determined, and during the interrogation of Comrade, the real name emerged.

MR MALAN: And the name was?

MR PRINSLOO: Conrad Lekombi.

MR MALAN: Would you please look at Maj Crafford's application on page 486 under the small (iv), the second paragraph. Crafford states

"... this was a reliable source"

and you knew this because he had provided information previously which had led to the arrest of these four persons?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that was not placed into the correct context. This arrest of Lekombi and the others only took place after Conrad’s elimination. This is information which was followed up. Another informer had to be brought in with regard to this Conrad Lekombi whom we had identified, his residence and so forth, and as a result of that information and further follow up information, the externally trained terrorists were found and charged.

MR MALAN: Why wasn't the informer jeopardised in that situation? I cannot understand this? My informer's life is jeopardised with Lubane, but not with the other four?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the informer did not know who or where this person, Brown Sugar, was. Lubane did not want to give him any further details about this person, up to that stage. It was only during my interrogation of Lubane that he told me that Brown Sugar was one Conrad Lekombi and he gave me his address in Soshanguve where he resided. I then brought in another informer and tasked him with regard to the Lekombi matter in order to give more attention to him, Therefore we didn't use the same informer with that.

The informer was unknown to Lekombi and the others and vice versa.

MR MALAN: Very well. And then somewhere in your viva voce evidence you also stated that if you arrested him or charged him or released him, then among others the ANC would have been able to amend their plans or strategies.

MR PRINSLOO: It was put to me as a possibility, yes.

MR MALAN: I think it was also Crafford who said something to that effect. And you agree with this?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it was a possibility.

MR MALAN: Wasn't that what you wanted for the strategy to be amended so that they would no longer attack Wachthuis?

MR PRINSLOO: No, one didn't know how far the information went according to Lubane or let me say that beforehand we didn't know whether Lubane channelled the information or not. During his interrogation he told me that he wanted to undertake a further follow up observation of the targets and I understood that he had received an order from his Swaziland handler to obtain further or closer particulars.

MR MALAN: Very well. Then I just want to return to something which I put to you earlier with regard to your viva voce evidence which sounded to me as if More's statement was placed before us here, and I refer to the first five to six paragraphs of your application. You state in your written application that More suggested the abduction of Comrade?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, I amended this. What I actually meant with that was that after my discussions with him and after he had infiltrated with Comrade and after the discussions with the informer, it became clear to me that this man would only talk the hard way, that was the only way that we could get him to talk.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, I think that I should refer you to paragraph 5 on page 334, where you state that More suggested and in paragraph you say that you agreed with this abduction and that More suggested and there you made an amendment of names, that he and Mbatha conducted the abduction. I think that there would be a subsequent amendment in paragraph 7, which would be him and Mbatha, who conducted the abduction and that they telephoned you. In your oral evidence you also said that - you stated that you didn't know where the abduction would have taken place and if you look at More's application, he is very specific and I am asking you this now because I don't want us to recall you in order to discuss these matters again. More is very specific in his application, very clearly he states that you took the lead, you gave him the orders and then his paragraph 6 on page 105 or let us first look at paragraph 5. He says that he told you that he suspected that this man was lying, that it was all a bluff and that he didn't really have any information. Did he ever tell you this?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he expressed his doubt, I can recall that.

MR MALAN: But you reacted according to your evidence, to his information?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, the information from him and the informer.

MR MALAN: Very well. Then in paragraph 6 he states that you requested him to arrange for a meeting, you requested the informer to arrange for a meeting with Petrus?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: They had to meet each other on the corners of Andries and Pretorius Streets near United Bank in Pretoria. The appointment had to be for eleven o'clock, you do not know about this?

MR PRINSLOO: I do not know about it. All I knew is that they had to intercept him. They had to arrange for an appointment for him to come to Pretoria so that they could intercept him.

MR MALAN: Yes, that is correct, and in paragraph 7 he states the following day you called him and Mbatha to your office again and told him, told them to take him but not to draw any attention to themselves, which meant actually that they were supposed to abduct him and that they did so. Now, here we have two different statements regarding how the matter took place, two different stories. He says everything took place specifically according to your orders, there were details, you had control over the operation, you led it from point to point, from place of arrest to time of arrest, all the details. Isn't it more probable than yours, in which you state "well, just catch him and let me know once you've caught him".

MR PRINSLOO: That is not my evidence, and I will stand by what I have already testified here.

MR MALAN: That was your evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: No, my evidence was that I gave them an order, make an appointment, get the man to come to Pretoria and intercept him. I never told them precisely where they were to abduct him or at precisely what time. They had clear orders.

MR MALAN: It could have been any day as well.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. They contacted me by radio in the office and told me that they had the man, and that is when I told them to go to Klapperkop and that I would meet them there.

MR MALAN: And you say that there were two explosions?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: During which - in all the documents, in the best of my knowledge, reference is made to two explosions in only one, and that would be your verbal evidence. Are you sure that there were two explosions?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: It was not the two landmines which exploded together?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, the second explosion was to destroy any remnants which were found in the area.

MR MALAN: And with the second explosion after that, you left the place, you didn't go to see whether there was anything remaining?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: The evidence of the others, those who were sent to buy the goods or the beers, they state that when they returned they saw you filling the hole, that the hole was filled and covered before you left?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: So you allowed a second explosion to take place which would destroy all the remaining remnants which you had gathered from there and placed together on a small heap?

MR PRINSLOO: The hole had been enlarged by the first explosion, the remnants were simply placed in the hole and then blown up again. By nature of the circumstances under which this was done, one wanted to eliminate all clues or evidence.

MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Motata, do you have any questions to put to Mr Prinsloo?

ADV MOTATA: Yes, certainly. I may have missed this Mr Prinsloo, just for my own clarification. I heard you that the purpose of taking him to Klapperkop was to interrogate him, am I correct this far?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, it was purely a meeting, that we could converge there and then move out to the farm. The purpose was not to interrogate him there, because that would draw way too much attention if we spent a long time there.

ADV MOTATA: At Rust de Winter, the purpose was still to interrogate, that is at the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV MOTATA: The decision to eliminate him, was taken whilst he didn't provide any further information which was useful to you?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV MOTATA: At what stage did you obtain now these explosives to eliminate him with?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, this was after Capt Crafford had informed me that Brig Cronje had agreed to the elimination, and he then gave Dos Santos the instruction to obtain explosives so that we could destroy the body.

ADV MOTATA: Now, because the man was blown up the first time, and if I listen to evidence in previous hearings, or in hearings of this nature the passed few days, is that the idea would be to convey that the man probably was busy with the explosives and he blew himself up. To blow him for the second time, the pieces that fell away, what was the main idea, because the man has been eliminated? What is the idea to take on all these little bones and pieces of meat, to put them together and blow them up again?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I have already stated, it was to destroy any clues which would indicate that a person's body had been destroyed during an explosion there. The owner of the farm was not aware of what was going on there, so by nature of the situation, he would perhaps have heard about the explosion, he may have asked us and the acceptable explanation would have been that we were simply testing something in the quarry. Therefore in as far as it was possible, we wanted to get rid of any clues.

ADV MOTATA: Did Dos Santos say who gave him the explosives?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson. He was a trained demolitions expert, so I don't know where he obtained the explosives from.

ADV MOTATA: Lastly and this emanating from my colleague here, when you said no, it was not a decision of Const More who said this gentleman was a danger, not only to Wachthuis but also to South Africa, but if you turn to page 336 in your own words, you only realised his danger after interrogating him, paragraph 10.

MR PRINSLOO: 336?

ADV MOTATA: That is correct. And that would be the very first paragraph, paragraph 10. You only realised the danger, that he is a dangerous man after he refused certain information?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV MOTATA: So it would follow that More realised the danger that this man posed, and you realised that after you had interrogated him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, and the confirmation that I received about it.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Motata. Mr Prinsloo, would I be correct when I say that the affidavit that we have in front of us, with regard to this incident ...

MR PRINSLOO: Sorry, I cannot hear very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, can you use your microphone, your headphone so that you can hear the translation in your own language. Are you tuned to Afrikaans?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Would I be correct if I say that the affidavit that is before us with regard to this incident, was prepared by you through the assistance of your lawyers?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that the affidavit before us was deposed by you around December 1996?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the facts relating to this incident, were much fresher then than they are now, three years down the line?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I wouldn't say that. After I had studied the applications of the other applicants, there were certain aspects which returned, which one could recall into memory which became clearer, which at that stage one may not have incorporated into the application which was made under great pressure, because one could not recall these matters or simply didn't think of it due to the strain.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The facts, the ones that you could recall then, were much fresher then than they are now?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The reason why I am asking this is because in your affidavit you made facts without saying that they are not entirely within your recollection. For instance, on page 333 at paragraph 1 you give facts on how the information regarding Mr Lubane's activities was obtained.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, how it came to my knowledge initially.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and you state there that it was through the informant of Mr More.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In your viva voce you have now conceded that you had sight of reports?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these reports prepared by other informants, other than the one referred to here in paragraph 1?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, perhaps I can place this into perspective. The informer himself would not compile a report in his own handwriting, because he or she could expose himself or herself. It would be done by the handler after a discussion with the informer. He would take notes and then compile a report. So there was no indication in that report of who the informer could be. This was all due to security reasons. So the information which is referred to here, came to my knowledge in that fashion, in paragraph 1.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. In your viva voce you have also referred to having received reports other than one compiled subsequent to the information give to the informer, who is alleged here to have been Mr More's informer. What my question is trying to ascertain is whether those reports were compiled subsequent to information received from other informants, other than the one that has been alleged in paragraph 1 to have been Mr More's informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, collection of information was a continuous process. Every time the informer had contact with Comrade and something took place, he would have to return and give feedback. Where it was about information, an information report would be compiled in order to reward the man for his services at the end of the day, and after More was also infiltrated, basically information came from two sources with regard to Comrade and his activities.

CHAIRPERSON: So you only relied on one informer and that is the informer that you have later on stated to have been a co-handler of, that is the only informer that you relied upon with regard to the activities of Mr Lubane?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You then later on relied on the reports made by Mr More subsequent to his attempt to infiltrate Mr Lubane?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson. More's as well as the informer's.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And at one stage Mr More advised you that he didn't think much of Mr Lubane and his activities because no arms were forthcoming in order to train him and that he thought he was merely bluffing?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct. As I have stated, I told More if I recall correctly that he should not be overly hasty, because one could not force the situation to ripen, he would have to establish a relationship or a situation of trust with Lubane first. I don't know whether it was due to the fact that he did not have appropriate communication or affinity for the situation, but he felt that he should not continue any further with the infiltration, because he felt that he was not achieving much.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it immediately after he had suggested that the man might be bluffing, that you then decided to abduct Mr Lubane in order to interrogate him, was it immediately thereafter?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, the informer was still reporting on a regular basis regarding further information regarding the activities of Lubane, on the contrary this is not embodied in my application. The informer had been to Swaziland a number of times with orders from Lubane, so in other words, no, to that question, it was not immediately after Lubane's withdrawal that action was taken.

CHAIRPERSON: How long had Mr More attempted to infiltrate Lubane when he advised you that he didn't think much of Mr Lubane's activities? Had he been there for a few weeks or had he been there for a few months? The reason why I am asking is because you stated that you told him, you told Mr More not to be too hasty and to try and establish a relationship of trust. What I want to know is after how long he had been attempting to infiltrate Lubane, did he tell you about his observation and his feelings about Lubane's activities and that he was merely bluffing?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, it was over a period of approximately two months. I just wish to put this into perspective as well, More was not living with Lubane all the time. Now and then he would establish contact with Lubane, then he would travel to Katlehong and have discussions with him. So, it wasn't continuous 24 hour contact that he had with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I am aware of that, otherwise I think Mr Lubane also would have had his eyebrow raised if he had been there with him, he had to pretend that he was being interested in being trained like other people would do if they wanted to be trained, the other activists in the area. So he was there for a period of about two months?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: How soon thereafter did you decide to abduct him for purposes of interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was also a month or two thereafter. After the informer had been to Swaziland under the orders of Comrade. I would say approximately two months, a month to two months.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. When you took a decision to ...

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Chairperson, perhaps I can just interpose here. It was at that stage when it emerged that there was a reconnaissance which the informer had undertaken with Comrade at Wachthuis.

CHAIRPERSON: So the informer was able to give you a report that he had been party to the reconnaissance of Wachthuis together with Mr Lubane?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. When you took a decision to abduct Mr Lubane, your intention was to interrogate him with a view of yourself extracting more information about his contacts with operatives in Swaziland as well as those MK operatives which were already in the country and also about and also about his Commander, Kibusa in Swaziland?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, as well as the proposed attack on Wachthuis and the House of Coffees.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now having obtained that kind of information, as a result of his interrogation, what did you intend to do with him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that was the dilemma that we found ourselves in, which Capt Crafford and I discussed and the conclusion that we arrived at, when we decided ultimately that the only way out was to get rid of the man, because he posed too much of a threat or a risk in any other way.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think you understood my question. My question is, when you took a decision to abduct him for purposes of conducting an interrogation on him, what did you intend to do with him, after having interrogated him? This is your decision at the time of deciding to abduct him, and interrogate him, what then was in your mind, what did you think you would do with him after having abducted and interrogated him? At the time when you took a decision to abduct?

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. Chairperson, the background knowledge which was at my disposal with regard to Comrade as a person, indicated that there could be a possibility to turn his mind, in other words to recruit him as an informer.

MR MALAN: What information was that?

MR PRINSLOO: I am referring to him as a person, he was an intelligent person. According to what the feedback was of More and the informer, he was a person who commanded respect in the area where he lived, and by nature of his orders to the informer with regard to Swaziland, regarding MK activities.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the only information which gave you an impression that you would be capable of turning him? The fact that he is intelligent and the fact that he had all these contacts in Swaziland? We do know obviously that I think people like Lubane would not be worthy if they didn't possess some semblance of intelligence.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I spent quite some time discussing this aspect with the informer before the final decision was taken, to abduct him and to aggressively interrogate him to determine whether or not he had any more information than what the informer had access to. I took up this aspect with the informer, with regard to what sort of person he was, was he an influenceable person, would one be able to argue or reason with him, was it possible to turn him, and the view of the informer was yes, it was possible to turn him. But the contrary was proven to be correct at the end of the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you establish from the informer on what grounds he thought Mr Lubane would be capable of being turned? Did you canvass the grounds on which he based his belief, dealing with a person who is a committed terrorist according tot he informer and who had contact with people like Kibusa in Swaziland and you had valuable information about Kibusa and his activities? Given that kind of background information which already you had in your possession, what grounds did the informer give, on which he could base his belief that Mr Lubane would be capable of being turned?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, this informer had been involved with Lubane for quite some time, and the fact that Lubane trusted him enough to send him to Swaziland with certain orders, fortified the notion in my mind that I could not doubt the view of the informer.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's move to another point. In so far as the evidence contained in your written application before us, in relation to this incident, is different from the evidence given viva voce, we should accept the evidence which you have given viva voce, as you have explained because you have now had recourse to read the applications of the other applicants, who are your co-applicants in the incident of Comrade, the killing of Comrade X?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, was it through lack of incorrect recollection that some of the aspects covered in your written application are materially different from the one that you have given viva voce, for instance the one that we have already traversed, how the information was obtained, with regard to the activities of Mr More as contained in your affidavit paragraph 1, and also the paragraph that you have already been questioned about, by my colleague, Mr Malan, that is paragraph 5? Amongst others, can you explain how it came about that you should be able to have improperly recollected the facts?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it is quite a confusing question to me. Are you referring to my paragraph 1 of my application where I referred directly to More?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Those facts are established. I stand by what I have stated there in my application, and that is the evidence that I gave, that it was More's informer and that due to information which the informer gave, further action was taken.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you also were a co-handler of this informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, at a stage when the information that he was providing, became quite significant in my opinion.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was before Mr Lubane was abducted?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, quite some time before that.

CHAIRPERSON: So to the extent that this paragraph suggests that prior to his abduction, only Mr More was his informer, we should not amend to include that you were his co-handler at the time, prior to his abduction?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, that was the evidence that I gave. What I stated in paragraph 1 is that the informer was initially More's informer alone, and with the submission of the Intelligence reports, I made an evaluation of the situation and discussed it with More and stated that we could go further with this informer, that we would be able to obtain further in depth information. More agreed, the meeting was arranged with the interpreter, and that was where I was introduced and accepted as a co-handler.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not what is contained in paragraph 1, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I refer in paragraph 1, you have stated that I was examined regarding the informer and my paragraph 1 regarding the fact that More denies that it was his informer and by implication states that it was my informer, and I am stating that I stand by the fact that it was More's informer and that More also admitted that when he was registered, he was registered as the handler of the informer. Otherwise I myself would have been the registered handler of the registered informer. That is why I say that I stand by my information as contained within paragraph 1 of my application.

CHAIRPERSON: During your viva voce you however stated that you were co-handling this informer prior to Mr Lubane's abduction? Did I understand your viva voce evidence incorrectly?

MR PRINSLOO: No, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now, also during your viva voce evidence, you stated that you found the sketch plan of Wachthuis in Mr Lubane's car and that you later on requested him to draw the sketch plan of Wachthuis again, just to make sure that he was the author of the sketch plan that you had found in his car, and that he was able to replicate that plan, during his interrogation? Did I understand you correctly?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, I stated that the plan that he had sketched for me, was by and large in accordance with the sketch plan which I found in his vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Sorry ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry to have intervened, you were still talking.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was just a security measure to ensure whether the information had been planted on him or not. He told me during interrogation when I confronted him, that he had the sketch plans and when I asked him where the sketch plans were, he told me that they were in his vehicle, because he had to undertake further reconnaissance. It was simply a test of the truth of the story which he told me with regard to the sketch plans.

CHAIRPERSON: During his interrogation, did he indicate to you how he had been able to do reconnaissance of Wachthuis particularly the basement, as you have intimated that the sketch plan had precise details of the basement of Wachthuis? Did he tell you how he had obtained access to the basement or whether he had been assisted with regard to that particular aspect of the building?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I understood it, firstly from the informer which was then later confirmed by Comrade, the American Embassy or at least an office of the American Embassy was also situated in the same block, and Comrade received tickets which would give him access to the Embassy and they used these tickets to obtain access to the basement.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Comrade give you an indication of how he had been able to conduct such a reconnaissance, apart from having to hear from the informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, if one had access to the building, then one could undertake the reconnaissance, he had a legitimate reason to be there.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, I am sorry for interrupting you, the question is whether he told you how he obtained access, not whether or not he had a legitimate method of access.

MR PRINSLOO: But it was later confirmed by Comrade that they had tickets from the American Embassy to enter the building.

MR MALAN: But the question pertains to how he obtained access to the basement, how he walked around and looked around. Did he himself explain that to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, because he had to have drawn up the sketch plan in terms of what he himself had observed there.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: I would just like to follow this up, the information which you had from More, when he was the sole handler of the informer, was this information indicating that he was operating in the East Rand, that he had instant training in explosives and firearms, that he was acting as a courier, that he was recruiting members and that he was reconnoitring Wachthuis and making sketch plans? Was this the information on file which More had obtained from his informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Not all of it initially, it came over a period of time. I simply collated it in my application.

MR MALAN: You say that you were the co-handler of this informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: So did you as co-handlers keep each other up to date with regard to the information or did you see him together?

MR PRINSLOO: Depending upon the situation, we would see him together most of the time, but there were times where I saw him alone or that More saw him alone.

MR MALAN: But all this information would have been obtained first-hand by More from the informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: So More knew about Wachthuis and the sketch plans?

MR PRINSLOO: At a later stage, yes.

MR MALAN: Yes, when it became known that More knew about it?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And all of this information, did he obtain it or did you obtain it or did you obtain it together?

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to Wachthuis, the informer told me first when he had gone on his first excursion with Comrade to undertake reconnaissance.

MR MALAN: Very well. And if that was your information in either event, and the man then told you "I am doing it" and he told you that the plans could be found on the inside of the door in the panel, that you could fetch the plans from there, if he told you that, according to your evidence, why didn't you, why did you test whether or not it was planted, because you got the information from him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, this was my way of making an evaluation of the information at my disposal or the facts that I had obtained, because I regarded his disclosure as a hard fact and I wanted to test them, I wanted to find out whether this was all that he had, or whether there were any other buildings which were in danger.

MR MALAN: But you stated that the reason why you wanted him to draw these plans was to make sure that these documents had not been planted on him?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: But you only received the information from one source, that the documents were in the panel and that was from him, no one else told you that?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, those plans could have been drawn up by somebody else who had undertaken further reconnaissance, someone whom we were not aware of.

MR MALAN: No Mr Prinsloo, please listen to my question. You testified that you made him draw the plans so that you could be sure that these documents had not been planted on him, and the term not planted on him indicates that someone else had placed the documents there as you conceal prescription sleeping drugs in someone's possession and then charge him for the possession of those items. You testified that you wanted to be sure that no one else had planted these documents on him, now who would have planted them on him?

MR PRINSLOO: The question would have been whether or not he had first hand knowledge of the plans, whether he had compiled these documents himself or not, because I wanted certainty about this myself. I wanted to know whether there was anybody else who could have compiled the plans, because I also had to reckon with the informer, because the informer could have planted these documents on him.

MR MALAN: Yes, but the informer didn't tell you that the documents were in the door panel?

MR PRINSLOO: He didn't say that they were in the door panel, he told me that the plans had been compiled.

MR MALAN: The informer said that the plans were sketched?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: But the suspect told you not only had the plans been compiled, but they are in the panel of my right hand door?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it was my method of evaluation of what the man was telling me, so that I could be certain that he was the only author of those plans.

MR MALAN: Yes, but then that has nothing to do with planting. Then it would be to determine whether or not he is the author of the plan or not, then it has nothing to do with anything being planted on him?

MR PRINSLOO: I may have misused the term then.

MR MALAN: Very well, I could have misunderstood you, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: My very last question Mr Prinsloo, you have already testified that you were the first person to assault Mr Lubane immediately after his abduction?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in the previous hearings we have had the opportunity of listening to you explaining your modus operandi of how you interrogated suspects, and you stated quite unequivocally that your style was not to use force and may we find out why in this case, you used force?

MR PRINSLOO: (no interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: I think there is something wrong, because I am not receiving the English translation.

INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon Chairperson, I omitted to switch on the microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

INTERPRETER: Could the applicant repeat his answer?

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Mr Prinsloo, may you repeat your answers for the sake of the translators?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I have already stated, it was a given to me with regard to the circumstances at that stage, that he was an intelligent man who occupied quite a reasonably high position in his community and I decided that intimidation would be the best way to get through to him immediately, and that is why I assaulted him.

CHAIRPERSON: The information that you had with regard to the people that you decided not to use force on, could it be that they were not intelligent and also flowing from your evidence, that they did not occupy reasonably important positions in their communities?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, there was no such thing as a stereotypical action, it was my modus operandi and I stated that in this particular case, I regarded it as the best course of action. It wasn't necessary for me to assault him any further with regard to the location of the sketch plan or anything like that. Later, during our discussion and my interrogation of him, he stated this without any application of force by me at that stage, by means of an assault or anything like that.

CHAIRPERSON: What position did your information disclose with regard to Mr Lubane, what position did he occupy in his community?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, what I understood from the informer and I think also from Const More was that he had a reasonable job at that point, I determined later that he was a representative of a company, this was after his abduction, that he also had quite extensive influence on the people around him, particularly the younger activists. From the informer's side, there were activists who were possible recruits, who could be trained or sent abroad. It wasn't just any person who had that sort of influence, who could convince people. When I saw him as well, I could see that - I wouldn't say that the others were stupid, that is not what I am trying to say, it was just my approach that I saw that I could take with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you information indicate that Mr Lubane occupied any particular position in his community?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, it was about his general position there, he was a respected person, did he have contact, influence, and the informer confirmed this and I think More as well to a certain extent.

CHAIRPERSON: Apart from the training of activists, what other influence did he have or enjoy with his community?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I cannot take it any further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Chair sorry, just following the answers here, one last question. Mr Prinsloo, I heard you respond that you decided that the best way to intimidate him would be to enter the room and assault him, that was based upon your summary of him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Upon a previous occasion when this cluster of hearings and I think that it may have been during the Mbizana case, you stated that you had a different style of interrogation, that you would interrogate alone, that you would not assault persons and particularly in this case, you did not want to assault him. You stated that you never assault, but you say that in this case you did not want to assault him, because you wanted to turn his mind, you thought that you could get him on your side?

MR PRINSLOO: This is the case of Mandla?

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Now here you state that what you had in mind when you abducted Lubane in this case, was to turn his mind. Then why did you beat him up, why didn't you treat him similarly?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, based upon the information that I had from More and the informer, and on the way from Klapperkop and the farm, which was quite some time, I evaluated the possibilities of approaching the man because he was in the car with me. I tried to have a discussion with him, but he didn't really want to communicate with me. That is why I decided that once we arrived at the farm, I knew that he was already frightened due to the fact that he had been abducted, I decided that I would apply aggression on the farm, which was quite remote, and that that might persuade him to give his co-operation immediately.

MR MALAN: You see, we have to take decisions at the end of the series of applications, on the one hand you tell us that you did not assault the man because you wanted to turn him, on the other you tell us that you did assault the man because you wanted to turn him. So then there isn't really an argument.

MR PRINSLOO: Both are viable in terms of the actual war which was being waged out there.

MR MALAN: Very well.

ADV MOTATA: Just one leading from that, Madam Chair, when you realised that he was now pretty scared, what was the real reason because he was now scared that he had been abducted, he is in a foreign place where he hadn't been before, why couldn't you just talk to him from point and see if he would offer his co-operation?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, in retrospect I suppose one could argue that. I will merely stand by what I have stated, I cannot take it any further than what my impressions were at that stage, and my resultant decisions. That is what I decided under the given circumstances, and I acted accordingly.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you Madam Chair, I've got nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any re-examination of Mr Prinsloo, the applicant?

ADV PRINSLOO: No re-examination, thank you.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you are excused as a witness.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED